Where is the US economy headed?

BUT, that does NOT mean that the city is spending more to protect those 8 houses.
It means that the person with the 8 houses is spending more to have them protected, based on paying more property taxes.

BUT, that does NOT mean that the city is spending more to protect those 8 houses.
It means that the person with the 8 houses is spending more to have them protected, based on paying more property taxes.
However, if none of those 8 houses catch fire, the city is not spending any money to protect them.

If the city has a fire fighting budget of $10,000, than that budget is split up equally among ALL of the property owners.

Yes, and the person that owns 8 homes pays 8 times the person that owns 1 home because they have 8 homes they risk losing. They pay more because they own more. That is what okie is arguing shouldn't happen.

WASHINGTON — Incoming House Speaker John Boehner is standing firm on the question of tax cuts even for the wealthiest Americans.

Asked directly whether he might be open to a deal with President Barack Obama, the Ohio Republican said extending tax cuts for all Americans is the best way to create jobs in the ailing economy. Source

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19986&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
Ready for Pay Cut?

If Congress fails to extend the Bush-era tax cuts due to expire December 31, Americans at just about every income level will see their taxes rise -- in some cases dramatically, says Investor's Business Daily (IBD).

It takes weeks for the Internal Revenue Service to prepare new withholding schedules. Normally, the tables are issued in mid-November to give employers time to prepare. But this year Congress left open the possibility it would do something about the expiring cuts, and employers have been left wondering what to do.

The impact could be significant.
• Professor Michael Graetz of Columbia University recently estimated that letting the tax cuts expire will cost the U.S. economy $10 billion a month in added withholding from paychecks.
• Goldman Sachs economist Alec Phillips estimates letting the Bush cuts expire could slash "nearly 10 percentage points" from disposable income growth in the first quarter of next year, and nearly two percentage points from gross domestic product (GDP) in the first half.
• With GDP now a tad above $14 trillion, the impact could be $280 billion or more in the first six months alone.
What's most worrisome is what it will do to the working taxpayer.
• A married couple without children and an annual income of $80,000 would have an added $221 taken from their paycheck every two weeks.
• That jumps to $558 for couples bringing in $240,000.
Data from the Tax Policy Center show even those with modest family incomes would take a hit.
• For example, a couple with income of $60,000 and four children can expect to pay $130 more every two weeks to Uncle Sam.
• It doesn't get much better for those who make just $40,000 -- they'll find about $108 more withheld every other week.
This will have a serious impact on our struggling economy at a time when we can least afford it, says IBD.

Source: "Ready for Pay Cut?" Investor's Business Daily, October 27, 2010.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19987&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
$1 billion in Taxpayer Money Goes to the Deceased

About $1 billion in taxpayer money goes to 250,000 deceased individuals, according to a review of reports by the Government Accountability Office, inspectors general and Congress itself. How, might you ask? According to Sen. Tom Coburn's, R-Okla., office:
• The Social Security Administration sent $18 million in stimulus funds to 71,688 dead people and $40.3 million in questionable benefit payments to 1,760 dead people.
• The Department of Health and Human Services sent 11,000 dead people $3.9 million in assistance to pay heating and cooling costs.
• The Department of Agriculture sent $1.1 billion in farming subsidies to deceased farmers.
But that's not all, says the Washington Examiner:
• The Department of Housing and Urban Development overseeing local agencies knowingly distributed $15.2 million in housing subsidies to 3,995 households with at least one deceased person.
• Medicaid paid over $700,000 in claims for prescriptions for controlled substances written for over 1,800 deceased patients and prescriptions for controlled substances written by 1,200 deceased doctors.
• Medicare paid as much as $92 million in claims for medical supplies prescribed by dead doctors and $8.2 million for medical supplies prescribed for dead patients.

Source: J.P. Freire, "Happy Halloween! $1 billion in Taxpayer Money Goes to the Undead!" Washington Examiner, October 29, 2010.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19988&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
The High Cost of Green Energy Programs in Massachusetts

A new analysis shows that the state's green energy policies will cost Massachusetts ratepayers more than $9.8 billion over the next decade. These costs will be in addition to the market prices for energy, already among the highest in the nation, says the Beacon Hill Institute.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts imposes 25 unique green energy mandates and programs upon consumers and businesses. Focusing on only the impacts to ratepayers, not taxpayers, Beacon Hill examined the costs of 11 of those 25 mandates and programs:
• By 2020 the green energy policies for renewable energy and energy efficiency will raise electricity rates over 2.6 cents per kilowatt hour.
• These policies will cost an average household $1,582.
• The cost to an average commercial business will be $15,559 and $141,255 to an average industrial business.
• From 2010 through 2020 the total cost of the green energy mandates, programs and incentives will be $9.8 billion (in 2010 dollars).
In addition, the Taxpayers Against Cape Wind group says resident in nearly 170 communities will be hit by substantial rate increases:
• The starting rate will charge National Grid taxpayers 19.4 cents per kilowatt hour.
• By 2028, National Grid communities can expect to be paying upwards of 30 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity.
Beacon Hill's analysis also shows that Massachusetts imposes more green energy mandates on its business and homeowner communities than seven designated competitor states.

