Massive tax increases coming, folks

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
11,817
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
The Tax Tsunami On The Horizon

Posted 07/21/2010 06:41 PM ET
ISS640webpoll0722_345.gif.png


Fiscal Policy: Many voters are looking forward to 2011, hoping a new Congress will put the country back on the right track. But unless something's done soon, the new year will also come with a raft of tax hikes — including a return of the death tax — that will be real killers.

Through the end of this year, the federal estate tax rate is zero — thanks to the package of broad-based tax cuts that President Bush pushed through to get the economy going earlier in the decade.

But as of midnight Dec. 31, the death tax returns — at a rate of 55% on estates of $1 million or more. The effect this will have on hospital life-support systems is already a matter of conjecture.

Resurrection of the death tax, however, isn't the only tax problem that will be ushered in Jan. 1. Many other cuts from the Bush administration are set to disappear and a new set of taxes will materialize. And it's not just the rich who will pay.

The lowest bracket for the personal income tax, for instance, moves up 50% — to 15% from 10%. The next lowest bracket — 25% — will rise to 28%, and the old 28% bracket will be 31%. At the higher end, the 33% bracket is pushed to 36% and the 35% bracket becomes 39.6%.

But the damage doesn't stop there.

The marriage penalty also makes a comeback, and the capital gains tax will jump 33% — to 20% from 15%. The tax on dividends will go all the way from 15% to 39.6% — a 164% increase.

Both the cap-gains and dividend taxes will go up further in 2013 as the health care reform adds a 3.8% Medicare levy for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and joint filers making more than $250,000. Other tax hikes include: halving the child tax credit to $500 from $1,000 and fixing the standard deduction for couples at the same level as it is for single filers.

Letting the Bush cuts expire will cost taxpayers $115 billion next year alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and $2.6 trillion through 2020.

But even more tax headaches lie ahead. This "second wave" of hikes, as Americans for Tax Reform puts it, are designed to pay for ObamaCare and include:

The Medicine Cabinet Tax. Americans, says ATR, "will no longer be able to use health savings account, flexible spending account, or health reimbursement pretax dollars to purchase nonprescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)."

The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. "This provision of ObamaCare," according to ATR, "increases the additional tax on nonmedical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10% to 20%, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10%."

Brand Name Drug Tax. Makers and importers of brand-name drugs will be liable for a tax of $2.5 billion in 2011. The tax goes to $3 billion a year from 2012 to 2016, then $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018. Beginning in 2019 it falls to $2.8 billion and stays there. And who pays the new drug tax? Patients, in the form of higher prices.

Economic Substance Doctrine. ATR reports that "The IRS is now empowered to disallow perfectly legal tax deductions and maneuvers merely because it judges that the deduction or action lacks 'economic substance.'"

A third and final (for now) wave, says ATR, consists of the alternative minimum tax's widening net, tax hikes on employers and the loss of deductions for tuition:

• The Tax Policy Center, no right-wing group, says that the failure to index the AMT will subject 28.5 million families to the tax when they file next year, up from 4 million this year.

• "Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly deduct, or 'depreciate') equipment purchases up to $250,000," says ATR. "This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be 'depreciated.'"

• According to ATR, there are "literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place," plus the loss of some tax credits. The research and experimentation tax credit will be the biggest loss, "but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs."

• The deduction for tuition and fees will no longer be available and there will be limits placed on education tax credits. Teachers won't be able to deduct their classroom expenses and employer-provided educational aid will be restricted. Thousands of families will no longer be allowed to deduct student loan interest.

Then there's the tax on Americans who decline to buy health care insurance (the tax the administration initially said wasn't a tax but now argues in court that it is) plus a 3.8% Medicare tax beginning in 2013 on profits made in real estate transactions by wealthier Americans.

Not all Americans may fully realize what's in store come Jan. 1. But they should have a pretty good idea by the mid-term elections, and members of Congress might take note of our latest IBD/TIPP Poll (summarized above).

Fifty-one percent of respondents favored making the Bush cuts permanent vs. 28% who didn't. Republicans were more than 4 to 1 and Independents more than 2 to 1 in favor. Only Democrats were opposed, but only by 40%-38%.

The cuts also proved popular among all income groups — despite the Democrats' oft-heard assertion that Bush merely provided "tax breaks for the wealthy." Fact is, Bush cut taxes for everyone who paid them, and the cuts helped the nation recover from a recession and the worst stock-market crash since 1929.

Maybe, just maybe, Americans remember that — and will not forget come Nov. 2.
 
Damn you foss, I knew this was going to affect me but I didn't know just how bad until I read this, now I realize I'm f***ed. In normal years I'd get a good return back, now I'm crossing my figures that I get anything.
 
Don't shoot the messenger :D

I predict more and more people will cheat on their taxes. When the government makes everything illegal, laws don't matter anymore. People will have to choose between feeding their families and paying their taxes.
 
I will be one of those cheating, I owe $1,800 for last year alone, and that was with buying a house, I figure if I go to jail, I will have that $1,800 stashed away in matress financial. F#ck taxes, they tax those who work, and lazy bums sit at home and live better than we do.
 
