PDA

View Full Version : Summer of no love



Gingersnap
08-05-2010, 11:20 AM
Summer of no love

By GLENN THRUSH | 8/4/10 4:32 AM EDT Updated: 8/4/10 3:03 PM EDT

On Monday, President Barack Obama recommitted to ending the combat mission in Iraq by the end of this month, a milestone that seemed nearly unattainable in 2008 — and seems nearly unnoticed in 2010.

Ending the war in Iraq was Obama’s central campaign promise two years ago, so the announcement should have been a huge deal. But by mid-Monday, the story drooped like a limp flag on news websites, sliding below obituaries of bandleader Mitch Miller.

That’s how it’s been going lately for Obama as he tries to thread the narrowest of political needles: Reminding voters of what he’s done right, with the vast majority of them angry about what’s going wrong.

Obama’s first-term accomplishments are piling up, capped by the health care overhaul and the recent passage of a sweeping financial reform bill. Yet, at the same time, his approval ratings have fallen to fresh lows, prompting one prominent ally of the president’s to quip, “Worst-case scenario? You’re looking at the best one-term president in the history of the United States” before quickly adding, “Kidding!”

The summer of 2009 belonged to the tea parties, but the Obama administration had good reason to hope it would have some summer fun this year. It was supposed to be one big pivot point: The economic arrows would all finally head upward, voters would recognize Obama’s historic legislative victories, and the withdrawal of most troops from Iraq would provide a dramatic exclamation point, energizing the party’s liberal base heading into the midterms.

Instead, it’s turned into Obama’s Summer of No Love, thanks to the persistently lousy economy, a succession of major crises and middling distractions — from the BP oil spill to Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s insubordination, to the Shirley Sherrod fiasco — and the ascent of virulently anti-Obama cable-news critics like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.

“I think we’re on a different kind of a news cycle than what I’ve been used to … And a lot of that commentary is very inflammatory,” said Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin, a liberal Obama ally in the Senate.

“It appeals to the emotional distress that people may have. Now, we’ve had people like that in the past, don’t get me wrong. We had our Huey Longs and our Father Coughlins and our Joe McCarthys — there has always been somebody like that — but they never had a big pulpit. They never had a big audience. Now, the Glenn Becks have a big audience. And so they stir up these passions in people. And if you’re hurting, you’re out of work, sometimes they can appeal to people like that, that are anxious and worried about their future.”

But some fellow Democrats say that’s nonsense. Obama is responsible for his own troubles by pushing for a glittering legislative legacy in lieu of a laser focus on creating jobs. There has been grumbling and tension among his supporters in Congress — including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was angered by White House press secretary Robert Gibbs’s assessment that the Democrats could lose House seats this fall.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40621.html#ixzz0vkGJYKp9

Speedy
08-05-2010, 01:35 PM
Just wait until the "Summer of Contempt and Disdain" next year and the "Summer of Unbridled Hatred" the year after that.

FlaGator
08-05-2010, 01:56 PM
They keep mentioning these legislative "victories" but they represent legislation that nobody wanted. It doesn't matter how many things you pushed through congress if the people don't want them. It just shows you how out of touch government is with the people when the President and Congress are more concerned with passing laws than they are with passing laws that the majority of people want. Why should I celebrate Arod hitting his 600th home run, if I don't care about Arod to begin with.

Satanicus
08-05-2010, 05:17 PM
They keep mentioning these legislative "victories" but they represent legislation that nobody wanted. It doesn't matter how many things you pushed through congress if the people don't want them.

Ya, cause everybody was so against wall street reform and Tax Cuts..... NOT

Get real.

FlaGator
08-05-2010, 05:22 PM
Ya, cause everybody was so against wall street reform and Tax Cuts..... NOT

Get real.

First of all there are no tax cuts that we're negated by extra costs in other areas. My paycheck and outgo hasn't reflected any tax cuts. Also very few people and states are happy about the health care reform... seriously dude read something other than msnbc. I suspect that when the Wall Street reform trickles down to the average person they are going to like it even less than health care reform.

It is sad that someone of you seeming intellectual potential chooses to view the world from such a myopic perspective.

malloc
08-05-2010, 05:26 PM
Ya, cause everybody was so against wall street reform and Tax Cuts..... NOT

Get real.

