Republican/Conservative Corner

cyclefiend2000

 if i ever hit the lotto, i am moving to monaco and giving you all the finger!

that's not fair! at least give me 15grand....

Pomeranian <3

many people wish they could make just that extra $200 even? or even another $1,000 month that is LIFE changing...

If you seriously think an extra $200-$1000 a month would change your life....well, I saw your myspace page.  PM me.  I've got an idea for you. 

probe1957

Pomeranian <3

many people wish they could make just that extra $200 even? or even another $1,000 month that is LIFE changing...

If you seriously think an extra $200-$1000 a month would change your life....well, I saw your myspace page.  PM me.  I've got an idea for you. 

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

NO it is!! $300 is a car payment... $1000 is rent! that's a lot!

jjsmom06

Stop propositioning the young lady billy.. you are a bad influence.. she is conservative and would never do such things. ;)

*goes and puts on a sweater....* lol

Oh man now that's sparked a whole other conservative topic.

Pomeranian <3

probe1957

Pomeranian <3

many people wish they could make just that extra $200 even? or even another $1,000 month that is LIFE changing...

If you seriously think an extra $200-$1000 a month would change your life....well, I saw your myspace page.  PM me.  I've got an idea for you. 

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

NO it is!! $300 is a car payment... $1000 is rent! that's a lot!

cyclefiend2000

cakana

Can you explain how you're seeing that? I'm kind of slow with figures sometimes, but I don't see how that can be true

 

 

because we make over $63,700 (combined) but less than $128,500. everyone in that range gets taxed at the same rate. we are on the lower end of that range. the way i read that chart, they grab $8,772.50 immediately. then everything over $63,700 gets taxed at 25%.

it isnt necessarily the same amount, but it is at the same rate. i would say that the people on the lower end of  any of those brackets are the ones getting screwed.  

If my math is right, and it's never been a strong subject for me, so it may not be, at the $63K+ range you'd pay $8772 and if you topped out at $128,5K, you'd pay an additional $16,200 - ugh, that's a huge difference and it's one of the reasons I haven't sat down to do my taxes yet.

Not that this will cause anyone to grab a tissue, but in addition to our income, we have investments that pay dividends that we also have to pay taxes on. It's not money we take and live better off of. It's money we plan to use for retirement but is more than we can put in an IRA or 401K, so every year we get to share a little of what we've nested away with the government.  

 i have a retirement account that i fund every paycheck, but i am starting to think having a pre-tax retirement account may not be the best idea. follow my thinking for a minute... you put money in pre-tax right now and all is right with the world. well at some point you are going to want to take that money out. when that times comes, it will be taxed but at a (most likely) higher rate than now. wouldnt it make more sense to put money in post tax (so to speak). when you take the money out you would only be taxed on your earnings then. correct?

maybe i have over thought this? 

cyclefiend2000

when that times comes, it will be taxed but at a (most likely) higher rate than now. wouldnt it make more sense to put money in post tax (so to speak). when you take the money out you would only be taxed on your earnings then. correct?

The assumption is that you won't take it out until you retire and your income is likely to be substantially less. If for any reason you have to withdraw it before that tho, you'd pay dearly in penalties and taxes.

Pomeranian <3

Cassidys Mom

Bush's tax cuts overwhelmingly benefitted the wealthiest Americans, how exactly did that help you? Yes, tax cuts can stimulate the economy, but in order for that to happen, the money has to be spent. Who is more likely to spend that money, you or someone like Bill Gates? The 'trickle down' theory would be a great idea if it actually worked, but isn't it better to give tax breaks to people who really need the money (you), then to give it to people earning millions of dollars a year and hope it 'trickles down' to you? That's what the Democrats want to do - roll back the tax cuts on the wealthy, and cut taxes for the middle class.

Very true and this is where I am torn...

My father was part of that "Bush Tax Cut" all though small still was money and I remember he did buy stuff with it in spirit of "economy stimulation"

Now being in the "middle class" personally I do feel a little more Democratic at times BUT from "personal experience" and living with the wealthy I understand the pain THEY then feel. Those who make over $100,000 get killed in taxes. $200,000 or more omg tax crazyness... And I think to myself I don't want other people in my family to suffer? They work EXTREMELY hard to be as "wealthy" as they are. The problem is, in this state (MA) and places like CA $100,000 isn't "wealthy" anymore. Like I said my combined family income is $76,000 and I'm completely broke?

