Six months to go until largest tax hikes in history

• Footwedge

  QuakerOats;412515 wrote:A - Complete BS .... you continue to confuse tax rates with tax revenues. It is a proven fact that lower marginal rates always stimulate the economy and the result is actually more tax revenues in aggregate.

  I have confused nothing. It is you that is confused. Your assessment has been proven false....by both Bush 43 and Obama. It makes no difference where you read your radical right winged propaganda, but total tax revenues have not increased as a percentage of GDP over the past 4 years....inspite of tax cuts by both Bush 43 and Obama
  

  B - More BS ..... Obama's plan is the furthest thing from supply economics

  .
  
  More right winged propaganda from the National Review or the Weekly Standard. Did you not take any time at all in reading all of the links that I provided? Cutting taxes and lowering interest rates is by definition....Reaganomics. And you can sprinkle in "piles of deficit spending". Obama has implemented that exact same ideas that Reagan did in the early 80's.
  

  It is the exact opposite --- Keynesian policy that is always a failure.

  Why don't you ever cite a source when you post this garbage? By your way of thinking, we must have lost WII,,,the biggest use of Keynesian economics ever.
  

  The reason is because all of his policies are anti-investment, anti-capitalism, anti-growth, anti-jobs, anti-risk taking.

  Lowering the interest rates to all time lows, increasing the money supply to all time high are "anti investment, anti capitalism, anti growth, anti risk taking"?
  
  I'm done discussing the issue with you. You do not understand the basic concepts of our capitalistic fiscal and monetary policies that have existed for more than a century. Blind partisan politics will do that.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I agree but the problem is the twits running our government (largely liberal tax & spend Dems by the way) will not include "cut spending" in their economic formula.
  
  So when the tax cuts expire, rather than applying the additional revenues to the national debt, they will not be able to resist the urge to spend it. A very dangerous probability.

  
  Spot on. Unfortunately.
• jhay78

  

  Footwedge;412708 wrote:I have confused nothing. It is you that is confused. Your assessment has been proven false....by both Bush 43 and Obama. It makes no difference where you read your radical right winged propaganda, but total tax revenues have not increased as a percentage of GDP over the past 4 years....inspite of tax cuts by both Bush 43 and Obama

  I know you're not really crediting Obama with true "tax cuts":
  
  http://thevirtuousrepublic.com/?p=4729
  

  Proof? No, not Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, John Boehner, the Heritage Foundation, or even FOX News! How about we go to the Treasury Department’s own tax collection arm, the IRS for the truth about Obama’s “tax cuts”:
  
  In 2009 and 2010, the Making Work Pay provision of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will provide a refundable tax credit of up to $400 for working individuals and up to $800 for married taxpayers filing joint returns.
  
  This tax credit will be calculated at a rate of 6.2 percent of earned income and will phase out for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income in excess of $75,000, or $150,000 for married couples filing jointly.
  
  For people who receive a paycheck and are subject to withholding, the credit will typically be handled by their employers through automated withholding changes in early spring. These changes may result in an increase in take-home pay. The amount of the credit will be computed on the employee’s 2009 income tax return filed in 2010. Taxpayers who do not have taxes withheld by an employer during the year can also claim the credit on their 2009 tax return.
  
  First, wasn’t Obama’s promise to provide tax relief those making under $250,000? Yet, it clearly states that this tax cut is phased out at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for couples. Lie number one.
  
  Two, Obama promised tax cuts. Yet there is no such animal as evidenced by this IRS explanation. You aren’t getting more money because your tax rates went down, you are getting more money because your withholding has been reduced. Your tax obligation has not changed for the year. Instead at the end of the year, you will likely get a reduced check from the IRS or you will owe.
  
  Third, the only people getting tax relief are those who don’t pay federal income taxes or those who pay so little in taxes, they will now be receiving more money from the Feds than they pay in income taxes.
  

  
  Every president in the 20th century who lowered tax rates saw as a result, increased revenues to the government.
  
