And i might add that its the tax cut S&L still denies happened. :D
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us...9taxes.html?hp
Printable View
And i might add that its the tax cut S&L still denies happened. :D
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us...9taxes.html?hp
I enter my pay into quicken twice a month. I've been doing it for 10 years. I have my "take home pay" memorized. Maybe I'm one of those 5%? Or as the article states, maybe it was noteably missable.
Unless I missed it, there wasn't an effective date stated in the article. I have records (that need shredding). Tell me when this happened and I'll go take a look - fair and balanced - I promise, and you know I'm good for it.
The tax cuts happened.I will continue to prove it over and over again.
I got money back and somehow you didnt. Interesting.
HUNTERSVILLE, N.C. — What if a president cut Americans’ income taxes by $116 billion and nobody noticed?
It is not a rhetorical question. At Pig Pickin’ and Politickin’, a barbecue-fed rally organized here last week by a Republican women’s club, a half-dozen guests were asked by a reporter what had happened to their taxes since President Obama took office.
“Federal and state have both gone up,” said Bob Paratore, 59, from nearby Charlotte, echoing the comments of others.
After further prodding — including a reminder that a provision of the stimulus bill had cut taxes for 95 percent of working families by changing withholding rates — Mr. Paratore’s memory was jogged.
“You’re right, you’re right,” he said. “I’ll be honest with you: it was so subtle that personally, I didn’t notice it.”
Few people apparently did.
In a troubling sign for Democrats as they head into the midterm elections, their signature tax cut of the past two years, which decreased income taxes by up to $400 a year for individuals and $800 for married couples, has gone largely unnoticed.
In a New York Times/CBS News Poll last month, fewer than one in 10 respondents knew that the Obama administration had lowered taxes for most Americans. Half of those polled said they thought that their taxes had stayed the same, a third thought that their taxes had gone up, and about a tenth said they did not know. As Thom Tillis, a Republican state representative, put it as the dinner wound down here, “This was the tax cut that fell in the woods — nobody heard it.”
Actually, the tax cut was, by design, hard to notice. Faced with evidence that people were more likely to save than spend the tax rebate checks they received during the Bush administration, the Obama administration decided to take a different tack: it arranged for less tax money to be withheld from people’s paychecks.
They reasoned that people would be more likely to spend a small, recurring extra bit of money that they might not even notice, and that the quicker the money was spent, the faster it would cycle through the economy.
Economists are still measuring how stimulative the tax cut was. But the hard-to-notice part has succeeded wildly. In a recent interview, President Obama said that structuring the tax cuts so that a little more money showed up regularly in people’s paychecks “was the right thing to do economically, but politically it meant that nobody knew that they were getting a tax cut.”
“And in fact what ended up happening was six months into it, or nine months into it,” the president said, “people had thought we had raised their taxes instead of cutting their taxes.”
There are plenty of explanations as to why many taxpayers did not feel richer when the cuts kicked in, giving typical families an extra $65 a month. Some people were making less money to begin with, as businesses cut back. Others saw their take-home pay shrink as the amounts deducted for health insurance rose.
And taxpayers in more than 30 states saw their state taxes rise, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
That is what happened here in North Carolina. The Treasury Department estimated that the federal tax cut would put $1.7 billion back in the hands of North Carolina taxpayers this year. Last year, though, North Carolina, facing a large budget shortfall, raised a variety of state taxes by roughly a billion dollars.
“It was a wash,” said Mr. Tillis, the state representative.
The guests at the Pig Pickin’ rally here could rattle off the names of the House speaker and the Senate majority leader with ease, if with disdain, and were up on many of the political controversies of the day. They studied the campaign fliers at their tables, and pocketed the 1.5-ounce jars of strawberry preserves with special labels urging them to vote for Judge Bill Constangy for Superior Court (“Preserving Justice,” the labels read).
Many volunteered that they thought the Bush tax cuts should be extended for all taxpayers, even for the wealthy ones whom Mr. Obama would like to exclude. But few had heard that there had also been Obama tax cuts — which will also expire next year unless extended, but have generated far less public debate.
Bob Deaton, 73, who wore a “Fair Tax” baseball cap, was surprised to hear that there were tax cuts in the $787 billion stimulus bill, which was wildly unpopular with many at the rally even though roughly a third of it was in the form of tax cuts.
“Tax cuts?” he asked. “Where were the tax cuts?”
Ron Julian, 50, a Huntersville town commissioner, said he thought his taxes had gone up under Mr. Obama. And Mr. Paratore, a former Hearst executive, said he might have noticed the tax cuts if his paycheck had jumped more in the weeks before he retired last year: “I couldn’t even tell you what it was, to be honest with you.”
