AKBASSKING
Active Member
- Apr 13, 2008
- 4,649
- Boat Info
- 1988 Yacht Fisher
- Engines
- Twin 375hp Cat 3208 T/A
Pack is from the PNW!
Wait a minute, I hope that crap don't rub off as I am in the PNW too for awhile......dang........:smt009
Top 5 Problems with the Tax Deal
- Thread starter Pack66Dad
- Start date
Pack is from the PNW!
Wait a minute, I hope that crap don't rub off as I am in the PNW too for awhile......dang........:smt009
floriduramax1
Active Member
- Sep 19, 2010
- 1,727
- Boat Info
- 280DA, Magic Tilt triple axle, 2006 GMC 2500 D/A
- Engines
- T4.3/ Alpha
Since the Obummer team was counting on that revenue to fund his health care fiasco:huh:
In principle; I agree. However. . . regarding the rest I would humbly call "Bull Hockey".
You are aware the pending "tax hikes" were Republican legislation, right? Passed by a Republican House and Republican Senate and signed by a Republican President?
You are aware of why the "tax hike" code was written that way, right?
Do you remember the corrsponding defense and entitlement cuts that were made to maintain fiscal balance? Right. . .the same ones that are not on the table now.
No, the Obummer team financed the reform using cuts to medicare which the Tea Party and the Republicans vehemently oppose :smt021
Woody
Well-Known Member
Does this pee anyone off? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l8ZOMd468o&feature=player_embedded#!
wish2fish
Active Member
I think we should do away with the one button/one lever/one dot in voting. you should have to make a decision on every election. This year my polling place went from the old style lever machine to one electronic touchscreen or fill in the dot. There was a line for the touchscreen so I went ahead and took the fill in the dot paper. I will not (and never have) voted straight republican. There were so many races it took me about 4 minutes to complete my ballot. There was one person I wanted to vote for who wasn't a republican. How many people are going to take the time to do that?
wish2fish
Active Member
Pack66,
you didn't address the concern of your dock neighbors to stop wearing you lingerie!
you didn't address the concern of your dock neighbors to stop wearing you lingerie!
Woody
Well-Known Member
This payroll tax holiday isn't the first. The HIRE Act last spring contained one for employers
Under the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act, enacted March 18, 2010, two new tax benefits are available to employers who hire certain previously unemployed workers (“qualified employees”).
The first, referred to as the payroll tax exemption, provides employers with an exemption from the employer’s 6.2 percent share of social security tax on wages paid to qualifying employees, effective for wages paid from March 19, 2010 through December 31, 2010.
In addition, for each qualified employee retained for at least 52 consecutive weeks, businesses will also be eligible for a general business tax credit, referred to as the new hire retention credit, of 6.2 percent of wages paid to the qualified employee over the 52 week period, up to a maximum credit of $1,000.
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=220745,00.html
Under the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act, enacted March 18, 2010, two new tax benefits are available to employers who hire certain previously unemployed workers (“qualified employees”).
The first, referred to as the payroll tax exemption, provides employers with an exemption from the employer’s 6.2 percent share of social security tax on wages paid to qualifying employees, effective for wages paid from March 19, 2010 through December 31, 2010.
In addition, for each qualified employee retained for at least 52 consecutive weeks, businesses will also be eligible for a general business tax credit, referred to as the new hire retention credit, of 6.2 percent of wages paid to the qualified employee over the 52 week period, up to a maximum credit of $1,000.
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=220745,00.html
Pack66Dad
New Member
- Aug 26, 2010
- 1,427
- Boat Info
- 1997 41 Convertible
- Engines
- Caterpillar 3126 Diesels
hmmmm, kind of like none of you have addressed the million dollar contribution to the republican governors association by fox?
And why is it you keep trying to turn these discussions into personal attacks.....? Do you have some sort of inadequacy your trying to compensate for?
wish2fish
Active Member
It wasn't Fox that donated the money, it was Murdoch (sp?)