  If you can bear with the right-wing-ed-ness of this site:
  
  http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2003/08/The-Historical-Lessons-of-Lower-Tax-Rates
• QuakerOats

  Footwedge;412708 wrote:I have confused nothing. It is you that is confused. Your assessment has been proven false....by both Bush 43 and Obama. It makes no difference where you read your radical right winged propaganda, but total tax revenues have not increased as a percentage of GDP over the past 4 years....inspite of tax cuts by both Bush 43 and Obama
  
  
  More right winged propaganda from the National Review or the Weekly Standard. Did you not take any time at all in reading all of the links that I provided? Cutting taxes and lowering interest rates is by definition....Reaganomics. And you can sprinkle in "piles of deficit spending". Obama has implemented that exact same ideas that Reagan did in the early 80's.
  
  
  Why don't you ever cite a source when you post this garbage? By your way of thinking, we must have lost WII,,,the biggest use of Keynesian economics ever.
  
  
  Lowering the interest rates to all time lows, increasing the money supply to all time high are "anti investment, anti capitalism, anti growth, anti risk taking"?
  
  
  I'm done discussing the issue with you. You do not understand the basic concepts of our capitalistic fiscal and monetary policies that have existed for more than a century. Blind partisan politics will do that.

  
  The Bush tax cuts after 9-11 did indeed result in more tax revenue. Obama has not cut marginal tax rates, and is now readying to increase taxes next year by a massive amount (thus the title of the thread).
  
  
  Obama did not lower interest rates, the Fed did it in late '08 in response to the banking crisis. However, once obama began piling on the radical leftist agenda complete with unprecedented new spending/taxes/penalties/prison time etc... is has created a complete anti-investment, anti-growth, stagnant situation that will not be overcome by the private sector until he and his radical colleagues are voted out.
  
  I cite empirical facts.
  
  obama did not do that and all his policies (obamacare, cap-n-tax, card check etc..etc.) ... all remain anti-everything as I stated.
  
  Sorry you are picking up your marbles and going home. Just think, since this little debate started, and at obama's rate of spending, we are probably another 20 billion in debt ....................... 'Change we can believe in' !!!!
• BoatShoes

  jhay78;412828 wrote:I know you're not really crediting Obama with true "tax cuts":
  
  http://thevirtuousrepublic.com/?p=4729
  
  Every president in the 20th century who lowered tax rates saw as a result, increased revenues to the government.
  
  If you can bear with the right-wing-ed-ness of this site:
  
  http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2003/08/The-Historical-Lessons-of-Lower-Tax-Rates

  
  For one....you guys really blow my mind that all of sudden the only policy decisions that "count" as "tax cuts" are reductions in marginal rates. And then, when your team is in power...tax cuts don't count as part of irresponsible budgeting.
  
  This is the formula for figuring out Income Tax Liability; Total Income - Non-Taxable Income = Gross Income; Gross Income - Adjustments = Adjusted Gross Income; AGI - [(Exemptions) + Larger of (Standard Deduction) or (Itemized Deductions)] = Taxable Income....then you multiply; Taxable Income X Marginal Rate = Tentative Income Tax Liability; Tentative Tax Liability - [(Tax Credits) + (Tax Payments)] = Tax Due
  
  You guys act like changing only the "Marginal Tax Rate" variable is the only legitimate way to reduce overall tax due...when in fact, any of these variables will work....and also, since you subtract credits after calculating tentative tax due, they serve as dollar for dollar reductions of tax. The tax credits as part of the porkulus sammich are cuts in overall tax due for millions of americans by any reasonable perspective but you're not reasonable. They're deficit spending and also tax cuts because yes, indeed, tax cuts contribute to deficits.
  
  
  And these tax cuts you cite that increase overall tax revenues as a result of economic growth...this makes no difference when the government is borrowing money or de-valuing the dollar through deficit spending over those years when you're waiting for tax receipt levels to raise; Or, when you shift tax burdens to the payroll taxes and increase those.
  
  For instance in Fiscal Year 2000, Slick Willy's last year, tax reciepts were 1.004 trillion. It was not until fiscal year 2006 when tax receipts surpassed this level...it took 6 years for this to happen. By that time...the fiscal conservatives in power had added 2.75 trillion to the national debt.
  
  Cutting Taxes does nothing unless you cut spending (which every president and congressman says they will do) but spending has increased nearly every year since WWII.
  
  It is contradiction and a scam adopted by an entire political party that being Conservative and supporting balanced budgets means that you don't think you can ever raise taxes.
• Footwedge

  Boat Shoes....."wham with the right hand". As good a post as I've ever seen here.
• Footwedge

  jhay78;412828 wrote:I know you're not really crediting Obama with true "tax cuts":
  
  http://thevirtuousrepublic.com/?p=4729
  
  
  
  Every president in the 20th century who lowered tax rates saw as a result, increased revenues to the government.
  
  If you can bear with the right-wing-ed-ness of this site:
  
  http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2003/08/The-Historical-Lessons-of-Lower-Tax-Rates

  I only read the Heritage Foundation Link. I can tell you that most the information "opined" is garbage. No facts to substantiate the argument at all.
  
  Do you know who Arthur Laffer is? He plotted a curve over decades to reflect tax revenues vs. tax marginal rates. It is a curve that demonstrates that right now....as in today....revenues are WAY TOO LOW because OF LOW TAX RATES. And you know what is really ironic about that? The same HERITAGE FOUNDATION was the "think tank" that has admitted to this and has clearly stated this to be the case.
  
  Did you do your own taxes this year? I did. I payed less taxes because the tax rates have decreased for my tax income bracket. I also received a 1500 tax credit for installing a 95% efficiency new furnace. That tax credit was instituted by that fucking flaming liberal Obama.
• I Wear Pants

  But that tax credit has to do with saving energy. Therefore it's a scam and doesn't count.
• Footwedge

  I was wrong on citing the Heritage Foundation. It was actually the CATO Institute instead....another staunch conservative think tank. This video part one is very informative.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIqyCpCPrvU
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Good lord, if anyone paid (not payed) less taxes, it is because their income didn't keep up with the yearly inflation adjustments. "Tax rates" didn't change at all from '08 to '09.
• believer

  

  BoatShoes;412970 wrote:Cutting Taxes does nothing unless you cut spending (which every president and congressman says they will do) but spending has increased nearly every year since WWII.

  THIS is indeed the scary part. Realizing this is a fact is why we should ALL be very, very concerned about the expiration of the tax cuts. This additional revenue will be spent. It will NOT be applied to balancing the nation's budget unfortunately. And because of that the economy will continue to tank.
  

  BoatShoes;412970 wrote:It is contradiction and a scam adopted by an entire political party that being Conservative and supporting balanced budgets means that you don't think you can ever raise taxes.

  Perhaps but I say this again...The bunch currently running DC (BHO-Reid-Pelosi) are salivating at the prospect of more tax dollars to spend. If we think for a moment these clowns will apply the increased tax revenues to paying down the national debt we're bigger idiots than the Socialist Triad.
  
  You and Footie can slam conservatives all you want for never considering tax increases as responsible fiscal policy, but it's interesting how you rarely show the same zeal for insisting that the leftists in power do the right thing with their new-found tax booty.
  
  IF the new tax revenues are applied to balancing the nation's budget then as a conservative I suppose I can swallow my pride. But that will NOT happen with the tax & spend twits running the show.
• Con_Alma

  I think I'm a conservative.
  
  I'm in favor of raising taxes when needed.
  
  I'm in favor of raising taxes on "everyone" when needed....as long as it is on everyone.
  
  If the potential tax coming tax increase is accompanied by a zero percent increase in expenditures there was no need for us to raise taxes.
  
  I am never in favor of raising taxes unless those who have the ability to spend it tell me exactly how the new revenue will be used.
• LJ

  

  http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/deficit-hysteria-means-the-middle-class-is-about-to-get-squeezed-by-new-taxes-517056.html?tickers=udn,gld,uup,tlt,tbt,^gspc,^dji&sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=&ccode=
• LJ

  

  http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/deficit-hysteria-means-the-middle-class-is-about-to-get-squeezed-by-new-taxes-517056.html?tickers=udn,gld,uup,tlt,tbt,^gspc,^dji&sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=&ccode=
• Footwedge

  Manhattan Buckeye;413719 wrote:Good lord, if anyone paid (not payed) less taxes, it is because their income didn't keep up with the yearly inflation adjustments. "Tax rates" didn't change at all from '08 to '09.

