While I was vacationing, I decided to go deep sea fishing.
I went out about 25 miles to the 600 fathom line and suddenly hooked into something BIG! Man, I thought it might be a nuclear submarine! It really put up a fight.
But, when I forced it to the surface, it was just an old Russian diesel sub.
I should have cut my line at that point but the Capitan popped up on the deck. He said a few words in Russian that I can't translate here. Then, to punctuate it all, he gave me the International salute with both hands.
Well, I tied off my fishing line to the back of my boat and grabbed the oars.
I pulled his little diesel submarine around backwards for about 20 minutes. Now that really pissed him off.
He got up on deck and started shooting at me with one of those Kalashnikov rifles.
I wasn't scared none. I had stirred up the ocean so bad with my oars that the little diesel sub was bobbing up and down like a yo-yo.
But, all good fun has to end so I cut my line and headed for the beach.
Sure enough, that Russian captain decided to chase me. And, it looked like he might until he ran up on a sand bar about a quarter mile from shore.
I just laughed and rowed up on the beach. I did a little happy dance and gave him a flag salute of my own.
Then, I waded back out to the sand bar and pushed him back into the ocean.
After all, I'm a catch and release kind of fisherman.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Tommy Sandoval and the Gainesville Times
I thought I'd revisit Mr. Sandoval's essay on how George Bush has cut taxes for ... all the middle class.
His hypothetical example, a married couple making $40,000 before taxes, with two children under age 17, who lived at home with mom and dad, would have gotten a 96% tax cut from George Bush.
That's very hypothetical and I sincerely doubt Mr. Sandoval knows all the assumptions.
I did the math using a 1040 and my personal situation. I still would have paid several hundred dollars in income taxes if I had two 17 year kids. Not at all close to the $46 claimed by Sandoval.
To be very honest, I could redo all the numbers so that the mythical married couple get no additional benefit from the Child Tax Credit.
But, I would have to assume several things.
(1.) Two wage earners making $10 an hour.
That's very possible in this economy.
So two people working a combined 4,000 hours a year.
(2.) Two children in daycare.
That seems very reasonable as well. My son has two children in daycare. And, he pays dearly every week for that service. But, he gets a nice tax credit for his daycare expenses. In the Gainesville area, daycare costs around $140 per child. In my example, I use $155 per week for 2 children or about half the going rate in Gainesville, Georgia.
Tax credit for my hypothetical couple? $2,450!!!!!!!
Now what are those boring numbers?
Real Income .............................$40,000
Minus the standard deduction (not itemizing) ............................-$10,700
New balance for taxable income ............................ $29,300
Minus the exemptions for dependents and self ........................... -$13,600
New balance for taxable income ........................... $15,700
The tax liability for income of $15,700, married filing jointly? $1,576
Credit for childcare expenses? $2,450.
Net tax liability? ZERO!!!!!!!!!!!
How much did the family of four get from the George Bush tax cuts?
ZERO!
Now, we should ask one more question.
How much would a family of four with earnings of $100,000 get from the Child Tax Credit?
$2,000.
So in reality, Sandoval is very, very wrong.
A family making $40,000 gets no benefit from the changes in the Child Tax Credit but a family making $100,000 gets $2,000!
Yes, the Bush Tax Cuts go to the richest members of society.
Mr. Sandoval should be ashamed.
His hypothetical example, a married couple making $40,000 before taxes, with two children under age 17, who lived at home with mom and dad, would have gotten a 96% tax cut from George Bush.
That's very hypothetical and I sincerely doubt Mr. Sandoval knows all the assumptions.
I did the math using a 1040 and my personal situation. I still would have paid several hundred dollars in income taxes if I had two 17 year kids. Not at all close to the $46 claimed by Sandoval.
To be very honest, I could redo all the numbers so that the mythical married couple get no additional benefit from the Child Tax Credit.
But, I would have to assume several things.
(1.) Two wage earners making $10 an hour.
That's very possible in this economy.
So two people working a combined 4,000 hours a year.
(2.) Two children in daycare.
That seems very reasonable as well. My son has two children in daycare. And, he pays dearly every week for that service. But, he gets a nice tax credit for his daycare expenses. In the Gainesville area, daycare costs around $140 per child. In my example, I use $155 per week for 2 children or about half the going rate in Gainesville, Georgia.
Tax credit for my hypothetical couple? $2,450!!!!!!!
Now what are those boring numbers?
Real Income .............................$40,000
Minus the standard deduction (not itemizing) ............................-$10,700
New balance for taxable income ............................ $29,300
Minus the exemptions for dependents and self ........................... -$13,600
New balance for taxable income ........................... $15,700
The tax liability for income of $15,700, married filing jointly? $1,576
Credit for childcare expenses? $2,450.
Net tax liability? ZERO!!!!!!!!!!!
How much did the family of four get from the George Bush tax cuts?
ZERO!
Now, we should ask one more question.
