7:36 pm, April 23, 2014

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 43
       

  • cutting off our noses to spite our face?
    Shadow_Ferret
    I honestly can't figure out how any Federal employee could vote for the Republican party, which wants to eliminate our jobs. Makes no sense to me. I'm relieved Romney didn't win.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Hmmmm.
    Maryland Mom
    Read Fedmans comments below. He said even though Romney didn't win, we are looking at RIFs. I'm glad my cashier skills are top notch.
    Beach Mum
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Blame the Republicans
    Moderate
    Read it. Typical Republican gobbledygook. This is due to sequestration. Thank the Republicans who pushed this reduction in Federal spending.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Blame both sides
    GR82BMRA
    In the final presidential debate POTUS stated sequestration started in Congress (and by implication, the Republicans). This was refuted by all "fact checkers" afterward, most notably by Bob Woodward (see http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82772.html). You can't simply blame the Republicans for all bad political decisions. While it may be true that Mr. Obama did not have a direct hand in formulating and fomenting this game of political brinksmanship, it seems Mr. Woodward has well-documented proof that the opening gambit came from Democrats in the White House, was passed onto Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) who then offered to the Republicans in an attempt to end the budget impasse. The Republicans called the bluff and in a strange twist of fate there was bipartisan agreement on a very bad piece of legislation. While I agree that sequestration is not desirable I wonder if maybe its what this country needs to open up our corporate eyes to the fiscal mess that has evolved over the past decades so real solutions can come into fruition. I fear, however, that both parties will one again draw their lines in the sand, dare the other to cross it, resulting in more last-minute, poorly thought-out legislation.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Compromise
    Moderate
    I agree with you to blame both sides. However, the Mr. Woodward asserted that there was no evidence that Obama even knew about someone in the White House suggesting sequestration. According to him it came from (a name was mentioned). It went to Reid who brought it to the Republicans. And Mr. Woodward stated that sequestration was not to happen. Well, as you stated both sides must compromise. As part of the compromise, there must be man increase in taxes on the wealthy. However, the definition of wealthy at $250000 should be increased. And it must be in rates. Tax law is too complex as it is. It would be much easier to play with rates than with deductions. Ask any return preparer or tax law enforcer.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Eliminate Jobs....
    FEDMAN
    Rumor has it around our Department that MANY Feds are going to be RIF'd at the begining of the new year, as we all go over the cliff. We had a meeting today with executive managment and he was asked the question of RIFs. It was not his answer that bothered us, it was what he did NOT say. RIF for Feds are coming, and they will hit hard, so it really did not matter who won the election, we are all looking at a serious problem square in the eye, if the House, Senate and Executive Branch does nothing.... Don't know about you, but I am very concered not only for me but all Feds....this is crunch time and I do not have a warm and fuzzy feeling, our fates lay with politicians who talk through the media, not to each other, SAD....
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Let the Dems have what they want.
    ben
    The Republicans should offer Obama a two year tax compromise starting at $500,000 and above with the Clinton era tax increases. Then, offer to work on a comprehensive tax law revision. Thus, they can document the resulting drop in tax revenue and increase in jobs cut.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Not a bad idea
    Moderate
    Good idea but make it permanent. It is a compromise.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • No Incentive
    ben
    The purpose is to simplify the tax code, removing many exemptions for upper income earners, and only them. Then, reduce the tax rate for all. Results -- lower rates, more revenue as has been the results for such for a century.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Yes there is incentive
    Moderate
    Were you in tax enforcement? Do you even have any knowledge of preparation of tax returns? This is what was done during the Reagan era in 1986. This adds more forms to compute whether one can claim deductions because deductions are phased out and not eliminated if you reach a certain figure. They call the 1986 Act, the Return Preparers Retirement Act because it made things more complicated so more people have to go to preparers. Do not make the Code more complicated. And remember, many of the deductions have economic reasons. Therefore, raise the tax rates on the "wealthy" whether it is defined as $250,000, $500,000, or more.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Simplification!
    ben
    Removing exemptions and credits does not generate more paperwork.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Not simplification
    Moderate
    Actually it does. Again, exemptions and "credits" would be phased out. That involves another form or so. If I am not mistaken, aren't exemptions and some credits already phased out at certain levels of income? And what other credits do you want phased out? How about the research credit? Should that be removed? And what about the foreign tax credit? How about the credit for alternative minimum taxes paid in prior years? I just picked a few of the credits. There are plenty more, many of which I am not familiar with. Ben, unless you are a tax expert, you should back off on the credits. It is not as simple as you think it is. And if you are an expert, then you should know better.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • No!
    ben
    If there is no credit or exemption to be claimed, there is no form to be filed. Few individuals take a research credit, your mixing corporate and individual taxes.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • You do not appear to have tax expertise. Tell us your expertise
    Moderate
    Are you saying get rid of all credits or exemptions for everyone or just the wealthy? Again, you must set a figure or figures if you decide to get rid of it for the wealthy. And again, iot would be a phaseout. You cannot say that if you have $499999 in income you get the credits and exemptions and if you have $500000 you get nothing. Then you would have a disaster for manipulations and fraud. Enforcement would be a nightmare.-----How do you know how many individuals take the research credit? Where is your access to that information? So again, your proposal makes absolutely no sense at all!!!
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }