Skip to main content

View Diary: John Boehner is holding us hostage (133 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I was going by this: (0+ / 0-)

    A family of four with a household income of $50,000 a year would pay $2,900 more in federal taxes in 2011 than this year if the cuts expire, according to an analysis by Deloitte Tax LLP, a tax consulting firm.

    I don't know if Deloitte Tax LLP is another right-wing think tank, I admit, but this is the number I found.

    •  Yeah, but that doesn't even pass a basic smell (0+ / 0-)

      test, since a family of 4 would have about $20,000 in deductions/exemptions - then factor in a raise ~5% or less in the relevant tax brackets - a ballpark estimate of the increase would be 0.05 x 30,000 or ~1,500 (which is close to the calculated value . . . ).

      Frankly, knowing that 74.3% of all internet statistics are simply made up out of thin air should give one pause, and hopefully prod them to think things out on their own . . .

      And, if somebody ain't willing to give $4 a day to help get his/her country back on track, well I'd categorize that person as a dyed-in-the-wool self-centered republican.

      •  Look, I'm not your enemy here (0+ / 0-)

        so please take it back a notch, okay?

        The $1000 child credit is part of the tax sunset, isn't it?

        And that's a CREDIT, not a DEDUCTION, so, since it doesn't begin to phase out until 55k or 75k, depending on some circumstances, wouldn't that be a difference of $2,000 right there?

        •  Is the $1000 tax credit part of (0+ / 0-)

          ARRA or the Bush Tax cuts?

          If the former, it's going away no matter what you're trying to claim (or more precisely, returning to $500 . . .  In any event, Wikipedia is a bit vague on this issue:

          The per-child amount was originally set at $400 in 1998, and has since increased to $1000 through tax-year 2010. There is a sunset provision to the Act that set this amount which will bring the amount down to $500 per-child in 2011.

          So, worst case scenario in your world, that'd be $1,000 not $2,000.

          Regardless, the calculator I linked to - from the Tax Foundation - isn't particular progressive, I have no idea why they're trying to soft peddle this issue as you seem to be claiming.

          •  No in my world (0+ / 0-)

            And I'm making no such claim.  I used the number I found.

            Whether it's $1600 or $2900 isn't the issue to me at all.  If Presidnet obama gets his way and cuts only the top, I'm getting hit, hard.

            And if I had my my way, I'd go further and there would be ANOTHER, HIGHER bracket at $1 million.

            •  OK, that's news to me . . . (0+ / 0-)

              If Presidnet obama gets his way and cuts only the top

              are you absolutely sure he's proposing to cut only the top?

              •  He's been calling for that (0+ / 0-)

                since the beginning of this debate, hasn't he?

                •  No, he seems to be accepting (0+ / 0-)

                  the fact that it may be necessary to accept tax breaks for the very wealthy in order to preserve the meagre tax breaks that we peons get . . . .

                  What I'm saying is that it is not worth it to me to keep a few cents a day (or maybe even a dollar or two) if the that means the ultra-wealthy keep their million dollar tax breaks and the country further slides into third world status.

                  but that seems to be something you and I fundamentally disagree about.  Oh well. sorry if I was a tad over-wrought about this all.

                  •  We don't disagree about it (0+ / 0-)

                    Other than the fact that most economists I've read say that dropping the tax cuts will hurt the recovery, I don't have a dog in that fight.

                    Oh, and we do disagree on the result, though - I think the average American family will be PISSED about a tax increase.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site