Including in your monthly paycheck over 12-months. I'd say that's "putting more money back into taxpayer's pockets. Wouldn't you? "Allowing them to keep more of what they earn
Shifted the level of the flat exemption upward. Meaning instead of being able to exempt earn income at say, $65,000 (or whatever the level was before the increase, you now have to earn MORE money in order to claim the AMT.
You're talking about individuals who quite likely work in low-income jobs or work part-time. These individuals may not earn enough to pay into the federal income tax, but I'm sure many of them do pay state taxes. Regardless, I know for a fact that there are some people who fall in this category that DO have children. Now, I agree with your premise here, that if you don't pay "federal" income tax, why should you qualify for a "federal" tax credit? Problem here is, the states usually don't have this credit. So, in a sense the parent is being penalized for what? Having the exact same qualifier that millions of other people have but the only reason he/she is disqualified is because they didn't earn enough money? Yet, both the millionaire and the waitress have a "qualifying kid"? Does that make much sense to you? You qualify for the child tax credit not because you merely had a child but because you happened to earn enough money.
This one is a no-brainer. College tuition costs are out the roof! It makes sense to provide tax credits towards the biggest investing this country can ever think worthy to preserve its prosperity - the education of the youth of tomorrow!! If you're not willing to investing in that, you're just a prude!!
I can understand the resistance here considering how we got into this subprime mess, but the key thing to remember is this is for FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS. I don't know if there were other restrictions, i.e., the home's value had to be over a certain amount or the home couldn't be purchased in certain economically depressed areas, but since it is the "home buying market" that's suffering right now, I'd think folks like you would be happy that the government is trying to do something to rid its books of these so-called "troubled assets that have lost their value" (assuming that the second provision I mentioned wasn't a restriction).
I'm with you on this one. You get so much for unemployment benefits (generally in relation to how long you've worked/earned over time. But as we all know, many people won't look for work if they know those unemployment checks are coming. Yet, this period in our nation's history is alittle different. In many depressed areas across the country, there still aren't any jobs for people to look for. Still, their unemployment benefits were extended once already. And although I think in most cases it's by no fault of the individual that he/she is unemployed, I do think that if you've received beyond what your original benefit entitlement was you've likely received more than generous amount of Uncle Sam's money even due to the effects of the recession. So, here I agree. No tax write-off.
Not sure I understand this one. I think the EIC qualifier just moved from a "family of two children" to a "family of three children". I'd have to research it to be sure.
I can get behind this one. It's about "energy conservation and making homes more energy efficient. Why be upset about this? It's a good thing. Plus, if enough people take advantage of this credit it creates demand for those energy efficient products, i.e., windows, doors, sunroofs, kitchen appliances, etc., pretty much anything with the "EnergyStar" logo on it.
This one kinda goes with the first-time homebuyer's credit in that two of the nation's auto companies needed to be bailed out in part because they extended too much credit to undeserving customers. But here again, if you want to spur growth in the auto industry - the very auto industry you're hoping to get a large return on investment from because your taxpayer dollars bailed them out - I'd think you'd want this industry to do extremely well.
Save it, pal. I've read your "cut-N-paste" propaganda before. Spar me...
I have posted this before, this time read it. How did the Obama tax cut vs. the Bush tax cut affect you?
Obama Tax Cuts
Total: $288 billion
[edit] Tax cuts for individuals
Total: $237 billion
• $116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.[29]
• $70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.[29]
• $15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes).
• $14 billion: Expanded college credit to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.
• $6.6 billion: Homebuyer credit: $8,000 refundable credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years. This only applies to first-time homebuyers.[41]
• $4.7 billion: Excluding from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
• $4.7 billion: Expanded earned income tax credit to increase the earned income tax credit — which provides money to low income workers — for families with at least three children.
• $4.3 billion: Home energy credit to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.
• $1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.
Bush Tax cuts
Between 2001 and 2003, the Bush administration instituted a federal tax cut for all taxpayers. Among other changes, the lowest income tax rate was lowered from 15% to 10%, the 27% rate went to 25%, the 30% rate went to 28%, the 35% rate went to 33%, and the top marginal tax rate went from 39.6% to 35%.[3] In addition, the child tax credit went from $500 to $1000, and the "marriage penalty" was reduced. Since the cuts were implemented as part of the annual congressional budget resolution, which protected the bill from filibusters, numerous amendments, and more than 20 hours of debate, it had to include a sunset clause. Unless congress passes legislation making the tax cuts permanent, they will expire in 2011.
I don't understand people like you. Why does the govt. need the money more than you and why are liberals fighting so hard to raise taxes on individuals. Some people just are brainwashed and don't want the facts. You seem to be one of them. Good luck with that.