It's objective reality. 6.2% of something is always greater than 4.2% of the same thing. Thus, a change from 4.2% to 6.2% is an increase. I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings to find out that your opinion does not coincide with objective reality. I doubt you would be so ready to accept that a temporary reprieve from ass raping was suddenly rescinded, yet there is little difference between the two scenarios.
The point is that the government can state that any aspect of the current state of affairs is a temporary reprieve from a less desirable state. The only reason the prior rate of 4.2% was "temporary" was that they included a provision in a bill to make it temporary: they legally suspended the prior rate and replaced it with a new rate, then in the same law specified another new rate that happened to coincide with the old rate. It's smoke and mirrors meant to make you feel better about the fact that your taxes just increased.I get your point. The problem is that youre drawing an incorrect conclusion. Go back to my bonus scenario. If you received a 5% bonus for the year, then the following month your income would be down 5% from the month before. 105 is greater than 100. However, that being what it is, it doesnt mean its a pay cut.
Temporary reprieve from an ass raping? Although Im a fan of taxes being as low as possible, I dont feel the net % Im paying as an "ass raping".
Last year you paid 4.2%. This year 6.2. One is bigger than the other and I am fairly sure it's the 6.2. Another word for bigger is increase. As random mentions there is no magical status quo against which all else is rated.
The fact that it was sold as a temporary decrease is meaningful, but when you leave one state and enter a higher one it's known as an increase. This is exceptionally basis mathematics, really the most basic of all.
I never said it was anyone's fault. I simply said it is a tax increase. My statement is correct and beyond reproach. I bet you're the kind of person that likes strawman arguments.
edit: Whereas to this point everything I've said has been purely factual, now I'll add my opinion. The zombies in this thread fail to see the bigger picture. They think a tax increase is fine since it was simply the expiration of a temporary decrease. They don't see that the expiration date was pushed back until just after a major election. They don't see that it was just another vote-buying scheme. If it was good to have more take-home pay every month, then why is it suddenly fine that you now have less take-home pay? Because in the end, the money was never really yours - the government was just lending it to you temporarily? Wake up.
Obviously Obama's fault. He promised no tax increase on <$250K or whatever, but delivered, more taxes.
-John
So you were for tax cuts before you were against them? You for higher taxes now?
I'm not outraged regarding the tax increase. I'm outraged at the ridiculous bastardization of language used by politicians, the media, and people in this forum to try to call it something else. It's a tax increase. I believe that words have meaning. Therefore, I call a spade a spade and I'll call people out if they try to call it something else. Until we come to grips with the new political language and get it under control, none of the major problems we face will be fixed because the strange new language was invented to dance around these very issues, to make the unpalatable palatable, to confuse rather than clarify.I understand the math and I understand the implications of paying 6.2% vs. 4.2%. I get the arguments against the significant taxation we face and that it's our money being taken away.
What I don't get is the faux outrage of a decrease we all knew was temporary expiring. I'm not upset that the temporary cut expired nor do I blame anyone for it. How much overall our government taxes us and how it appropriates those funds is another matter.
I'm not outraged regarding the tax increase. I'm outraged at the ridiculous bastardization of language used by politicians, the media, and people in this forum to try to call it something else. It's a tax increase. I believe that words have meaning. Therefore, I call a spade a spade and I'll call people out if they try to call it something else. Until we come to grips with the new political language and get it under control, none of the major problems we face will be fixed because the strange new language was invented to dance around these very issues, to make the unpalatable palatable, to confuse rather than clarify.
Why does somebody have to be blamed? We want bigger govt that means we have to pay for it.
Why does somebody have to be blamed? We want bigger govt that means we have to pay for it.
We should blame the Republicans for failing to increase taxes on the rich to pay for it. Perhaps if the rich weren't taking the overwhelming amount of wealth produced by the lower classes and perhaps if they weren't shipping jobs overseas and filling domestic jobs with foreigners we wouldn't need as much "big government".
or maybe get the other half of the population to pay their fair share of federal tax? but i guess taxing successful people to a higher percentage is hunky dory for you. Is France your golden economic model?
also who is allowing the visas for the foreign filled domestic jobs? who is the "they" you refer to? forgive me but i did not know the republicans ran the visa dept at the state dept.
What? Rich people are supposed to be paying for all that shit. Here's to hoping I never fall into that category. I'm a taker not a maker.LOL, people want the government to wipe their ass from cradle to grave and then get pissed when they have to pay forit
It ain't the people's ass being wiped. The people's ass is properly screwed.LOL, people want the government to wipe their ass from cradle to grave and then get pissed when they have to pay forit