The Obama administration wants to extend the little-noticed tax cut next year. Jason Furman, the deputy director of the National Economic Council, said the administration still believes that changing the withholdings was a more effective form of stimulus than sending out rebate checks would have been.
“In retrospect, we think that judgment was right,” he said. “It’s harder to predict what’s good for politics. Ultimately, the best thing for politics is going to be helping the economy.”
But at least one prominent economist is questioning whether the method really was more effective. Joel B. Slemrod, a professor of economics at the University of Michigan, analyzed consumer surveys after the last rebate checks were sent out in 2008 by the Bush administration, and after this tax cut, called Making Work Pay, went into effect under the Obama administration.
After the 2008 rebates, he found that about a quarter of the households surveyed said they would use the money primarily to increase their spending. After the Obama tax cut took effect, he said, only 13 percent said they would use the money primarily to increase their spending. The Obama administration believes that people did spend the money, and cites analyses calling the cut one of the more effective forms of stimulus.
Mr. Slemrod said it was not unheard of for voters to miss tax cuts. Just a few years after a 1986 overhaul of the tax system made significant cuts to most people’s taxes, he said, a survey asked people what had happened to their taxes. “Most people didn’t answer that they went down,” he said.
C'mon, you've been "modifying a post" for 15 minutes now............
Read and learn. Its all spelled out in the article. This article is not propaganda. Thats just a crazy thing to say. One of the problems with people today is facts have become irrelevant. They believe simply what they want to believe (Sadaam hussein was responsible for 9/11, Obama is a Nigerian Mustlim. etc)
"The signature tax cut of the past two years, which decreased income tax by
up to $400 for individuals and $480 for married couples..."
"Actually, the tax cut was, by design, hard to notice. Faced with evidence that people were more likely to save than spend the tax rebate checks they received during the Bush administration, the Obama administration decided to take a different tack: it arranged for less tax money to be withheld from people’s paychecks."
"There are plenty of explanations as to why many taxpayers did not feel richer when the cuts kicked in, giving typical families an extra $65 a month. Some people were making less money to begin with, as businesses cut back. Others saw their take-home pay shrink as the amounts deducted for health insurance rose.
And taxpayers in more than 30 states saw their state taxes rise, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities."
"The Obama administration wants to extend the little-noticed tax cut next year. Jason Furman, the deputy director of the National Economic Council, said the administration still believes that changing the withholdings was a more effective form of stimulus than sending out rebate checks would have been."
“In retrospect, we think that judgment was right,” he said. “It’s harder to predict what’s good for politics. Ultimately, the best thing for politics is going to be helping the economy.”
THIS NEXT PARAGRAPH ESPECIALLY GOES OUT TO S&L. LOL.
Mr. Slemrod said it was not unheard of for voters to miss tax cuts. Just a few years after a 1986 overhaul of the tax system made significant cuts to most people’s taxes, he said, a survey asked people what had happened to their taxes. “Most people didn’t answer that they went down,” he said.
Havakasha
Thanks for making the point about "propaganda".
If it's true it's not propaganda. Many who hear uncomfortable facts label them that way to dismiss their potency. And those that think Faux is objective cannot recognize facts at all.
S&L just freaked the hell out of me. To call that article "propaganda" was to display a kind of willful ignorance that is becoming all to common in American politics of late. Its just plain ****ed up.
As you know, facts are meaningless to the right. Your comment in the other thread re the book being simplistic is, I'm sure, correct. Because conservatives don't care about objectivity, nuance, just whether the "facts" fit their ideology. If they do, bingo. Everything is cool. No further consideration is necessary.
As I've said before, thinking objectively, scientifically, critically, without regard to ideology is sooo hard.
OK, is the love fest of higher ideas over?
I asked if you could provide me an effective date so I could look at my pay stubs. What's the resistance? Being the logical, scientific and critical thinker that I am, the best confirmation is visual.
It is propoganda. Here's the definition.
prop·a·gan·da
[prop-uh-gan-duh] Show IPA
–noun
1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.
Now you're telling me that you are NOT trying to help your democratic party? Why post at all. Oh, yeah that's right. You're altruistic, and want to help us.
OK, here's fact that hasn't been adequately addressed. Bush collected more tax receipts under his 8 years than Clinton did. Heck, I offer better ideas of why this fact occured then Lloyd did. All he did was spam the board with article after article of opinion and commentary. Then he goes on to say that the IRS receipts are wrong.
Havakasha, please unfreak yourself. You're being kind of, well, "dramatic" would be a better choice than what I was thinking.
All I've asked is for someone to tell me the date this was put into effect so I can check my pay stubs. For that I get "willful ignorance", and "dismiss the potency of facts"... C'mon guys?
Hurry up already!
Is it a post yet?
There is no propaganda in the fact of the tax cuts for 95% of the working population. Nor for how they were distributed. Show me ONE fact in the article that is untrue.