Source: Paul Bachman, Benjamin Powell, David Tuerck, Rick Weber, "Going Green with Energy in Massachusetts: Costly Mandates Will Hit Consumers, Business," Beacon Hill Institute, October 2010. Also, "Taxpayers Against Cape Wind Say Nearly 170 Communities Across Massachusetts Expected To Feel Economic Impact From Cape Wind Project," WindToday.net, October 26, 2010.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19989&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
Even CBO Is Skeptical of ObamaCare

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf recently spoke at the University of Southern California about the economic impact of ObamaCare. He predicts that ObamaCare will further depress the nation's employment picture, says the Heritage Foundation.

CBO's analysis of ObamaCare predicts that it will reduce the amount of labor being used in the economy by roughly half a percent.
• Elmendorf states that this impact will be small, but in reality the impact is small only in relative terms.
• For instance, a half-percent loss in jobs in the American economy today would translate into about 750,000 additional Americans losing work.
The reason for the job loss is twofold, says Heritage.
• First, ObamaCare raises costs on businesses with additional mandates and taxes, which will negatively impact hiring.
• Second, ObamaCare increases the social safety net with a massive Medicaid expansion and generous subsidies to purchase insurance -- this increases implicit marginal tax rates and discourages work.

Elmendorf's recent remarks focus on the impact ObamaCare will have on lowering the amount of unnecessary spending on health care. The answer appears to be it won't have much of an effect, as CBO projects that health care spending will be at least 25 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035, up from 17 percent today.

In his recent remarks, Elmendorf goes beyond the 10-year purview of the CBO's budget "score" time frame to look at the long-range impact of ObamaCare on health care spending. He expresses doubt that the new health care law can drive efficiency improvements and reduce wasteful spending.
Source: "Even CBO Is Skeptical of ObamaCare," Heritage Foundation, October 26th, 2010.

Quote:

WASHINGTON — Incoming House Speaker John Boehner is standing firm on the question of tax cuts even for the wealthiest Americans.

Asked directly whether he might be open to a deal with President Barack Obama, the Ohio Republican said extending tax cuts for all Americans is the best way to create jobs in the ailing economy. Source

Do these people really believe this **** or are they just looking at their own wallets and pocketbooks?

If Congress fails to extend the Bush-era tax cuts due to expire December 31, Americans at just about every income level will see their taxes rise -- in some cases dramatically, says Investor's Business Daily (IBD).

• Professor Michael Graetz of Columbia University recently estimated that letting the tax cuts expire will cost the U.S. economy $10 billion a month in added withholding from paychecks.

• Goldman Sachs economist Alec Phillips estimates letting the Bush cuts expire could slash "nearly 10 percentage points" from disposable income growth in the first quarter of next year, and nearly two percentage points from gross domestic product (GDP) in the first half.

• With GDP now a tad above $14 trillion, the impact could be $280 billion or more in the first six months alone.

• A married couple without children and an annual income of $80,000 would have an added $221 taken from their paycheck every two weeks.

• That jumps to $558 for couples bringing in $240,000.

Oh noez! 450 bucks less a month - and I doubt this is an accurate assessment, btw - for a couple who brings home more than $6700 a month? However will they survive! They'll have to make the same sorts of sacrifices that people made in the dreadful nineties.

• That jumps to $558 for couples bringing in $240,000.

Quote:

Oh noez! 450 bucks less a month - and I doubt this is an accurate assessment, btw - for a couple who brings home more than $6700 a month? However will they survive! They'll have to make the same sorts of sacrifices that people made in the dreadful nineties.

Earning it and taking it home are two different things. Currently, a married couple with no children earning $80,000/yr pays about $820 month in federal taxes and $518 in SS/Medicare withholding (or, $5362 take home pay). The additional $450/month is 8.3% of their current take home pay.

I agree with the rest of your post.

A presidential commission’s leaders proposed a $3.8 trillion deficit-cutting plan that would cut Social Security and Medicare, reduce income-tax rates and eliminate tax breaks including the mortgage-interest deduction.

The co-chairmen of the panel appointed by President Barack Obama suggested reducing Social Security spending by raising the retirement age to 68 in about 2050 and 69 in about 2075. The plan also would slow the rate at which benefits grow. The savings would come between 2012 and 2020.

“This country’s out of money and we better start thinking,” said co-chairman Erskine Bowles. Without “tough choices,” he said, “we’re on the most predictable path toward an economic crisis that I can imagine.”

Bowles, former President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, and Republican former Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming announced the proposal in Washington today, stressing that it was intended as a starting point for discussion.

None of the proposals would take effect next year to avoid disrupting the economic recovery. Bowles said income-tax rates would be reduced to three levels: 8 percent, 14 percent and 23 percent.

Wiping out all tax breaks, including the home mortgage deduction, while lowering rates would save $100 billion a year, Bowles said. Members of the panel could decide to keep some tax breaks by offering offsetting cuts, he said.More

For a married couple with an income of $80,000, that would drain an extra $221.48 in withholding from a semi-monthly paycheck, according to calculations by the Tax Institute at H&R Block. Married individuals earning $240,000 a year would lose an additional $557.78 to withholding in a single semi-monthly paycheck. The Tax Institute at H&R Block calculated federal tax rates for single-income earners and married taxpayers without children. Source