OT - Attention All Cigar Smokers!!

[sd_boxster]

Regardless of your political affiliation, it has to chafe you that a staggering percentage (the number is hotly debated, but it's somewhere between 40 and 50 percent) of "tax units" (single people or married couples) pay no taxes or receive a refund of 100% or more of tax they do pay.

That means that roughly 50% of eligible voters pay no tax, yet get a say in how the income of the other half gets spent.

Rather than just outlawing tobacco, slapping another tax on this non-necessity is another way to get into our wallets.

I own my own business. I pay tax on any money I have left over at the end of the year. I pay tax on the money I pay my employees. I pay "use" tax - every year - on stuff I already own. I pay property tax - every year - for the privilege of living in the home I bought with post-tax dollars. If I buy gas or tobacco, (I do buy the former, I don't the latter, but I digress), I pay a HUGE percentage in taxes. Finally, if I die and leave my money to someone else, it gets taxed yet again.

I am a patriot at heart, and I think the USA is a fantastic place to live. However, hearing that the "rich pay no taxes" makes me want to start swinging a tire iron.

The irony of paying a higher cigar tax is that money will now get burned up twice - once when you fire up your Ashton or Don Carlos, and again when the tax money gets frittered away on some social program you won't qualify for because your income is too high.

[Brucelee]

Originally Posted by sd_boxster

Regardless of your political affiliation, it has to chafe you that a staggering percentage (the number is hotly debated, but it's somewhere between 40 and 50 percent) of "tax units" (single people or married couples) pay no taxes or receive a refund of 100% or more of tax they do pay.

That means that roughly 50% of eligible voters pay no tax, yet get a say in how the income of the other half gets spent.

Rather than just outlawing tobacco, slapping another tax on this non-necessity is another way to get into our wallets.

I own my own business. I pay tax on any money I have left over at the end of the year. I pay tax on the money I pay my employees. I pay "use" tax - every year - on stuff I already own. I pay property tax - every year - for the privilege of living in the home I bought with post-tax dollars. If I buy gas or tobacco, (I do buy the former, I don't the latter, but I digress), I pay a HUGE percentage in taxes. Finally, if I die and leave my money to someone else, it gets taxed yet again.

I am a patriot at heart, and I think the USA is a fantastic place to live. However, hearing that the "rich pay no taxes" makes me want to start swinging a tire iron.

The irony of paying a higher cigar tax is that money will now get burned up twice - once when you fire up your Ashton or Don Carlos, and again when the tax money gets frittered away on some social program you won't qualify for because your income is too high.

I am totally with you. The agony is that even though we pay for most of what is spent on others, we still get pissed on by Obama for not paying our fair share. That is such a joke. You could at least say, "hey lets tell the truth, if these birds don't keep making the jobs and dough, you slackers are done for."

It will never happen btw. It is kind of sad.

[stephen wilson]

What income bracket pays zero taxes, or receives 100% refund? They must be making $30K or less.

[Brucelee]

Originally Posted by stephen wilson

What income bracket pays zero taxes, or receives 100% refund? They must be making $30K or less.

This link should help.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html

[Brucelee]

BTW- that data shows what a myth the issue of a middle class income tax cut is.

If 32% of folks are paying NOTHING, and you decide that you will cut the taxes of the BULK of the tax payers, HOW much money must you take from the so-called RICH??????

Give me a break. The non-tax payers will vote their interests which is to keep themselves as non-taxpayers.

God Bless America.

[FTD]

Don't you think a big jump on the price of cigarettes will increase theft of same? Cigarettes are already a draw to theives - about as much as a cash register is. On the flip side, this will boost the economy. The black market one.

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

BTW- that data shows what a myth the issue of a middle class income tax cut is.

If 32% of folks are paying NOTHING, and you decide that you will cut the taxes of the BULK of the tax payers, HOW much money must you take from the so-called RICH??????

Give me a break. The non-tax payers will vote their interests which is to keep themselves as non-taxpayers.

God Bless America.

What I find amusing is that 11 of the top 12 least income paying tax states happen to be overwhelmingly Republican.

10 of the 12 most income tax paying states happen to be Democrat

seems to me like the people most likely to vote for higher taxes are those who are mostly footing the bill to begin with.

[Brucelee]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

What I find amusing is that 11 of the top 12 least income paying tax states happen to be overwhelmingly Republican.

10 of the 12 most income tax paying states happen to be Democrat

seems to me like the people most likely to vote for higher taxes are those who are mostly footing the bill to begin with.

