Hillary Clinton will increase taxes for the middle class

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp
We need to raise taxes, we are running huge deficits courtesy of Dub.

This is why the Dems lose guaranteed elections like 2004. But go ahead, get your message out there, let the middle class know that you will be raising their taxes, I'm sure Hillary will appreciate that. Just make sure you work extra hard before super Tuesday, thanks.

2004 was not a guaranteed election, Americans were still ignorant enough to give Bush a 50% approval rating. As far as taxes, it's a non-issue, especially in the Democratic primary. In fact a lot of Democrats are sick of these structural deficits we are running and think taxes are too low.

Yes, because many Americans think that the government needs more of their money :roll:

 

[ProfJohn]

The Clinton tax increase came at the beginning of an economic up swing which is why the economy was able to absorb them.

Perhaps by 2010 the economy will be on the up swing again and taking $100 a month out the pockets of Americans won?t make much difference.

The big question then becomes what do the Democrats do with that extra money? Are they going to use it to cut the deficit or spend it on new programs? What do Hillary and Obama talk about more, deficit reduction or new spending programs?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The solution is simple. Pay for all Hillary's goals the same way we pay for Iraq. At least the money would be going to Americans for health care (which BTW I don't want UHC as is most likely to be implemented). If we save one American life, it would be one more than that war has been shown to. Cheney said deficits don't matter, and we all know we can trust him.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Mail5398
She says tonight that we will go back to the tax structure under Bill Clinton. I am married with four kids and make $85,000 a year. I went back and looked at a 1999 1040 and compared it to a 2007 1040.


$6721 in federal taxes in 2007 and I get $4000 in child tax credit. I end up paying $2721.


$8411 in federal taxes in 1999 and I get $2000 in child tax credit. I end up paying $6411.

I used the 2007 standard deduction and individual deductions for both calculations.


$3690 means I can no longer go on vacation. Thanks Hillary for helping a RICH person like myself out.

$85,000? You're pretty darned well-off. My parents raised two kids on about $50K a year, and I don't feel that I suffered for it. You'll live.

$3690 for a vacation? Damn....that could buy another car, or a few really nice computers. Vacations need not be Disney-grade-expensive.

 

[nullzero]

Raise the taxes a lot on the rich and they will just flee this country faster then you can blink an eye. The rich have the ability to live U.S. tax free in the Carribean, Panama, or some other place with little to no taxes.... They can easily fly in to do business stay at a nice hotel and fly back.

 

[palehorse]

It's a known fact that any time either party aims at "the rich," they nearly always miss and end up hitting the middle class square in the face...

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Mail5398

Originally posted by: SSSnail
No, it's called responsibility; I do believe some of my tax dollars do actually help upholding this freaking country that we're living in. Some of those might be misspent, but I do see roads being fixed, public utilities and facilities and programs that help unfortunate people, etc... Those I don't use any of it, but I understand the cause behind taxation. If anyone should be bitching, it's people like me, not you.

You don't see me with four kids (which would grant me all these "tax credits" and "deductions") and come on to an internet forum spreading FUD and spinning what's a presidential candidate said.

It's not my fault you are so ugly you can't find anyone.


Money isn't being spent on roads, check out the latest stories on bridge inspections, it is being spent fighting a war we will never win.

Pathetic story of govt waste. MN, the place for the I35W bridge collapse has another bridge they have been working on what seems like forever. It made I think #3 on projects waste by some comission at the fed level. After going millions over budget they awarded a new contract to the same company who failed to finish the project.

Anybody who believes the govt uses our money to its fullest is clueless. It is just a non-stop waste of money coming from our govt. These politicians are so awash in our money it is like giving candy to a kid.

 

[Icepick]

Originally posted by: nullzero
Raise the taxes a lot on the rich and they will just flee this country faster then you can blink an eye. The rich have the ability to live U.S. tax free in the Carribean, Panama, or some other place with little to no taxes.... They can easily fly in to do business stay at a nice hotel and fly back.

:shocked: Wait, so all we have to do to get rid of Paris Hilton is raise her and her daddy's taxes a bit? Sign me up dude!

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
It's a known fact that any time either party aims at "the rich," they nearly always miss and end up hitting the middle class square in the face...