Aw, look. The rabid fanboi is back to defend his man-love for his messiah.

http://derp.blogs.exetel.com.au/uploads/derppics/DerpTVguycopy.jpg

Got news for ya dickhead. That "wall street reform" bill you mention, isn't nearly as popular as you believe with all your widdle hopey changey heart. What you and your man-love Obama dont' understand is that we proletariats aren't quite as stupid as your messiah thinks we are.

Not that you have the ability or will actually read any facts:



Additionally, 49% say it would be better for the United States financial system to have more competition and less regulation. Just 30% take the opposite view and prefer more regulation and less competition.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/june_2010/americans_not_sure_on_financial_reform_bill_but_do n_t_think_some_banks_are_too_big_to_fail




Does Obama’s new “reform” legislation address this fundamental problem?

Of course not. In fact, in addition to imposing a slew of new regulations on banks that had nothing to do with the crisis, Obama’s new law maintains the same strict government-mandated lending quotas as before. Accordingly, while Main Street lenders (which provide capital to small businesses across America) are forced to navigate a maze of new regulations and restrictions, the real culprits of the disaster are not only going unpunished – they are being allowed to conduct business as usual while receiving a steady stream of taxpayer-funded bailout money.

Obviously, this is a recipe for an even bigger disaster in the future – as is the law’s “proxy access” provision, which will permit labor unions, environmental activists and “community organizing” groups to bypass existing state laws on corporate director elections and place their representatives on corporate boards of directors. And far from ending bailouts for private sector firms (as Obama has promised) the law’s “orderly liquidation” provision permits the secretive Federal Reserve to seize control of any firm that it deems a threat to “financial stability” – opening the door to bailouts of companies that aren’t even asking for taxpayer largesse.

Make no mistake – this new law is a dramatic escalation of America’s “march to Marxism.”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_howard_rich/financial_reform_and_america_s_march_to_marxism


Does it hurt to be so in love with such a loser like Obama?

Satanicus
08-05-2010, 05:29 PM
First of all there are no tax cuts that we're negated by extra costs in other areas.

WRONG. The Stimulus contained massive tax cuts.


My paycheck and outgo hasn't reflected any tax cuts.

WRONG again.

The tax cuts started showing up on paychecks in April of 2009 , If you worked you would know.

malloc
08-05-2010, 05:34 PM
http://www3.obamiconme.pastemagazine.com/entries/920820-derp.gif

The tax cuts started showing up on paychecks in April of 2009 , If you worked you would know.

What are you, his accountant? Are you telling him on what's on his paychecks? Why don't you tell us what tax cut is on your paycheck? Oh, wait, you have no life skills and don't work. Did your mom do heroin when she was pregnant with you?

http://www.headinjurytheater.com/images/comic%20retarded%20sperm%20jared%20hindman.jpg

FlaGator
08-05-2010, 05:59 PM
WRONG. The Stimulus contained massive tax cuts.



WRONG again.

The tax cuts started showing up on paychecks in April of 2009 , If you worked you would know.

Are you saying that you know how much I paid in taxes in 2009? I bet you don't. I also know that a larger percentage was removed my my 2009 income than was removed from my 2008 income and that is a fact.

The No-Discernible Stimulus package did nothing but cut taxes or stimulate the economy and today's economic crisis is proof. Higher unemployment, housing starts in the pits, existing home sales at rock bottom, foreclosures at unheard of levels, retail sales tanking... etc. Yep that stimulus package sure did a lot to help the people of this country :rolleyes:

Zathras
08-05-2010, 06:01 PM
Did your mom do heroin when she was pregnant with you?

Stupidicus is a prime example of what happened when his mom didn't swallow.

m00
08-05-2010, 07:01 PM
The tax cuts started showing up on paychecks in April of 2009 , If you worked you would know.

Okay, I'll bite. Where did you work in April of 2009?

Satanicus
08-05-2010, 07:05 PM
Are you saying that you know how much I paid in taxes in 2009? I bet you don't. I also know that a larger percentage was removed my my 2009 income than was removed from my 2008 income and that is a fact.

One of thwo things happened.

1. You make MORE than 250,000 and didn't get a tax cut.

2. Your employer knows you are an idiot, and is putting the extra in his pocket.

The tax cut happened, even if you are to stupid to know it. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4TSNA_en___US379&q=tax+cuts+april

Rockntractor
08-05-2010, 07:09 PM
One of thwo things happened.

