|
|
Tax Cuts Extended to All Americans
12-06-2010, 07:03 PM
|
#1
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,983
|
Tax Cuts Extended to All Americans
Obama, GOP reach deal to extend tax cuts - Yahoo! Finance=
I guess this is not quite a done deal, but I would think it looks good.
As a retiree I probably would not ever be affected by higher taxes over $200,000 income(excluding bracket creep). Still I do not like to see any more of this, "sure tax that other b-st*rd and spend it on me", than we already have. I hope the next revenue plan will be a VAT.
I put this in politics since I wouldn't want of the easily shocked members to be upset.
Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
|
|
|
|
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!
Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!
|
12-06-2010, 07:44 PM
|
#2
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,483
|
Like any legislation, not perfect, but a start. If it works out, the 2 years might stretch further. Looks like extending unemployment benefits was the only way to get the Dems on board, but you gotta give to get sometimes.
Perhaps Obama didn't want to be the first President in a long time to raise taxes coming out of a recession?
__________________
Consult with your own advisor or representative. My thoughts should not be construed as investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results (love that one).......:)
This Thread is USELESS without pics.........:)
|
|
|
12-06-2010, 08:12 PM
|
#3
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 7,746
|
If this passes per the proposal, this is good news for me. They are proposing a 2% reduction in SS payroll taxes. That will be over $2000 extra take home pay for our family, plus the $3000+ that extending the Bush tax cuts continues to save us.
__________________
Retired in 2013 at age 33. Keeping busy reading, blogging, relaxing, gaming, and enjoying the outdoors with my wife and 3 kids (8, 13, and 15).
|
|
|
12-06-2010, 08:17 PM
|
#4
|
Recycles dryer sheets
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 348
|
not for the extension in unemployment benefits but it appears to have been trading fodder
__________________
I am FIRE'd... :)
contract on the house, bought an RV and now traveling across America
|
|
|
12-06-2010, 10:14 PM
|
#5
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Portland
Posts: 4,946
|
Sure looks like we'll hit the national debt ceiling sooner, rather than later now. Probably late March.
That'll make for some highly entertaining finger pointing.
|
|
|
12-06-2010, 10:15 PM
|
#6
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,629
|
Are these "tax cuts" or "tax deferrals"? Since they increase the deficit, won't we end up paying for them eventually through higher taxes to fund the interest on all the money we're borrowing?
|
|
|
12-07-2010, 01:35 AM
|
#7
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alberta/Ontario/ Arizona
Posts: 3,393
|
Will help in the short term but really only delaying the inevitable. At some point you have to deal with your deficit.
|
|
|
12-07-2010, 03:03 AM
|
#8
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,733
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette
Sure looks like we'll hit the national debt ceiling sooner, rather than later now. Probably late March.
That'll make for some highly entertaining finger pointing.
|
That is my reaction also. When give the option to make painful choices or borrow more money, shockingly the politician agree to not cut either parties sacred cows and kick the can down the road.
Now to be fair, given the current economy strong cases can be made for both keeping the existing tax cuts and extending unemployment insurance.
However, after 10 years of low taxes, and 8 years of high government spending followed by two years of super high government spending, it would be nice if the parties acknowledge the possibility that both approaches are wrong. Maybe just maybe maintaining government debt at reasonable level would spur real economic growth.
"America always does the right thing after exhausting all other alternatives"
|
|
|
12-07-2010, 03:10 AM
|
#9
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: midwestern city
Posts: 4,061
|
+1. We are living in interesting times - and likely to get more interesting soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danmar
Will help in the short term but really only delaying the inevitable. At some point you have to deal with your deficit.
|
__________________
Very conservative with investments. Not ER'd yet, 48 years old. Please do not take anything I write or imply as legal, financial or medical advice directed to you. Contact your own financial advisor, healthcare provider, or attorney for financial, medical and legal advice.
|
|
|
12-07-2010, 04:11 AM
|
#10
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,072
|
Given the weak economic growth, many believe it would be a bad time to reduce income in the hands of consumers.
The longer-term tax situation will play out in the next year with Obama's debt commission's recommendations.
There will be tax increases. The question will be: who pays. There will be spending cuts, the question is: what gets cut.
|
|
|
12-07-2010, 05:33 AM
|
#11
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
|
It's nice to see we can all work together and reach bipartisan compromise in the name of handing out goodies with borrowed money.
As for concern about deficits . . . "That was so November 2nd."
__________________
Retired early, traveling perpetually.
|
|
|
12-07-2010, 06:55 AM
|
#12
|
Full time employment: Posting here.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 968
|
Does anyone know if adjustng the AMT rates is part of this proposal?
|
|
|
12-07-2010, 07:05 AM
|
#13
|
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 40,580
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone4Good
It's nice to see we can all work together and reach bipartisan compromise in the name of handing out goodies with borrowed money.
As for concern about deficits . . . "That was so November 4th."
|
Right.
|
|
|
12-07-2010, 07:25 AM
|
#14
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: minnesota
Posts: 13,228
|
Blech.
__________________
.
No more lawyer stuff, no more political stuff, so no more CYA
|
|
|
12-07-2010, 08:07 AM
|
#15
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,798
|
I would have no problem with increased tax rates, only AFTER the government proves they are capable of handling the money already given to them. They have not, so I do not support tax increases. Why give the government more money to spend when they haven't shown any type of fiscal restraint with the money they already receive?
On a side note during this debate about raising income taxes on the population, the government has seen fit to try to decrease import taxes from 25% to 0% on trucks assembled in Korea and shipped to the US. If the government believes it needs more money and increased taxes are the only way they can get more money, then why decrease the taxes on an imported commodity?
__________________
You don't want to work. You want to live like a king, but the big bad world don't owe you a thing. Get over it--The Eagles
|
|
|
12-07-2010, 09:12 AM
|
#16
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 7,746
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by lets-retire
On a side note during this debate about raising income taxes on the population, the government has seen fit to try to decrease import taxes from 25% to 0% on trucks assembled in Korea and shipped to the US. If the government believes it needs more money and increased taxes are the only way they can get more money, then why decrease the taxes on an imported commodity?
|
I don't know the details, but it is probably tit for tat. Some commodity we export to S Korea now has 0% Korean import duties instead of 25%. Hence, some American manufacturer can sell more stuff in S Korea. And American businesses (that are hurting) can buy that S Korean truck for 20% less than it used to be, hence boosting their bottom line.
__________________
Retired in 2013 at age 33. Keeping busy reading, blogging, relaxing, gaming, and enjoying the outdoors with my wife and 3 kids (8, 13, and 15).
|
|
|
12-07-2010, 11:20 AM
|
#17
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 14,183
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by lets-retire
I would have no problem with increased tax rates, only AFTER the government proves they are capable of handling the money already given to them. They have not, so I do not support tax increases. Why give the government more money to spend when they haven't shown any type of fiscal restraint with the money they already receive?
On a side note during this debate about raising income taxes on the population, the government has seen fit to try to decrease import taxes from 25% to 0% on trucks assembled in Korea and shipped to the US. If the government believes it needs more money and increased taxes are the only way they can get more money, then why decrease the taxes on an imported commodity?
|
+1
Even with fairly drastic cuts in spending, we'll still need higher rates at some point. Otherwise, the numbers don't add up... Don't give the addict more crack!
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire
...not doing anything of true substance...
|
|
|
12-07-2010, 12:13 PM
|
#18
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Oregon Coast
Posts: 16,483
|
What a surprise -- more "kick the can down the road" in Washington. That never happens.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)
|
|
|
12-07-2010, 12:22 PM
|
#19
|
Administrator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N. Yorkshire
Posts: 34,050
|
No surprise at all to chicken out and leave the tough decisions until after another election. What did surprise me is that, in light of all the hype of the underfunded SS system, that they cut employer contributions by 2%. If they really wanted to give business a tax break, why hit SS? (unless of course because the effects of the reduced SS revenues will impact a different congress way down the road).
__________________
Retired in Jan, 2010 at 55, moved to England in May 2016
Enough private pension and SS income to cover all needs
|
|
|
12-07-2010, 12:29 PM
|
#20
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,733
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
No surprise at all to chicken out and leave the tough decisions until after another election. What did surprise me is that, in light of all the hype of the underfunded SS system, that they cut employer contributions by 2%. If they really wanted to give business a tax break, why hit SS? (unless of course because the effects of the reduced SS revenues will impact a different congress way down the road).
|
I am sure the theory is because it has lowered the cost of hiring a new worker by ~2%. So if there are say 500 business planning on hiring 50 or more workers in the next few months these business will now hire 51 new workers. Meaning a creation of 500 new jobs, which will make such a big contribution to our unemployment situation.
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» Recent Threads
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
» Quick Links
|
|
|