Wrong, and false propaganda for the Republicans.

It's not black and white, but it's the Republicans who represent the Super Wealthy. You can go back a long way.

How about the events leading up to the great depression? You had the robber barons created by the pro-rich policies of Republicans.

Under the liberal era from FDR to LBJ, the nation saw the wealth of the nation shift from the super wealthy to the people below - this was the US doing better.

Beginning with Reagan, the super rich have seen their wealth skyrocket - the 0.01% are up hundreds of percent, while the bottom 80% saw 0% or less increase after inflation.

Clinton did somewhat better than the 12 years before and 8 years after, reducing poverty; he did pass a tax increase only for the top 2% or so that did not 'hit the middle class'.

So your post is the very bad sort of lie, that 'sounds' nice, oh they're all the same, but in fact is an insidious falsehood by misleading people about who to turn to for relief.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Mail5398

Originally posted by: SSSnail
No, it's called responsibility; I do believe some of my tax dollars do actually help upholding this freaking country that we're living in. Some of those might be misspent, but I do see roads being fixed, public utilities and facilities and programs that help unfortunate people, etc... Those I don't use any of it, but I understand the cause behind taxation. If anyone should be bitching, it's people like me, not you.

You don't see me with four kids (which would grant me all these "tax credits" and "deductions") and come on to an internet forum spreading FUD and spinning what's a presidential candidate said.

It's not my fault you are so ugly you can't find anyone.


Money isn't being spent on roads, check out the latest stories on bridge inspections, it is being spent fighting a war we will never win.

Pathetic story of govt waste. MN, the place for the I35W bridge collapse has another bridge they have been working on what seems like forever. It made I think #3 on projects waste by some comission at the fed level. After going millions over budget they awarded a new contract to the same company who failed to finish the project.

Anybody who believes the govt uses our money to its fullest is clueless. It is just a non-stop waste of money coming from our govt. These politicians are so awash in our money it is like giving candy to a kid.

You're an ideologue on the issue. You don't hold private business to the same standards at all - they can waste all day and you'll excuse it - and you over-generalize.

Experts estimate that the administrative costs for social security would triple if it were privatized with a profit motive. Private health care is run far less efficiently than the VA. Medicare is more efficiently run as insurance than private insurance. The Tennessee Valley Authority is more efficiently run, I've heard, than the typical private counterpart. Compare the costs of US troops with private (Blackwater and others) troops for profit. Horror stories about pentagon $600 toilets are about *private companies* corrupting the process.

Yes, there are many inefficiencies in government, but that doesn't mean it's not the best solution for many problems. You're very one-sided, and this leads you to wrong positions.

Here's a hint: a program that sets out to 'serve the public' primarily can often do better than one set to serve the profit of private owners.

Again and again, you will find that the worst examples of government waste are linked to when the interests of some wealthy party are allowed to corrupt the system.

Want to find inefficiency in Medicare? Look to the *Republican* version, where they gave $150 in taxpayer money to their top political donor industry, the drug companies, by adding a sentence to the law to prohibit the government from using its size to negotiate discounts, the way the VA does, which has no use but for handing more money and profits to the drug companies. Yet you DEFEND the Republicans, with your self-fullfilling criticisms of government. I'll agree with many of your criticisms - applied to Republicans.

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: JD50
I hope I misunderstood you and you aren't really this stupid. Are you really saying that people with kids are a bigger burden on society, and that they are less productive and that they contribute less to society than a single person? Wow, great, lets make it illegal to have kids, then we can all contribute more and be more productive, just like you.....:roll:

And please, give up the whole "OMG u have kidz ur tax brakes are so great!!?!?!?!". Those tax breaks don't come anywhere close to cost of having kids, so trust me, even without kids and paying higher taxes, you are pretty far ahead of us evul breeders.

Edit - I realized that I will probably have to spell this out for you. Yes, you, SSSnail pay more in taxes than Mail5398, who has 4 kids and gets some of HIS money back from the government to help with the financial burden of raising 4 children. Oh, but wait, some day, his 4 children will all be adults and more than likely they will also be paying taxes. Now, lets say they each only have 2 children. Now, there are 8 more tax payers.

