A specific ? for TEA partiers and right wingers

[RRB]

Hey, you know what, I haven't posted any of my weird left wing opinions on here in a while, but I have a question for wingnuts that is driving me crazy.  As tax time is coming around, I am looking at my taxes and thinking about how the TEA baggers keep telling me that the liberals are raising my taxes.  I don't see it.  My taxes are about the same as always.  I see a few areas where righties think I should be able to save, oh say, a few dollars or two...maybe they think that a couple bucks will excite me and get my vote.  I see a few places, such as capital gains, that are lower than in generations past, but I don't have much in that department so who cares.

What I do hear is that they are "Going" to tax me, but than again the righties told me I was going to be killed by a terrorist too.  I am still here and I have never seen a explosion that was not on TV.

Sounds like a lot of nonsense to me from a bunch of foolish TEA baggers who don't pay taxes anyway because they obviously don't work since they have all that time to ride aound on the TEA bag express.

So my question is... which taxes of mine have gone up, I really want to know.

[Former Moderate]

I have seen a marked rise in my property taxes recently due to cuts in state aid. And, of course, the MA sales tax jumped from 5% to 6.25% (and to 7% on meals).

The problem with the tea partiers is that they'd probably focus on the taxes that aren't hurting me—income and capital gains—which would actually make the problems with aid cuts worse.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     While the topic question is not directed at me, I'd like to point out that right-wingers never consider cutting the military, which could easily have its funding cut by 90% with no adverse effects to anything.

[Grumps]

    While the topic question is not directed at me, I'd like to point out that right-wingers never consider cutting the military, which could easily have its funding cut by 90% with no adverse effects to anything.

Well I think 90% is a bit much, but I don't disagree with your overall point.

[nhmagic]

Well, they havent gone into effect yet, except the pesky cigarette tax under SCHIP.  They start in 2011.  Here's Obama's 2009 budget, prepared by Jake Tapper of ABC News:

President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

1) On people making more than $250,000.

$338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire
$179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction
$118 billion - capital gains tax hike

Total: $636 billion/10 years

2) Businesses:

$17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes
$24 billion - tax carried-interest as income
$5 billion - codify "economic substance doctrine"
$61 billion - repeal LIFO
$210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform
$4 billion - information reporting for rental payments
$5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
$3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs
$62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants
$49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
$13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies
$1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers
$882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit

Total: $353 billion/10 years

[Vepres]

    While the topic question is not directed at me, I'd like to point out that right-wingers never consider cutting the military, which could easily have its funding cut by 90% with no adverse effects to anything.

Well I think 90% is a bit much, but I don't disagree with your overall point.

[MSG]

Well, they havent gone into effect yet, except the pesky cigarette tax under SCHIP.  They start in 2011.  Here's Obama's 2009 budget, prepared by Jake Tapper of ABC News:

President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

1) On people making more than $250,000.

$338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire
$179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction
$118 billion - capital gains tax hike

Total: $636 billion/10 years

2) Businesses:

$17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes
$24 billion - tax carried-interest as income
$5 billion - codify "economic substance doctrine"
$61 billion - repeal LIFO
$210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform
$4 billion - information reporting for rental payments
$5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
$3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs
$62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants
$49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
$13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies
$1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers
$882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit

Total: $353 billion/10 years

so none of the taxes of the vast majority of the tea partiers are gonna be raised thanks for making his point.

[True Federalist]

So the teabaggers are upset with Obama and the Democrats for tax hikes that were put into law by Bush and the Republicans?

[nhmagic]

Well, they havent gone into effect yet, except the pesky cigarette tax under SCHIP.  They start in 2011.  Here's Obama's 2009 budget, prepared by Jake Tapper of ABC News:

President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

1) On people making more than $250,000.

$338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire
$179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction
$118 billion - capital gains tax hike

Total: $636 billion/10 years

2) Businesses:

$17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes
$24 billion - tax carried-interest as income
$5 billion - codify "economic substance doctrine"
$61 billion - repeal LIFO
$210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform
$4 billion - information reporting for rental payments
$5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
$3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs
$62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants
$49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
$13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies
$1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers
$882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit

Total: $353 billion/10 years

so none of the taxes of the vast majority of the tea partiers are gonna be raised thanks for making his point.

Incorrect: The effects of these tax raises will effect the vast majority of working tea partiers.  Many small businesses may gross $250,000 under the owners name, and taxes are based upon gross earnings, not profit.  Say a small business makes $300,000 a year.  $50,000 of that is profit and the rest goes to operating costs (labor, materials, rent, utilities, etc.).  The owner of the business will have to cut employees and cut costs just to keep his business alive. 