1. You make MORE than 250,000 and didn't get a tax cut.

2. Your employer knows you are an idiot, and is putting the extra in his pocket.

The tax cut happened, even if you are to stupid to know it. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4TSNA_en___US379&q=tax+cuts+april

You are a lying whore!

Satanicus
08-05-2010, 07:11 PM
You are a lying whore!

So , it is your opinion that there was no tax cuts that started to show up an Americans paychecks in April of 2009 ?

djones520
08-05-2010, 07:16 PM
WRONG. The Stimulus contained massive tax cuts.



WRONG again.

The tax cuts started showing up on paychecks in April of 2009 , If you worked you would know.

A whole wopping year and a half. Come 2011, those cuts dissapear.

And Obama didn't have to put a sunset on those cuts to get around a fillibuster.

malloc
08-05-2010, 07:20 PM
So , it is your opinion that there was no tax cuts that started to show up an Americans paychecks in April of 2009 ?

My pay stubs from April looks exactly like my pay stubs from January, February and March. Oh, wait, what's this W-4 and A4 form for? You mean Obama can't magically make paychecks bigger with his tax cut, and you have to actually fill out a form to get your witholding changed? You really are an idiot with no job aren't you?

Looks to me like my tax liability hasn't changed at all since last year, it's increased by about the same rate as my salary and I don't make over $250,000 /yr. Extending the Bush tax cuts, is not further cutting my traxes, my taxes stay the same. Letting them expire would have increased my taxes. Thanks for playing, you lose.

Rockntractor
08-05-2010, 07:24 PM
So , it is your opinion that there was no tax cuts that started to show up an Americans paychecks in April of 2009 ?

When was the last time you actually had a real paycheck, whore?

Satanicus
08-05-2010, 07:27 PM
When was the last time you actually had a real paycheck, whore?

Are you saying their was a tax cut ? ...or not ?

Rockntractor
08-05-2010, 07:30 PM
Are you saying their was a tax cut ? ...or not ?

It was so insignificant it amounted to nothing whore. If you had a real job you would know.

Satanicus
08-05-2010, 07:33 PM
My pay stubs from April looks exactly like my pay stubs from January, February and March. Oh, wait, what's this W-4 and A4 form for? You mean Obama can't magically make paychecks bigger with his tax cut, and you have to actually fill out a form to get your witholding changed? You really are an idiot with no job aren't you?.

WRONG.

No forms , it just showed up for everybody , but you retards can't see it cause you don't work.

You just claimed that a form had to be filled out to get the tax cut, OMG , the ignorance is getting deep.

m00
08-05-2010, 07:35 PM
WRONG.

No forms , it just showed up for everybody , but you retards can't see it cause you don't work.

You just claimed that a form had to be filled out to get the tax cut, OMG , the ignorance is getting deep.

I'm pretty sure those guys all have jobs. What's yours?

Rockntractor
08-05-2010, 07:36 PM
WRONG.

I'm a cheap manwhore that works until my butt smokes everyday
That's what I thought!:rolleyes:

malloc
08-05-2010, 07:39 PM
WRONG.

No forms , it just showed up for everybody , but you retards can't see it cause you don't work.

You just claimed that a form had to be filled out to get the tax cut, OMG , the ignorance is getting deep.

HAHAHAHAHA you are officially the stupidest person I have ever talked to in my life.

Then..then you call me ignorant!

Oh this is priceless


Look here stupid fucktard. The IRS, the government, Obama nor Congress decides how much money is withheld from your paycheck each month. YOU DECIDE via an IRS FORM W-4 (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdf). If you weren't a leech and a free loader you would remember seeing one of these before when you started your job as a burger flipper because that is all you are qualified to do.

See how that works, I always put enough deductions down, so that NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX is DEDUCTED FROM MY PAYCHECK. I then PAY MY TAX LIABILITY IN FULL ON APRIL 14th EVERY YEAR. Now do you see why my pay stub doesn't change you stupid jacktard.

You see, my little retard, paying the IRS in increments throughout the year before the bill is due is the equivalent of loaning the government money interest free. If you didn't have your head so far up your ass you can see your own tonsils you'd know that already.


http://abowlofstupid.com/wp-content/2007/01/stupidity.jpg

Lager
08-05-2010, 07:57 PM
"It just shows up" That is priceless. First this brilliant individual did not understand how the mortgage interest deduction worked and now he doesn't understand how the make work pay credit works. Here is a description of the tax CREDIT, not a tax cut.



