Increased Taxes Anyone?

[sham]

And so it begins

http://greeneyeshade.townhall.com/bl...8-35b180a15cc2

[Rileyoriley]

Knew it was coming. Already starting in my state with our new governor.

[GenuineRisk]

That article is pretty misleading (what? Republicans? Misleading? Why, I should fire an attorney for that!). Here's something to clear it up a bit:

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/20...epeats_la.html

An expiration of a tax cut that was written into it when passed is not the same as raising taxes. And frankly, those tax cuts should not have been passed in the first place.

Though the TownHall indignation over not dealing with the AMT is valid- the AMT needs to be fixed, and fast. I would be curious to know if they ever mentioned it when their party was in power, though... somehow, I doubt it.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

That article is pretty misleading (what? Republicans? Misleading? Why, I should fire an attorney for that!). Here's something to clear it up a bit:

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/20...epeats_la.html

An expiration of a tax cut that was written into it when passed is not the same as raising taxes. And frankly, those tax cuts should not have been passed in the first place.

Though the TownHall indignation over not dealing with the AMT is valid- the AMT needs to be fixed, and fast. I would be curious to know if they ever mentioned it when their party was in power, though... somehow, I doubt it.

Did I ever tell you I heart you, Kev's favorite liberal? Great link, and indisputable at that.

[sham]

On a given income, if I pay a certain amount in taxes one year, then the following year I pay even more, then that is a tax increase. The math is indisputable even for liberals. It is true that the article is misleading in that it suggests that the dems just 'now' voted the increase into law. The truth of the matter is that the Bush tax cuts included the expiration date as part of a compromise with the democrats to get the tax reductions passed in the first place. So in effect, the dems forced the abrogation of tax reduction into law years ago.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by sham

On a given income, if I pay a certain amount in taxes one year, then the following year I pay even more, then that is a tax increase. The math is indisputable even for liberals. It is true that the article is misleading in that it suggests that the dems just 'now' voted the increase into law. The truth of the matter is that the Bush tax cuts included the expiration date as part of a compromise with the democrats to get the tax reductions passed in the first place. So in effect, the dems forced the abrogation of tax reduction into law years ago.

Thank you. That alone makes you more honest than the entire current Administration.

Look, you keep buying on credit, as this government has been doing for the past six years, eventually you're going to have to pay the bill.

The NYTimes ran an article recently on how lots of people making in excess of $200,000 a year are paying less than 10 percent of their income in taxes. I don't make even 20 percent of what those people are making and apparently I pay a much bigger pecentage of my income in taxes than they do. Since most of the Bush tax cuts benefited those people, I can't muster much sympathy for them- they've paid a lower percentage of their income in taxes than I have for the past six years. And I haven't seen any of that "trickle down" towards me or anyone else I know struggling to cling onto the middle class. As far as I'm concerned, letting those welfare handouts to the rich expire is the first baby step towards getting the country back on sound financial footing.