Lets fast forward 40 years. So while you, SSSnail, paid more in taxes than Mail5398, he has contributed MUCH more to society (because apparently your only measure of how much someone contributes to society is how much they pay in taxes) because he has created 12 more tax payers (4 kids plus 8 grandkids) while you are sitting all alone in a state nursing home because there is no one to take care of you. Obviously, we could keep going and assume that his 8 grandkids will each have 2 kids (28 tax payers total), then they will have 2 kids each (60 tax payers total) etc.... compared to you, a single tax payer. What was that you were saying about someone contributing more to society?

So let's say I entertain your uber communistic but idiotic comments for a moment and retort with this. You're assuming that all his kids will turn out to be super shinny contributing members of society, wrong number one. Not only that, the inverse could also be true that they'll grow up and breed welfare sucking children, or become serial killers, but let's not go that far.

I'm not advocating not having children as you simpleton have suggested, why don't have them responsibly? You said it yourself, the cost of raising 4 children is greater, and you're right (I'm agreeing with you). But, who's fucking burden is it? Because you better be damn sure that while you're humping and pumping out kids, they ought not count on my fucking supports while you're raising your kids (let me kindly remind you that there are chances that they won't all grow up to be model citizens). While we're on the fucking subject, I never said I won't ever have kids; being a responsible citizen, I'll have them when I'm ready. Using your model of projection, my kids will pay more taxes than his kids. Here's your wrong number two.

Fast forward 40 years... I'm sorry, can I borrow your communistic crystal ball because mine doesn't seem to work.

I live in LA, and I see many prime examples of your "I have a lot of kids so they contribute to my society" from predominantly Hispanic families. Kids after kids after kids after kids while carrying kids while pushing kids... on welfare. There's your fucking contribution to society. Wrong number three.

Should I go on?

So you consider someone having kids to be placing a burden on society? Jesus, you are a fucking moron. All your productivity is owed to your parents deciding to keep your sorry ass rather than aborting you. We're importing illegal aliens because not enough people are having kids. Also, how the hell do you know you are more productive than he is?

Having kids responsibly won't, having kids while you can't fucking afford them tend to be the case. If you can't afford to have kids, quit fucking, very simple. Why the personal attacks? Is it because I hit a fucking nerve?

What do you suggest, have more kids that you can't afford to keep even with the illegals? Great logics I see. Speaking from the present, I pay more taxes than he does and that's factual. If you want to look at economic impact, while he spends money on diapers, children school supply, baby foods, strollers, etc... I spend more of my money on other sectors of the economy. Simply looking at those factors, I'd say yeah, I'm currently a more productive member of society.

 

[JTsyo]

US budgets: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.htm

While F-1 shows how the debt as increased through the years, F-2 shows that the economy has been growing even faster. Percent-wise the debt has been decreasing. though with the dip coming in the future that could change quickly. We do need responsible spending though. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Mail5398
$3690 means I can no longer go on vacation. Thanks Hillary for helping a RICH person like myself out.

Rough it and go camping you pussy:roll:

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Mail5398
$3690 means I can no longer go on vacation. Thanks Hillary for helping a RICH person like myself out.

Rough it and go camping you pussy:roll:

You think a family raised on 85K a year is rich??

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
WTF are you talking about? She says that she'll just let your God's tax cut expire, nice spin.

Edit: Oh wait, you'd rather people like ME financing your vacation? Sure, hop on comrade.

WTF are YOU talking about?

By letting HIM keep the money HE'S earned, YOU are subsidizing HIS vacation?

ZOMG LOL! Karl Marx is that you?

Fern

 

[blackangst1]

Just read through this thread...pretty amusing. Im wondering why we're suprised?

For the record I did as the OP Mail5398 did...looked at my W2 for 98 and 99 versus 2006 and 2007. For the latter I made about 18k more than in 98-99, and I will pay 270 less in fed tax. I also have the same filing status.