  
  My taxes were much lower. that's all i know.
• believer

  

  LJ;413965 wrote:http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/deficit-hysteria-means-the-middle-class-is-about-to-get-squeezed-by-new-taxes-517056.html?tickers=udn,gld,uup,tlt,tbt,^gspc,^dji&sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=&ccode=

  Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., noted "you could go lower ... why not $200,000? With the debt and deficit we have, you can't make promises to people."

  Oh really Ms. Feinstein? Tell that to the Anointed One.
• LJ

  

  Footwedge;414004 wrote:My taxes were much lower. that's all i know.

  
  You either made less, or you are looking at your overall tax bill and confusing your state tax with federal, because the state of Ohio tax has been decreasing yearly. Also, you could have gotten the obama $400 credit if it wasn't taken out of your withholding. Federal tax rates didn't change except for the standard deduction going up a few hundred bucks (reducing your tax by like $3)
• QuakerOats

  Karlgaard obviously says it better than I can ..................
  
  
  America's $1.2 Trillion Constipation ProblemJune 21, 2010 - 1:01 pm
  There were two--and arguably three--buttons that engaged the supply side revolution that, in turn, set up America’s long economic boom from 1983-2007.
  
  One is well understood and is found on America’s P&L sheet, as it were. Reduce income taxes at the margin, and you’ll get more income. People and companies will be more motivated to produce. The simple thought experiment is to imagine your tax rates for a week’s work: 0% on Monday, 25% on Tuesday, 50% on Wednesday, 75% on Thursday and 100% on Friday. Would you work Friday? Not many would.
  
  The second supply side button is less understood but just as crucial. It is found on America’s balance sheet. Start with this question: What is the wealth of America? You’ll get estimates that vary from $60 trillion net of debt to $150 trillion when you include everything, including federal land. Now ask: Is America’s wealth generating new wealth, or is it just sitting there like a dead weight? If the wealth is "dead," then what tax and regulatory barriers might be standing in the way of it becoming alive and productive? I would argue that Treasury Bills, gold holdings and an ANWR that is off limits to drilling are examples of dead wealth--that is, stored wealth that could create more wealth if put to proper use.
  
  A current example of relatively dead wealth is the $1.2 trillion of cash and cash equivalents held by American publicly traded companies. In aggregate, the balance sheets of these companies have never been stronger. But that wealth is relatively dead. It is not being deployed for growth as aggressively as you might expect in the early days of an economic recovery. To bluntly switch metaphors, American corporations have a $1.2 trillion constipation problem.
  
  The third (and more controversial) supply side button has to do with public spending. It’s controversial because many libertarian supply siders would dispute that supply side policy and government spending could ever coexist. Not true. President Eisenhower’s interstate highway program had positive multiplier effects for the American economy. So did the Defense Department’s Advanced Research Project Agency, which gave us both military superiority over the Soviets and the Internet.
  
  America’s economic recovery looks fragile and is fragile. Good supply side policies would quickly set things right. Here are three:
  
  1. Congress should make permanent the 2003 Bush tax cuts on income and capital gains. The result would be immediate. Stocks would quickly go up 20%. Dead capital would go into M&As, IPOs and new venture funding.
  
  2. Obama should stop his war on business, which is the chief cause of the $1.2 trillion constipation problem. Even Obama supporters have had enough of this. As Michael Barone wrote on Monday, quoting The Economist (which is pro-Obama):
  
  "If he sees any impropriety in politicians ordering executives about, upstaging the courts and threatening confiscation, he has not said so," write the editors of The Economist, who then suggest that markets see Obama as "an American version of Vladimir Putin." Except that Putin is an effective thug.
  
