Tea Party Movement

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishtaco http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/160#post_3311556
 
Oh I'm on board with the Tea Party plan now, I don't have kids, so I will be expecting every dime of my tax money that has went for education back. Palin endorsed canidate in Alaska Miller thinks unemployment insurance is uncostitutional, I agree and since I have only drawn it once for two weeks, I want every dime of my money back. Tea Party endorsed canidate Angle wants to get rid of social security and other GOP people want to extend the age at which I can draw benifits, so I want all that money returned to me also.
 
I will be fair though and only expect the average interest rate on the money for the years I have been paying in.
 
Unless I actually get my money back, the Tea Party seems kind of self-serving and full of crap, but never the less I will wait for Palin to become president and sit around and wait for a fairly huge government check. LOL
 
Fishtaco
 
Haven't heard Angle say we should end social security. Got link? Did you hold a gun to anyone's head and make them have kids? Why should you have to pay more taxes than someone with your exact financial situation except they have a couple kids who in fact are a bigger drain on tax dollars?

 

[bionicarm]

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/160#post_3311539
Another point in Palins favor. Instead of blowing the money on some stupid program she continued the program of giving the money back to the people. Wyoming is very similar to Alaska, lots of natural resources extraction and a small population. WHat they do is give the schools the income off 50% of the lands come hell or high water. When the new high school where my brother lived was being built the school board just wanted to make sure there school was bigger and better than the one the other big town in the county had just built. They ended up with something like 2.8 computers per student etc. What a great system!!!
 
Palin left office (according to her anyway) because of the constant baseless investigations she and the state were forced to defend. Your beloved Democrat party filed numerous suits against her or her administration. Funny how not one of those investigations led to anything. But she still had to pay her personal legal fees which were over half a million. Don't know what it cost the State but it was in the millions. Now what would you have done if it were you in a job that pays 125K and had half a million in legal fees associated with having that job?
If any governor in Alaska ended the oil dividend payments, they wouldn't last one term. They'd more likely be tarred and feathered and kicked to the border.
 
Yeeaa, riiight. That's what she wanted all her followers to believe. If you honestly believe she left office because she was tired of facing the scrutiny, then you're more gullible than you make yourself out to be. She stills gets scrutinized on a daily basis. Of course she just laughs it off because she's getting a $100,000 pay check for just showing up to an event, smiling, then putting her foot in her mouth with another one of her 'Palinism's'.
 

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/180#post_3311561
Haven't heard Angle say we should end social security. Got link? Did you hold a gun to anyone's head and make them have kids? Why should you have to pay more taxes than someone with your exact financial situation except they have a couple kids who in fact are a bigger drain on tax dollars?
 
 
You don't pay more taxes up front. Where the person with the kids gets a tax break is with the deductions. I really wouldn't consider it a wash since the average cost of raising a child from birth to when they turn 18 is around $180,000. Raise my taxes, and keep the kids. I'd come out ahead in the long run.
 

 

[fishtaco]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/180#post_3311561
Haven't heard Angle say we should end social security. Got link? Did you hold a gun to anyone's head and make them have kids? Why should you have to pay more taxes than someone with your exact financial situation except they have a couple kids who in fact are a bigger drain on tax dollars?
Excuse my mistake, Angle wants Social Security to switched over to private investment. So does that mean I willl get everything I have paid back in one lump some so I can bury it in a coffee can in the back yard? My point being is that if you start canceling things that most American's have paid money into, then we are going to expect our money back and there is no way we are at the point where the government can afford to do this. So I am wondering why anyone believes someone like Miller who is against unemployment insurance and thinks it uncostitutional, but would just get rid of it and leave me holding the empty bag and nothing to show for all the money I have paid into it? This "Constitutional tough love" is great until people wake-up and figure out it is going to cost them a bunch of money that they have already paid in and will never see any benifit from.
 
As far as education, I consider it investing in the future and I don't begrudge my tax dollars going for education nearly as much as I do seeing it going to Iraq on pallets never to be seen again.
 