I know what you're saying, I live in California, and an income of  $100,000 will not buy you a house. Those people aren't 'the wealthy', especially in high cost of living areas, they're the middle class. But the higher up you go on the wealth scale, the bigger the tax cuts were. Someone earning say, a million dollars a year, would be considered wealthy pretty much anywhere in the US. You could roll back the tax cuts on that group, or maybe even those earning over $500,000 a year. When you think about it, someone who has amassed a net worth of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars under any particular tax plan has not been unduly burdened by taxes. Sure, they'd like to pay less, wouldn't we all? But people who are having trouble meeting their mortgage payment, those people could really use the help.

The problem with the trickle down theory is that you'd have to believe that companies are paying their employees as much as they can afford. AND that if they made more money and could afford to, they'd pay them more. For some companies that may be the case. But for many others they're actually paying as LITTLE as they can to attract and keep decent employees. Giving them big tax breaks with no strings attached might make the corporate officers very happy, along with their shareholders, but there is no reason why they'd do more for their employees, because they don't have to. And they make more money if they don't.

I think I've finally realized the biggest difference between conservatives and liberals (yeah, I'm a bit slow). Conservatives are worried about themselves, and liberals are worried about everyone else. I'm not saying this in a derogatory fashion, you all have admitted this. I just never thought about it like that before.

Under Hillary's proposed healthcare plan, I would be covered. Under Barack's, I would be covered. Neither of these things mean anything to me. I have no problem paying for my own health insurance. What DOES mean something to me is the kid in the inner city whose parents may be lazy and don't care whether he's got health insurance. That's not HIS fault, so HE should be covered. I don't care if his parents are. Most conservatives, or at least Republicans, say it's his parents' responsibility and the government should stay out of it. Ideally, that's true. But we don't live in an ideal world, and if the government doesn't provide him with health insurance, he's not going to have it. That's not okay in my mind.

I'm honestly curious about something too. If we lower taxes across the board, WHERE is the money to pay for everything (military, the war that most Repubs want to keep us in, policing the world, policing ourselves, fire protection, hospitals, schools, roads, etc.) going to come from? Has anyone else noticed that under Bush, with his tax cuts, we as a country have gone into massive debt? How do you propose we get rid of the deficit and still keep up with everything taxes pay for if we lower them?

The money I put in my 401K before tax saves me about 6K in taxes each year.  That money would have been taxed at the 28% rate.  I really don't think that I will be in that high a bracket when I retire.

chelsea_b

Conservatives are worried about themselves, and liberals are worried about everyone else.

I think another way of saying this is that liberals want everyone to be dependent on the government and conservatives want people to self sufficient.

chelsea_b

I'm honestly curious about something too. If we lower taxes across the board, WHERE is the money to pay for everything (military, the war that most Repubs want to keep us in, policing the world, policing ourselves, fire protection, hospitals, schools, roads, etc.) going to come from? Has anyone else noticed that under Bush, with his tax cuts, we as a country have gone into massive debt? How do you propose we get rid of the deficit and still keep up with everything taxes pay for if we lower them?

Exactly. On these kinds of discussions I always ask people what they're willing to give up to pay lower taxes, but don't usually get many responses. Less police? Less firefighters? How about food safety? Transportation safety? Air and water quality? Road construction? Public transportation? Disease control? Safety standards for children's toys and clothing? Public libraries, pools, golf courses, parks?

Cassidys Mom

Exactly. On these kinds of discussions I always ask people what they're willing to give up to pay lower taxes,

Lower taxes don't equate to lower revenues to the government.  The last tax cut showed a gain in federal income tax receipts as it did during the Reagan and Kennedy tax cuts.  More money left in the private sector equates to more jobs and gains in tax receipts. 

What really caused federal spending to go up after 2001 was the fault of both parties as nobody would say no to new spending and programs.  I fault both democrats and republicians for this. 

Of course if you just eliminated the waste in gov programs and got rid of earmarks and other wasteful spending we would go along way toward a more efficient government.  After all I have to live within a budget based on my income why can't I hold the government to that same standard.