Shoutbox

Refresh History
  • littlebit: Makes sense.
    July 16, 2017, 04:40:28 AM
  • Lepard LLC: Boards will stay open for a place people can find history information longer. I am not allowing anyone to sign up for now because of so many foreginers just wanting to promote their business..
    December 10, 2016, 05:10:27 AM
  • Lepard LLC: Not sure why didn't look, I may be shutting down these message boards..
    November 17, 2016, 12:42:43 AM
  • ~kathy~: rick why is the timestamp showing up a day in advance?
    September 13, 2016, 12:27:46 AM
  • Valor7: What I tried to say is that the actual money would not be there that quick. But a loan against that would work if they are willing to do that.
    August 08, 2016, 01:51:51 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Why so long before it comes online? 911 took out a loan or bond with the known guarantee payment and began building..
    August 08, 2016, 07:46:34 AM
  • Valor7: Actually no it is not, a dependable Revenue stream will not come on line until the 4th quarter of 2017 so 2018 budget will be up in the air, not quite sure what they will have. By 2019 budget all will be well.
    August 04, 2016, 09:27:17 PM
  • Valor7: You mean that tax that the Commissioners would not put on the ballot for so many years? Strange things happened when the citizens got a chance to vote on that issue.
    August 03, 2016, 06:43:06 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Back up is now available withe the new tax..
    August 03, 2016, 05:01:35 PM
  • Valor7: Thanks a lot Ladies!!
    July 29, 2016, 01:16:13 PM
  • littlebit: ((*(*&
    July 27, 2016, 03:47:52 PM
  • ~kathy~: lol
    July 15, 2016, 09:34:56 AM
  • Valor7: A guy could get killed around here while waiting for backup!
    July 13, 2016, 07:31:58 PM
  • Lepard LLC: You are not alone..
    July 13, 2016, 07:28:53 PM
  • Valor7: I just hate it when I talk to myself!!!!
    July 08, 2016, 12:54:09 PM
  • Valor7: I could have worded that better, we talked details, options, the pros and cons of each, in  order to arrive at the best ballot language to present to the voters. Hope that makes this clearer.
    April 15, 2016, 06:36:14 PM
  • Valor7: sorry about the typos still working with just one arm in action
    April 13, 2016, 01:10:42 PM
  • Valor7: Yes and no. We talked details and options until we were blue in the face but I never heardbring it over, it was always the time was not right for the issue to pass. Glad to see the time in now right and I for one shall vote yes on the ballot. I would urge all others to do the sameour county is busting at the seams crimewise and no matter how many bad guys we send off there always seems to someone to replace them. The Sheriff's Office needs the help.
    April 13, 2016, 01:08:35 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Is that true Valor? Did he ask you what you wanted?
    March 01, 2016, 04:55:37 AM
  • Lepard LLC: Gene Newkirk Rick I have waited for a Sheriff to bring it to me on what he wanted. I have pushed Mr long for a while to get it to me. He told me he was close to having or done. Now hopefully the people will get to decide on it. I spoke with Steve about this a few times.
    March 01, 2016, 04:54:54 AM
  • Kimberly: Wow- I have a new name..........
    February 23, 2016, 10:25:15 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Works on mine, improvements are being done here. I may kick back into her a lot and post but working on different technologies right now. Seeing how things interact.
    January 18, 2016, 09:01:20 AM
  • Valor7: Yes it is working. If you need a laugh the wife showed me how to correctly use the silly thing.
    January 04, 2016, 05:32:59 PM
  • Valor7: Think so, mine is trying to work but it is now user and password protected and I dont know mine
    December 17, 2015, 01:32:16 PM
  • "DJ": Is there still a working android app for the PCSD
    December 14, 2015, 08:14:53 PM

Author Topic: here come the tax hikes  (Read 1441 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline fish

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 8885
  • Karma: +349278/-349867
    • View Profile
here come the tax hikes
« on: May 14, 2008, 02:17:36 AM »