How much would a family of four with earnings of $100,000 get from the Child Tax Credit?
$2,000.
So in reality, Sandoval is very, very wrong.
A family making $40,000 gets no benefit from the changes in the Child Tax Credit but a family making $100,000 gets $2,000!
Yes, the Bush Tax Cuts go to the richest members of society.
Mr. Sandoval should be ashamed.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Giving the other side
Published March 31, in the Gainesville Times.
See my rebuttal below:
See my rebuttal below:
Your views: GOP's child income tax credit is a great help to middle class
POSTED March 31, 2008 2 a.m.
Whenever left-wingers start complaining about how President Bush’s tax cuts helped only the rich, they inevitably ignore the biggest cut the president provided for the middle class: the child income tax credit, a decidedly family-friendly policy.
President Bush’s cuts doubled this credit from $500 to $1,000. If you are married and have children ages 17 and under at home, and you pay taxes, you continue to benefit significantly from this cut.
The middle class has benefited greatly over the years from this increase. For example, under President Bush’s cuts, a married couple making only $40,000 a year and with two children got a 96 percent cut in federal income taxes; their federal bill dropped from $1,178 to $45, some $1,000 of that being from the doubling of the child tax credit.
When the median household income in the U.S. in 2006 was $48,201 — about $43,000 in Georgia — this cut means a great deal to the middle class: teachers, many office workers, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, real estate agents, middle- and higher-end factory workers and many others.
If you have children and pay taxes, you might want to keep the Republicans’ increased child tax credit in mind when you hear people claiming the middle class did not get a cut. You might also want to keep in mind that an important segment of Democrats opposed this family-friendly middle class cut originally. In other words, they did not want middle-class families to get this particular cut.
Worse, many Democrats want to end it with other Bush cuts. In fact, their recently released budget and tax plan would end it.
Tommy Sandoval
Gainesville
Gainesville Times
A letter sent to the editor on March 31, 2008.
I am glad the Gainesville Times provides a section of the paper for Letters to the Editors. Recently, Tommy Sandoval wrote a very interesting essay on how President Bush has cut taxes 96% for "a married couple making only $40,000 a year."
I truly welcome dialogue on the subject of government and taxation. But, I wish Mr. Sandoval had provided some sources so everyone could double-check his essay published on March 31st.
Checking some IRS information (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/99in11si.xls and http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in11si.xls ), a taxpayer making an average of $34,000 per year paid an average of $2457 in federal income taxes. Not $45 dollars as Mr. Sandoval seems to think.
Checking the 2005 tax returns, taxpayers making between $30,000 and $40,000 per year, the Child Tax Credit did not double. It did increase about 20 percent over the year 1999. That means a decrease in federal income tax of about 7 percent, not "96%."
Mr. Sandoval and other well-meaning people think the Democrats are ending major tax cuts for the middle class. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 had a sunset clause that automatically terminates the act in 2010. Without the sunset clause, the act would have violated Title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which has been known as Pay-As-You-Go or PAYGO. Obeying PAYGO could have prevented irresponsible politics and prevented the huge deficit spending under President Bush.
Mr. Sandoval thinks the Democrats "want to end" the fictional 96% tax cut for "a married couple making only $40,000 a year" along with the other Bush cuts. In reality, Democrats want to stop borrowing money from China. To stop the borrowing from China and from oil rich Middle Eastern countries, we need to obey the letter of the law. Laws like PAYGO and specifically, the law that forces the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 to die as promised on January 1, 2011.
Being responsible isn't easy. Its just the right thing to do.
I am glad the Gainesville Times provides a section of the paper for Letters to the Editors. Recently, Tommy Sandoval wrote a very interesting essay on how President Bush has cut taxes 96% for "a married couple making only $40,000 a year."
I truly welcome dialogue on the subject of government and taxation. But, I wish Mr. Sandoval had provided some sources so everyone could double-check his essay published on March 31st.
Checking some IRS information (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi
Checking the 2005 tax returns, taxpayers making between $30,000 and $40,000 per year, the Child Tax Credit did not double. It did increase about 20 percent over the year 1999. That means a decrease in federal income tax of about 7 percent, not "96%."
Mr. Sandoval and other well-meaning people think the Democrats are ending major tax cuts for the middle class. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 had a sunset clause that automatically terminates the act in 2010. Without the sunset clause, the act would have violated Title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which has been known as Pay-As-You-Go or PAYGO. Obeying PAYGO could have prevented irresponsible politics and prevented the huge deficit spending under President Bush.
Mr. Sandoval thinks the Democrats "want to end" the fictional 96% tax cut for "a married couple making only $40,000 a year" along with the other Bush cuts. In reality, Democrats want to stop borrowing money from China. To stop the borrowing from China and from oil rich Middle Eastern countries, we need to obey the letter of the law. Laws like PAYGO and specifically, the law that forces the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 to die as promised on January 1, 2011.
Being responsible isn't easy. Its just the right thing to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
