32 Million Tax Refunds Could Be Delayed

Trooper_IHB

Trooper_IHB

New member
<p>Rut-Roh Raggy. <a href="http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/32-million-tax-refunds-could-be-delayed/20071203114709990001">32 Million Tax Refunds Could Be Delayed - AOL Money & Finance</a></p>

<p><em>"Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that, without a fix, about half of taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes in the $75,000-$100,000 range will be affected by the AMT this year". </em></p>

<p>Awgee, any thoughts ?


</p>
 
It would be one thing if you immediately knew you were going to be hit by the AMT, but no. Instead, you get to do all the paperwork, itemize your deductions, etc. and then *whammo* you're hit with the AMT. Bleah.





Also, I heard that the reason the legislation is held up is because Dems want to hold to their promise of being budget neutral. Thus, if we decrease revenue by changing the ceiling for the AMT, we need to increase revenue elsewhere, but the Repubs are allergic to fees or taxes elsewhere to make up for the loss.
 
Hey, here's an idea: <strong><u>spend less money</u></strong>. That way the Dems can keep their promise and the Republicans will vote for it. You can't tell me they can't find some pork somewhere that really doesn't need to be funded.
 
It's ironic that we as a group complain about the actions homeowners, brokers, and banks that overborrowed, overspent, and overinflated the housing market and yet, as individuals, some will give a free pass to the government as long as their own ox isn't being gored. Insinuating that the cost of the war in Iraq is responsible for budgetary shortfalls is like blaming the a police department's gang unit for breaking the city budget or a volleyball team's road trip costs being responsible for a school district's budget crisis; one expenditure isn't the problem, all of the expenditures are the problem. I'd gratefully accept a .02% reduction in funds for the Iraq war if it was in concert with matching reductions in the rest of the government budget, that being the percentage needed to offset the ~$50 Billion loss in revenue from fixing the AMT problem. In fact, I'd bite the bullet and fully support a 16% (2006 CBO numbers, not including 'income' derived from SSA funds) across-the-board reduction in the federal budget to not have a deficit at all. But what irks me is that it's not even part of the discussion and otherwise intelligent people don't hold their elected officials to the same standards that they hold their neighbors.
 
<p>Nude, actually that would take about a 33% reduction in spending to 1. balance the budget & 2. put the national debt on a 30 pay-off plan.</p>

<p>Yep, 30 years at 4% will take $600 Billion a year of surplus.</p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>NSR-</p>

<p>I know, but the first step is to stop the bleeding. While I do think spending needs to be cut we are still talking about real people being affected by those changes, from the government workers forced into the private sector to the corporate farms losing subsidies to the single mom using food stamps. While it seems cut and dried from the macro level, once you drill down into exactly where those dollars are going it gets very difficult to make the call on what stays and what goes. It also doesn't help that taxes rates are semi-liquid; combined with a fluctuating economy producing varying levels of revenue, balancing the budget seems like trying to shoot a free throw from the deck of a ship in rough seas but the hoop is on another boat. </p>
 
<p>Troop-</p>

<p>Is it really necessary to have a special group dedicated to proacively pursuing and arresting a group of people that refuse to obey the law as it applies to them and their activities, that openly and agressively defy the society and customs of the people and area around them, that occasionally kill each other in an attempt to consolidate their own power base? If that special group acts on bad information when targeting a specific gang which is already in violation of a civil gang injunction but not currently shooting people in the street, does that invalidate the entire premise of the unit's existence, funding, and support? Should the Chief be fired,indicted, and imprisoned? Should we question the need for all those cops being assigned to that unit in the first place when they could be investigating other crimes?</p>
 
<p>Nude, I can't tell if you are being sarcastic so I'll answer your questions as asked.</p>

<p>Is a specialized gang unit necessary ? Absolutely. It is vital for them to get to know their assigned gang and gang members without the distractions of day to day policing. Our patrol cops run from call to call all day long, they rarely have time for their own pro-active policing. If the gang unit didn't have the time to study the "players", learn their activities and patterns, know their hangouts, figure out who the shot callers are, get to know their weapons, M.O.'s, etc....crime would be worse than it is. The gang unit supresses crime. They are constantly driving the streets of their assigned gang's neighborhood....reminding the bangers that they are being watched, and "hunted"....waiting for them to slip up or be caught rolling dirty. There is no way your average patrol officer could do such a thing....we handle between 3000-5000 radio calls <strong>a day</strong> as a department....it never seems to stop.</p>

