Obama and his new budget: Debt will surpass total US Economy

saden1

Wow, 70K is low income? Ooookaaay! I get that it might not be enough for a family of that size but I'm pretty sure it's not low income.

You don't get it, he invested in Boeing common stock while working there and took advantage of their discount in their ESPP. The scheme allowed him to save his money and get rich after retirement. Of course now that he's collecting he pay taxes but he will really pay taxes when he's dead or hits 79 unless the GOP has it's way.

__________________
RG3, RGIII, RG三, RG३, RGγʹ, RGג, RG٣, RG๓, RG..., RG셋, RGԳ!

Slingin Sammy 33

Nah, I'm just getting the one extra deduction....and that's going away after this year. You'll be the one getting the dedcutions fairly soon anyway.....right?

But I agree, the whole decduction game is crap. Social engineering at its finest. But, I'm damn sure gonna take every one I'm allowed while they're in place, but I'd much rather see FairTax.

__________________
...[If] an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything]....you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.

firstdown

Sounds like your making the argument for the right. I knew you would come around.

dmek25

not to argue but.... if your making 70k thats not low income

__________________
"It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."
courtesy of 53fan

Mattyk

If it is there's a lot of us doing something wrong

__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop

Schneed10

Firstdown, the reality is that increasing taxes on the 40% who currently pay nothing into the system is like trying to extract blood from a stone. Taking a chunk out of their income wouldn't generate much, because their income is below the median in the first place.

I actually agree that taxes will have to increase on the rich at some point. Definitely against my economic principles. I'd let the economy get stabilized a little further before doing that, but once the economy is in good shape again, we'll have to get more from our highest earners. I would never recommend that under normal circumstances, but debts of this level have not been seen since the 1940s, so it calls for unusual measures.

In addition, Obama needs to make a lot more spending cuts. Social security needs the overhaul Bush tried to make. Those funds need to be invested more wisely and benefits pushed back to later years. Defense spending can come down too; some of the stuff we're capable of is just friggin overkill.

__________________
Skins' Salary Cap Status | CrazyCanuck's Cap Figures by Player | Salary Cap 101

Schneed10

PS the US median household income in 2010 was $49,700. Meaning half the households in the country earned less, half earned more.

$70K is a nice living, relatively speaking. Will it solve all your problems? Hell no, but at least you can eat, bathe, sleep safely, drive to and from your job, and enjoy cable TV.

Let's keep things in perspective, FD.

__________________
Skins' Salary Cap Status | CrazyCanuck's Cap Figures by Player | Salary Cap 101

firstdown

I was trying to give Saden a hard time. I realize 70 grand is not low income but when he said his friend paid no taxes I figured its because he is consider low income under the current tax system. Add in the fact he has 5 kids then that could be the case. I would think that most here agree if your making 70 grand a year you should be paying taxes.

Schneed10

Actually I don't necessarily agree. I can defend just about every deduction in the current code that would affect the middle class:

- if you've got 5 children and you make 70K, that's not a lot to go around, so you should get that child credit.

- you need mortgage interest deductions in place or the incentive to buy your own home is greatly reduced. it would crush the housing market at a time when it can't afford it

- student loan interest deductions? if kids couldn't deduct it, enrollment in college would decline, or more would default on their loans. either result is not good for our future or economy in the present day

If I have any beef with the current tax code, it's with the deductions offered to the wealthy.

Tax code is complicated people, deal with it. It's that way for a reason.

__________________
Skins' Salary Cap Status | CrazyCanuck's Cap Figures by Player | Salary Cap 101

saden1

Maybe they shouldn't have 5 kids and reduce the pool of taxpayers and leave us to pickup the slack? The world could use less critters...isn't that right FD?

__________________
RG3, RGIII, RG三, RG३, RGγʹ, RGג, RG٣, RG๓, RG..., RG셋, RGԳ!

Hog1

China One Child Policy - Overview of the One Child Policy in China

__________________
Goodbye Sean..........Vaya Con Dios
thankyou Joe.......
Win! Always win!
By fair means or foul, by soft words and hard deeds...
by treachery, by cunning, by malpractice...
but always win--Edward Teach

saden1

I am a benevolent dictator. I would let you choose between more kids less benefits, less kids more benefits. I mean, it can't be worse than the current policy of more kids more benefits, less kids less benefits.


Think about it, you would benefit because the tax burden on you is less and there would be less useless little toddlers who you have to subsidize and compete for natural resources with. You'd be king of the mofo jungle! The planet could use your help folks.

__________________
RG3, RGIII, RG三, RG३, RGγʹ, RGג, RG٣, RG๓, RG..., RG셋, RGԳ!

firstdown

Thats right. If I'm correct there is a cap for the child deduction so any kids over two you don't get much of a write of if any. I think its capped at $6,000 which would be about 1,500 refund for most people. Thats not allot.