Obama's muddled economic plan

[Danzig]

tax brackets remain in place thru this year, but if no adjustments are made, all brackets revert to what they were in 2000. which means a big increase. oh, and look what 2013 isn't-an election year.

then there's the alternative minimum tax:


More AMT victims, higher taxes
On today's tax returns, when an AMT payment is required, affected taxpayers could end up paying thousands more in taxes. Absent any law change, by 2015, some estimates predict that nearly 50 million filers could end up paying this parallel levy.

Why the increase? Because the tax is not indexed for inflation. Without that annual adjustment, your yearly raises of a few percentage points have been moving you closer or even into the income realm that the tax law deemed almost 40 years ago as prime AMT bait.

You could owe AMT if your taxable income in 2010 was more than:
•$72,450 for a married couple filing a joint return and surviving spouses.
•$47,450 for singles and heads of household.
•$36,225 for a married person filing separately.
Congress regularly bumps up the earnings amounts to keep more middle-income filers from paying more under the system. While that law change helps out millions of taxpayers who might otherwise pay the AMT, the uncertainty of when and how much relief will be provided is a constant area of frustration for taxpayers who have encountered or might face the alternative minimum tax.

Really need a libtard to post what the tax rates were in the 1900's. They should definitely be high like they were during FDR's time. I'm all for paying for infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan. Count me in for bailing out all of the international banks too. It's my fault. I'm a white male in America.

[Danzig]

from what we were told the other day, it was a very high % on top earners. i'll have to look it up, but i believe it was in the 60's or maybe higher.


here's an article i found:

http://martha-r-gore.suite101.com/us...century-a83122


guess i beat the 'libtards' to it. lol



'The 1916 Revenue Act was in force when America entered World War I. The need for money increased so the lowest tax rate was raised from 1 percent to 2 percent and the top rate to 15 percent in excess of $1.5 million. It also imposed taxes on estates and excess business profits. The War Revenue Act of 1917 lowered exemptions and further increased tax rates. Taxpayers with $40,000 faced a 16 percent rate and for individuals with income of $1.5 million, the tax rate was raised to 67 percent.

In 1918, tax rates were raised again with a bottom rate of 6 percent and a top rate of 77 percent. Although only 5 percent of the population paid income taxes at that time, the income was able to fund one-third of the cost of World War I.'

Yeah but it was for infrastructure...this time it will go to international bankers and other assorted goons.

[Danzig]

no, it really wasn't...it was for war. gee, that sounds familiar.



Even before the United States entered the Second World War, the need for defense spending and support of the countries opposing the Axis led to the passage of two tax laws, one of which in 1940 increased individual and corporation taxes. This would be followed by another tax hike in 1941, reductions in exemption levels, and incomes of $500, facing a bottom tax rate of 23 percent while those with incomes over $1 were raised to 94 percent. By this time, the number of income tax payers had risen from 4 million in 1939 to 43 million in 1945. As had been done during the Civil War, income taxes were once again withheld from incomes and wages, easing the collection of taxes by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

As in previous U.S. History, income taxes were imposed or raised to meet defense needs during wartime. World War I required more revenue that were acquired by raising the income tax rates . The tax laws enacted during the 1900-World War II period would become a permanent part of the income system of the United States

[Danzig]

as you can see, our government became this bloated thing because of those two wars. something i've said previously. we decided to become a permanent superpower, and it's costing us tremendously. thing is, there was already fear of us before ww1-without us having a huge standing army and massive navy. germany was worried about us entering the war, which was why they kept backing off regarding attacking shipping. but they thought they had their enemies close enough to defeat that they ended up threatening shipping once more that last year before we entered the war. they thought they were close enough to victory that we couldn't ramp up recruitment and war production quickly enough by then to make a difference. oops. of course we managed to do just that, and the rest is history. we did the same with ww2-we had a larger defense, but nothing like what we achieved during ww2. that's where our strength lies-but our leaders didn't pay attention to history. so we have this hufe permanent fixture, and there really isn't a need-is there? it's kept other countries from fooling with us-but hell, as huge as england was, and as loaded militarily, she didn't want to fight us in 1812. didn't want to get involved in the civil war..because they knew it was a losing proposition. but we still spend as tho we have armed forces at every border just waiting to invade. it's ridiculous.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

as you can see, our government became this bloated thing because of those two wars. something i've said previously. we decided to become a permanent superpower, and it's costing us tremendously. thing is, there was already fear of us before ww1-without us having a huge standing army and massive navy. germany was worried about us entering the war, which was why they kept backing off regarding attacking shipping. but they thought they had their enemies close enough to defeat that they ended up threatening shipping once more that last year before we entered the war. they thought they were close enough to victory that we couldn't ramp up recruitment and war production quickly enough by then to make a difference. oops. of course we managed to do just that, and the rest is history. we did the same with ww2-we had a larger defense, but nothing like what we achieved during ww2. that's where our strength lies-but our leaders didn't pay attention to history. so we have this hufe permanent fixture, and there really isn't a need-is there? it's kept other countries from fooling with us-but hell, as huge as england was, and as loaded militarily, she didn't want to fight us in 1812. didn't want to get involved in the civil war..because they knew it was a losing proposition. but we still spend as tho we have armed forces at every border just waiting to invade. it's ridiculous.

Do you know of any other way we can increase Cap gains and dividends on Defense industry shareholders?

[lord007]

Originally Posted by Danzig

tax brackets remain in place thru this year, but if no adjustments are made, all brackets revert to what they were in 2000. which means a big increase. oh, and look what 2013 isn't-an election year.

then there's the alternative minimum tax:


More AMT victims, higher taxes
On today's tax returns, when an AMT payment is required, affected taxpayers could end up paying thousands more in taxes. Absent any law change, by 2015, some estimates predict that nearly 50 million filers could end up paying this parallel levy.

Why the increase? Because the tax is not indexed for inflation. Without that annual adjustment, your yearly raises of a few percentage points have been moving you closer or even into the income realm that the tax law deemed almost 40 years ago as prime AMT bait.

You could owe AMT if your taxable income in 2010 was more than:
•$72,450 for a married couple filing a joint return and surviving spouses.
•$47,450 for singles and heads of household.
•$36,225 for a married person filing separately.
Congress regularly bumps up the earnings amounts to keep more middle-income filers from paying more under the system. While that law change helps out millions of taxpayers who might otherwise pay the AMT, the uncertainty of when and how much relief will be provided is a constant area of frustration for taxpayers who have encountered or might face the alternative minimum tax.

http://news.investors.com/Article/59...back-taxes.htm...speaking of taxes

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by lord007

http://news.investors.com/Article/59...back-taxes.htm...speaking of taxes

wow.

but really, is that a correct report?? i could have sworn obama said he'd have the most ethical...

oh, what's the use? i said he was lying then, and apparently he was. four more years!! four more years!

[Danzig]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/us...l-hurdles.html


now dems are serious?


maybe super serial?

[Danzig]

129036995977101796.jpg

[Clip-Clop]

How about a simple "fair share" checkbox on the forms? This way all those wealthy members of Congress could set an example this year about how serious they are.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

wow.

but really, is that a correct report?? i could have sworn obama said he'd have the most ethical...

oh, what's the use? i said he was lying then, and apparently he was. four more years!! four more years!

It's also Obama's fault that elected officials and lifetime government workers in Chicago owe back taxes

The tax offenders include employees of the U.S. Senate who help write the laws imposed on everyone else. They owe $2.1 million. Workers in the House of Representatives owe $8.5 million, Department of Education employees owe $4.3 million and over at Homeland Security, 4,697 workers owe about $37 million. Active duty military members owe more than $100 million.

Yes, Obama is clearly responsible for this. It's all his fault. And he clearly supports people owing back taxes.

Good god, the ridiculousness of Obama Derangement is palpable.