Fishtaco
 

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/180#post_3311568
 
 
You don't pay more taxes up front. Where the person with the kids gets a tax break is with the deductions. I really wouldn't consider it a wash since the average cost of raising a child from birth to when they turn 18 is around $180,000. Raise my taxes, and keep the kids. I'd come out ahead in the long run.
 
Excuse me??? You do pay more taxes up front. The more dependents (kids) you claim the less taxes they hold out of your paycheck every week.
 
Not arguing that it costs a lot to raise a kid. What I am arguing is why should those who decide to have kids get a tax break when they are a bigger draw on taxpayer provided services?

 

[fishtaco]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/180#post_3311567
 
If any governor in Alaska ended the oil dividend payments, they wouldn't last one term. They'd more likely be tarred and feathered and kicked to the border.
 
Yeeaa, riiight. That's what she wanted all her followers to believe. If you honestly believe she left office because she was tired of facing the scrutiny, then you're more gullible than you make yourself out to be. She stills gets scrutinized on a daily basis. Of course she just laughs it off because she's getting a $100,000 pay check for just showing up to an event, smiling, then putting her foot in her mouth with another one of her 'Palinism's'.
 
The most crazy and scariest Palinism ever was when she said that she hopes Obama does not invade Iran to gain support for his presidency. That was a look inside the workings of a twisted and sick mind if she thinks that would be a good way to gain popularity. Of course it was overshadowed by her writing on her palm and sneaking a peek at the same conference because you know, teleprompters are for stupid people. LOL
 
Fishtaco

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishtaco http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/180#post_3311571
Excuse my mistake, Angle wants Social Security to switched over to private investment. So does that mean I willl get everything I have paid back in one lump some so I can bury it in a coffee can in the back yard? My point being is that if you start canceling things that most American's have paid money into, then we are going to expect our money back and there is no way we are at the point where the government can afford to do this. So I am wondering why anyone believes someone like Miller who is against unemployment insurance and thinks it uncostitutional, but would just get rid of it and leave me holding the empty bag and nothing to show for all the money I have paid into it? This "Constitutional tough love" is great until people wake-up and figure out it is going to cost them a bunch of money that they have already paid in and will never see any benifit from.
 
As far as education, I consider it investing in the future and I don't begrudge my tax dollars going for education nearly as much as I do seeing it going to Iraq on pallets never to be seen again.
 
Fishtaco
 
What I have heard Angle and others talk about is personalizing Social Security. Not sure that's the answer but neither is the current system which is unsustainable. From day one the government took in more SS money than they paid out. The excess was added to the general fund and spent. The excess is also included in gross revenues for the purpose of calculating the budget deficit. What Bush planned would have worked out great if it had been done 20 or 30 years ago. Heck if the government had lock boxed the money back when the system was originally formed it would have been fine as is. But the government has been depending on the excess to fund itself for a couple generations. As the baby boomers start retiring it's going to be a increase in federal spending.
 
Look at it like this. You make 500 a week. Your kid gives you an extra 100 a week to set aside for college. You spend all the 500 plus the kids 100 and add a little to your credit card. You go happily along your way until oops, the kid not only stops giving you that extra 100 but now you have to make his tuition payments. Welcome to the federal budget v. 2010
 
How do you solve it?

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishtaco http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/180#post_3311573
The most crazy and scariest Palinism ever was when she said that she hopes Obama does not invade Iran to gain support for his presidency. That was a look inside the workings of a twisted and sick mind if she thinks that would be a good way to gain popularity. Of course it was overshadowed by her writing on her palm and sneaking a peek at the same conference because you know, teleprompters are for stupid people. LOL
 
Fishtaco
Then you must think 90% of the democrat party is sick and twisted for questioning Bush's motives for attacking Iraq.
 
So you are saying a person who must read their remarks word for word from a teleprompter is smarter than someone who can do it with only a couple items written on the palm of her hand? OK.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/180#post_3311572
Excuse me??? You do pay more taxes up front. The more dependents (kids) you claim the less taxes they hold out of your paycheck every week.
 
