Author Topic: Taxes upon taxes upon....  (Read 940 times)

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Taxes upon taxes upon....
« on: July 12, 2011, 06:10:42 PM »
Taxes Upon Taxes Upon . . .
Obama wants $1 trillion in taxes on top of what he's already signed.

So the fondest Washington hopes for a grand debt-limit deal have broken down over taxes. House Speaker John Boehner said late Saturday that he couldn't move ahead with a $4 trillion deal because President Obama was insisting on a $1 trillion tax increase, and the White House quickly denounced House Republicans for scuttling debt reduction and preventing "the very wealthiest and special interests from paying their fair share."

How dare Republicans not agree to break their campaign promises and raise taxes when the jobless rate is 9.2% and President Obama's economic recovery is in jeopardy?

We think Mr. Boehner is making the sensible choice. No one wants to reform the tax code more than we do, but passing a $1 trillion tax increase first on the promise of tax reform later is a political trap. If the President were really sincere about reform and a willingness to keep the top tax rate at or below 35%, he'd negotiate that at the same time he does a debt deal. Mr. Boehner will have a hard enough time getting any debt-limit increase through the House, much less one that raises tax rates.

Keep in mind that Mr. Obama has already signed the largest tax increase since 1993. While everyone focuses on the Bush tax rates that expire after 2012, other tax increases are already set to hit the economy thanks to the 2010 Affordable Care Act. As a refresher, here's a non-exhaustive list of ObamaCare's tax increases:

• Starting in 2013, the bill adds an additional 0.9% to the 2.9% Medicare tax for singles who earn more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000.

• For first time, the bill also applies Medicare's 2.9% payroll tax rate to investment income, including dividends, interest income and capital gains. Added to the 0.9% payroll surcharge, that means a 3.8-percentage point tax hike on "the rich." Oh, and these new taxes aren't indexed for inflation, so many middle-class families will soon be considered rich and pay the surcharge as their incomes rise past $250,000 due to tax-bracket creep. Remember how the Alternative Minimum Tax was supposed to apply only to a handful of millionaires?

Taxpayer cost over 10 years: $210 billion.

• Also starting in 2013 is a 2.3% excise tax on medical device manufacturers and importers. That's estimated to raise $20 billion.

• Already underway this year is the new annual fee on "branded" drug makers and importers, which will raise $27 billion.

• Another $15.2 billion will come from raising the floor on allowable medical deductions to 10% of adjusted gross income from 7.5%.

• Starting in 2018, the bill imposes a whopping 40% "excise tax" on high-cost health insurance plans. Though it only applies to two years in the 2010-2019 window of ObamaCare's original budget score, this tax would still raise $32 billion—and much more in future years.

• And don't forget a new annual fee on health insurance providers starting in 2014 and estimated to raise $60 billion. This tax, like many others on this list, will be passed along to consumers in higher health-care costs.

There are numerous other new taxes in the bill, all adding up to some $438 billion in new revenue over 10 years. But even that is understated because by 2019 the annual revenue increase is nearly $90 billion, or $900 billion in the 10 years after that. Yet Mr. Obama wants to add another $1 trillion in new taxes on top of this.

The economic ironies are also, well, rich. Mr. Obama is now pushing to reduce the payroll tax by two-percentage points for another year to boost the economy, but he's already built in a big increase in that same payroll tax for 2013. So if a payroll tax cut creates jobs this year, why doesn't a payroll tax increase destroy jobs after 2013?

Mr. Obama is also touting spending cuts he's willing to make in entitlements in return for bigger tax increases, yet the spending increases built into ObamaCare aren't even up for discussion in the debt-limit talks. The Affordable Care Act adds more than 30 million more Americans onto Medicaid's rolls, when that program is already growing by 6.5% this year. So Mr. Obama is willing to cut current entitlements on grounds that they are unaffordable, but he's taken what may be the most expensive entitlement off the table.

We think this was the President's spend-and-tax plan from the very first. Run up spending and debt in the name of stimulus and health-care reform, then count on Wall Street bond holders and the political establishment to browbeat Republicans into paying for it all. He apparently didn't figure on the rise of the tea party, or 1.9% GDP growth and 9.2% unemployment two years after the recession ended.

Last November Republicans won the House and landslide gains in many states in large part because of the deep unpopularity of the stimulus and ObamaCare. Mr. Boehner has a mandate for spending cuts and repealing the Affordable Care Act. If Republicans instead agree to raise taxes in return for future spending cuts that may or may not happen, they will simply be the tax collectors for Mr. Obama's much expanded entitlement society.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303812104576438130028027412.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop


Anything less than 100% of your income being stolen right out from under your feet is not acceptable to the Dems.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Taxes upon taxes upon....
« Reply #1 on: July 12, 2011, 06:14:29 PM »
Obamas to be told to fuck off with his tax scams. 

Emmortal

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5660
Re: Taxes upon taxes upon....
« Reply #2 on: July 12, 2011, 10:07:05 PM »
Not that I agree with raising taxes, but we really don't have it anywhere near as bad as some of you guys make it out.  Go live in a place like the Netherlands or fucking Australia and see just how retarded it is.  Taxes on everything, it sucks!  Paying $5.00 for a 2 liter of water, $18.00 for a pack of smokes, $15 for a hamburger at a fast food joint, spending over $100 on a small basket of groceries.

Just sayin...

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66425
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Taxes upon taxes upon....
« Reply #3 on: July 12, 2011, 10:09:33 PM »
Not that I agree with raising taxes, but we really don't have it anywhere near as bad as some of you guys make it out.  Go live in a place like the Netherlands or fucking Australia and see just how retarded it is.  Taxes on everything, it sucks!  Paying $5.00 for a 2 liter of water, $18.00 for a pack of smokes, $15 for a hamburger at a fast food joint, spending over $100 on a small basket of groceries.

Just sayin...

Doesn't make me feel any better at all. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Taxes upon taxes upon....
« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2011, 03:13:26 AM »
If the communist demos had their way, that is exactly what america would look like. 

chadstallion

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2854
Re: Taxes upon taxes upon....
« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2011, 05:24:29 AM »
get yourself a great CPA and financial management planner.
You can avoid taxes just like GE.
and it's all legal.
w

MB

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2312
Re: Taxes upon taxes upon....
« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2011, 09:00:03 AM »
Not that I agree with raising taxes, but we really don't have it anywhere near as bad as some of you guys make it out.  Go live in a place like the Netherlands or fucking Australia and see just how retarded it is.  Taxes on everything, it sucks!  Paying $5.00 for a 2 liter of water, $18.00 for a pack of smokes, $15 for a hamburger at a fast food joint, spending over $100 on a small basket of groceries.

Just sayin...

Comparing the US with other countries is mistake #1.  If you agree that other countries suck because of high taxes, then we should be going in the opposite direction.

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: Taxes upon taxes upon....
« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2011, 04:00:43 PM »
Not that I agree with raising taxes, but we really don't have it anywhere near as bad as some of you guys make it out.  Go live in a place like the Netherlands or fucking Australia and see just how retarded it is.  Taxes on everything, it sucks!  Paying $5.00 for a 2 liter of water, $18.00 for a pack of smokes, $15 for a hamburger at a fast food joint, spending over $100 on a small basket of groceries.

Just sayin...

All those taxes and the PIIGS (along with a number of other European states) are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Even without paying shit for defense because they can rent good ol' Uncle Sam out when they need him.

Perfect example of the failure of European socialism (which Obama is hell-bent on emulating).

Emmortal

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5660
Re: Taxes upon taxes upon....
« Reply #8 on: July 17, 2011, 06:04:27 PM »
Comparing the US with other countries is mistake #1.  If you agree that other countries suck because of high taxes, then we should be going in the opposite direction.

Oh I do agree they suck because of high taxes.  It's pathetic when the cost of living in Sydney is higher than London, not that England is in better off when it comes to taxes.

Personally I think they need to cut government by at least 40% and cut taxes appropriately in line with that.  We really just need a complete restart of our government, make lobying illegal, put a cap on election fund raising and institute 8 year term limits for sentators.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Taxes upon taxes upon....
« Reply #9 on: June 28, 2012, 01:20:18 PM »
BUMP

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Taxes upon taxes upon....
« Reply #10 on: June 28, 2012, 01:40:08 PM »
1 trillion?  you can almost buy a war in iraq for that much.


at least a few sensible ppl were against that war in 2003.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Taxes upon taxes upon....
« Reply #11 on: June 28, 2012, 01:41:21 PM »
1 trillion?  you can almost buy a war in iraq for that much.


at least a few sensible ppl were against that war in 2003.