  3. Declare Keynesianism dead, once and for all. Spend taxpayer dollars--if you’re going to spend them at all--not to create bogus jobs or reward failed companies, but to advance America’s competitive interests. Military R&D has proven the best lever.
  
  http://blogs.forbes.com/digitalrules/
• Writerbuckeye

  

  ^^^Simply an excellent summary. Too bad liberals don't want to believe reality and have basically no understanding of economics. Our President is Example No. 1.
• IggyPride00

  

  1. Congress should make permanent the 2003 Bush tax cuts on income and capital gains. The result would be immediate. Stocks would quickly go up 20%. Dead capital would go into M&As, IPOs and new venture funding.

  They worked so well that we've had a net job loss since 2001 when we started cutting taxes across the board.
  
  I am hardly a liberal, but we have had a decade of no regulation in any sector and the lowest taxes on record and the decade was a jobs loser.
  
  Why should we think more of the same prescription is going to change the outcome?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  No regulation? Banks are likely the heaviest regulated business entity. There are many more regulations for bank holding companies as opposed to other public companies.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Don't mind Iggy, he has bought into the populist rhetoric that's being played on Capitol Hill.
• Footwedge

  LJ;414051 wrote:You either made less, or you are looking at your overall tax bill and confusing your state tax with federal, because the state of Ohio tax has been decreasing yearly. Also, you could have gotten the obama $400 credit if it wasn't taken out of your withholding. Federal tax rates didn't change except for the standard deduction going up a few hundred bucks (reducing your tax by like $3)

  
  
  I an actulity, we did make less as a joint filer. But, i also compared the tax tables with that of the previous year, and it showed that I paid quite a bit less eve if we had made the exact same amount. I have 2 kids i9n college...the past 2 years have reflected a nice little chaching coming back given the far that we shelled out aout 20 g's and 20 g's respectively.
  
  Secondly, apparently you missed the $100 tax credit that I posted because we purchase a new furnace/AC that cost over v5 K, giving us an additional tax credit...not deduction..but credit. And you cited the standard rate increase....but you failed to mentioned the addition rate per deduction taken....bith of which reduced taxes over and above the Bush Tax years.
  
  All in all, had our income been the sme as last year, we would have paid about 2K less.
  
  If anyone wants me to prove it, then PM me and I'll show you my my 1040 from last year my 1040 this year with the added tax credits on this year's form.
  I live in southeastern ohio, and I'll meet you on the weekend.
• IggyPride00

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;414399 wrote:No regulation? Banks are likely the heaviest regulated business entity. There are many more regulations for bank holding companies as opposed to other public companies.

  
  What do you prefer to call it when hundreds of trillions of dollars of derivatives (that managed to bring down the world economy) can fly around and be traded with no oversight and no transparency?
• LJ

  

  Footwedge;414432 wrote:I an actulity, we did make less as a joint filer. But, i also compared the tax tables with that of the previous year, and it showed that I paid quite a bit less eve if we had made the exact same amount. I have 2 kids i9n college...the past 2 years have reflected a nice little chaching coming back given the far that we shelled out aout 20 g's and 20 g's respectively.
  
  Secondly, apparently you missed the $100 tax credit that I posted because we purchase a new furnace/AC that cost over v5 K, giving us an additional tax credit...not deduction..but credit. And you cited the standard rate increase....but you failed to mentioned the addition rate per deduction taken....bith of which reduced taxes over and above the Bush Tax years.
  
  All in all, had our income been the sme as last year, we would have paid about 2K less.
  
  If anyone wants me to prove it, then PM me and I'll show you my my 1040 from last year my 1040 this year with the added tax credits on this year's form.
  I live in southeastern ohio, and I'll meet you on the weekend.

  
  credits and deductions are always changing. But if your AGI was 65,000 last year, the tax rate on it was the same as if you AGI were 65,000 in 2003. I don't think anyone will doubt credits and deductons, because those do change yearly, but your actual tax rate on your AGI has not changed. Credits don't change your tax rate persae, your tax bill is still the same, it's just like you have gift cards from the .gov