Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (17115)	4/20/2010 9:45:47 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

What you are reading is extremely deceptive and designed to be that way. I'm missing your point. It says that if you your total income is 50K, you may end up paying no fed income tax AFTER DEDUCTIONS AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE. Is that not true? What does it matter that the deductions are available to everyone as long as when they are used by a family at that earnings level, the result is no income tax paid? You will still pay SS and Medicare, you will still pay state taxes and taxes paid for services, gas, etc.. That's beside the point. The point was about federal income taxes. It clearly specified federal and income. if you make 50K and have four kids you are just scraping by...in some geographies you are very poor. Yeah, but so what? Does that change the fact of whether or not they pain income tax? It doesn't. You can argue if you like that the burden of paying tax at that level would be unfair, but that doesn't change the fact of whether taxes are required or not. There are consequences of so many folks not having skin in the game. You can argue if you want that those consequences are less important than the alternative. But I don't see how you can claim it is deceptive to state facts.

To: Alighieri who wrote (17115)	4/20/2010 10:17:06 AM
From: Sdgla	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

You continue to swerve and dodge Al. The point remains unchallenged.... Roughly half pay zero FEDERAL taxes and are coddled to vote for the Dem party who keep it that way. That is how the Dems maintain class warfare.

To: Alighieri who wrote (17115)	4/20/2010 11:04:01 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

2010 includes short term, even one off tax breaks. That's been the pattern since Obama took office. Short term or one off breaks, some of them highly targeted and so only for people who jump through the hoops the government wants you to jump through, while at the same time proposing and actually passing long term "permanent" (in quotes because no tax change is really permanent, but these changes have no expiration date) increases in rates. Then Obama says taxes have been cut, when they have really been increased. He calls refunds that cause the net income tax paid to be below zero a "tax cut" when its really a handout. He calls increases of less than what had been previously planed a "tax cut", when taxes are actually going up. He says he won't increase taxes for those who make under $250k or $200k (depending on which statement you look at), but then he raises such taxes directly, and also puts additional tax costs on such people indirectly by taxes the goods and services they use and the companies they work for and buy from.