Not arguing that it costs a lot to raise a kid. What I am arguing is why should those who decide to have kids get a tax break when they are a bigger draw on taxpayer provided services?
You have the option of selecting more exemption on your W-4 if you have kids, that is true. But in the end, it's "pay me now, or pay me later". You can have a brood of 10 kids, and put 11 exemptions on your form. That does mean you'll have a lot less taken out of your paycheck. However, come April, you better have a butt load of deductions besides the standard one's, or you'll have this hugh tax bill to pay. That's why most people take the max exemptions they can. The ideology is if you claim zero, the maximum amount of taxes will be deducted from your paycheck and given to Uncle Sam. But doing that, you're essentially letting the Feds 'borrow' your money interest free. I claim zero myself just because I have an aversion to writing any kind of check to the IRS in April, whether I'm letting them use my money up front or not.
 

 

[fishtaco]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/180#post_3311579
What I have heard Angle and others talk about is personalizing Social Security. Not sure that's the answer but neither is the current system which is unsustainable. From day one the government took in more SS money than they paid out. The excess was added to the general fund and spent. The excess is also included in gross revenues for the purpose of calculating the budget deficit. What Bush planned would have worked out great if it had been done 20 or 30 years ago. Heck if the government had lock boxed the money back when the system was originally formed it would have been fine as is. But the government has been depending on the excess to fund itself for a couple generations. As the baby boomers start retiring it's going to be a increase in federal spending.
 
Look at it like this. You make 500 a week. Your kid gives you an extra 100 a week to set aside for college. You spend all the 500 plus the kids 100 and add a little to your credit card. You go happily along your way until oops, the kid not only stops giving you that extra 100 but now you have to make his tuition payments. Welcome to the federal budget v. 2010
 
How do you solve it?
I don't know how to solve it, but putting it back in the lock-box and throwing away the key would be where I would start first. Something kind of crappy and I'm sure will brand me a socialist would be to eliminate benefits for federal employees and just put the money paid in towards their existing retirement plans and I would like to see the same done on a state level although I know the two are not really related.
 
Another very socialist idea would be for these baby-boomers who are retiring with more money than they can ever spend simply to refuse to accept benefits and have a say as to where they want the money to go instead be that the military, education or NASA. I know that is just crazy talk.
 
Fishtaco

 

[bionicarm]

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/180#post_3311582
Then you must think 90% of the democrat party is sick and twisted for questioning Bush's motives for attacking Iraq.
 
So you are saying a person who must read their remarks word for word from a teleprompter is smarter than someone who can do it with only a couple items written on the palm of her hand? OK.
At least when he reads from a teleprompter, he has someone to proofread what he's saying. Palin even screwed up the simplistic comments she wrote on her palm. Where in the Constitution does is say a requirement for President is to be an excellent orator? I sucked in every Speech class I took because I couldn't memorize my speeches word for word. Some of the best motivational speakers I've ever heard read directly from their papers they had with them. When someone as influential as the President is speaking to an audience of several million, would you prefer he read from a teleprompter so you can see his facial expressions, or would you prefer he just look down at a piece of paper and read the speech? Do you think you could memorize a 20 or 30 page State Of The Union Address so you didn't have to use a teleprompter?
 

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/180#post_3311583
You have the option of selecting more exemption on your W-4 if you have kids, that is true. But in the end, it's "pay me now, or pay me later". You can have a brood of 10 kids, and put 11 exemptions on your form. That does mean you'll have a lot less taken out of your paycheck. However, come April, you better have a butt load of deductions besides the standard one's, or you'll have this hugh tax bill to pay. That's why most people take the max exemptions they can. The ideology is if you claim zero, the maximum amount of taxes will be deducted from your paycheck and given to Uncle Sam. But doing that, you're essentially letting the Feds 'borrow' your money interest free. I claim zero myself just because I have an aversion to writing any kind of check to the IRS in April, whether I'm letting them use my money up front or not.
 
