Senate shits on the payroll tax extension vote. Enjoy those extra taxes, kids!
Except those of you making more than $1m a year, of course. That means you, Lemonjello.
Excellent.
I spent the last few minutes imagining what life would be like with a US$1 million per annum income.
Then I came back to reality :weep:
Quote from: Monoriu on December 01, 2011, 10:21:21 PM
I spent the last few minutes imagining what life would be like with a US$1 million per annum income.
Then I came back to reality :weep:
Why, are you on 2 million? Show off.
Hooray!
More Taxes in America is always a good thing even when the super rich don't pay any.
Quote from: Monoriu on December 01, 2011, 10:21:21 PM
I spent the last few minutes imagining what life would be like with a US$1 million per annum income.
Then I came back to reality :weep:
Let me guess: the same frugal existance as you have now, only with a much larger bank account.
Good decision, IMO. That money is better spent on capital gains tax cuts. We need to encourage job-creators, not job-takers. Having so many job-takers is why we have such a high unemployment rate.
Quote from: DGuller on December 02, 2011, 09:40:41 AM
Good decision, IMO. That money is better spent on capital gains tax cuts. We need to encourage job-creators, not job-takers. Having so many job-takers is why we have such a high unemployment rate.
Private Enterprise don't create jobs when there is so much incertainity. You guys need the Federal government to threaten private enterprise to spend their accumulated wealth or have it ceased.
Apple is sitting on 70$+ billions. Make them spend it or take it away.
Quote from: DGuller on December 02, 2011, 09:40:41 AM
Good decision, IMO. That money is better spent on capital gains tax cuts. We need to encourage job-creators, not job-takers. Having so many job-takers is why we have such a high unemployment rate.
Won't happen, and even if it did, it wouldn't show up until after the elections. After Warren Buffet's comments, the already low rates for capital gains are a political football, so I'll bet dollars to donuts they won't touch it in an election year.
Quote from: DGuller on December 02, 2011, 09:40:41 AM
Good decision, IMO. That money is better spent on capital gains tax cuts. We need to encourage job-creators, not job-takers. Having so many job-takers is why we have such a high unemployment rate.
:lol: The temporary reduction in payroll taxes had nothing to do with motivating job seekers, it was about boosting demand.
What kind of idiot says to himself, I would love to go get a job if only those pesky payroll taxes were 2% lower?
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 02, 2011, 09:46:52 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 02, 2011, 09:40:41 AM
Good decision, IMO. That money is better spent on capital gains tax cuts. We need to encourage job-creators, not job-takers. Having so many job-takers is why we have such a high unemployment rate.
Private Enterprise don't create jobs when there is so much incertainity. You guys need the Federal government to threaten private enterprise to spend their accumulated wealth or have it ceased.
Apple is sitting on 70$+ billions. Make them spend it or take it away.
Or we could pass a law saying we won't pass any laws for the next two years. That would alleviate some uncertainty.
So it's uncertainty?
I hesitated a long time between the two.
You couldn't pass that law.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 02, 2011, 09:46:52 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 02, 2011, 09:40:41 AM
Good decision, IMO. That money is better spent on capital gains tax cuts. We need to encourage job-creators, not job-takers. Having so many job-takers is why we have such a high unemployment rate.
Private Enterprise don't create jobs when there is so much incertainity. You guys need the Federal government to threaten private enterprise to spend their accumulated wealth or have it ceased.
Apple is sitting on 70$+ billions. Make them spend it or take it away.
he's sarcastic...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 02, 2011, 10:09:57 AM
:lol: The temporary reduction in payroll taxes had nothing to do with motivating job seekers, it was about boosting demand.
What kind of idiot says to himself, I would love to go get a job if only those pesky payroll taxes were 2% lower?
More, but not exclusively about boosting demand.
Lower payroll taxes means more people are incline to declared their wages instead of working for cash only.
Also a way to equilibrate the fiscality between lower working class and higher class living of capital gains & dividends wich are subjected to lower taxes.
http://www.barackobama.com/tax-calculator/?fb_ref=FBS&fb_source=home_oneline
Quote from: viper37 on December 02, 2011, 04:16:15 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 02, 2011, 09:46:52 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 02, 2011, 09:40:41 AM
Good decision, IMO. That money is better spent on capital gains tax cuts. We need to encourage job-creators, not job-takers. Having so many job-takers is why we have such a high unemployment rate.
Private Enterprise don't create jobs when there is so much incertainity. You guys need the Federal government to threaten private enterprise to spend their accumulated wealth or have it ceased.
Apple is sitting on 70$+ billions. Make them spend it or take it away.
he's sarcastic...
I thought it was obvious. :huh:
I was thinking maybe it was euro humor that doesn't translate well, but Yi got it.
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2011, 07:53:03 PM
http://www.barackobama.com/tax-calculator/?fb_ref=FBS&fb_source=home_oneline
Americans like you would save $5,738 a year on average under President Obama's plan.
Continues tax cut of 2% and adds 1.2%
:)
If President Obama's Plan Doesn't Pass, You'll Lose $3,702.
Allows tax cut of 2% to expire
:(
I like the bit about Romney at the end. Nice use of the 1% rhetoric.
Americans like you would save $0 a year on average under President Obama's plan.
Continues tax cut of 2% and adds 1.2%
If President Obama's Plan Doesn't Pass, You'll Lose $0.
Wahoo!