Well, you have to be careful about the conclusion. For example, here in the Soviet republic of Kalifornia, anti-tax senitment is high. HOWEVER, it is largely high among the income generating folks. We have so many TAKERS here who vote, they overwhealm the tax payers.

That is why we have such an exodus of citizens. The sane ones are fleeing the asylum.

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by stephen wilson

What income bracket pays zero taxes, or receives 100% refund? They must be making $30K or less.

Where are these people to be found? ZERO Taxes??
I don't think you are referrin' to our state. I don't know anyone making $50K (80% of this country) or $30K or less who doesn't pay property tax, sales tax, fuel tax, cell phone taxes, toll roads, etc.

I really get annoyed when I hear this notion that any working person in this country doesn't contribute to their local and state govts. There isn't a day the middle class and lower class don't dig into their pockets to pay for schools, roads, and state pensions.


I wish we would have seen more tax outrage when we were in the process of doubling our national debt in the span of less than eight years. Financing ten trillion in debt to the tune of hundreds of billion a year on wasted interest doesn't come from pork barrel spending cuts alone. Either cut entitlements or raise taxes.

Below are pallets of $100 bills. Now multiply the pic on the bottom by 5.
That's how much we spent but haven't paid for yet since 2000.


$1 Billion



$1 Trillion




" Don't tax HIM, Don't tax ME, tax that fellow behind the tree..."

^ whoever said that must not have been long U.S. treasuries....

[stephen wilson]

I'd have to agree, when I was single and earning $75K a year, I payed a large percentage of income taxes, with little refunded. Much more than my married co-workers. That link still doesn't give any earnings levels for these non-tax payers. I'd bet they're our large group of poverty level earners.

[Lil bastard]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

...I wish we would have seen more tax outrage when we were in the process of doubling our national debt in the span of less than eight years...

Uh... it seems as if 'your' guy is presiding over the single largest deficit in ALL of American history! At least that's how the History Books will record it!

Sure... you can blame it on the last guy... but if you peek beneath the skirt, you'll see a LOT of pork-barrel, ear-marked spending on items which fit a social adjenda and aren't truly relevent to the troubles at hand, and in fact, detract from it.

Increasing Food Stamps (I don't recall seeing any present Food Stamp recipients starving on the streets, or running around with extended bellies - seems increasing Food Stamp subsidies targets a particular voting demographic - , of course any resemblance is surely coincidental)... and as several learned economic academics have cited in the last 10 days, the Administration AND the congress ought to be targeting the economy EXCLUSIVELY and not cloud the picture (and expend energies) with partisan, special interest issues and programs - aka Equal Pay for Women, Stem Cell Research, Partisan re-districting, Cigar Taxes, Abortion, and so on. It's about the ECONOMY STUPID!

Get that straight and then go off and satisfy your personal adjenda! Without a strong and growing economy, everything else is for naught!! All IMHO of course...

[Brucelee]

Originally Posted by Lil bastard

Uh... it seems as if 'your' guy is presiding over the single largest deficit in ALL of American history! At least that's how the History Books will record it!

Sure... you can blame it on the last guy... but if you peek beneath the skirt, you'll see a LOT of pork-barrel, ear-marked spending on items which fit a social adjenda and aren't truly relevent to the troubles at hand, and in fact, detract from it.

Increasing Food Stamps (I don't recall seeing any present Food Stamp recipients starving on the streets, or running around with extended bellies - seems increasing Food Stamp subsidies targets a particular voting demographic - , of course any resemblance is surely coincidental)... and as several learned economic academics have cited in the last 10 days, the Administration AND the congress ought to be targeting the economy EXCLUSIVELY and not cloud the picture (and expend energies) with partisan, special interest issues and programs - aka Equal Pay for Women, Stem Cell Research, Partisan re-districting, Cigar Taxes, Abortion, and so on. It's about the ECONOMY STUPID!

Get that straight and then go off and satisfy your personal adjenda! Without a strong and growing economy, everything else is for naught!! All IMHO of course...

Indeed, if you can't see through this budget and stimulus bill, you aren't looking.

[Brucelee]

I want a massive stimulus, but hey, I don't want to pay for it!

Hmmm, if not this guy, who?









Hey, Mr. President: Who You Calling Rich?
By Stephen P. Diamond, Jr.
Progressive Blogger/Street Sweeper.com/Attorney

Last week, millions of Americans were surprised to discover that they are rich.

Well, not really.

But under President Obama’s proposed budget, many taxpayers earning more than $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married couples) and less than $500,000 have suddenly found themselves lumped together with the likes of Stephen Schwarzman and Donald Trump, even though they don’t own a private jet, live in a baronial mansion or bring Rod Stewart in to sing for them at their birthday parties.

I applaud the President for ramming through a massive stimulus package to kick start the economy into recovery. But his idea to fund it by raising taxes on the very people who will need to pick up where the stimulus package leaves off, is myopic and dangerously misguided.

Fortune magazine’s Shawn Tully has called these people “HENRYs” –aka “high earners, not rich yet.” They are doctors, lawyers, consultants, managers and small business owners who have prospered in recent years. At first glance, the president’s plan to make the rich pay a bigger share of the nation’s tax bill would seem to make sense.

The only problem is that the HENRYs are not rich.

As Tully explains, “‘Rich’ means personal wealth, or net worth, not income.” Raising taxes on HENRYs at a time when much of the value of their assets–their homes and retirement portfolios–has evaporated, could have unintended negative consequences for the economy and the president’s plan for recovery. Why? Because the HENRYs are big spenders. They are “the bulwark of the professional and entrepreneurial class that drives the economy,” writes Tully.

He’s not kidding. A 2007 HSBC Direct Consumer Survey found that people earning between $50,000 and $100,000 save more regularly than people earning between $200,000 and $250,000 per year, and revealed that 49% of respondents earning at least $250,000 a year failed to save more because they “want some spending money.”

On top of their discretionary purchases, HENRYs carry significant mortgages, pay heavy property taxes, make charitable donations and sock money away for their children’s college education.

Under the president’s plan, beginning in 2011, HENRYs would see their federal income tax rates rise from 33% to 36% and, in the highest tax bracket, from 35% to 39.6%. More importantly, the president’s plan would reduce the amount of mortgage interest and charitable donations that HENRYs could deduct for income tax purposes, from 35% to 28%.

Faced with declining asset values, tough economic times and higher tax bills, HENRYs will very likely rein in discretionary spending this year and next.

That’s bad news for a consumer-driven economy like the United States, which saw consumer spending in the fourth quarter of 2008 plunge to a 26-year low. But reducing mortgage interest deductions makes even less sense when the federal government is trying to reverse or at least stabilize falling housing prices–which, lest we forget, is how we got into this mess in the first place. One of the main incentives for HENRYs to buy a house (or anyone else for that matter) is that they can deduct more than a third of their annual mortgage interest payments from their adjusted gross income. Why buy a house when taxes are climbing and the housing market is tanking if the government is removing your ability to afford the payments?

In fact, the president’s decision to squeeze more taxes from HENRYs is pregnant with potential negative consequences.

Dual income families, in which one spouse’s salary is just below $250,000 and the other’s is significantly less, may decide that the increase in their marginal tax rate negates the benefits of the second salary , when combined with existing high childcare expenses. Many of these families could move to cut their tax liability and expenses by having one parent stop working to raise their children. Childcare companies would see smaller revenues, household spending would decrease and the U.S. labor force would contract even further (both from parents leaving the work force and childcare company lay offs), to name just a few possible ramifications.

If higher income taxes force HENRYs to cut back further charitable organizations, public school systems (many HENRYs send their children to private schools), automakers and other public and private sectors of the economy will pay the price. Such unintended consequences would work to counteract the potential benefits of the economic stimulus package the president signed last month.

I applaud the president for ramming through a massive stimulus package to kick start the economy into recovery. But his idea to fund it by raising taxes on the very people who will need to pick up where the stimulus package leaves off, is myopic and dangerously misguided.

Japan proved during its so-called “Lost Decade” that raising taxes during an economic downturn has a negative effect on consumer spending. “To counter mounting debt created by government stimulus packages,” observed former Secretary of the Treasury (and State) James Baker in Monday’s Financial Times, “Japan increased taxes in 1997. Consumption dropped and the country’s economy collapsed.”

The Japanese experience holds an ominous warning for President Obama.

Make no mistake–high net worth Americans (i.e., the truly rich) can afford and should pay higher taxes. But the president has cast too wide a net in his attempt to capture the big fish. Under his plan he will also trap the smaller ones that need to be let go. His recovery can’t work if he follows his current plan. Unless he wants his economic initiatives to fail, he should let the HENRYs go.