*shrug*

As a general rule Ive always said-both parties think you should have the opporutunity to go make a million bucks doing whatever you want....it's just the Democrats think they can spend it better than you.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Mail5398
She says tonight that we will go back to the tax structure under Bill Clinton. I am married with four kids and make $85,000 a year. I went back and looked at a 1999 1040 and compared it to a 2007 1040.
-snip-

$3690 means I can no longer go on vacation. Thanks Hillary for helping a RICH person like myself out.

$85,000? You're pretty darned well-off. My parents raised two kids on about $50K a year, and I don't feel that I suffered for it. You'll live.

$3690 for a vacation? Damn....that could buy another car, or a few really nice computers. Vacations need not be Disney-grade-expensive.

$3690 for a vacation?

Well lets see, him, a wife and 4 kids. That's 6 people.

That works out to about $615 per person for a week of vacation. Oh yeah, that's extravagant :roll:

Air fare, hotel, food, price for admission, souvenirs etc. I don't know if he's got enough money.

Fern

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Mail5398
She says tonight that we will go back to the tax structure under Bill Clinton. I am married with four kids and make $85,000 a year. I went back and looked at a 1999 1040 and compared it to a 2007 1040.
-snip-

$3690 means I can no longer go on vacation. Thanks Hillary for helping a RICH person like myself out.

$85,000? You're pretty darned well-off. My parents raised two kids on about $50K a year, and I don't feel that I suffered for it. You'll live.

$3690 for a vacation? Damn....that could buy another car, or a few really nice computers. Vacations need not be Disney-grade-expensive.

$3690 for a vacation?

Well lets see, him, a wife and 4 kids. That's 6 people.

That works out to about $615 per person for a week of vacation. Oh yeah, that's extravagant :roll:

Air fare, hotel, food, price for admission, souvenirs etc. I don't know if he's got enough money.

Fern

QFT

Perspective FTW

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Mail5398
$3690 means I can no longer go on vacation. Thanks Hillary for helping a RICH person like myself out.

Rough it and go camping you pussy:roll:

You think a family raised on 85K a year is rich??

No, do you think you need to spend $3690 to have a good vacation?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: palehorse74
It's a known fact that any time either party aims at "the rich," they nearly always miss and end up hitting the middle class square in the face...

Wrong, and false propaganda for the Republicans.

It's not black and white, but it's the Republicans who represent the Super Wealthy. You can go back a long way.

How about the events leading up to the great depression? You had the robber barons created by the pro-rich policies of Republicans.

Under the liberal era from FDR to LBJ, the nation saw the wealth of the nation shift from the super wealthy to the people below - this was the US doing better.

Beginning with Reagan, the super rich have seen their wealth skyrocket - the 0.01% are up hundreds of percent, while the bottom 80% saw 0% or less increase after inflation.

Clinton did somewhat better than the 12 years before and 8 years after, reducing poverty; he did pass a tax increase only for the top 2% or so that did not 'hit the middle class'.

So your post is the very bad sort of lie, that 'sounds' nice, oh they're all the same, but in fact is an insidious falsehood by misleading people about who to turn to for relief.

Both you and your post are entirely full of partisan sh*t.

Being that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Republican, your accusations are entirely off-base. Neither party has a monopoly on catering to the wealthy of this nation; and, lately, neither one has been kind to the middle class. Politicians on both sides of the aisle tend to be exceptionally wealthy themselves, and members from both parties have been equally susceptible to outright bribery by other wealthy Americans and large corporations.

So take off your partisan-fvcking-blinders, put down the spin tools, and wake the hell up.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Mail5398
$3690 means I can no longer go on vacation. Thanks Hillary for helping a RICH person like myself out.

Rough it and go camping you pussy:roll:

You think a family raised on 85K a year is rich??

No, do you think you need to spend $3690 to have a good vacation?

For six people? uhh, YES! And that would be on the cheap side of any vacation worth taking!

Like fern and Blackangst pointed out, perspective is everything.

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: SSSnail
WTF are you talking about? She says that she'll just let your God's tax cut expire, nice spin.

Edit: Oh wait, you'd rather people like ME financing your vacation? Sure, hop on comrade.

WTF are YOU talking about?

By letting HIM keep the money HE'S earned, YOU are subsidizing HIS vacation?

ZOMG LOL! Karl Marx is that you?

Fern

Oh wait, I'll let him keep the money he's earned, while...