The Making Work Pay tax credit is a new tax credit worth up to $400. This tax credit is temporary and will be in effect for the years 2009 and 2010 only.


250, 000 dollars has nothing to do with it. Here were the phase out limits:


The Making Work Pay credit starts to be reduced for individual filers making $75,000 in modified adjusted gross income, or $150,000 for joint filers. The credit is reduced by 2% of the amount of income in excess of the $75,000 (or $150,000) threshold. The credit is completely phased out for individuals making $95,000 or more, or $190,000 for joint filers.

Withholding rates were adjusted so that less taxes were taken out of your paycheck. But you could have done this yourself, whether or not the credit was implemented.



The IRS has revised the tax withholding tables so that taxpayers can see a tax benefit this year. Employers are required to implement the new withholding rates no later than April 1, 2009. Employees will not need to do anything to take advantage of the new withholding rates. You will not need to fill out a new Form W-4 to adjust your witholding.

I think I should repeat that you should stay out of tax arguments until you fully understand them.

asdf2231
08-06-2010, 02:37 AM
I think I should repeat that you should stay out of tax arguments until you fully understand them.

Maybe if you post something drawn in crayon he could grasp it.

I think he may be sorta mentally challenged in a short bus, white helmet, hug strangers kinda way.

FlaGator
08-06-2010, 06:25 AM
One of thwo things happened.

1. You make MORE than 250,000 and didn't get a tax cut.

2. Your employer knows you are an idiot, and is putting the extra in his pocket.

The tax cut happened, even if you are to stupid to know it. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4TSNA_en___US379&q=tax+cuts+april

Bwhahahahahahahahaha!

You'll believe anything just because Obama told you. Guess what there was not tax cut regardless of what you were told. Perhaps if you had a job you would know this.

Satanicus
08-06-2010, 06:36 AM
HAHAHAHAHA you are officially the stupidest person I have ever talked to in my life.

Then..then you call me ignorant!

Oh this is priceless


Look here stupid fucktard. The IRS, the government, Obama nor Congress decides how much money is withheld from your paycheck each month. YOU DECIDE via an IRS FORM W-4 (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdf). If you weren't a leech and a free loader you would remember seeing one of these before when you started your job as a burger flipper because that is all you are qualified to do.

See how that works, I always put enough deductions down, so that NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX is DEDUCTED FROM MY PAYCHECK. I then PAY MY TAX LIABILITY IN FULL ON APRIL 14th EVERY YEAR. Now do you see why my pay stub doesn't change you stupid jacktard.

You see, my little retard, paying the IRS in increments throughout the year before the bill is due is the equivalent of loaning the government money interest free. If you didn't have your head so far up your ass you can see your own tonsils you'd know that already.


http://abowlofstupid.com/wp-content/2007/01/stupidity.jpg

100% WRONG.

No forms were needed to get the tax cut. This is 100% fact.

Gingersnap
08-06-2010, 10:34 AM
This thread is priceless! I've had more penetrating fiscal discussions with my dog. :p

Satanicus
08-06-2010, 11:10 AM
This thread is priceless! I've had more penetrating fiscal discussions with my dog. :p

So chime in then.

Does getting the stimulus tax cut require you to fill out a form ?

It's a yes or no question. I predict you will not answer it.

Molon Labe
08-06-2010, 11:19 AM
wait...wut?


Timothy F. Geithner (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/25073.html)was asked in Senate hearings: “Do you believe raising taxes on savings and investment, as would occur if the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, will help or hurt our economy?”

After mentioning portions of Obama’s own tax program, he ended with: “Beyond that, it is premature to speculate on the tax provisions that expire in 2010.” 2010 is only a year away




Obama’s Attack on the Middle Class
by Paul Craig Roberts


Obama and his public relations team have made it appear that his trillion dollars in higher taxes will fall only on "the rich." Obama stresses that his tax increase is only for the richest 5 percent of Americans while the other 95 percent receive a tax cut.

The fact of the matter is that the income differences within the top 5% are far wider than the differences between the lower tax brackets and the "rich" American in the 96th percentile.

For Obama, being "rich" begins with $250,000 in annual income, the bottom rung of the top 5 percent. Compare this "rich" income to that of, for example, Hank Paulson, President George W. Bush’s Treasury Secretary when he was the head of Goldman Sachs.

