For example: Based on the official Tax Tables here, if an employee is Single and earns $230 over a two week period, no taxes are withheld in 2010. In 2011, taxes are withheld if the employee earns only a $100. And those that made $240 in 2011 have 16 TIMES the amount of taxes withheld compared to 2010.
#2
The goal at this level is not tax dollars. The goal is to further reinforce employment disincentive while encouraging government dependency. The engine of democracy cannot be stopped until all incentives are fully destroyed or transferred overseas. Only then can the government redistributions begin and true social justice be enacted.
#3
I agree with Gorb - $240.00 earned $16.00 withheld for Federal income taxes. In my salad days in 1972, I had a job as a cook, making $1.03 per hour or $41.20 a week, after all Federal, SS, unemployment and state taxes I received about $28.80. Gas was .32, cigarettes .28, bread .40, and beer .20 a can. Talk about an incentive to go to school, get a better job and try to make something of myself.... yeah, these numbers lit a fire under my *ss.
So the inflation rate from January 1972 to January 2011 has risen 435.82%, go do the math, the example given by the author of this article has "shocked" you with a "16 Times" the amount of taxes figure, S*it these folks didn't pay a dime in taxes last year..... Free riders.
Pay your fair share and see how your politics will change; redistribute the wealth, not with my money.
Grow up children, get some pride, get off your *ss and do something !
#5
I hoped someone with a little knowledge would chime in on this. Instead, I will.
The tax rates haven't changed. The withholding rates have. By April 15th 2012, refunds will be much, much larger, timed perfectly and cynically with the presidential primary season. The poor with skip out without playing much of any income taxes, while everyone else will have nutcrunching taxes to pay, and as a direct result, investments in jobs and business projects will fade away, as usual.
Nothing has changed other than the cynical manipulation of the tax withholding tables.
#6
Badanov is correct. Withholding doesn't mean as much as when you actually file a tax return, when your annual tax liability is officially established. People with lower taxable income will simply get a larger refund. Thanks, Uncle Obama!
#7
Refunds are a stupid idea, why should we give the government our money in an interest free loan? I try to minimize my refund but I'm afraid at my current pay rates, I won't get much of they money they take back at all.
I want a tax cut already.
Posted by: Silentbrick - Lost Drill Bit Division - Halliburton ||
03/06/2011 12:14 Comments ||
Top||
#8
You're a real sucker if you don't underwithhold on your state taxes, especially if you're a Caliphornian. They are definitely a slow pay and there is some chance that they might pay off on terms or at a discount. Put nothing beyond Lockyer.
#10
That is another point that makes a fixed income tax attractive. If you set it at 12%, EVERYONE pays. You poor want more healthcare? Ok, but you tax just went up to 15%. The more they have invested in government, the more they will want to make sure every penny is accounted for.
#12
NS - check this out. I prepare all of 3 CA tax returns, but they want me to register, pay a fee of $25.00 and post a bond of $5,000? Are these freakin' people out of their minds? I can't wait for them to call me to try and collect.
#14
Some departments (Defense and National Security for example) need to have some non-itemized items (and even blank items) for security. Others such as Education, Transportation, EPA, FDA, FEA, Labor, Interior, etc... should be completely transparent,itemized at several levels of detail (department, program, project, etc.. right down to cost center) and crystal clear.
Given the contentious nature of this legislation, I guess we should have seen this coming.
I just have one question: Is this self-funding something that is common or has any kind of relevant precedent? This basically ties this Congress' hands, which I would think would be highly unethical and illegal. Suppose we will see any arrests made?
My simple solution: Immediately pass legislation through the house to immediately invalidate any self-funding aspects of Obamacare. If it doesn't make it through the Senate, shut down the government until it does, and whoever authored that section of the bill gets arrested on felony charges. Since Pelosi and Reid are responsible for that bill, they ought to be arrested, too. They should know better in their positions. And I'm sure they do.
Bills should be limited to some reasonable size with a requirement that all language in the bill be directly related to a short title. No pork.
This is why all legislation must be read cover-to-cover in front of Congress before it is passed, and anybody who has not been there for the whole thing should not be allowed to vote in a way that results in a non-reduction of federal spending.
#1
The planned usurption of congressional authoriity would indicate the Obama administration had at least some doubt about the future Democratic congressional makeup even while writing the bill.
#2
After the experience with Cromwell, the former Englishmen known as the Founding Fathers made sure that written into the Constitution were specific limitations on the time that the Army could be funded.
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
Guess its time for another amendment to cover all departments.
#4
Whats written in there is not something that is illegal, in the arrest people sense. That would send a crazy precedent that nobody would want to see followed through. It might be unconstitutional however, and the way to remove it is to have it struck down as so by the Supreme Court.
#5
This isn't illegal or even unconstitutional. Congress has the right to appropriate funds and allocate them to programs and departments. That is part of its job.
However, what this shows is that Team Bambi and friends knew this turd wouldn't fly long out of the gates and put funding in so it would be implemented no matter what. I suspected they knew that defunding calls would be made and they funded it as law as it was heading out the gate. You will get Obamacare whether you like it or not and Team Bambi are hoping this becomes too entrenched to be moved after several years of court fights.
Really the only way to get rid of Obamacare is to have the supreme court nullify the whole thing.
Oh, and be sure to thank Snowe and the rest of the RHINOs that allowed this to be made into law come 2012. Send those fuckers to the unemployment line.
#6
What we need is a constitutional amendment that sunsets all laws, regulations and budgetary items after 4 years (50%+1 majority) or 6 years (60% supermajority) or 8 years (2/3 +1 majority) Both houses.
Posted by: Bobby ||
03/06/2011 14:45 Comments ||
Top||
#9
a Congress cannot force obligations and spending on future Congresses. This is nonsense. Overturn this crap-on-a-stick and send Sebelius packing
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/06/2011 15:05 Comments ||
Top||
#10
This isn't illegal or even unconstitutional. Congress has the right to appropriate funds and allocate them to programs and departments. That is part of its job.
Last I checked, there are constitutional checks on Congress budgeting more than two years or so at a time.
#11
I suspect you're thinking of Art 1, Sec 7 To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Now if no congress might commit a future congress, as no parliament may commit a future parliament, this limitation would be unnecessary. But as the government, through the Senate, is continuous in operation, it may make commitments beyond the term of the current congress. So legislation may be passed that does make commitments beyond the current congress. But there is nothing to preclude future congresses from reneging on those commitments legislatively. There may be consequences that disincent congress from doing so.
#12
But as the government, through the Senate, is continuous in operation, it may make commitments beyond the term of the current congress
I'd have to politely disagree on part of that. The Senators have terms of 6 yrs, but each Congress is reconstituted every two years, and spending commitments cannot be enforced past the terms of each Congress.
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/06/2011 16:32 Comments ||
Top||
#13
If that is the case, why was Art 1, Sec 7 necessary?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