<p>Acting on bad information. We have plenty of measures in place to confirm info. It's like an act of god here in L.A. to get an informant registered and confirmed. Not sure if you have some specific example.... but Rampart comes to mind. Chief might possibly be fired for such a thing, but unless he/she had knowledge of such a chain of events - no to the indictment and imprisoning. </p>

<p>Of course you can question the need for such a unit. I can only explain the reason why I think it deserves community support and let the powers that be make that decision. I will tell you that the crime rate soared in L.A. after the Rampart Scandal and the C.R.A.S.H. Units were disbanded. </p>
 
<p>Everybody wants someone else's ox to be gored.</p>

<p>Do we know why the gangs form in the first place? I can think of a lot of possible answers, but until we know why young people need a gang, it is putting a band-aide on things. I suspect that is boils down to the parents having to work such long hours that they can't keep the proper eye on the kids, together with the failure of those kids to integrate into the civil society by means of school, jobs, and marriages.</p>

<p>It could even be that civil disorder would actually worsen if the gangs are eliminated. I think that happened some places where the Mafia was (nearly) eliminated, only to be replaced with gangs that were even more destructive, since the Maf has a specific structure and various customs which reduce the harm slightly. And of course, the replacements to the Maf had to duke it out to determine which of them would take over the street corner.</p>

<p>That being said, the police and teachers should be the last to be cut. This is what govt is FOR.</p>

<p>Just saying we are going to do an across the board cut, means that no one has the moral and political strength to say no to some programs. Of course, if the country is going to tank, across the board is better than keeping on the course that is causing you to tank.</p>
 
<p><em>"Do we know why the gangs form in the first place?"</em></p>

<p>My over-simplified answer: because, in some of our society, the father has been replaced by the government, and the government is a loust dad. </p>
 
<p>Troop-</p>

<p>I was being sarcastic and drawing a parallel between Saddam's Irag and any gang area. I know gang units are necessary, but everyone seems to forget that there were legitimate reasons for removing Saddam, then and now. Just because some proved to be incorrect doesn't mean it didn't need to happen. I'm not indicting the LAPD or any other law enforcement agency, so don't get your vicky's in a knot. I'm only countering your assertion that gang units are a necessary expense and the war isn't; both are a judgement call and neither you or I have the final say in the matter. But in the larger picture of budgeting, I refute the Dem's contention that the military/Iraq is the reason for deficits and debt. They've been singing that tune since Reagan, but the fact is they use defense spending as a hostage to increase domestic spending. Tip O'Neill did it, Pelosi's doing it, and until the discussion turns from "how do replace the revenue" to "where do we cut spending to match our income" we are always going to be playing catch-up with government's spending.</p>

<p>edited for Eva </p>
 
<p><em>>>I refute the Dem's contention that Iraq is the reason for deficits and debt.</em> </p>

<p>Who, exactly, said that? Cite, please.</p>
 
Eva - I think Ron Paul would say the Iraq war is a major cause of deficits and debt, but he isn't a Democrat. Also, I think he said it was wrong to invade a soverign nation and voted against giving President Bush the power to invade. I don't remember the number, but many Dems, and maybe a majority including Hillary, Obama, and Feinstein voted to give Bush that power.
 
Eva - I don't think you will find any Democrat ever explicitly say that the war has caused the deficit. However, they do implicitly infer that much of the debt that the nation is now financing is the result of wars, Bush tax cuts, increased GOP spending...etc. Politicians are to smart, or sometimes they are, to blame it all on one factor.





Anyways, the biggest problem we have is not in our President rather the inefficiencies we have in our Legislative Branches. There is more ear marking for dumb-ass and I do mean dumb-ass projects than I have ever seen in my life. In fact check out this site...kinda funny especially the "Porkers of the Month".





http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top