I'm paying for the infrastructure that afford his kids free public schooling, while
I'm paying for the public services that his family is no doubt using at some points, while
I'm paying for the roads that he's driving on to said services, while
I'm paying taxes which subsidize his tax credits and deductions while ...

That's right, because the exorbitant amount of taxes I'm paying for being a single high income earner is what I deserved. Go on your fucking vacation... (or as we say around here, eff you and eff your shit and eff the horse that you rode in on).

Your ilk wanted everything for free, where do I see this before? Hmm... Karl Marx you said?

Fuck, I didn't realize I'm arguing against Fern...

Edit: Oh, and both of the candidates said specifically that they'll let the tax cut expire on those that earn more than $250K a year. Quit with the knee jerks...

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Oh wait, I'll let him keep the money he's earned, while...

I'm paying for the infrastructure that afford his kids free public schooling, while
I'm paying for the public services that his family is no doubt using at some points, while
I'm paying for the roads that he's driving on to said services, while
I'm paying taxes which subsidize his tax credits and deductions while ...

That's right, because the exorbitant amount of taxes I'm paying for being a single high income earner is what I deserved. Go on your fucking vacation... (or as we say around here, eff you and eff your shit and eff the horse that you rode in on).

If he is a net tax payer rather than a net tax consumer you aren't paying for any of his stuff.

BTW, I don't mean this as a defense of the original poster. I think he is a slave, mentally as well as financially as well as a hypocrite, and I think he has probably already mentally enslaved his 4 children by teaching them fairy tales about democracy, checks & balances and how they have to surrender to the demands of politicians. Or if he hasn't he has allowed the teachers in their school to do so. In a nutshell he wants a state with almost total power, but not a state that will exercise that total power to tax the living shit out of the economy.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Oh wait, I'll let him keep the money he's earned, while...

I'm paying for the infrastructure that afford his kids free public schooling,
Nope, public schools are primarily paid for by real estate taxes (some portion may be from state/local sales tax, depends on how county/municipality works. Not federal gov funds from income taxes


I'm paying for the public services that his family is no doubt using at some points,
Public services, like what?

His income is too high for entitlement programs like Medicaid, food stamps, welfare etc. Clearly he can't get unemployment benefits, he's employed.

Police, fire etc are, here again, paid for locally through r/e and sales taxes.


I'm paying for the roads that he's driving on to said services,
We all pay road taxes (fed & state) that are included in our gas prices. He's hardly to blame that teh governments misdirect these funds elsewhere for unintended purposes.

I'm paying taxes which subsidize his tax credits and deductions while ...
What credits?

He makes too much for the earned income credit etc.

He may get a credit for his children. But as has been pointed out, that doesn't come close to the costs of raising the kids. Since our government has decided to incur an enourmous amount of debt to pass along to future generations clearly it's in our best interest to make sure that there actually is a future generation.

That's right, because the exorbitant amount of taxes I'm paying for being a single high income earner is what I deserved. Go on your fucking vacation... (or as we say around here, eff you and eff your shit and eff the horse that you rode in on).
Ever heard of the "Marriage Penalty"

That's where married couples paid more/higher taxes than similarly situated individual taxpayers. It was just abolished a few years ago. Now they are equally situated. You are not disadvantaged as a result of being single.

He just gets some very modest tax breaks for his children. Much less, btw, than most other countries provide.

Your ilk wanted everything for free, where do I see this before? Hmm... Karl Marx you said?

Fuck, I didn't realize I'm arguing against Fern...
Yep, you're fvcked and don't stand a chance


Edit: Oh, and both of the candidates said specifically that they'll let the tax cut expire on those that earn more than $250K a year. Quit with the knee jerks...
I'll check that out. At various times I've heard them merely say that they are going to roll back the Bush tax cuts. Of course, they (and some here) say that they only benefited "rich people".

As a tax CPA I get a chuckle out of that. If they roll back the whole thing we're gonna have a lot screaming from people who are decidedly NOT rich.

See bolded remarks above

Fern

 

[soulcougher73]

According to 20/20 Denmark is the most happy country at 65% tax rate. Wonder what they got that is working for them. I may have to look into it.