WakeWorld

WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Non-Wakeboarding Discussion (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=4387)
-   -   Pickpocketing made legal!!! (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=796531)

Laker1234 01-01-2013 8:46 PM

Pickpocketing made legal!!!
 
The majority have spoken? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...ouseholds.html

grant_west 01-02-2013 7:51 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Change!

brettw 01-02-2013 9:34 PM

It's all Obama's fault. He passed this by himself, and there were so many other great alternatives out there.

pesos 01-02-2013 11:40 PM

Umm... The GOP fought against the TEMPORARY cut in payroll tax which from the start was set to expire January 1, 2013. This was not a part of the so-called Bush tax cuts and there was never any discussion on either side about not letting it expire as it had always been scheduled to do.

shawndoggy 01-03-2013 5:54 AM

I thought you guys hated the stimulus?

deltahoosier 01-03-2013 9:31 AM

I thought the Bush Tax cuts were only for the rich?

ttrigo 01-03-2013 9:32 AM

This is gonna cost my family $400 per month. Lame.

shawndoggy 01-03-2013 9:47 AM

delta -- this wasn't the bush tax cuts. This was part of the stimulus to temporarily cut employment taxes (NOT income tax) to STIMULATE the economy. This is an Obama tax cut, not a Bush tax cut.

grant_west 01-03-2013 11:08 AM

1 Attachment(s)
O" you don't like those ones how about these

grant_west 01-03-2013 1:17 PM

4 Attachment(s)
Let the Finger Pointing Start!!!!

grant_west 01-03-2013 1:20 PM

You guys didn't think things like the Obama Phone were going to be paid for out of the big O's STASH did you ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ojd13kZlCA

wake77 01-04-2013 1:53 PM

2 Attachment(s)
I like these better.
Attachment 27060

Attachment 27059

grant_west 01-04-2013 2:02 PM

Liberal's Threw and Threw. Miss Direction and Scare tactic's. Look over here at this distraction while we pick your pocket.

steezyshots 01-09-2013 9:38 AM

I paid 1,400 in taxes this week! Awesome!

fly135 01-09-2013 11:04 AM

Ever notice that when the right wingers talk about lower income people paying no taxes they ignore FICA? But when the FICA holiday is over they complain about it being a raise in taxes. Intellectual honesty... give it a try and you might be able to actually get some points across.

Laker1234 01-13-2013 12:30 PM

Jeremy, you may be mistaken. Ask an accountant you trust, but say a parent(s) with four kids who makes $32,000 a year, will not only get all of the money paid in back, but also will be paid around $10,000. In addition, many of our social programs, which are set up with good intentions, may actually encourage people not to work. People need help, I have no problem with that, but just to raise taxes without any plans to properly manage these social programs and curb "pork barrel" spending--IMHO-- is a mistake. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPZBPVnrGfA

wake77 01-13-2013 2:07 PM

^What about the huge increases in military spending proposed by GOP lawmakers? Are you cool with those?

Laker1234 01-13-2013 5:55 PM

Only if our country's national security is in danger. I do not know much about the need for military spending and defense—too many confidential issues--but there is definitely too much money going overseas that could be spent here improving our infrastructure.

ttrigo 01-16-2013 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ttrigo (Post 1800514)
This is gonna cost my family $400 per month. Lame.

oops. a little miscalculation on my part. wife just got first paycheck of the year. looks like we are going to be losing a total of $800 per month!

in the meantime, my neighbor is fostering a newborn baby that was born with weed in its system. they tested the mom 2 days after birth, and she already had meth in her system. the mom has already had 3 kids taken away, and she has been collecting welfare for a little under 9 years.
a big thank you to our PC society who refuses to drug test or require birth control for welfare recipients who continually cost my family more money every single year. maybe its time I start collecting unemployment, just so I can "stimulate" the economy!

