So who's paying for this expensive Christmas, with presents all around? Us, of course. There isn't anyone else.

I can't be bought with my own money, Mr O.

I still think that all the HMOs need to be done away with. The only reason they exist is to make money for the CEOs. We didn't used to have HMOs. We had health insurance; not a bazillion different agencies to "handle" the paperwork. I don't need help "managing" my health care. I go to the doctor when I need to, I pay for it, done. I can handle my own paperwork just fine, thank you very much. o_O

Norman's having computer issues and asked me to post this for him:

Gordon Brown as UK Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a system  > of tax credits. Of course he (like every politician since Adam - and  > I don't mean Adam Smith) made this sound like a free gift from  > government to us, and who is going to vote against that? > > Tax credits were a nightmare of confusion and bureaucracy. The  > thickness of my filing cabinet folders show that very clearly. Tax  > credits need a folder all to themselves, and in one year it is as  > thick as several years of ordinary income tax. The problem is that  > the tax credits were managed by same body responsible for collecting  > tax - HM Customs & Revenue. But the basis for collecting tax and  > paying credits are not the same. Tax is collected after the end of  > the financial year, by which time the information is static and  > numbers can be added up. Doing this can take another year, if your  > life is complicated. Tax credits, to do any good, have to be paid  > out as soon as the circumstances that justify them have arisen. It's  > no good paying out a child care credit two years after the child is  > born. This means that the Customs & Revenue need to keep track of  > day-to-day changes in everyone's lives - a huge administrative  > effort, and not one they are set up for. Guess who pays for that. > > I keep saying (in letters to the press) - rather than us give our  > money to the government, and them give it back, while we pay for  > this to-and-fro, we'd be better off not handing it over in the first  > place.

Just like the Bush "economic stimulus checks", under this plan I will receive, um, wait a sec ... nothing.

But I DO get to pay for it since I'm not in school, not a parent, rent instead of buy, drive a paid-for but ineffecient car (100 miles a week) and derive "too much" income from paychecks.

How I'm going to do this while paying off the war and the bank bailout is a puzzler, that's for sure.

Gee, thank you Obama! You're going to take my money, and give me some back. WOW! I am a parent of 3 with another on the way, and even I don't want this hand-out. Why do people making $75000 (150 for a couple) need a tax credit of any kind? My family of 5 does alright on less then $50000 a year. Idiot, as are the people voting for him.

My husband and I earn around $72K per year, have no kids, rent a modest house, and currently own one car, which we are still paying off. I am in school full-time, which we are paying for with loans, and we have a small amount of credit card debt (due to an emergency, which is what the card is for) which we are paying off quickly. With all that, we still feel like we are working harder for less. Meanwhile, we have neighbors who don't work, but through government handouts are able to have a home in a decent neighborhood, cars, satellite TV, and nice clothes. Many of these people are committing fraud - claiming they do not know who fathered their children, for example, while living with the father and collecting cash, food stamps and free healthcare. And now Barack Obama wants to increase the number of people raking it in through other peoples' hard work. In the words of Peter Griffin, it really grinds my gears.

I'd love the government to give me some cash so we can buy a second car (with our good-but-not-perfect credit, we cannot get a decent auto loan in the current economy). I'd also like the government to pay my tuition. Oh, and I don't want to pay it back. And while they're at it, how about they hook us up with a home of our own? Why rent when the gov'mint will make rich people buy us a house?

Um, you have always(since FDR) had the government take your money(income tax)and then give part of it back(Refunds). This isn't any different, except that you will get more back. It is basically a redistribution of wealth. Most of the money will come from high income earners and then will be given via credits to lower income earners. If you make under $100K, I don't see why you would be upset with this plan. Obama's plan is to place a heavier tax burden on the rich and minimize the tax burden on the middle class and poor. The opposite is true of McCain. I am not debating the merits of either. I am just laying out the facts. Here is a link to the details.

http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/how-much-would-you-pay-taxes.html

Those earning $50K under Obama's plan would be saving $1118 versus $325 under McCain.

It is basically a redistribution of wealth... If you make under $100K, I don't see why you would be upset with this plan.

So, I should be happy to live in a socialist/communist society as long as it's not me who's being asked to redistribute my wealth?