I will be one of those cheating, I owe $1,800 for last year alone, and that was with buying a house, I figure if I go to jail, I will have that $1,800 stashed away in matress financial. F#ck taxes, they tax those who work, and lazy bums sit at home and live better than we do.

Careful.
They'll throw you to jail AND take your mattress.
 
and yet we continue to not tax the rich as much as we used to after the last depression
 
^ You can't tax people just because they are successful.

so you'd much rather tax the middle to low economy people. THink of this...after the depression we taxed the rich at a wopping 90% (I believe), In doing so we were able to build bridges, highways, pay teachers, cops, etc good. We had a surplus, reserve....and all this because the wealth made by those whom took advantage of others to gain there wealth (Look at most the rich people...they got there because of profits...by giving sh1t wages to employees and short-cutting quality).

So really...it's more of a giving back to the community that the high taxes do to those whom make over 300k per year
 
^ You can't tax people just because they are successful.

think of this too..the less you make the less you should be taxed, whereas the more you make the more you should be taxed...I say that's fair......
 
...Why don't we just tax people who make more than $300k a year a 100% rate for everything over that amount they earn?
They'll have plenty of money to live and the government will have loads of money to redistribute and social security will be saved for years and years to come.
Right Pete?
 
think of this too..the less you make the less you should be taxed, whereas the more you make the more you should be taxed...I say that's fair......

Thought about it looong ago and rejected it for the foolish and unrealistic notion it is.
 
so you'd much rather tax the middle to low economy people. THink of this...after the depression we taxed the rich at a wopping 90% (I believe), In doing so we were able to build bridges, highways, pay teachers, cops, etc good. We had a surplus, reserve....and all this because the wealth made by those whom took advantage of others to gain there wealth (Look at most the rich people...they got there because of profits...by giving sh1t wages to employees and short-cutting quality).

So really...it's more of a giving back to the community that the high taxes do to those whom make over 300k per year
The wealthy don't pay income taxes, Pete. They don't earn income.

Only the middle class suffers when taxes go up - the business owners don't hire, prices go up, people get laid off because the rich aren't consuming products that middle class workers make...

It's a disaster for everybody else.

Obama's the one taxing the middle class. Bush gave a tax cut to everybody, middle class included.
 
...Why don't we just tax people who make more than $300k a year a 100% rate for everything over that amount they earn?
They'll have plenty of money to live and the government will have loads of money to redistribute and social security will be saved for years and years to come.
Right Pete?

Look out, Cal. He probably can't see the tongue in your cheek.

KS
(Actually, the way to go is to make them pay 200 % of ALL they make and throw them in debtor's prison if they don't immediately pony up!!! Dirty, thievin' so-and-sos)
 
and all this because the wealth made by those whom took advantage of others to gain there wealth (Look at most the rich people...they got there because of profits...by giving sh1t wages to employees and short-cutting quality).

That is a profoundly ignorant thing to say.

Wealth is not a zero sum game. The rich did not get their wealth, "by giving sh1t wages to employees and short-cutting quality", they create wealth.

Have you had any education in economics?
 
That's not fair. It makes people less inclined to succeed, because well, you'll just have to give it back. And there is the downfall of our country as we know it. If you're playing the percentage game, if one person make 500k a year and is taxed 10%, and another makes 50k and is taxed 10%, who is taxed more?

You really need a reality check. You were almost homeless, then caught a "lucky" break and got to move into a foreclosed home. The walls around you exude the notion of ECONOMIC FAILURE, and yet you don't understand the simple task of saving money. You're looking for modifications you can do to your LS, do you find that ironic? I do. Wake up dude. No one in this world owes anyone else a damn thing.
 
I support a VAT or federal sales tax.
Almost half of the people don't pay any income tax.
It's time to get them to pay some share instead of
getting a free ride from the government.
How is it fair that half don't pay any income tax?
A VAT is inevitable.
 
Originally Posted by PetesSweets86
viewpost.gif

and all this because the wealth made by those whom took advantage of others to gain there wealth (Look at most the rich people...they got there because of profits...by giving sh1t wages to employees and short-cutting quality).

Businesses have the talented people who have the smarts and take the risks.
Workers don't take risks and accept the pay companies offer of free will.
If they don't like it they are free to go do something else for more
money if they have something valuable to offer.

There are few leaders and many followers in this world.
Workers are paid what they are worth for the kind of jobs they do.
A healthy business makes as much profit as it's payroll.

So if someone hires you for 30k, they're making 30k off you as well.
Workers are hired to make a business money primarily
and not to provide a job for someone.

In our case we have automated the more mindless labor intensive jobs with robots
who only need electricity and maintainance and for who's labor we don't incur payroll taxes.
Some workers are required to run higher more automated production processes but not as many as before.

This is the way of things.
Compete and cut costs or die.
No safety net here.
 
I support a VAT or federal sales tax.
Almost half of the people don't pay any income tax.
It's time to get them to pay some share instead of
getting a free ride from the government.
How is it fair that half don't pay any income tax?
A VAT is inevitable.
So, you hate the poor?

Nice.

A VAT will only hurt the poor and middle class. It will make prices increase and costs skyrocket.

Unless you are advocating replacing income tax with a VAT, like the FairTax, in which case I agree with you.
 
So, you hate the poor?

Nice.

A VAT will only hurt the poor and middle class. It will make prices increase and costs skyrocket.

Unless you are advocating replacing income tax with a VAT, like the FairTax, in which case I agree with you.

I don't hate the poor.
I just don't want to give them more money.
I"m already paying a 45% income tax rate and have grown cold hearted towards giving them more money.

If people want to live off the government we should have farms where they can grow food to feed themselves in exchange for shelter :rolleyes: so they don't put such a drain on the treasury.:eek::rolleyes:


Since half the people don't pay income tax a VAT will be like replacing the half the income tax so called poor people don't pay.:p

Oh,
And you're running out to give more of your income tax money
to the so called disadvantaged?

Canada's vat type tax has been very successful and hasn't caused any of the things you fear.
 
I don't hate the poor.
I just don't want to give them more money.
I"m already paying a 45% income tax rate and have grown cold hearted towards giving them more money.

If people want to live off the government we should have farms where they can grow food to feed themselves in exchange for shelter :rolleyes: so they don't put such a drain on the treasury.:eek::rolleyes:
You're just a greedy, heartless rich guy who hates the poor and wants to enrich yourself on the backs of everyone else. Damn capitalist. ;)

I'm really just needling you...can't you tell?

But we don't need more taxes - we need fewer taxes, and the ones we have need to be more fair.

While the federal government sinks deeper into debt than any time since World War II, former White House “green jobs” adviser Anthony Van Jones said it was time to stop worrying about budget deficits and pressure Washington to take more money from American businesses to fund larger social and infrastructure projects.

“This is a rich country. We have plenty of money, and if you don’t believe me, ask Haliburton,” Jones told a group of progressive bloggers and activists at the Netroots Nation convention Friday. “There’s plenty of money out there; don’t fall into the trap of this whole deficit argument.”

“The only question is how to spend it,” he added.
 
You're just a greedy, heartless rich guy who hates the poor and wants to enrich yourself on the backs of everyone else. Damn capitalist. ;)

I'm really just needling you...can't you tell?

But we don't need more taxes - we need fewer taxes, and the ones we have need to be more fair.

Now now flattery will get you somewhere.

Sometimes capitalism can be like making sausages ie you don't want to see
the process.

I don't apologize for my success in the rules of life.
I was born with some talents that have carried me far.

The inconvenient truth is 5000 boomers are retiring every day now and they have been promised social security and medicare.

So short of these people falling on their swords for the state I don't see how you can disagree with the general bipartizan conclusion that spending has to be cut and taxes will go up.

The problem is that it's akin to a drug addict exersizing wishful thinking saying he's going to quit soon as a justification for shooting up right now.
 
Now now flattery will get you somewhere.

Sometimes capitalism can be like making sausages ie you don't want to see
the process.

I don't apologize for my success in the rules of life.
I was born with some talents that have carried me far.

The inconvenient truth is 5000 boomers are retiring every day now and they have been promised social security and medicare.

So short of these people falling on their swords for the state I don't see how you can disagree with the general bipartizan conclusion that spending has to be cut and taxes will go up.

The problem is that it's akin to a drug addict exersizing wishful thinking saying he's going to quit soon as a justification for shooting up right now.
If you increase taxes, you will have a double dip recession and you will NOT see an increase in federal receipts. The producers will cut back to avoid taking losses and the economy will not recover.

And you have it backwards with your 'bipartisan' comment. That's a rhetorical trick on your part, and factually incorrect. You know good and well that the Democrats have no intention of cutting spending, and you know good and well that the Republicans and some of the Democrats (thus making it bipartisan and the reverse of your assertion) recognize that raising taxes is a bad idea right now.
 
I don't see how you can disagree with the general bipartisan conclusion that spending has to be cut and taxes will go up.

You won't get any argument that spending needs to be cut. But it isn't so much taxes that need to go up as tax revenue needs to go up. Those are two different things. The question is what is the best way to raise revenue. Tax increases, especially in the long term, do not necessarily mean that tax revenue will go up. Tax cuts can increase revenue, especially in the long term. Static vs. dynamic analysis.

Also, you have to temper that need with the more immediate need for economic stimulus, which we really haven't had yet. the single best economic stimulus is tax cuts. Tax increases will only worsen this recession.

The welfare, medicare/medicaid and social security systems are ulimately unsustainable; textbook Ponzi schemes. In the long term, they will have to be phased out (or at least changed dramatically to be sustainable).

You should look into Paul Ryan's proposals. He is the only representative (in either house as far as I know) who has proposed and pushed a realistic way to balance the budget and reform these systems. He is someone to keep a close eye on, IMO.

In fact, the GOP (at least in the House) have started adopting his "roadmap" (at least in part) for campaign purposes; a very wise move. You can read more about it here.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top