A big eff you to our adminstration, and those before them who have created this mess we are all in. EFF YOU!

wake77 01-16-2013 1:11 PM

^You need to look to why your paycheck is less. Unless you make a million or more a year, you are still paying the same amount in income tax. The FICA rate increased, but Congress never even voted to extend the lowered rate.

Laker1234 01-16-2013 4:22 PM

Same amount before the tax holiday, yes. However, you need to lower you bar to $250.000 and up will likely be hit the hardest, but I'm anticipating everyone will be paying more.

wake77 01-16-2013 6:47 PM

No, I did need to lower the bar though (400,000 {single}, 450,000 {family}) had an increase to 39.5% on their federal income tax rate.

Laker1234 01-16-2013 8:41 PM

My bad, I was thinking of the new Medicare tax http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/co...-Tax-2013.aspx

ttrigo 01-17-2013 6:59 AM

All of the increases came from social security and medicare. Typically these are higher at the beginning of every year, but this is outa control.

shawndoggy 01-17-2013 10:26 AM

And by outa control you mean exactly the same as they were before the Obama stimulus, right?

fly135 01-17-2013 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ttrigo (Post 1802357)
oops. a little miscalculation on my part. wife just got first paycheck of the year. looks like we are going to be losing a total of $800 per month!

I'm calling BS on this.

ttrigo 01-17-2013 11:46 AM

So john, youre calling me a liar? While i am in no way posting my wifes last two paychecks to prove this, i have zero reason to lie about this.

When higher taxes on a paycheck involve a "lifestyle" change, i do believe that qualifies as outa control.

fly135 01-17-2013 1:26 PM

I don't need to see your paycheck. What changes in the tax code account for the difference? I'm not calling you a liar. I just don't believe that you are correct.

ttrigo 01-17-2013 2:11 PM

We compared the last two paychecks side by side. Between medicare and social security, there is a $400 difference. I dont know what changes were made in the tax code. Her salary has not changed, so the only explanations can be: accounting error, or some bs tax increases that are ridiculous.

fly135 01-17-2013 2:39 PM

The FICA tax holiday was a 2% reduction in FICA tax. $800 per month = Salary / 2%, therefore Salary = $40,000 per month.

Something needs be looked or you should be congratulated on having a wife that makes $40K/month. And her 6% SS deduction would go away after less than 3 months because she'd hit the max in that time.

shawndoggy 01-17-2013 2:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ttrigo (Post 1802565)
We compared the last two paychecks side by side. Between medicare and social security, there is a $400 difference. I dont know what changes were made in the tax code. Her salary has not changed, so the only explanations can be: accounting error, or some bs tax increases that are ridiculous.

Sounds like somebody messed up. Even Warren Buffet won't pay more than $2,274 more in payroll taxes in all of 2013.

Put your gross income into the WSJ's payroll tax holiday sunset calculator and see for yourself: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/...-will-you-pay/

ttrigo 01-17-2013 3:08 PM

"Ok folks, I just got my first paycheck for 2013.
My take home pay was 377 less than my last check of 2012.
The almost 800 a month is going to reduce my spending. I hope all the folks who voted for tax increases don't work somewhere I used to spend money."

Interestingly enough, someone(not my wife) posted this on the local rants and raves section of craigslist. Sounds like my family is not the only one being affected by this.

fly135 01-17-2013 3:16 PM

If someone was making over $110,000 a year then the first check of the next year would have an increase of FICA deduction of $262. That's normal because the paychecks after $110K have no 6.2% SS deduction.

fly135 01-17-2013 3:19 PM

^Which brings up the point that if your wife made over $110K a year then the $262 would get you closer to her $400 per paycheck. That increase has nothing to do with a change in the tax code.

shawndoggy 01-17-2013 3:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ttrigo (Post 1802576)
"Ok folks, I just got my first paycheck for 2013.
My take home pay was 377 less than my last check of 2012.
The almost 800 a month is going to reduce my spending. I hope all the folks who voted for tax increases don't work somewhere I used to spend money."

