jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (31 posts)

No tax increases

  1. Onusonus profile image86
    Onusonusposted 3 years ago

    I know I'm making 80 less dollars a month this year, how about you?
    http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/480647_482679851787505_521304466_n.jpg

    1. SimeyC profile image89
      SimeyCposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That was not a tax increase - it was a removal of a temporary tax reduction.

      Didn't you know - all politicians play with words! Obama didn't lie - he just didn't explain why this isn't a tax increase!

      Same thing goes for the Republicans - they didn't want    any tax increases - however they wanted to eliminate many deductions (such as mortgages) so while no one would pay more taxes, when it came to the year end many would find that their income tax return would be reduced - hence while taxes may not go up, their cash flow goes down!

      It's all about manipulating words to make one sound better than the other - at the end of the day both parties would have ended up costing us more....

      1. Onusonus profile image86
        Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Numbers don't lie, when you end up being forced to give more money to the government, call it what you will, it's an increase of taxation. And it increased because of the new social security tax. They have to take more money from the wealth producers in order to promise more free stuff to the non-producers.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It's a shame you can't understand the difference between the end of a tax break and a tax increase.

          1. American View profile image59
            American Viewposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Well, it does get difficult when the Prez takes credit for a "tax cut" for two years and when it was coming to the deadline accused the Republicans of allowing"a tax increase on the middle class"  So if the Prez called it a tax cut then a tax hike, why are you questioning him?

      2. tirelesstraveler profile image88
        tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        SimeyC-  The topic of this forum may not technically be a tax increase in your book.   What would you categorize the Affordable Healthcare taxes. The Supreme court says its a tax.

        1. SimeyC profile image89
          SimeyCposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I am just pointing out that Obama isn't the only one saying no taxes. The Rs said they wouldn't increase taxes but would remove deductions - amounts to the same thing! Ever politician will be careful with the truth!

          At the end of the day we will pay 'more' taxes with Rs and Ds - simply no choice if we want to tackle the 'fiscal cliff'

        2. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
          Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What are they taxing .. not paying INSURANCE? 
          Yes. it 's really a fine.
          And I cannot accept a fine
          I cannot.
          I think until they get rid of this Ma Ma Care We should go to a cash only society.
          That would be an excellent revolution and rebellion against this injustice.
                                                   So,   l e t 's  d o  i t  !  !
          Oh, off topic...
          so sorry.

  2. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    Non-producers like infants, the elderly, wounded veterans etc?  Yeah, well, I value people on a different basis--and I will contribute to supporting them.

    1. 60
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Thats right, because you don't have a choice!

    2. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Well yeah, You think it goes to those groups, and it feels nice to think that you are helping out when in fact most of the money goes to people who never intend to put into the system in the first place, that's pretty much why socialism doesn't work.
      It's only for buying votes, and it's ran by a giant, inefficient, government bureaucracy that couldn't balance a check book if they cut down all the trees in the world and printed dollar bills till the cows came home.
      If you want to be charitable give to churches and charities, at least then you will have a choice as to what is done with your money and if the organization is crooked like, oh I don't know, a politician, (Because they have a great track record for being honest), then you can dump the charity and find another one that you like. It's just that simple.

      http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/559953_506126026099804_784755985_n.jpg
      See? You have 100 percent of the power to choose your own charity. You only get one vote out of the millions of other idiots in America to choose your government.

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        91% of Entitlement spending goes to Veterans, the elderly, the disabled and working households. Your comment thus just perfectly illustrates your ignorance and that of many (but thankfully not quite enough) of those idiots you menhtioned.

        http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677

        Edit: That does not include Veterans, with that included 95%.

        1. Onusonus profile image86
          Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And how many charitable organizations do you know of that are 16 trillion dollars in debt?

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            None my comment adressed your claim that most of the money " helping out when in fact most of the money goes to people who never intend to put into the system in the first place" this is a falsehood either a mistake or a lie, I think you are ignorant rather than intentionally misinforming.

            Now do you know any charities with the sort of income or responsibilities that the US government has?

