Americans paying less Taxes this year

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36521481/ns/business-personal_finance/

WASHINGTON - You wouldn't know it by the Tax Day rhetoric, but Americans are paying lower taxes this year, even with increases passed by many states to balance their budgets. Don't expect it to last.

Congress cut individuals' federal taxes for this year by about $173 billion shortly after President Barack Obama took office, dwarfing the $28.6 billion in increases by states.

In the next few years, however, many can expect to pay more. Some future increases were enacted as part of Obama's health care overhaul. And former President George W. Bush's tax cuts expire in January. Obama and the Democrats want to renew only some of them, thus raising taxes for individuals making more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000.

...

"The fact is in the past year we have had more tax cuts than almost anytime in our nation's history," said Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn. "It's something that people don't realize because of the false rhetoric that is spread throughout this Congress."

...

The massive economic recovery package enacted last year included about $300 billion in tax cuts over 10 years. About $232 billion was in cuts for individuals, nearly all in the first two years.

The most generous was Obama's Making Work Pay credit, which gives individuals up to $400 and couples up to $800 for 2009 and 2010. The $1,000 child tax credit was expanded to more families, and the working poor can qualify for as much as $5,657 from the Earned Income Tax Credit.

There were also credits for qualified families who buy new homes or make energy improvements to existing ones, as well as tax breaks to help pay college tuition or buy new cars.

"From investing in small business to buying a home or making it energy efficient, to sending your children to college to buying a car, these tax cuts are helping families and businesses across the country," said Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-Mo.

...

At the same time, many states raised taxes last year because they are required by state constitutions to balance their budgets, even during a recession. In all, states increased personal income taxes by $11.4 billion, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. They increased sales taxes by $7.2 billion and business taxes by $2 billion.

The biggest tax increase in the health care overhaul is limited to individuals making more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000, though other increases would hit lower income taxpayers.


Based on this analysis it seems Federal taxes are going to stay lower for next year as well -- which means the Tea Party will have to wait almost 2 years before they can begin to scream about "Taxes!!"

*State* taxes are going up, yes... but that isn't the Administration specifically, but rather a nasty side-effect of the recession forcing states to balance in a short-fall environment.

Additionally, when health care taxes go into effect, I am of the belief that the lower costs of premiums, lower cost of preventative care, and higher productivity based on a healthier workforce will offset (or at least be comparable to) the costs of such taxes.    Maybe I'm being an optimist...but we have working models to examine so I think we have a decent shot of that happening.


So "Taxes" are lower right now, and even when they will increase -- they increase with benefit to everyone.

Agree?  Disagree?

Don't we have better things to talk about?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I hear a lot people talk about "being political". Yet all they seem to talk about is:

Did you hear what Rush Limbaugh said?
Did you hear what Ann Coulter said?
Did you hear what happened at the Tea Party Convention?
Did you know that this one guy was mean to another guy?
Have you seen the latest thing on the Fox News?
OMG Jon Stewart totally pwned some guy!

Wait, what happened to the politics? It is strange that as a country we devote a considerable amount of our time and energy into arguing about who we/each other are. But what does that have to do with politics? Have we become so atrophied by identity-issues that we are confusing one for the other? What is the most important thing here? Whether or not side X are really like the Nazis? Whether or not we are the best side?

I don't get it. Can someone help me out here?

Ignorance on Parade at Boston Tea Party

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

Yesterday, Boston played host to the Tea Party Express and speaker Sarah Palin (among other guests). It should come as no surprise that a handful of crashers were there to paint the Tea Party in a bad light.


I'm sure these girls make their mothers SO proud...

( More pictures, story, and source )

Well educated and racist.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

There is some buzz about the poll result published in the NY Times today that says that tea party members are more well-off and more educated than average Americans. Some folks have been surprised by this data, others suspect it is false due to poor polling methods or bad self-reporting of education level. I, however, think it's spot on-- at least, it matched my impression of the tea party members from the beginning.

I have no idea why so many liberals have it in their heads the teabaggers are simply “rednecks” or “white trash” (to use two more problematic labels.) This old, just above middle class, white male conservative demographic is one I’m familiar with. It’s the base of the Republican party. The “core” if you will. I think when people witness the absurdity, the bigotry, the racism, homophobia etc. the thought is to assume it must be from uneducated people. The idea that educated people can’t be racist is one of the great lies we have in this country. It is very comfortable to point a finger at a poor uneducated racist– less easy to realize that you may have gone to college with some of these folks. (I know I did–)

I don't think that education does much to make people less racist. Some of the most virulent racists are highly educated. Take John Derbyshire for example. His ideas about race are right out of the 19th century. But he imagines himself an intellectual, no doubt. He's even written a book about prime numbers. (As a graduate student in mathematics I submit it is not a very good book, it's pithy, and it is not worth buying at all.)

I have a theory about these folks. Most of them have worked pretty hard, and they are doing “ok” becuase of it, they are also doing “ok” because of white privilege, male privilege- but, I would not wait around for them to recognize *that* –the point is, they did pay their dues, to some extent, and they believe in the American dream (you see those flags) but what they can’t understand is WHY they aren’t millionaires yet– A upper-middle class liberal like myself can recognize the vast divide– the ~classism~ that makes it very difficult for me to go from “well off” to millionaire. I don’t take “the American dream” at face value. I work hard, but I’m under no illusions that through hard work alone the sky is the limit– I recognize my luck, my privilege, and I don’t really think I’m fundamentally different or better than most poor people.