Interestingly enough, someone(not my wife) posted this on the local rants and raves section of craigslist. Sounds like my family is not the only one being affected by this.

Well I know when I'm looking for the straight dope on finances, I go to the rants and raves on CL, not the WSJ. Good work ttrigo!

ttrigo 01-17-2013 3:36 PM

Shawndoggy- haha. Not what i was looking for, just found it coincidental.

shawndoggy 01-17-2013 3:44 PM

just busting your balls man.

As john has pointed out, it's somewhat disingenuous (or naive) to compare the LAST paycheck of any year to the FIRST of the next. Go back and look at the pay stubs from the end 2011 and beginning of 2012. If you had already hit the SSI withholding cap, the last stub of any year will have less in payroll taxes than the first stub of the next year when the cap resets and you start over at zero again.

In fact, the best thing to do would be to compare today's paystub to her first paystub of 2008. Should be basically the same (% wise, dunno about income) before the temporary stimulus payroll tax holiday took effect. And then look at how much higher the withholdings are than the last paystub of 2007 (again assuming she hit the witholdings cap on social security).

Laker1234 01-19-2013 5:59 AM

It's the same old thing--punish the married people and small businesses that compete against the corporations, but don't worry, when they figure that will not be enough money, it'll trickle down. Notice in the article says. ""President George W. Bush’s income-tax cuts reduced the marriage penalty by setting the 10 percent and 15 percent brackets for married couples at double the amount for individuals, which essentially splits a couple’s income for tax purposes, Steuerle said. ""

shawndoggy 01-19-2013 6:21 AM

For everyone who gripes about the marriage penalty, why not get divorced? surely Jesus doesn't require a blood test and marriage license and change of tax status to consider you and your partner to be considered "married" before the eyes of god, right?

Seems like most everything else you can deal with contractually.

Don't let the man jam that marriage penalty down your throat Laker!

Laker1234 01-19-2013 6:45 AM

Believe me, I have thought about that and financially we would be better off, but my point goes back to something Jonathan Swift once said, "wise nations have either encouraged [marriage] by rewards or enforced by laws and penalties." Unfortunately, our system does just the opposite. I still do not understand what is accomplished by “sticking” it to people who are successful and are playing by the rules.

fly135 01-19-2013 9:11 AM

The marriage benefit encourages a primary breadwinner to take care of another. When both are out in the workforce earning enough to take care of themselves, then there is no reason to discount the taxes. Want a tax break.. have kids.

fly135 01-19-2013 9:17 AM

Oh and since you brought up the quote. Let's put it into context with the next line.

" It would increase the care and tenderness of mothers toward their children, when they were sure of a settlement for life to the poor babes, provided in some sort by the public, to their annual profit instead of expense. "

The context is in the purpose of women in society. And that is raising babies, not in the workforce. This is encouraged by tax code. Your position is antithetical to the purpose of the encouragement. Or at least diminishes its intent.

Laker1234 01-19-2013 1:23 PM

Being a satire I can see where you believe it is an antithetical point; however, I would argue that Swift is attempting to emphasize the importance of marriage within a society just as he is attempting to change the men’s view that their cattle are not as important as their own unborn children are.

fly135 01-19-2013 5:17 PM

The tax code rewards a traditional marriage where the spouse tends the house and raises the children. It does not reward having two working spouses, nor is there a good reason to do so. If you take on the support of another person you get a tax break. Can't see rewarding people for doing nothing other than enriching themselves and being part of a lifestyle that supports an inflationary economic model..

Laker1234 01-20-2013 11:40 AM

No, I don't think so, John. If the wife is not working, that couple will still be placed in a higher tax bracket, and the couple will pay more tax than the single filer will, but your theory is good.

shawndoggy 01-20-2013 5:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fly135 (Post 1802857)
The tax code rewards a traditional marriage where the spouse tends the house and raises the children. It does not reward having two working spouses, nor is there a good reason to do so. If you take on the support of another person you get a tax break. Can't see rewarding people for doing nothing other than enriching themselves and being part of a lifestyle that supports an inflationary economic model..