            1. Onusonus profile image86
              Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No, The charities aren't stupid enough to believe that socialism works.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No see that is because charities are not governments, they do separate things auxiliary to one another which is why suggesting charity as an alternative to welfare is just as ignorant and misinformed as your earlier grossly inaccurate claim about most entitlements.
                So rich you see fit to call others idiots tongue

                1. Onusonus profile image86
                  Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/577148_10151457492697726_2035096377_n.jpg

                  http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/04/92/0492cfb1a30f8096cace2bee53a7d79d.jpg

                  http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7XDa5lxXh1E/T-tBeHdkUSI/AAAAAAAADOo/YRYTmz7uqxU/s1600/aae259a7_tampa.jpg

                  http://lonelyconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/cash-4-clunker-dumpster-adjpg-lg.jpg

                  http://blog.leasetrader.com/images/blog_leasetrader_com/WindowsLiveWriter/ObamaadminwillfundcashforclunkersuntilSe_A51F/Obama%20admin%20will%20fund%20cash%20for%20clunkers%20until%20Senate%20decides_thumb.jpg

                  http://firstfriday.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/obama-econ-101.jpg?w=655

                  Sorry I didn't hear you over all that responsible government spending

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    IF donated goods are suspect in food quality they have to be destroyed because destroyed meat is preferable to a massive salmonella outbreak. That is why goods have to be prepared by people licensed to do so.


                    Obama phones. A program started by Reagan actually (the ignorance just flows) a Reagan policy I happen to agree with, people being able to call 911 in the case of an emergency is very important, and getting a job without a phone is very hard.

                    So what? Food stamps are legal tender all over the place for all kinds of goods, they cannot be used for alcohol in most states some do allow it for some reason (not a policy I agree with).

                    Nothing wrong with cash for clunkers.

                    The next image says nothing at all.

                    The last is actually functioning economic theory (which I am sure you neither know nor understand due to aforementioned ignorance) I have an economics degree so let me explain.

                    The faster money passes through a system the faster the system grows, poor people spend money fast because they need basics, wealthy people generally leave their money static for longer periods so a system that moves slow money and turns it into fast transit money grows an economy.

                    John who lives in poverty can now afford more groceries which means, his grocery store needs more employees to meet demand, which means more goods are sold, which means suppliers need to make more product and the store can open new chains etc. etc.
                    It's simple economics, I am sorry you don't understand it.

          2. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            How many charities spend all their money on more and bigger guns?

            You can hardly blame welfare for the US's deficit, well not with a straight face anyway.

  3. crankalicious profile image86
    crankaliciousposted 3 years ago

    First, the end of the social security tax decrease would have happened no matter who was elected president and everyone knew that.

    Second, only people who pay into social security get anything out of social security. That money goes into a trust.

    Third, the reason the social security trust is in trouble is because the government keeps stealing from it to pay of the debt. If they simply put the money back into the trust that was taken out, it would be solvent.

    1. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That's right, it is supposed to go into a trust, but thanks to our nice Mr. President Clinton's legislation, they are now allowed to take from that fund in order to support welfare recipients. Thus anybody who pays into social security will expect a minimum of a -22% return.

  4. crankalicious profile image86
    crankaliciousposted 3 years ago

    If you go research where the Social Security surplusses have gone, you can hardly blame Clinton. The government, through presidents both Republican and Democrat, have been taking all the surplus money.

    Show me a link that explains how money from Security is taken to pay for welfare. I believe that is inaccurate. The surplus was used to pay for all sorts of government programs that contributed to the debt.

    1. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Oh, my mistake Clinton erroneously claimed a national surplus off of the debt owed to social security. That is our nations entitlement system. A system that is nearly a 75% vote grabbing entitlement system.

  5. crankalicious profile image86
    crankaliciousposted 3 years ago

    And I'll just point out that your original post blames Obama for a tax increase, which is inaccurate. Everyone knew that social security deduction was set to expire.

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Shhh they don't deal well with facts.

  6. healthyfitness profile image85
    healthyfitnessposted 3 years ago

    “Politics: “Poli” a Latin word meaning “many”; and "tics" meaning “bloodsucking creatures”.”

 
working