Each dependent you claim knocks off $3650.00 of taxable income
 
Each child under the age of 17 gets you a $1000.00 a year credit
 
A child under 13 gets you 600 a year in child care credit to a max of 2100 a year
 
So a family with 3 kids under 13 gets 1800.00 a year in child care credits, 3000.00 in child credits plus 10,950 reduction in taxable income.
 
so 4800.00 in credits plus assuming a modest family paying a 15% rate which is another 1640.00 if I figured right.
 
so they will pay $6440.00 less in taxes than a childless couple.
 

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/180#post_3311586
 
At least when he reads from a teleprompter, he has someone to proofread what he's saying. Palin even screwed up the simplistic comments she wrote on her palm. Where in the Constitution does is say a requirement for President is to be an excellent orator? I sucked in every Speech class I took because I couldn't memorize my speeches word for word. Some of the best motivational speakers I've ever heard read directly from their papers they had with them. When someone as influential as the President is speaking to an audience of several million, would you prefer he read from a teleprompter so you can see his facial expressions, or would you prefer he just look down at a piece of paper and read the speech? Do you think you could memorize a 20 or 30 page State Of The Union Address so you didn't have to use a teleprompter?
 
You are arguing a completely different point. Obama gives a 15 minute speech using a prompter. Palin does the same thing using a couple items written on the palm of her hand. Taco thinks it shows Palin is dumb when she can use a couple notes on the palm of her hand to do what Obama must read word for word from a prompter.
 

 

[fishtaco]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/180#post_3311595
You are arguing a completely different point. Obama gives a 15 minute speech using a prompter. Palin does the same thing using a couple items written on the palm of her hand. Taco thinks it shows Palin is dumb when she can use a couple notes on the palm of her hand to do what Obama must read word for word from a prompter.
 
No I thought her trying to be sneaky was dumb, if she would have just said that she wrote a couple of key things to remember down on her palm I would have not said anything and her comments about invading Iran have nothing to do with Bush or Democrats, I meant it to illustrate how her mind works only and regardless of who supports it a war with Iran at this time should be a non-issue unless things change drastically and it is one thing I am sure Obama understands.
 
Anyway it has been a pleasure chatting this morning, but I have a bunch of work on the table and need to get started with my day and have to sign-off for a while. I would not want you to think I was just running away from your illogical logit.

 
Fishtaco
 

 

[darthtang aw]

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishtaco http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/180#post_3311571
Excuse my mistake, Angle wants Social Security to switched over to private investment. So does that mean I willl get everything I have paid back in one lump some so I can bury it in a coffee can in the back yard? My point being is that if you start canceling things that most American's have paid money into, then we are going to expect our money back and there is no way we are at the point where the government can afford to do this. So I am wondering why anyone believes someone like Miller who is against unemployment insurance and thinks it uncostitutional, but would just get rid of it and leave me holding the empty bag and nothing to show for all the money I have paid into it? This "Constitutional tough love" is great until people wake-up and figure out it is going to cost them a bunch of money that they have already paid in and will never see any benifit from.
 
As far as education, I consider it investing in the future and I don't begrudge my tax dollars going for education nearly as much as I do seeing it going to Iraq on pallets never to be seen again.
 
Fishtaco
 
Unemployment is nothing more than insurance. If your car insurance, health insurance, or life insurance is cancelled, do you get anything back from what you paid in if it was never used. If you never claim unemployment do you get your money back later? No. So why is ending the program any different than if those other forms of insurances ended? why should you get the money back?
 
I by no means feel unemployment should be ended...I just think it needs streamlined...

 

[bionicarm]

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/180#post_3311594
Each dependent you claim knocks off $3650.00 of taxable income
 
Each child under the age of 17 gets you a $1000.00 a year credit
 
A child under 13 gets you 600 a year in child care credit to a max of 2100 a year
 
So a family with 3 kids under 13 gets 1800.00 a year in child care credits, 3000.00 in child credits plus 10,950 reduction in taxable income.
 
so 4800.00 in credits plus assuming a modest family paying a 15% rate which is another 1640.00 if I figured right.
 
so they will pay $6440.00 less in taxes than a childless couple.
 
