26 replies to this topic

[questionmark]

Washington Post said:

By now, we’ve heard all about the big stuff in the fiscal cliff bill that finally passed on Tuesday. The Bush tax cuts will become permanent for all individual income below $400,000 (and family income below $450,000). The sequester spending cuts will be delayed two months. And so on.

But Congress also managed to include all sorts of corporate tax breaks and other arcane provisions into the final bill, covering everything from electric scooters to NASCAR racetracks to taking the subway to work. Most of these tax breaks were already longstanding provisions — Congress has been working to renew them all year. They’re just being extended again for another year (or sometimes two), at a total cost of roughly $77 billion.

So let’s take a look at 10 of the more curious tax provisions in the fiscal cliff bill—it offers some insight into how messy the tax code is, and will continue to be for another year. (You can find the full text of the cliff bill here, with the individual tax extenders in Title II and the corporate tax extenders in Title III.)

Read more

[Kasey2601]

I don't want my tax dollars supporting NASCAR!

[questionmark]

Lady Kasey, on 02 January 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

I don't want my tax dollars supporting NASCAR!

I don't want to have to pay for my annual bottle of rum if they get so much tax money!

[Hilander]

Oh God, we really need nascar tracks and rum.

[Kasey2601]

questionmark, on 02 January 2013 - 08:11 PM, said:

I don't want to have to pay for my annual bottle of rum if they get so much tax money!

There's other rum.

[Hasina]

NASCAR tracks and rum? Is it time for the Hasina family reunion already?

[Rafterman]

This is exactly why I'm more and more convinced that our fiscal problems cannot be solved by elected representatives beholden to their constituents and special lobbying interests.  My feeling is that we need to essentially place the US in receivership for a set period of time and let a Bain Capital like group come in and fix everything.

[questionmark]

Rafterman, on 03 January 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

This is exactly why I'm more and more convinced that our fiscal problems cannot be solved by elected representatives beholden to their constituents and special lobbying interests.  My feeling is that we need to essentially place the US in receivership for a set period of time and let a Bain Capital like group come in and fix everything.

Make the goat chief gardener? Fantastic plan!

[WoIverine]

I noticed that social security is going up 2% for everyone who actually works for a living. Fun times, seeing as how most of us will never have social security.

So, that's about -$20 to $50 per check. People are going to be shocked when they get their first paycheck of the new year.

Edited by WoIverine, 03 January 2013 - 07:16 PM.

[ninjadude]

Rafterman, on 03 January 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

  My feeling is that we need to essentially place the US in receivership

That would mean that you recognize some foreign authority over the US government.

[ninjadude]

WoIverine, on 03 January 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

seeing as how most of us will never have social security.

The payroll tax holiday was always a temporary thing. What did you do with the extra money over the past year?

Social security is not broke and your above statement is simply wrong.

[WoIverine]

ninjadude, on 03 January 2013 - 07:25 PM, said:

The payroll tax holiday was always a temporary thing. What did you do with the extra money over the past year?

Social security is not broke and your above statement is simply wrong.

What did I do with the extra money over the past year? Well, generally one needs to pay bills to survive, unless you're permanently on the government's dole.

Edited by WoIverine, 03 January 2013 - 07:48 PM.

[White Unicorn]

WoIverine, on 03 January 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

I noticed that social security is going up 2% for everyone who actually works for a living. Fun times, seeing as how most of us will never have social security.

So, that's about -$20 to $50 per check. People are going to be shocked when they get their first paycheck of the new year.

here's  a link for everyone SSA is not updated yet but it gives you the idea of things.

http://www.ssa.gov/p...lafacts2012.htm

They'd could have a lot more to spend if they raised the cap on the wealthiest of wage earners maybe even at a lesser percentage at the higher ends of earned income. They could tax lower income earners a lower percentage of income.  Social security would be much more funded. Most of us have to pay the tax on every dime we make but not them. Since none of us are really going to collect what we put into the system, I don't think that would be too unfair to ask from the higher wage earners!

I was one of them before,  but now since I'm under employeed and spouse's unemployment ran out years ago and I'm  the only wage earner in the house, my net is now $400 more than the couples on SSI  but we don't get any breaks like SNAP, housing, utility or medical perks because my gross is still too high to get any  breaks on anything,  so they actually net more cash! Years of spending down savings and retirement funds to survive has been an experience.  

They also need more ways to clean up fraud like people earning money under the table but still collecting benefits.  Lots of ways to protect the benefits for those who need it, if they only would do it!

People like you and me pay the same social security rate as the ones still gainfully employed!  System stinks but I really don't want to see the people who really need SSA benefits deprived of their only income in the future.

[acidhead]

Both partys are bought and paid for by the same private interest.  This fiscal cliff fiasco is nothing but BS but served the two party system perfectly.

[Simbi Laveau]

There wasn't even such a thing as a fiscal cliff,until they made it up ,to they could snow job us some more .
No surprise about weird issues there in. They're making it up as they go . duh