[dead0man]

     While the topic question is not directed at me, I'd like to point out that right-wingers never consider cutting the military, which could easily have its funding cut by 90% with no adverse effects to anything.

90%?  So we don't fix sh**t when it breaks?  We cut pay and benifits to active duty and vets?  Nothing new again, ever.  I can agree the military needs to cut a lot of sh**t out, but 90% is insane.
Components                                       Funding           Change, 2009 to 2010  
Operations and maintenance              $283.3 billion    4.20%
Military Personnel                               $154.2 billion      5.00%
Procurement                                       $140.1 billion   −1.8%
R&D, Testing & Evaluation                   $79.1 billion     1.30%
Military Construction                           $23.9 billion     19.00%
Family Housing                                    $3.1 billion     −20.2%
Total Spending                                    $685.1 billion    3.00%

Good luck digging $600 billion out of there.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

    While the topic question is not directed at me, I'd like to point out that right-wingers never consider cutting the military, which could easily have its funding cut by 90% with no adverse effects to anything.

1939 called, wants to know when you're coming back?
Then 1941 called, and asked me to slap you.

[Senator Libertas]

    While the topic question is not directed at me, I'd like to point out that right-wingers never consider cutting the military, which could easily have its funding cut by 90% with no adverse effects to anything.

1939 called, wants to know when you're coming back?
Then 1941 called, and asked me to slap you.

That's a really stupid non sequitur of a response, sorry.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

    While the topic question is not directed at me, I'd like to point out that right-wingers never consider cutting the military, which could easily have its funding cut by 90% with no adverse effects to anything.

90%?  So we don't fix sh**t when it breaks?  We cut pay and benifits to active duty and vets?  Nothing new again, ever.  I can agree the military needs to cut a lot of sh**t out, but 90% is insane.
Components                                       Funding           Change, 2009 to 2010  
Operations and maintenance              $283.3 billion    4.20%
Military Personnel                               $154.2 billion      5.00%
Procurement                                       $140.1 billion   −1.8%
R&D, Testing & Evaluation                   $79.1 billion     1.30%
Military Construction                           $23.9 billion     19.00%
Family Housing                                    $3.1 billion     −20.2%
Total Spending                                    $685.1 billion    3.00%

Good luck digging $600 billion out of there.

     Terminating all overseas operations & associated costs would be a good start to that.

[dead0man]

k, I can agree with that......that might save us $100billion.  Just $500billion to go.

[Senator Libertas]

Cutting 90% of the military budget sounds like a great place to start. I don't see what the problem is, unless you are an interventionist warmonger.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

End the wars. $150 billion a year saved.

Then some easy money would be to go after some of the really expensive pork items.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

k, I can agree with that......that might save us $100billion.  Just $500billion to go.

     Seriously, a 90% cut would bring us in line with other big military spenders worldwide, which seems more appropriate given that we are not particularly likely to be invaded en masse at any point in the foreseeable future. I'm not really seeing the point of the nearly $700 billion budget other than "it's the way it is currently".

[Smash255]

Well, they havent gone into effect yet, except the pesky cigarette tax under SCHIP.  They start in 2011.  Here's Obama's 2009 budget, prepared by Jake Tapper of ABC News:

President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

1) On people making more than $250,000.

$338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire
$179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction
$118 billion - capital gains tax hike

Total: $636 billion/10 years

2) Businesses:

$17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes
$24 billion - tax carried-interest as income
$5 billion - codify "economic substance doctrine"
$61 billion - repeal LIFO
$210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform
$4 billion - information reporting for rental payments
$5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
$3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs
$62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants
$49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
$13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies
$1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers
$882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit

Total: $353 billion/10 years

so none of the taxes of the vast majority of the tea partiers are gonna be raised thanks for making his point.

Incorrect: The effects of these tax raises will effect the vast majority of working tea partiers.  Many small businesses may gross $250,000 under the owners name, and taxes are based upon gross earnings, not profit.  Say a small business makes $300,000 a year.  $50,000 of that is profit and the rest goes to operating costs (labor, materials, rent, utilities, etc.).  The owner of the business will have to cut employees and cut costs just to keep his business alive. 

BZZZZZ WRONG

[dead0man]

k, I can agree with that......that might save us $100billion.  Just $500billion to go.

     Seriously, a 90% cut would bring us in line with other big military spenders worldwide, which seems more appropriate given that we are not particularly likely to be invaded en masse at any point in the foreseeable future. I'm not really seeing the point of the nearly $700 billion budget other than "it's the way it is currently".