My inadequacies include that I don't think I look as good as you in your sexy lingerie!
My inadequacies include that I don't think I look as good as you in your sexy lingerie!
Woody
Well-Known Member
Maybe because Fox never made that donation. Sorry, wish2fish beat me to it.
Jack F
Active Member
- Oct 3, 2008
- 2,407
- Boat Info
- 2008 240DA,
Garmin 545s,
North Star NS100ss.
MMSI#338093894
- Engines
- 350 Mag Seacore BR3
Looks Fair and Balanced to me!:smt043
floriduramax1
Active Member
- Sep 19, 2010
- 1,727
- Boat Info
- 280DA, Magic Tilt triple axle, 2006 GMC 2500 D/A
- Engines
- T4.3/ Alpha
Except for one minor detail: The statistics everyone just cited were *before* the $1M contribution. Previous contributions totalled about $100K
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...akes-heat-for-news-corporations-gop-donation/
Note: I do not know what contributions were made after this came out.
<<nor do I care>>
wish2fish
Active Member
How did they stop that from happening?
AKBASSKING
Active Member
- Apr 13, 2008
- 4,649
- Boat Info
- 1988 Yacht Fisher
- Engines
- Twin 375hp Cat 3208 T/A
True. The "Blame Bush" crowd seems to forget this little fact.....:thumbsup:
So why didn't the Fiscal Conservative make the "reduction in revenue" permanent BEFORE 2007, when they controlled both houses? Wasn't four years enough time?
Do you suppose it had anything to do with the fact that they couldn't find ways to balance revenues with spending despite a strong economy? That in fact they were *increasing spending* on Pork, defense, and the Medicare perscription plan?
By golly. . you would have thought in the lame duck session in 2006, KNOWING the change in leadership was coming they should have been all out to get the deed done.
Do you suppose it had anything to do with the fact that they couldn't find ways to balance revenues with spending despite a strong economy? That in fact they were *increasing spending* on Pork, defense, and the Medicare perscription plan?
By golly. . you would have thought in the lame duck session in 2006, KNOWING the change in leadership was coming they should have been all out to get the deed done.
MonacoMike
Well-Known Member
- Sep 15, 2009
- 14,721
- Boat Info
- 2000 Cruisers 3870
8.2 Mercs
- Engines
- 85 Sea Ray Monaco 197
260hp Alpha 1
Pack66Dad
New Member
- Aug 26, 2010
- 1,427
- Boat Info
- 1997 41 Convertible
- Engines
- Caterpillar 3126 Diesels
This pretty much sums it up for liberals:
I see a Democratic primary in 2012
I see a Democratic primary in 2012
- Feb 14, 2009
- 1,361
- Boat Info
- '07 42SS Carver, full electronics array
'03 380DA, RL80C+, ST7001, Kohl 7.3,4kw o/array sold
- Engines
- 8.1S Crusader express drives
I think that there is a disconnect in how people are hardwired. Roughly a third of the country is hardwired to believe that the best way to run a country is capitalism...and despite all of its flaws, they trust individuals to forge a path that is designed to lead to the greater good. Another third believes in statism of some sort, that everything belongs to everyone and we must rely on groups of people to appropriately redistribute the wealth fairly. Both sides have learned the the 40% in between those positions could care less, basically want to be left alone and the only way to get their attention is to scare the bejeezus out of them. Neither position is bulletproof and both are prone to abuses. Both sides recognize that the other has some benefit and both sides are willing to compromise slightly, but unfortunately, there simply isn't a great middle ground. The math favors the former, "feel good" favors the latter (hence capitalist are always trying to argue their compassion, and socialists their science...and both are dismal failures since capitalism isn't compassionate and socialism isn't smart).