In 2005 Paulson was paid $38.3 million in salary, stock and options. That is 153 times the annual income of the "rich" $250,000 person.

Despite his massive income, Paulson himself was not among the super rich of that year, when a dozen hedge fund operators made $1,000 million. The hedge fund honchos incomes were 26 times greater than Paulson’s and 4,000 times greater than the "rich" man’s or family’s $250,000.

For most Americans, a $250,000 income would be a godsend, but envy can make us blind. A $250,000 income is not one that will support a rich lifestyle. Moreover, many people prefer lesser incomes to the years of education, long work hours and stress of personal liability that are associated with many $250,000 incomes. In truth, those with $250,000 gross incomes have more in common with those at the lower end of the income distribution than with the rich. A $250,000 income is ten times greater than a $25,000 income, not hundreds or thousands of times greater. On an after-tax basis, the difference shrinks to about 6 times.

The American tax code taxes the $250,000 income at the same rate as it taxes a $100,000,000 or higher income. On an after tax basis, after the federal government grabs 30% in income taxes and state government grabs 6%, the "rich" man or woman or family earning $250,000 has $160,000. In New York City, where there is a city income tax in addition to state and federal, this sum diminishes further. State sales taxes take another 6 or more percent of most consumption expenditures.

When all is said and done, the after-tax value of a $250,000 income in New York City is about $140,000.

Is this rich? It might be in a small town in Alabama, but not in New York City. The "rich" person or family won’t be purchasing a Manhattan apartment, much less a brownstone. They won’t be driving a luxury car. Indeed, they won’t be able to afford a parking garage for an economy car. If they fly anywhere, it won’t be in a first class seat.

For the most part, $250,000 incomes are located in large cities where the cost of living is high. For example, a husband and wife who are associates at major law firms, each of whom works 60-hour weeks and has no job security, earn $125,000 each. They might both have student loans to pay down. For the Obama administration to lump these people in with Hank Paulson or billionaire hedge fund operators is propagandistic.

What is the difference between the $250,000 "rich" income and the $245,000 "non-rich" income? After Obama’s tax scheme goes into effect, the $245,000 income will benefit from a tax cut, and the $250,000 will have a tax increase. Will people in the 96th percentile ask for pay cuts that will drop them into the 95th percentile?

In America, the truly rich are those in the top 0.5% of the income distribution. These are the people with yachts, private airplanes, and who are still rich after they lose half their wealth in a stock market collapse caused by government policy that accommodated financial gangsters.

"Oh well, I was worth $600,000,000 last year and only $300,000,000 this year. Perhaps we should stop drinking $1,000 bottles of rare vintages and move down to $100 a bottle wines. Probably shouldn’t buy that new yacht or that villa in the south of France."

The upper middle class with $250,000 gross incomes are major losers of the financial collapse. Many of the people in this income class are leveraged to the hilt in order to maintain appearances and can be swept away as easily as the very poor. But those who were frugal and invested for their future have lost 50% of their savings. These wiped out people are the ones who will bear the brunt of Obama’s tax increase.

If the tax rate on a multi-million dollar annual income goes up by 5 percentage points, the cutbacks won’t really affect the lifestyle. But for the $250,000 gross income group, it means no prospect of private schools and Ivy League education for the children, who will be attending state colleges with the rest of the non-rich.

Obama is attacking the only income class that has any independence – the upper middle class professionals. The real rich are few in number and seldom present any opposition to government. Recently, the New York Times reported (March 23, 2009) that the 400 richest Americans’ "share of the nation’s total wealth has nearly doubled to more than 22 percent." The average income of the 400 richest Americans is $263 million annually. That is 1,052 times the income of the "rich" $250,000 income.

What the Obama administration is really doing is taxing ordinary people in order to bail out the super rich. The 95% of Americans who get the tax cut will find that it is offset many times by the depreciation in the dollar and the raging inflation that will result from monetizing the multi-trillion dollar budget deficits made necessary by the bailouts of the banksters.

In the United States, government has become expert at manipulating both left-wing and right-wing ideologies. It keeps those on both ends of the spectrum set at each other’s throats in order to ensure the government’s continuing independence from accountability.

Historically, the definition of a free person is a person who owns his own labor. Serfs were not free, because they owed their feudal lords, the government of that time, a maximum of one-third of their labor. Nineteenth century slaves were not free, because their owners could expropriate 50% of their labor.