I dont think its dramatic to say that someone who just pretends that facts dont exist is somehow acting in a purely ideological way.
Read the article. Look at the numbers and how the tax cuts were distributed. I've presented other articles about the tax cuts. You simply deny what you dont want to be true. Will you accept the word of factcheck.org or will you say they are propagandist as well? If you cant figure out how much money YOU saved from the tax cuts then i cant help you. How about you do a little work and talk to your accountant before you deny the tax cuts happened. Ask him to tell you when the tax cuts went into effect.
I already posted an article that showed why your facts about bush tax receipts were incorrect. How many times should i post it. Jeez.
From politifact.com
Tax cut for 95 percent? The stimulus made it so
"President Barack Obama talked a lot about economic recovery during his State of the Union address on Jan. 27, 2010, including the benefits of the economic stimulus bill passed last year.
The stimulus, formally known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, included tax cuts for many Americans, Obama said.
"We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses," Obama said. "We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college."
Democrats applauded, while Republicans were silent for the most part. In one of the unscripted moments of the night, Obama looked at the Republican side of the room, smiled and said, "I thought I'd get some applause on that one."
Here, we wanted to check Obama's statement that he cut taxes for 95 percent of working families.
The key word in his statement is "working." Obama's claim is based on a tax cut intended to offset payroll taxes. Under the stimulus bill, single workers got $400, and working couples got $800. The Internal Revenue Service issued new guidelines to reduce withholdings for income tax, so many workers saw a small increase in their checks in April 2009.
The tax cut was part of Obama's campaign promises. During the campaign, Obama said he wanted $500 for each worker and $1,000 for working couples. Since the final number was a bit less than he promised, we rated his promise a Compromise on our Obameter, where we rate Obama's campaign promises for fulfillment.
During the campaign, the independent Tax Policy Center researched how Obama's tax proposals would affect workers. It concluded 94.3 percent of workers would receive a tax cut under Obama's plan based on the tax credit to offset payroll taxes. According to the analysis, the people who wouldn't get a tax cut are those who make more than $250,000 for couples or $200,000 for a single person. Obama said he intended to raise taxes on those high earners, a promise he reiterated during the State of the Union, and that revenue would offset the stimulus tax cut.
Because the stimulus act did give that broad-based tax cut to workers, we rate Obama's statement True."
S&L. DO YOU READ?
"BECAUSE THE STIMULUS ACT DID GIVE THAT BROAD BASED TAX CUT TO WORKERS WE RATE OBAMA'S STATEMENT TRUE"
Alas!
Who denied the tax decreases didn't exist? As I said, I may be on of the many who didn't see it, or one of the 5% who didn't get one. Don't know and asked for a date so I can go see for myself, (and I can't afford a tax accountant lol). Who denied that the stimulus package didn't work? What I've said consistently is that I haven't seen it in my industry. Period. I see the road projects.....
Facts do exist. Let's not get into some discussion on what "is" is. I've read your "so called facts" regarding the tax receipts. Sorry, it isn't there. We are talking about adding numbers. Assuming that the IRS can indeed track its reciepts, the question become "why" are the receipts higher under Bush. I suggested without proof adjustment for inflation and two, the bubble both of which are not flattering to Bush. Would you agree with those reasons?
factcheck.org - never heard of it. Don't know if that's good or bad.
Never heard of factcheck.org or politifact.com? How the HELL do you check on FOX news? I get it. you simply believe everything they say. Just great.
You have said IN THE PAST that the tax cuts didnt happen. DONT REMEMBER OR CHOOSE TO FORGET?
You also denied IN THE PAST that the stimulus created jobs. Look back at your posts.
I seem to remember that after i showed you that Warren buffett acknowledged the job creation from the stimulus that you relented a little.
You cant afford a tax accountant? You serious?
Thank you. I will go take a look. Drum roll please............
I'll be damned! It actually happened in Feb / Mar 2009. My withholding was reduced 86 bucks whilst claiming M1. Oddly enough though, even claiming M1 with two kids, I ended up writing a check back in March 2010. Funny how that works. Admittedly, I am untrustworthy of any politician or government entity.
I changed my withholding to M0 as to get a refund. The last thing I want to do is write a check after getting socked $500 per pay.
C'mon, you think I believe all of Fox News?
I can't say I never said it didn't happen; most typically the context I use is what I experience.
Dude - you wore me down on stimulus. What I said was that although it hasn't impacted me, my industry or my customers, I have to beleive it had benefit. I am still very skeptical about the cost effectiveness of such spending, and most certainly have posted on that to the tune of "$1 trillion dollars gets you only 90,000 job losses".
Should I have a tax accountant? I use turbo tax and do it myself. In the past we went to a service.