But, these folks just *know* they are better than the poor. They think their work should have limitless rewards. They have started to hit the ceiling– since even for a straight white male from a middle class background, there are *still* ceilings– you are not the child of warren buffet. He won’t ever ask you over for diner. But, I think they assume that what's holding them back are the successes of "undeserving" minorities like myself. These are the folks who *assume* I'm getting help from 'affirmative action'-- when, in fact, I had to work harder than they did to get to the same goddamed place.

World poverty and adoption - the right to buy yourself a child?

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Recent events with a 6 year old boy adopted from Russia by a family from Tennessee and then sent home on a plane alone, only a year later made me ponder the issue of privilege, wealth and children. The Tennessee case has now lead to Russia putting a temporary hold on adoptions from Russia to the US until matters have been investigated.
Authorities have also reported that fourteen Russian children have died of abuse in the US during the last decade.

Just to make it clear: this is not a problem exclusive to the US, but a problem that exists in all wealthy countries that deal with international adoption on any larger scale. In Sweden there was a public discussion in 2006 leading to some suggestions in tightening laws around adoption, after a scandal after a Romani boy from the Czech Republic was suspected to have been abused to death by his Swedish foster parents.
The new law discussion (which lead to some changes)circulated around such facts as:

*International adoption deals with around half a million kids/year

*Since the 1950's when it started, international adoptions have been run by private organizations, dependent on adoption fees (usually between $7000-30000 depending on case and country)

* In most adopting countries some form of initial investigation is made of the family willing to adopt, either by social services or the agency, but since the host country (a country of significantly weaker economy than the adopting country) is incredibly eager to adopt children away, the agencies are in need of money for their expenses, and since the home investigation is seen as an intrusion by the investigated parents, it is often not as thorough an affair as it perhaps should be.

* This has lead to many wealthy families being able to adopt, in spite of having mental heath issues or even addiction problems within their ranks.

Basically, what the articles and discussions bluntly were asking was: is it okay for these adults to adopt for their own sake primarily and not for the sake of the children?

Personally, I'm very much in favor of international adoption, I just think that there should be a stronger support system for the rights of the child, and that this support system must be driven independently from the agencies and by representatives from both countries in question.

The recent Tennessee case, is not by any means the worst example for how things can go wrong. I can definitely understand some of the problems that this (clearly unprepared) family faced in taking care of a child well beyond infancy in age, who lived his whole life without learning such basic things as parental bonding from an early age, learning conflict resolution, learning pride in ownership, and much more. But even though it doesn't seem like the boy was beaten or physically abused, I as a reader of the news articles about this incident couldn't help but react when I heard that the family had hurried to change the boy's name as soon as he reached his new country.

The boy's name was Artyom, but he was named Justin by his new parents, and while I think it's okay to change names so they sound more like the ones in the new country, I still can't shake that the boy was six years old already, and had probably bonded with his name. I can only hope that he had a saying in picking a new name, and what name that was suppose to be. It's a small thing, but just one of many actions that could be taken toward a sentient half grown individual in order to "mold" him/her into what the family really wants and has payed for in their own minds. And so your new kid gets sick, or has issues, and then you return him?

How much should the privilege of money be able to buy? And what rights do children have when they come from poverty into wealth? Do these children still have rights, even if their country of origin doesn't defend those rights, but sell them off to the highest bidder?

It would be interesting to hear how people think these rights could be improved, and if they should.

The US Needs an Article 9

[ghoststrider.livejournal.com]

So for my Japanese class over here in Osaka, I'm doing a survey of Japanese students and their opinions regarding Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, which prohibits--at least in theory--a military and renounces the "right to belligerency." The official English translation is, quoted from Wikipedia for those who don't want to open another tab:

ARTICLE 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

I think the US should adopt something similar.

I'm not a pacifist by any means, although I am what you might call a "defensivist". I believe the only just role for the military to act as a means of defense for the nation, not a toy for politicians to use to court votes and invade foreign countries. Unfortunately, nearly every politician since Wilson, on both sides of the aisle, is all too ready to send our armed forces overseas for some dumb reason that only wastes America's blood and treasure--and stirs up enmity all around. (Some will undoubtedly raise World War II to which I respond that it is sui generis and we were also attacked by Japan.)

I don't agree entirely with Article 9's wording, but I do like the part where the "right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized." This is crucial, I think, for preventing more foreign expeditions. If the state has no right to attack another country, as stipulated by its own constitution, then it cannot. And while the government seen fit to defecate on the Constitution every day, with (neo-)conservatives championing the Constitution, that'll put a right thorn in their side the next time they want to smack down some towelheads. I would also make sure that the government would be allowed to use the terms "air force," "navy," and "tanks," rather than stupid terms such as "special vehicles," because obfuscation is never good.

There's also the part where the JSDF is not actually a military, so its members are not actually soldiers; rather, they're considered "special public servants" and are civilians, tried in civilian courts. There are also no special military laws, no military secrets, none of that bullshit. Some will think of that as a bad thing. I don't.

What do you think? Should the US adopt an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting it from waging war overseas and using its military strictly for "home-soil" defense (i.e, not based in foreign countries)? If not, I must honestly ask why.