I understand that. But you said that up front they didn't pay the same tax rate. A person making $100K/yr. with no kids pays the same amount of taxes a person making $100K.yr with 5 kids BEFORE DEDUCTIONS.
 
Yea, you get more exemption and more deduction from your bottom line with the crumb snatcher that go to daycares, etc. But once they leave daycare, the deductions disappear real quick. Have to check my last tax return, but because of my income, I don't even get much if anything at all regarding child credits.
 

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishtaco http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/180#post_3311596
No I thought her trying to be sneaky was dumb, if she would have just said that she wrote a couple of key things to remember down on her palm I would have not said anything and her comments about invading Iran have nothing to do with Bush or Democrats, I meant it to illustrate how her mind works only and regardless of who supports it a war with Iran at this time should be a non-issue unless things change drastically and it is one thing I am sure Obama understands.
 
Anyway it has been a pleasure chatting this morning, but I have a bunch of work on the table and need to get started with my day and have to sign-off for a while. I would not want you to think I was just running away from your illogical logit.

 
Fishtaco
 
Being sneaky? LOL

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/180#post_3311633
 
I understand that. But you said that up front they didn't pay the same tax rate. A person making $100K/yr. with no kids pays the same amount of taxes a person making $100K.yr with 5 kids BEFORE DEDUCTIONS.
 
Yea, you get more exemption and more deduction from your bottom line with the crumb snatcher that go to daycares, etc. But once they leave daycare, the deductions disappear real quick. Have to check my last tax return, but because of my income, I don't even get much if anything at all regarding child credits.
 
No, they don't. You claim to run a business and don't know how paycheck deduction works??? If you claim your 5 deductions on your W4 LESS TAX MONEY IS HELD OUT EACH CHECK.
 

 

[bionicarm]

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/180#post_3311619
 
Unemployment is nothing more than insurance. If your car insurance, health insurance, or life insurance is cancelled, do you get anything back from what you paid in if it was never used. If you never claim unemployment do you get your money back later? No. So why is ending the program any different than if those other forms of insurances ended? why should you get the money back?
 
I by no means feel unemployment should be ended...I just think it needs streamlined...
If I change any of my insurance plans (car, auto, life, etc.) to another provider, and I have paid premiums in advanced for those plans, I get a credit back for the portion I didn't use. Depending on the life insurance policy you get, you actually accrue interest (whole life policy I believe). It's like a form of CD.
 

 

[bionicarm]

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/180#post_3311637
No, they don't. You claim to run a business and don't know how paycheck deduction works??? If you claim your 5 deductions on your W4 LESS TAX MONEY IS HELD OUT EACH CHECK.
 
I kknow exactly how it works. Yes, they do hold out less for each exemption that you claim. But based on your taxable income, BEFORE DEDUCTIONS, you are liable for a certain amount of income tax to be paid to the IRS. Example:
 
Married couple, no kids - husband/wife claim Zero exemptions - Taxable Income before deduction $100.000. $15,000 taken out of payroll deductions for income taxes. Taxes on $100,000 -$13,000. They get $2,000 REFUND on tax return.
 
Married couple, 4 kids - husband claims 5 exemptions, wife claims 1 - Taxable income before deduction $100,000. $8,000 taken out of payroll deductions for income taxes (less money taken out because of exemptions), Taxes on $100,000 - $13,000. They have to PAY $5,000 back to the IRS for not paying enough income taxes during the year.
 
Now these are not exact numbers, but you get what I mean. Both families still have to pay the same amount of taxes based on their earned income. There no different between the two. Now the family with the kids can reduce the $5,000 they owe by child credits, daycare expenses, etc. But both families start out owing the same amount regardless. Like I said, "Pay them now, or pay them later"