Christine, if my boss, who makes over $100,000 per year, has to give a much larger chunk of that money to the government, he is not going to be able to employ as many people. That means less jobs for those of us who shouldn't be "upset with this plan". It's Economy 101.

Christine - that is a lie, and both you and Obama know it.

He's committed to repealing the entirety of the Bush tax cuts. Which will cost me (and everyone else in the 30-60 k range) an additional grand or two a year.

Because ditching the Bush cuts gets rid of the 10% bottom rate and lowers the floor for the 15% rate. It also pushes the top marginal rate back to 39.6%.

And given that Obama has Pelosi and Reid to work with, there is no reason to believe that anyone will see a lower burden of government placed upon them.

" It is basically a redistribution of wealth. Most of the money will come from high income earners and then will be given via credits to lower income earners. If you make under $100K, I don't see why you would be upset with this plan. Obama's plan is to place a heavier tax burden on the rich and minimize the tax burden on the middle class and poor. The opposite is true of McCain."
Well, we are very, very much under that $100k cap of yours, and I think the plan stinks. My husband got into his field knowing it would never make him rich. It was an improvement on his poor childhood, he enjoys it enough, and it supports his family decently. I married him knowing he would never be rich, and that I would never get rich either as I put my kids before my career. So why on earth should people that made different choices in life be forced to pay me money?? Some people want money. They get their MD's or their MBAs or their JDs and work 100+ hours a week, having no real life outside work, and they make lots of money. Good for them. That's not for me. Choices again here people, choices in life.

I think the income tax sucks. I am all for a national sales tax, exempting food and meds. Rich people buy more, and more expensive items, so they pay more in. Poor people buy less and cheaper, so they pay in less. No loopholes. Easy, fair. No getting back what you don't pay in.

"It is basically a redistribution of wealth... If you make under $100K, I don't see why you would be upset with this plan." C

um, becasue it's wrong? This is the mentality of, "well, I'll never make that much anyway so why should I care?"

the Q? is do you stand by the precept that in this country you work hard, and then you get paid for it? The harder you work, the saavier you are, the more money you make. At some point you will reach a limit where you work as hard as you are willing to work, do the best that you can, and that is how much money you will make. But you have risen as far as you can. YOU, and no-one else.

We have a progressive tax system in this country already, and the to 50% of earners pay 96.4% of all taxes [2005] so...

who isn't pulling their weight?

Whenever someone has a program for something, you have to ask where the money REALLY comes from. It's simple logic.

I make a little over 100k. I pay about 1100 a month after tax in child support. So my taxes will go up to hand to someone else, even though I am handing over enough money to my ex to put me below that threshold.

Pay attention dudes. Marriage is a scam, you keep getting screwed even when you are not getting laid.

I like momof3's suggestion -- as long as the sales tax wasn't so freaking high it didn't wipe out the increase in my paycheck from not having any tax taken out and we all know that they'd also keep upping that to pay for entitlement programs for the lazy and unproductive.

Seriously, we need another tea party in Boston Harbor. I don't have the means (physically or financially) but if anyone else got one going, I'd sure as hell donate some tea to brew.

Jim, marriage is insane. I don't see why anyone does it. It's entrapping for both parties. But if you don't want to pay for playing, gotta also get yourself fixed so you can't procreate. Not being married won't (and shouldn't) let you off the hook for having a child in common. Two people make a child; two people should equally support it.

"It is basically a redistribution of wealth. Most of the money will come from high income earners and then will be given via credits to lower income earners. If you make under $100K, I don't see why you would be upset with this plan."

Jefferson Davis could have made a similar argument - "If you aren't black, I don't see why you would be upset with slavery".

Hate to get hyperbolic on you, but the logic itself is identical.

The biggest problem with a national sales tax is the timing. When you move out of your parents' house, you need to furnish a house or apartment. When you buy your first house, there you are furnishing it again. Buying beds and sofas and refrigerators is expensive, and making it more expensive by charging sales tax on those items would be a daunting prospect. Taking on your first rent or your first mortgage would also mean taking a huge hit in sales tax on all the durable goods that go with setting up a household.

People who already have homes and spend lavishly would end up paying lots of sales tax, but so would people struggling to establish themselves as productive members of society.