How does the tax credit for childcare weave into that narrative?

fly135 01-20-2013 7:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laker1234 (Post 1802913)
No, I don't think so, John. If the wife is not working, that couple will still be placed in a higher tax bracket, and the couple will pay more tax than the single filer will, but your theory is good.

That statement is nonsense. If the wife isn't working then the total earned will be less. There is no reason to file separately. That would be stupid.

fly135 01-20-2013 7:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shawndoggy (Post 1802949)
How does the tax credit for childcare weave into that narrative?

It doesn't. Are you implying that Congress is always consistent in every law made? But...

There are many people who have to have both spouses work to make ends meet. Child care is a cost related to working. Notice the word credit? Credits are not dependent on or related to tax brackets. So a child care credit does more for those at the low wage than it does for higher incomes. A CC credit is extremely important for those who need the income to live. Completely different rationale.

Not sure but a credit might even throw the higher earners into AMT.

shawndoggy 01-20-2013 9:09 PM

No John, what I'm implying is that the tax code is pretty irrational and trying to impose an after-the-fact narrative to tie it together is frought with peril.

In some circumstances, silly as it may seem, there really is a "penalty" (AKA higher effective tax rate) for people sharing the same household if they are married.

fly135 01-21-2013 11:01 AM

Shawndoggy, no doubt that the tax code seems irrational, but that doesn't mean there isn't a reason. Sometimes the reasons are special interests and sometimes a legitimate need of society.

The tax code is full of special interest inequities. For example, one time when I went from being an independent contractor to an employee I was forced to give up the tax deduction for my personally purchased family HI as the tax code required me to get it from my employer or lose the deduction. I didn't want it from my employer because mine was cheaper and I didn't feel that the company was sound enough in the long run. It wasn't and I never bought their insurance.

Look at 401K accounts. You cannot get your money to roll over into an IRA unless you quit your job. Coincidentally 401K account have high management fees, and you can contribute much more to a 401K than an IRA. Can you say... special interest?

The last time I checked "Married filing separate" had a slight penalty over filing single. Never disputed that, nor do I believe that it should be that way. However your statement is incorrect because it only applies when the earning of both parties reach certain levels even when filing jointly. It is not even close to true in all cases. If one spouse stays at home your statement is completely false. There is a huge tax advantage to being married if your spouse does not work.

I see no reason why the tax code shouldn't make "married filing separate" use the same tax table as filing single. That way when the individual earnings get to a certain level the tax can never exceed a single filer.

ttrigo 01-22-2013 7:24 PM

Thanks for the info guys. John, shawndoggy. You guys were pretty much spot on. A overreaction on my point for sure, but we are definitely paying more this year. Part of it is the california income tax increase. Definitely not $800 a month for the entire year, but we are definitely going to be paying a couple hundred more per month after social security maxes out in a few months. Either way, i think its lame.

How about a flat 20% tax for everyone across the board? Purely based on income, regardless of how it is earned. Stocks, gambling, welfare, etc.
i obviously dont have a great grasp on the subject, which i am not ashamed to admit, but it seems like everyone who earns an income should be paying the same amount, regardless of how much they bring in. Percentage wise.

Laker1234 01-23-2013 6:27 PM

“If the wife isn't working then the total earned will be less. There is no reason to file separately. That would be stupid.“ I’m glad I hire someone to do my taxes. I was under the impression that married couples paid more regardless of how they filed. Alan Greenspan once suggested a flat tax on all items purchased—28% if I’m not mistaken. Food could be written off.

fly135 01-23-2013 7:07 PM

Ron, if you work and your wife doesn't your taxes are significantly lower than if you were single.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 7:47 PM.