Today, no American is a free person. The lowest tax rate, not counting state income, property tax and sales tax, is 15% Social Security tax and 15% federal income tax. The "free American" starts off with a 30% tax rate, the position of a medieval serf.

In medieval Europe, when tax rates reached beyond 30%, serfs rebelled and killed their masters.

Molon Labe
08-06-2010, 11:26 AM
Hey...sorry to derail this thread on Iraq. It was pretty unclear what it was about with Satanicus rant about taxes and all.

forgive the rude interruption

Zathras
08-06-2010, 12:05 PM
100% WRONG.

This is 100% fact.

Yes you are, every single day of your pathetic life Stupidicus.

asdf2231
08-06-2010, 12:31 PM
This thread is priceless! I've had more penetrating fiscal discussions with my dog. :p

You know I'm almost certain that you went all Freudian there where you brought up "Penitration" and "Dog" in a thread crashed by Satanicus/Blarch. Weather or not his dog and he discuss a fiscal arangement for such things would be pure speculation. :D

Gingersnap
08-06-2010, 01:02 PM
So chime in then.

Does getting the stimulus tax cut require you to fill out a form ?

It's a yes or no question. I predict you will not answer it.

I have no idea since what we are talking about is a tax credit. You don't have to fill out a form to obtain the temporary tax credit but smart people will take a good look look at their witholding status and change that to keep as much money as possible out of the hands of government at this time.

Keep your day job, Ms. Cleo.

malloc
08-06-2010, 02:29 PM
100% WRONG.

No forms were needed to get the tax cut. This is 100% fact.

You don't even understand English. I never said getting a tax cut, or this case a credit, required filling out a form. I said I'd have to fill out forms in order to see any change in paycheck WITHHOLDING. Idiot.

Read my post again, only this time use a dictionary, phone a friend, or get Hooked on Phonics, because you obviously don't comprehend the written word.

Good god this is funny. You are a completely parody of the dumb granola libtard, and you don't even know it. In other words, you are too dumb to know you are dumb, but by all means, keep posting. It's seriously funny.

Lager
08-06-2010, 03:42 PM
Actually, to be technicallly correct, I did have to fill out a form. A 1048 when I accomplished my tax return. I usually adjust my witholding periodicallly in order to keep what I owe at the end of the year close to zero -- I like it when I don't owe Uncle Sam, and he doesn't owe me.
So it wasn't until we filed and got a modest refund, that I saw Uncle Obama's $400 dollar gift.

malloc
08-06-2010, 03:52 PM
Actually, to be technicallly correct, I did have to fill out a form. A 1048 when I accomplished my tax return. I usually adjust my witholding periodicallly in order to keep what I owe at the end of the year close to zero -- I like it when I don't owe Uncle Sam, and he doesn't owe me.
So it wasn't until we filed and got a modest refund, that I saw Uncle Obama's $400 dollar gift.

This isn't a bad strategy, but if you have the fiscal discipline to do so, the money you pay in every month to Uncle Sam might better serve you in a high yield savings/money-market account. If you completely eliminate your Federal withholding, and instead deposit the money in an interest earning account, come tax time you'll be able to pay your taxes in a lump sum and pocket the interest earned, or better yet roll the interest earned into a tax deferred account, like an IRA or something. Might as well put the money to work, before you have to give it up to Uncle Sam.

Watch out with state taxes though. I'm no tax accountant, but I think some states have penalties for under-estimating your withholding.

Lager
08-06-2010, 03:57 PM
I was worried about penalties for underestimating Federal Taxes. For some reason, I thought if I owed too much when filing, I'd get hit with an extra charge. But if there are none, then I may consider doing that. It's good advice.

malloc
08-06-2010, 04:03 PM
I was worried about penalties for underestimating Federal Taxes. For some reason, I thought if I owed too much when filing, I'd get hit with an extra charge. But if there are none, then I may consider doing that. It's good advice.

Like I said, I'm no tax accountant, but I've never been hit with any such penalty for Federal tax. I got hit with the AZ penalty the first year I did this, but it wasn't much, it was like $25 dollars or something. I'm also no billionaire, so were not talking hundreds of thousands in tax liabilities, just $6,000 a year or so in taxes. There might be a penalty if you have a really high tax liability or something. If in doubt, find a friend who is an accountant. :D