STFU  with your spin and lies and deception. 

chadstallion

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2854
Re: Taxes upon taxes upon....
« Reply #12 on: June 28, 2012, 02:18:13 PM »
STFU  with your spin and lies and deception. 
two wheels up already?
and its only June.
you'll have ulcers by the october surprise.
w

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66425
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Taxes upon taxes upon....
« Reply #13 on: June 28, 2012, 02:20:55 PM »
You can avoid taxes just like GE.

Or just like nearly 50 percent of all taxpayers. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Taxes upon taxes upon....
« Reply #14 on: June 29, 2012, 06:25:36 AM »
[ Invalid YouTube link ]

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: Taxes upon taxes upon....
« Reply #15 on: July 02, 2012, 02:48:08 AM »
1 trillion?  you can almost buy a war in iraq for that much.


at least a few sensible ppl were against that war in 2003.

+10 ;D

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: Taxes upon taxes upon....
« Reply #16 on: July 02, 2012, 02:50:31 AM »
Or just like nearly 50 percent of all taxpayers. 

Not this crap again:

The ‘50 percent pay no tax’ fraud, Part II
1:42 pm February 24, 2009, by Jay

I’ve dealt with this claim before, pointing out that the actual number of taxable units (households and individuals) that earn enough to file tax forms but pay no federal income tax is actually 38 percent, not 50 percent. (Source: Factcheck.org)

But let’s add some context to the discussion. First of all, as the Tax Foundation points out, the relatively large percentage of non-income-tax payers is a direct consequence of the Bush tax cuts that conservatives laud in other contexts. As the foundation pointed out in 2004, the number of zero-tax filers “was 29 million in 2000, and it will be 44 million in 2004, a 50 percent increase.” Again, it attributes that change to the Bush administration.

And of course, income taxes are just one of several forms of federal taxation — you’ve got gasoline taxes, payroll taxes, etc. The Congressional Budget Office has analyzed total effective federal tax rates by income, and comes up with the following (2005 numbers):

—————-Average income ————Effective fed tax rate

Lowest 20 percent………$15,900 ……………………4.3 percent

Second 20 percent…….. $37,400…………………… 9.9 percent

Middle 20 percent……….$58,500………………….. 14.2 percent

Fourth 20 percent……….,$85,200………………….. 17.4 percent

Top 20 percent…………..$231.300…………………..25.5 percent

Top 1 percent…………..$1,558,500………………….31.2 percent

And who are the people who don’t pay federal income taxes? Again, according to the Tax Foundation:

“Broadly speaking, the 44 million zero-tax filers are: low-income, young, female-headed households, part-time workers, and beneficiaries of the $1,000 per-child tax credit.

The 44 million zero-tax filers will be largely low-income. Indeed, 75 percent of will earn less than $20,000 per year and 97 percent will earn less than $40,000. Fewer than 1 percent will earn more than $75,000 per year – a group comprised largely of business owners whose tax liabilities will be erased due to business losses, carry-overs from prior year AMT payments, or foreign tax credits.


Zero-tax filers in 2004 will be overwhelmingly young. Looking at the age of the primary breadwinner on these tax returns, only 22 percent are 45 years old or older. More than one-third (36 percent) are younger than age 25, and 56 percent are younger than age 35. Interestingly, there is a large cluster of households (22.4 percent) where the principal wage earner is between the ages of 35 and 44. Most likely, these are modest-income families who are benefitting most from the increased value of the child credit to $1,000.


The racial or ethnic composition of the 44 million zero-tax filers will roughly mirror the demographics of American tax filers as a whole. For example, white Americans are 83 percent of total taxpayers, and the percentage of zero-tax filers who are white is 79 percent. African Americans are roughly 13 percent of total taxpayers and 17 percent of zero-tax filers. Asian Americans comprise 3.6 percent of total taxpayers and 3.4 percent of zero-tax filers.”

In general, then, those who don’t pay federal income taxes tend to be young families with children, often headed by a single mother, where the head of household has a job and is trying to make ends meet on a modest income. The racial background of that population largely mirrors that of the country at large.



You dont want to raise taxes on the rich but you want to raise taxes on single parents? Some christian you are ::)