Share/Bookmark

Fort Wood Hotel

Boards

Devils Elbow

Attractions

Sports

St. Robert

Waynesville

PC Daily

Dixon

Menu Guide

Fun Links

Homework

Crocker

Fort Wood

Swedeborg

Big Piney

Laquey

Classifieds

Restaurants

Richland

Fort  Hotels

Democrats propose taxes to fund veterans' benefits [surcharge on the eeevvvvvil rich]
AP ^ | May 13, 2008 | Andrew Taylor WASHINGTON - House Democrats are proposing a tax surcharge on millionaires to pay for a big increase in education benefits for veterans of the war in Iraq, lawmakers said Tuesday. The plan, if accepted by rank-and-file Democrats, would clear the way for a vote Thursday on a long-stalled war funding bill that would pay for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into next spring. Conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats blocked a vote last week over Democratic leaders' attempts to add an additional $51.8 billion over the next decade for veterans education to the $183.8 billion war funding tab. They insisted on finding a way to pay for the new benefit without simply adding to the deficit. "What we're talking about is a one-half percent income tax surcharge on incomes above $1 million," said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of the Blue Dog group. "So someone who earns $2 million a year would pay $5,000. ... They're not going to miss it." The $1 million income level would apply to couples. Individuals would pay the surcharge on income exceeding $500,000. The idea earned support from House leaders at a late afternoon meeting of top Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California. The new GI Bill would essentially guarantee a full-ride scholarship to any in-state public university, along with a monthly housing stipend, for individuals who serve the military for at least three years. It's not at all clear that the tax surcharge could survive the Senate and it would likely prompt a veto from President Bush if it were to be presented to him. Still, the development allows House Democrats to keep promises to adhere to pay-as-you-go budget rules that were a top campaign plank in 2006. The war funding bill still faces a troubled path to enactment and Democrats appear likely to miss their goal of passing the bill by Memorial Day. Overall, the measure provides $96.6 billion of the $100 billion Bush requested to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of September. The $3.4 billion left over would be used to pay for military base and hospital construction, additional food aid and cover shortfalls identified by the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Prisons. Another $66 billion for the Pentagon for the 2009 budget year beginning Oct. 1 would keep troops funded until the next administration can set war policy. Democrats also plan to add a two-year, $15.6 billion plan to give 13 more weeks of unemployment checks to people whose benefits have run out and 13 weeks beyond that in states with especially high unemployment rates. That provision would not comply with the budget rules requiring deficit neutrality. Democrats also plan to use the war funding bill to carry legislation to block new Bush administration regulations that would cut federal spending on Medicaid health care for the poor by $13 billion over the next five years. The House last month passed that measure by a veto-proof 349-62 margin. Democrats will try as they have unsuccessfully in the past to force the troops home. The bill would require that troops start leaving Iraq within 30 days of its enactment and set a nonbinding goal of withdrawing combat troops by the end of December 2009. It also would require that any troops deployed into a combat zone exceed the Pentagon's peacetime standards for being fully trained and equipped. However, both of these provisions are expected to fail in the Senate and be stripped from a final bill the House is to approve this spring. The legislation also includes another $5.8 billion, as requested by Bush, to build flood protection levees around New Orleans.
 
I wonder if these taxes will apply to the millionaire lawmakers?

Offline What_The?

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2787
  • Karma: +916590/-9868
    • View Profile
What happened to supporting the troops?

$5000 from someone earning over $2 million makes perfect sense.  Hell, make it $10,000 and buy the troops their books.
"There are plenty of good reasons for fighting, but no good reason ever to hate without reservation, to imagine that God almighty Himself hates with you, too. Where's evil? It's that large part of every man that wants to hate without limit, that wants to hate with God on its side." - Kurt Vonnegut

Offline fish

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 8885
  • Karma: +349278/-349867
    • View Profile
Taxing the "wealthy" has never been the answer. use the $290 billion farm bill instead

shadylane

  • Guest
Re: here come the tax hikes
« Reply #3 on: May 15, 2008, 02:12:03 AM »
Taxing the "wealthy" has never been the answer. use the $290 billion farm bill instead

The "wealthy" don't join the military so why shouldn't they pay the cost. Look what the GI bill did for the US after WW2. Higher education=more money

Offline What_The?

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2787
  • Karma: +916590/-9868
    • View Profile
Re: here come the tax hikes
« Reply #4 on: May 15, 2008, 03:08:15 PM »
Taxing the "wealthy" has never been the answer. use the $290 billion farm bill instead

You buy into the propaganda of the Republican media machine.  Taxing the wealthy has always been the answer.  The highest growth rates in the US has always occurred when the top marginal rates have been the highest.  Look at what Bush's tax cuts have done to the US economy and debt.
"There are plenty of good reasons for fighting, but no good reason ever to hate without reservation, to imagine that God almighty Himself hates with you, too. Where's evil? It's that large part of every man that wants to hate without limit, that wants to hate with God on its side." - Kurt Vonnegut

Offline mark

  • http://www.gayalpinesurvival.com/
  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 5138
  • Karma: +90/-81225007
  • Gender: Male
  • Proud Father
    • View Profile
Re: here come the tax hikes
« Reply #5 on: May 15, 2008, 07:29:27 PM »
Never thought I'd say this but I agree with shadylane, and  What_The?  on this issue.
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience.
We are spiritual beings having a human experience.
~Teilhard de Chardin

Offline fish

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 8885
  • Karma: +349278/-349867
    • View Profile
Re: here come the tax hikes
« Reply #6 on: May 16, 2008, 12:01:38 AM »
nope,read on.
Taxes and Income
December 17, 2007Every Democrat running for President wants to raise taxes on "the rich," but they will have to do something miraculous to outtax President Bush. Based on the latest available tax data, no Administration in modern history has done more to pry tax revenue from the wealthy.Last week the Congressional Budget Office joined the IRS in releasing tax numbers for 2005, and part of the news is that the richest 1% paid about 39% of all income taxes that year. The richest 5% paid a tad less than 60%, and the richest 10% paid 70%. These tax shares are all up substantially since 1990, and even somewhat since 2000. Meanwhile, Americans with an income below the median -- half of all households -- paid a mere 3% of all income taxes in 2005. The richest 1.3 million tax-filers -- those Americans with adjusted gross incomes of more than $365,000 in 2005 -- paid more income tax than all of the 66 million American tax filers below the median in income. Ten times more.
[chart
For the political left and most of the media, this means only that the rich are getting richer, so of course they're paying more taxes. And it is true that the top earners have increased their share of total income. Yet, as the nearby table shows, the rich showed more rapid gains in reported income shares in the 1990s than in the first half of this decade. The share of the richest 1% jumped to 20.8% of total income in 2000, from 14% in 1990, but increased only slightly to 21.2% in 2005. This makes it hard to pin their claim of "rising inequality" on the Bush tax cuts, though the income redistributionists are trying. By this measure, the Clinton years were far worse for "inequality."Notably, however, the share of taxes paid by the top 1% has kept climbing this decade -- to 39.4% in 2005, from 37.4% in 2000. The share paid by the top 5% has increased even more rapidly. In other words, despite the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003, the rich saw their share of taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of income. How could this be?One explanation is that the Bush tax cuts reduced the income tax liability of middle and lower income households by more proportionately than the rich. The average family of four with an income of $40,000 saw its income tax liability fall by about $2,052 a year from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.The IRS statistics also tell a more complicated economic story than the media claim. First, America continues to be a society of upward income mobility. Over the past decade, millions of Americans have joined the once highly exclusive club of six- and seven-figure earners. Some 304,000 Americans earned $1 million or more in annual income in 2005, compared to 110,000 in 1996 and 176,000 in 2000. Because there is no cap on the top income share, this increase in millionaires pushes the top income (and taxes paid) share higher. The number of millionaire households in net worth also increased to nine million in 2006, up from six million in 2001, according to TNS, a global market research firm.Liberals decry this as proof of a new "gilded age." But we'd say these gains are a sign that more Americans are joining the ranks of the truly affluent. More than 13 million American households, or about one in 10, had an income of more than $100,000 a year in 2005. This is the kind of upward mobility that a dynamic society should want because it means that incomes aren't stagnant and opportunity continues to exist.Keep in mind as well that the IRS only records the income that taxpayers report. Its data don't include income that the rich hide in tax shelters or otherwise defer. And there is evidence that lower tax rates since 1981 have caused the rich to declare more of what they earn. In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share. With lower rates and fewer tax loopholes after the 1986 reform, there is less incentive to shelter income to avoid tax.The IRS figures are also misleading because they include income that can make many Americans rich for only a single year. In 2005, for example, taxpayers earned an estimated $600 billion in income from capital gains, which is reported on tax forms as part of adjustable gross income. But that might include the one-time gain from a middle-class senior couple that has lived modestly for decades but suddenly retires and sells the family business or home for $1 million or more. They may be "rich" in Hillary Clinton's definition of the term, but in fact they are benefiting in one tax year from a lifetime of hard work and thrift.The amount of capital gains declared on tax forms has doubled since the tax rate was cut to 15% from 20% in 2003, which has also contributed to more Americans being "rich." Dividend income has also increased by at least 50% since that rate was cut to 15% from nearly 40% in 2003. So part of the income gains of the rich are simply a result of assets that have been converted into taxable income -- in part because of lower tax rates.We hate to break up the media's egalitarian chorus with these details, but facts are facts. If Democrats really want to soak the rich, they'll keep tax rates where they are, or, better, lower them some more.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html
All that is being advocated is class warfare, a tired liberal tactic. W's spending? I have been critical of the spending, but remember, how many hurricanes,floods,devastating tornados,wildfires, and mudslides have occurred during his term?and of course 9/11 happened. with all these disasters we are still a growing economy, and he was left with a recession that his tax cuts got us out of. I would still like to see spending cut though.

Offline mark

  • http://www.gayalpinesurvival.com/
  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 5138
  • Karma: +90/-81225007
  • Gender: Male
  • Proud Father
    • View Profile
Re: here come the tax hikes
« Reply #7 on: May 16, 2008, 12:52:42 AM »
You my have something there I don't know, I hate politics.
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience.
We are spiritual beings having a human experience.
~Teilhard de Chardin

Offline fish

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 8885
  • Karma: +349278/-349867
    • View Profile
Re: here come the tax hikes
« Reply #8 on: May 16, 2008, 01:24:20 AM »
and keep in mind, nobama wants to end the bush tax cuts. think of the tax hike from that!