I used to be on a fixed income . . . . .

cars · Post by **cars** » Tue Mar 02, 2010 3:02 pm

the last 5 years.

However, starting march 1st 2010, I'm no longer on a fixed income! My basic gross income has not changed, however, my net income has shrunk by $27/mo. due to "increased "taxes" being taken out!!! What in the hell is up with that?

What kind of fixed income planning can be done, where whenever big brother decides "they" want a raise, "they" just deduct more taxes from my used to be fixed income!! :-5

OK vent over!!! :wah:

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:08 pm

cars;1294019 wrote: the last 5 years.

However, starting march 1st 2010, I'm no longer on a fixed income! My basic gross income has not changed, however, my net income has shrunk by $27/mo. due to "increased "taxes" being taken out!!! What in the hell is up with that?

What kind of fixed income planning can be done, where whenever big brother decides "they" want a raise, "they" just deduct more taxes from my used to be fixed income!! :-5

OK vent over!!! :wah:

Oh I hear you, I'm on a fixed income to!

what's not taxed, will be!:-5

cars · Post by **cars** » Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:34 am

Odie;1294088 wrote: Oh I hear you, I'm on a fixed income to!

what's not taxed, will be!:-5
To make matters worse and add more fuel to the mix, "they" have said there will not be any COLA (cost of living allowance) as used to be done annually, untill 2013!!! :-5

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:34 am

So the argument that if you tax everybody the same-as opposed to progressive taxation-is the fairest way is not one you would agree with?

cars · Post by **cars** » Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:40 am

gmc;1294131 wrote: So the argument that if you tax everybody the same-as opposed to progressive taxation-is the fairest way is not one you would agree with?
A fixed income is supposed to be a fixed income. When working, there was usually an option to work OT to make more money, or even work a second job to account/compensate for over taxation. Now, net income just has depleted with no chance of recouping.

cars · Post by **cars** » Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:57 am

I didn't even mention my house taxes went up also, car taxes went up, just mentioned the loss of net income! A fixed income is supposed to be a fixed income. When still working, there was usually an option to work OT to make more money, or even work a second job to account/compensate for over taxation. Now, net income just has depleted with no chance of recouping. :wah:

(There are those who will say be happy there still is a fixed income coming in! To some degree, that's true, but. . . . . . consider that it took putting in over "47" years of hard work to now have that privilege!)

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:11 am

I am on a fixed income, so of course with all the price rises - food, fuel etc. I am expected to pull my belt in and suffer a reduction in my heating and my food! Of course the massive 'bonuses' are still being given to the 'fat cats'. One day the worm will turn, and God help 'them' as they see masses of rioting, poverty stricken, half-starved angry 'Joe Soaps' bearing down on the Houses of Parliament, wanting blood! There is a limit to the peoples' patience, and a limit to how many kicks in the gut they are prepared to take.

I suppose on the bright side (albeit a dull glow) there may be a few obese people who will loose some weight!

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:20 am

cars;1294130 wrote: To make matters worse and add more fuel to the mix, "they" have said there will not be any COLA (cost of living allowance) as used to be done annually, untill 2013!!! :-5

I just got a 2.00 increase per month last month, woah, must slow down from making plans with that.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:30 am

Indirect taxes-fuel and sales taxes and the like hit lower incomes disproportionally. We have progressive taxes where higher income earners pay more in tax rising to 40% above a certain level. -that's the theory anyway. One or two us posters have found that idea strange and don't see why someone earning more should pay more in tax, but 20% tax, say, on $20000 hurts an awful lot more than 20% on $100,000. Combine that with indirect taxes and effectively power earners pay a disproportionate amount of tax. I was just curious to see what you thought.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:55 am

cars;1294130 wrote: To make matters worse and add more fuel to the mix, "they" have said there will not be any COLA (cost of living allowance) as used to be done annually, untill 2013!!! :-5Join the ranks of most American workers today. Since about 2001 to 2007 business income doubled and worker productivity rose 17% while wages stagnated (rose only seven tenths of one percent - thats minuscule) to the point of lagging well behind inflation http://inflationdata.com/inflation/infl ... ation.aspx while relative corporate profits had increased by an average of 18% and executive pay ballooned.

Some believe (I'm one) that since companies and individuals rely so heavily on the stock market that the idea is to restrict workers income thus forcing them to borrow more from banks and credit card companies in order to increase stock prices in those companies. Its a kind of: let us screw you and just make sure you have a 401k heavily invested in lending institutions so it comes back to you however many fold. Kind of crazy IMO.

Heres a good video of a talk given by Stephen Greenhouse at the University of California. Greenhouse is a NY Times reporter who is also author of the book The Big Squeeze

http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=16538

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Mar 03, 2010 4:50 pm

Ahso!;1294187 wrote: Join the ranks of most American workers today. Since about 2001 to 2007 business income doubled and worker productivity rose 17% while wages stagnated (rose only seven tenths of one percent - thats minuscule) to the point of lagging well behind inflation Historical Inflation data from 1914 to the present while relative corporate profits had increased by an average of 18% and executive pay ballooned.

Some believe (I'm one) that since companies and individuals rely so heavily on the stock market that the idea is to restrict workers income thus forcing them to borrow more from banks and credit card companies in order to increase stock prices in those companies. Its a kind of: let us screw you and just make sure you have a 401k heavily invested in lending institutions so it comes back to you however many fold. Kind of crazy IMO.

Heres a good video of a talk given by Stephen Greenhouse at the University of California. Greenhouse is a NY Times reporter who is also author of the book The Big Squeeze

The Big Squeeze—Tough Times for the American Worker - UCTV - University of California Television

:eek:I'm shocked. I didn't think anyone was allowed to be openly left wing in america for fear of offending the bible belt and being accused of anti-Americanism by expounding socialistic points of view.

We're up **** creek as well-but apparently this is due to benefit cheats and immigration. What ever you do don't mention the bankers or suggest corporate greed might actually be a bad thing to let them get away with. Adam Smith is probably birling in his grave.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:23 pm

Sometimes it is better to be on a fixed income, rather than be in your own small business. At least you know what money will be coming in and when, and you can budget better than if you had different monies coming in month by month in a small business. I really feel sorry for people who must surely be struggling in their small business, during this financial crisis. I know - I've been there myself during the previous recession in the 80/90's.