If we cut it by 90% we'd be spending less than the PRC, the UK and France.  I agree with your basic point, we shouldn't spend so much on defense.  But your 90% number is totally unrealistic.  Even Barney Frank only wants a 25% cut.

[opebo]

Seriously?  'New taxes' proposed are only a little under a trillion over ten years?

That's nothing.

The most hilarious thing about the Right and their teabags is that there is simply nothing happening to get excited about. 

[MK13]

Tea buggers would be for taxes if Obama/dems wanted to increase tax cuts.   

[MODU]

k, I can agree with that......that might save us $100billion.  Just $500billion to go.

     Seriously, a 90% cut would bring us in line with other big military spenders worldwide, which seems more appropriate given that we are not particularly likely to be invaded en masse at any point in the foreseeable future. I'm not really seeing the point of the nearly $700 billion budget other than "it's the way it is currently".

And why is their spending so low?  Because we are their major ally, and they depend on us to protect them.  Being the sole (Western) Super Power places a large burden of responsibility on our shoulders to protect others.  This is why I've been such a strong proponent for a "real" EU.  Abolish the old country borders and incorporate the European nations into a single country of unified states.  That way, the EU could build up their own standing army and protect their region of the world, taking some of the military burden off of us, and in turn, trim back our defense spending.  Of course, hitting Congressmen who keep legacy defense projects on the books because it funds their states, especially when the equipment being built is one or two generations obsolete, has to come to an end as well.  That would save you billions right there.

[KeeptheChange]

Well, they havent gone into effect yet, except the pesky cigarette tax under SCHIP.  They start in 2011.  Here's Obama's 2009 budget, prepared by Jake Tapper of ABC News:

President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

1) On people making more than $250,000.

$338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire
$179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction
$118 billion - capital gains tax hike

Total: $636 billion/10 years

2) Businesses:

$17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes
$24 billion - tax carried-interest as income
$5 billion - codify "economic substance doctrine"
$61 billion - repeal LIFO
$210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform
$4 billion - information reporting for rental payments
$5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
$3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs
$62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants
$49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
$13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies
$1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers
$882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit

Total: $353 billion/10 years

so none of the taxes of the vast majority of the tea partiers are gonna be raised thanks for making his point.

Incorrect: The effects of these tax raises will effect the vast majority of working tea partiers.  Many small businesses may gross $250,000 under the owners name, and taxes are based upon gross earnings, not profit.  Say a small business makes $300,000 a year.  $50,000 of that is profit and the rest goes to operating costs (labor, materials, rent, utilities, etc.).  The owner of the business will have to cut employees and cut costs just to keep his business alive. 

BZZZZZ WRONG

Witty comeback.  He provided substance (and correct information).  Got any of your own?

[Katherine Harris is legit]

Fascists

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

k, I can agree with that......that might save us $100billion.  Just $500billion to go.

     Seriously, a 90% cut would bring us in line with other big military spenders worldwide, which seems more appropriate given that we are not particularly likely to be invaded en masse at any point in the foreseeable future. I'm not really seeing the point of the nearly $700 billion budget other than "it's the way it is currently".

If we cut it by 90% we'd be spending less than the PRC, the UK and France.  I agree with your basic point, we shouldn't spend so much on defense.  But your 90% number is totally unrealistic.  Even Barney Frank only wants a 25% cut.

     Your point? I strongly doubt anything bad would happen if there were countries that spent more on their military than us. After all, you don't see people regularly invading China because they aren't the biggest spender there is.

k, I can agree with that......that might save us $100billion.  Just $500billion to go.

     Seriously, a 90% cut would bring us in line with other big military spenders worldwide, which seems more appropriate given that we are not particularly likely to be invaded en masse at any point in the foreseeable future. I'm not really seeing the point of the nearly $700 billion budget other than "it's the way it is currently".

And why is their spending so low?  Because we are their major ally, and they depend on us to protect them.  Being the sole (Western) Super Power places a large burden of responsibility on our shoulders to protect others.  This is why I've been such a strong proponent for a "real" EU.  Abolish the old country borders and incorporate the European nations into a single country of unified states.  That way, the EU could build up their own standing army and protect their region of the world, taking some of the military burden off of us, and in turn, trim back our defense spending.  Of course, hitting Congressmen who keep legacy defense projects on the books because it funds their states, especially when the equipment being built is one or two generations obsolete, has to come to an end as well.  That would save you billions right there.

     As it happens, superpower is not necessarily a permanent feature of any country, & one I would strongly advocate working to do away with if it meant other countries would take it upon themselves to supply their own defense.