Pack has promoted a wealth redistribution model as his preference, and touted unions as a great option. Since unions, by definition, are antithetical in the short run to free market capitalism, their proponents (whether they realize it or not) have a vested self interest in income redistribution (but most don't want THEIR income redistributed to anyone else...hence the "eat the rich" mantra). They also don't want to deal with the fact that their model takes the least competent and least productive members of society and confers upon them the duty of redistribution, while rewarding them for increasing the amounts distributed (not a great model). Laissez faire capitalists really don't want to put their arms around the fact that infrastructure is incredibly expensive, and without a healthy economic engine for ALL, the number of "have nots" increases are geometric, not linear (see eg Russian and French Revolutions, and current Mexico...not great examples of capitalism but great examples of the consequences of staggering economic disparity) and ultimately moves the middle into the soupcon of haven'ts.
That probably was a long winded way of saying that I really try to understand people like Pack...but I think we are programmed either through genetics or environment to see life through a different lens. Pack sees "tax cuts for the rich", I see "it wasn't the governments money to start with...you are cutting anything, you are just agreeing to take less at the point of a gun than you might otherwise" (by the way, the tax cuts for the rich argument is largely BS...the facts are that $79 billion is an extension of Bush tax cuts for high-income earners; $280 billion, extension of Bush tax cuts for middle-income earners; $140 billion, indexing the alternative minimum tax; $68 billion, on lower estate taxes; $56 billion, extension of unemployment benefits; $120 billion, payroll tax reduction; $21 billion, extension of refundable tax credits (like EITC); $146 billion, capital investment write-offs for businesses and $80 billion, R&D tax credits. So the much-despised "tax cuts for the rich" amount to 8 percent of the total package.)
In the end, the productive do what the productive have always done...they either produce or quit (see Rand, Ayn...anything). As long as Pack and his ilk aren't too heavy a load, competing is fun and we'll keep doing it and making the pie larger and basically won't care. What redistributionists (Republican or Democrat) don't understand is that at some point it just isn't worth it anymore to be a producer, and I think that will be the end of America as we know it...not DADT, or the DOM act, or a few Islamic nutjobs.
Pack has promoted a wealth redistribution model as his preference, and touted unions as a great option. Since unions, by definition, are antithetical in the short run to free market capitalism, their proponents (whether they realize it or not) have a vested self interest in income redistribution (but most don't want THEIR income redistributed to anyone else...hence the "eat the rich" mantra). They also don't want to deal with the fact that their model takes the least competent and least productive members of society and confers upon them the duty of redistribution, while rewarding them for increasing the amounts distributed (not a great model). Laissez faire capitalists really don't want to put their arms around the fact that infrastructure is incredibly expensive, and without a healthy economic engine for ALL, the number of "have nots" increases are geometric, not linear (see eg Russian and French Revolutions, and current Mexico...not great examples of capitalism but great examples of the consequences of staggering economic disparity) and ultimately moves the middle into the soupcon of haven'ts.
That probably was a long winded way of saying that I really try to understand people like Pack...but I think we are programmed either through genetics or environment to see life through a different lens. Pack sees "tax cuts for the rich", I see "it wasn't the governments money to start with...you are cutting anything, you are just agreeing to take less at the point of a gun than you might otherwise" (by the way, the tax cuts for the rich argument is largely BS...the facts are that $79 billion is an extension of Bush tax cuts for high-income earners; $280 billion, extension of Bush tax cuts for middle-income earners; $140 billion, indexing the alternative minimum tax; $68 billion, on lower estate taxes; $56 billion, extension of unemployment benefits; $120 billion, payroll tax reduction; $21 billion, extension of refundable tax credits (like EITC); $146 billion, capital investment write-offs for businesses and $80 billion, R&D tax credits. So the much-despised "tax cuts for the rich" amount to 8 percent of the total package.)
In the end, the productive do what the productive have always done...they either produce or quit (see Rand, Ayn...anything). As long as Pack and his ilk aren't too heavy a load, competing is fun and we'll keep doing it and making the pie larger and basically won't care. What redistributionists (Republican or Democrat) don't understand is that at some point it just isn't worth it anymore to be a producer, and I think that will be the end of America as we know it...not DADT, or the DOM act, or a few Islamic nutjobs.
Last edited:
