Wow. Thanks, Dubya. That nice chunk of dough will put my wife's savings over the top into the realm of starting her business immediately.
P.S. Quit wimping out on Medicaid and education, dude.
Posted by Jeni (Member # 1454) on :
Despite who he plans on voting for, I have to say that it's nice to see DB around. Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Why, thank you kindly.
I've been lurking off and on. Busy and so forth.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*points out that most of the tax cuts you likely benefited from were supported by the Dems in Congress as well*
Posted by HonoreDB (Member # 1214) on :
What Jeni and fugu said.
Also, I seriously doubt your net financial situation was improved by the 2000 election results. Even discounting education and medical costs, it's amazing how many costly disasters can be blamed on Bush.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
I'm a teacher. Keep having those babies, and I will always have work.
Basically, I'm not paying any taxes this year. Everything I paid in is being refunded to me.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
*salutes*
Yessir! Procreating now, sir!
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Wow Sachiko...too much info.
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
quote: *salutes*
Yessir! Procreating now, sir!
*waits for Papa Moose to comment*
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, you'll only have work so long as there are fewer more experienced teachers in the areas (physical and academic) you're able and willing to teach in. But that won't likely be a problem for you.
However, I'd find it interesting to note what your salary might have been without the expenses of NCLB. Also, you might find what you're paying in sales tax and property tax combined will have increased by quite a bit -- the recent large reduction in Texas property taxes is tied to a large increase in sales taxes, which largely fall on consumer rather than luxury items (that is, its effectively a regressive tax). Not to mention that property taxes, being deductible, reduce your income tax burden while sales taxes do not. This bill is largely in response to needs for additional school funding, partly brought on by the NCLB act, and also brought on by the decreased funds available to Texas in general from the federal government.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Well, not procreating right this second . I mean in general.
I'll be gobsmacked if I make it 'till autumn without getting pregnant again.
(TMI again? Sorry!)
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Sorry, didn't mean to be gross. *severely*This isn't an onanism thread, you know!
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Dammit, David, you need to shoot me an e-mail (john AT grenme) some time, so we can catch up and stuff. Been wondering how you've been, man. I have free long distance now, too, so one of these days, I'll have to give you a buzz.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
I pay about $1700 in property taxes. I own my home outright (this area was recently declared the least expensive area in the nation to live)- no mortgage or anything. I make around 50k, and under Bush, with property and sales tax included, I'm keeping much more of my salary than I would've under Gore.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
John:
956.464.8217 (home) 956.463.7601 (cell)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Who said anything about Gore? I merely pointed out that by far most of the tax cuts (probably including all the ones you took advantage of) which involved the middle class were supported by the Democrats in Congress.
And last I checked, Gore wasn't running for President, so you can feel safe in not supporting him no matter who you vote for.
Also, the tax change in Texas I'm referring to takes most of its effect later this year. I think you'll find you're paying a lot more for sales tax.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Yeah, I know. The thousands I'm saving in income tax will balance that, I think.
Yes, I know Congress supported the tax reform.
Yeah conservative/moderate Congress!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, you might find it fascinating to learn that Kerry proposed in 2002 that the tax cuts from 2006 onwards be put off (so you'd still have gotten this tax cut under the then-Kerry plan), and that there be a year long suspension of the payroll tax on the first $10,000 in income. That's another nearly $800 you'd have gotten. So clearly if you're voting for who would have gotten you the most money back this past year you should be voting for Kerry. He doesn't favor the repeal of a single tax cut that would apply to you which has already been effected.
Not only that, but he's promised to implement "the McCain-Kerry" commission which would work on cutting pork -- and you know if McCain's got Presidential backing in addition to how much leg work he does on his own there's going to be some drastic pork cutting.
Plus, your taxes would be a whole lot less if we got rid of them altogether, but somehow I don't think you're supporting that.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
David, you gonna be up a while? Which is best to call?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I've always been rather unclear on this -- David, do you rejoice when your bank gives you a mandatory loan of money with a high interest rate? When we're seven trillion dollars in debt, that's all you're getting -- a tax advance, not a tax cut. You'll end up paying that money later, anyway -- or your kids will.
Besides, if you make 50k, you're in the market for a Democrat who wants to lower taxes on the poor and middle classes -- when you start making 200k+, then start signing up to march lockstep to Bush's tax cuts.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and as for fiscal conservatism -- several major highly conservative think tanks such as the Cato institute have come out against the Bush administration's current fiscal policy. You're right, yay for fiscal conservatism. Down with Bush.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:(this area was recently declared the least expensive area in the nation to live)- no mortgage or anything. I make around 50k,
*sniff*
Low cost of living and close to twice what I make!
*sniff*
Oh, and, yeah, it is good to see you again.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Sometimes I wonder ... do Democrats cut taxes exclusively for the lower classes because they're a larger, angrier voting bloc than the rich?
I'm curious, Democrats ... is there ever a good reason to cut taxes for the rich? I mean, should every other bracket be paying no taxes at all before a cent should come out of the highest one?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Don't ask me, I'm not a Democrat.
However, if I were to hazard a guess I'd say its because Democrats don't buy into supply side economics (which makes sense, as it really is voodoo economics -- "watch the supply side closely, pay no attention to the demand side behind the curtain"). However, this involves a reaction against many of the good things supply side gets right -- not surprisingly, about half, as the supply side is about half the economic equation and everything supply side economics advocates is about the supply side.
Of course, then there are Democrats who are in favor of greatly increased taxation for all and use of the money to implement highly conservative social policies, such as our good host.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
As a teacher banking on hopes that your pension fund -- which you don't pay for -- won't be looted and that your extensive medical benefits -- which you don't pay for -- won't be cut, your logic undoubtedly makes impeccable sense to you. And naturally as a Republican, you feel that borrowing other people's pension (SocialSecurity) and medical benefits (Medicare/etc) doesn't mean it has to be paid back, that reneging on loans isn't the same as theft.
However, have you compared your tax savings against the 50% rise in the cost of gasoline to run your car and the extra money spent to heat&cool&power your home? Have you noticed the increase in your car/home/etc insurance?
For those of us in the truly private sector, TANSTAAFL. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Enjoy your free lunch, which most of us have been and will continue to pay for.
[ February 21, 2004, 03:02 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
:gobbles: Mmm... thanks aspectre. I loves free meals.
Seriously, it should be obvious that taxes are NOT the only reason I'm voting for Bush, but that return does confirm for me my initial leanings. Most of you who know me know I'm in favor of the man's military actions. I disagree with some of the things he's proposed, and several of the things he's pushed through Congress, but on average, he's a decent man, a good leader, and I think putting Kerry in the White House in the midst of the present conflict(s) would be a serious mistake.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
50% gas increase? Is new jersey in some sort of gas price shelter or something?
Gas prices are ordinarily $1.25 or so around here, and $1.55 isn't a 50% jump (it's more like 25% or so).
Not saying it's not significant, or that I don't wish it were lower... but a 50% jump from normal would put gas prices here considerably higher.
Is New Jersey just special? We also haven't had a sales tax increase, yet (still holding at 6% and no tax on clothes or shoes).
Now, granted, our property taxes in this area are obscene, but that's cuz our politicians in Trenton are basically giving land away in Newark and making everyone else pay the taxes on it.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
quote:However, have you compared your tax savings against the 50% rise in the cost of gasoline to run your car and the extra money spent to heat&cool&power your home? Have you noticed the increase in your car/home/etc insurance?
Gas here is about $1.40, which is about where it was 4 years ago. It went down for a while, and it has come back up.
My electric bills are virtually the same as when I built my house 6 years ago.
My car insurance has remained essentially the same since I turned 29 (five years ago).
I'm better off economically, altogether, than I've ever been. I don't agree with Lalo's premise. I am a supply-side-leaning capitalist (with slight tweaking and reservations). I DO NOT like the excessive spending Bush and Congress have been involved in, but I don't see repealing tax cuts as the solution. Rather, they need to STOP spending so much money.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
This is a very odd thread. I find myself agreeing with those who I am usually opposing very stenuously.
Lalo has a good point:
quote: When we're seven trillion dollars in debt, that's all you're getting -- a tax advance, not a tax cut. You'll end up paying that money later, anyway -- or your kids will.
The only way to solve that issue is to freeze the tax rate where it is right now, then slash and burn on the spending side.
Fugu:
quote: Cato institute have come out against the Bush administration's current fiscal policy
I agree, this is a very good reason to oppose the Bush policy of increasing spending without regard to the debt.
Even Aspectre:
quote: ...hopes that your pension fund -- which you don't pay for -- won't be looted and that your extensive medical benefits -- which you don't pay for -- won't be cut... ... There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
I agree, people are way too reliant on these federal revocations of freedom. Bush's crazed binge on welfare spending is going to sink the boat. We are now adding over ONE HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS to our already huge debt of 7 TRILLION dollars, every year. This adds up to over 1/2 of the GDP of the entire country(which strangely counts government spending in with other productive activities).
Since that debt is the source of our money, the more debt we have, the more dollars there are in the economy. The federal reserve buys all the treasury bonds, with money it creates out of thin air, which are not purchased by the private sector. It is then allowed to use these bonds as "reserves" backing up its loans to other banks and government institutions, including the World Bank. So the larger our debt, the larger our money supply. In the end, we will see the same results of this easy money. The boom and bust cycle will continue solely because of central banking.
quote: which makes sense, as it really is voodoo economics -- "watch the supply side closely, pay no attention to the demand side behind the curtain
Also a good point. Most economic thought is laughably wrong these days. Austrian Economic thought is worth looking at.
[ February 21, 2004, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
David, did your tax bracket get an honest to god tax cut, or are you talking about the rebates for children?
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
SS-
Four things happened: 1) My deduction for married filing jointly was higher 2) the deduction per dependent was higher 3) the taxes for that adjusted bracket were slightly lower and 4) yes, the per child credit was increased (to $3,000)
I've decided not to be annoyed by your implication that the child credit is illegitimate as a break, because I realize how childless people feel about this (though I think they are to a large extent wrong in seeing these credits as pernicious).
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
BTW, I do agree that we are spending WAY too much, and that Bush's idiotic spending in welfare and education (which require REFORM, not more freaking money) is one of his weakest spots. Not convinced that anyone out there right now would do any better.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I've decided not to be annoyed by your implication that the child credit is illegitimate as a break, because I realize how childless people feel about this (though I think they are to a large extent wrong in seeing these credits as pernicious).
Um. I'm really confused. If I implied any such thing, I didn't mean to. I'm looking at what I wrote and, really, I don't get how it can be construed to have any kind of implication that the child credit is illegitimate. All I was doing was asking a question. Really. Honest. I swear. Scout's honor.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Well, welfare was largely reformed in the last part of the Clinton administration, through a plan made workable and famous by the current HHS secretary, Tommy Thompson. Biggest reason? Because it worked. Of course, a lot of its ability to work has been gutted by the removal of benefits through the Labor department.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Yes, fugu, one of Clinton's most shining moments.
I meant more specifically an overhaul of Medicaid rather than a tacking-on of prescription benefits that saddles the nation with more debt (something that I am also concerned with).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, no disagreement on the need to inform and reform medicaid.
However, I find your insistence that we can't afford to let go of Bush now for military reasons odd. We cannot afford to fight more wars, much less more invasions right now. We would benefit greatly from more international aid in, specifically, Iraq. We aren't getting much of such aid while Bush is in power, however if someone viewed as more internationally friendly were elected it seems likely more nations would jump on board.
There is no course to stay with regards to anti-terrorism. Bush's administration has largely stopped with its determination to get OBL, and with any intentions of lauching more invasions we can't afford, so keeping him around hardly keeps the dedication to bring the fight to the terrorists around. The "war on terrorism" may not be over, but the Bush administration's desire to commit troops to conflicts in it is (thankfully) gone.
I just don't see Bush as being particularly vital to a continued opposition of terrorism, while getting rid of, say, Ashcroft certainly seems to me like it would be vital to ensuring citizens' rights remain protected.
[ February 21, 2004, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
In the past four years, gas prices here have gone up from roughly a dollar to almost $1.70. The sales tax in my county is 7 or 7.5%, and they have a half-cent increase on the ballot right now. FWIW.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Well, you aren't REALLY paying less tax money. You're just paying less now. Spending is up, after all - a lot! It's just that Bush has taken a pay later approach.
It's kinda like paying your tax bill with a credit card and then saying "Whoopee! I don't have to pay anything this year!"
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
The tax cuts you enjoy will be payed for by your children, so who cares. Let those brats pay for it.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
::wonders how on earth DB knows he is saving more on taxes than he would have under Gore, since Gore wasn't elected President::
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
::gently reminds Ela that Gore opposed the Bush tax cut plan.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Just for the record, our taxes were not one bit lower with Bush's tax cuts.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think DB wouldn't have found his tax break all that far off --
![[Smile]](smile.gif)