obama '13 mega tax increases

• QuakerOats

  It is time for obama to take ownership of the tax increases that will occur, 4 years into HIS presidency, beginning January 1, 2013:
  
  

  Income Tax Brackets	Rates would rise for all Americans, with the lowest bracket rising from 10% to 15% and the highest from 35% to 39.6%.
  Dividends	Would be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income — instead of today's 15% maximum rate.
  Capital Gains	Maximum rate would rise to 20% from the current 15%.
  Personal Exemptions and Itemized Deductions	Would be reduced for high-income taxpayers.
  Alternative Minimum Tax	Without extension of temporary exemptions, more taxpayers will be snared by this parallel tax system.
  Payroll Taxes	Individuals' share of Social Security taxes would return from the temporary 4.2% to the normal 6.2%; the self-employment tax rate would rise from 10.4% to 12.4%.
  Estate Taxes	Maximum estate tax rate would rise to 55% from the current 35%; estates valued at more than $1 million would face the tax (versus the current $5 million).
  Education Savings	The annual contribution limit for Coverdell Education Savings Accounts would fall from $2,000 to $500 and qualified withdrawals would no longer be permitted for K-12 expenses.
  Child Tax Credit	Falls from $1,000 to $500.
  Married Couples Filing Joint Returns	The expiration of features meant to address a so-called "marriage penalty" would reduce standard deductions and push many couples into higher tax brackets.
  Adoption Credits	Maximum credit would fall from $13,360 to $6,000 and would only be available for special needs children.
  Other Popular Tax Breaks	Deductions for state and local sales taxes, higher education and teachers' classroom supplies all would vanish.

• IggyPride00

  

  The Middle class is about to get hammered by either Obama or Willard.
  
  In Obama's case, it is because rates are going up.
  
  With Willard, it is going to be the loss of every deduction known to man to finance the 20% across the board tax cut he wants to give.
  
  With either guy as President, your tax bill will go up a few thousand dollars unless you make more than a few hundred thousand a year. Should Willard win, those making more than a few hundred thousand will see a net tax cut even with the loss of deductions under his plan.
  
  Either way, the middle class is screwed.
• sleeper

  

  These tax increases won't happen. I mean are you kidding? This is America; we don't pay for things we just blame the rich for all of our problems.
• HitsRus

  

  Note to IGGY...the middle class always gets hammered no matter who gets taxed.
• IggyPride00

  

  HitsRus;1267176 wrote:Note to IGGY...the middle class always gets hammered no matter who gets taxed.

  I am well aware of that. I just don't think many people are prepared to have the mortgage interest deduction, AMT fix, and other popular ones removed under Willard's tax plan.
  
  We know BHO is out to steal our money (and has said as much) Willard on the other hand is plotting to do it like a thief in the night. The alternative is he doesn't get rid of the popular deductions and instead channels his inner Obama and explodes the deficit even worse than it currently is (which seems unfathomable) by doing the huge tax cut and keeping the loopholes. The math just doesn't work any other way to make it revenue neutral unless you get rid of everything.
• gut

  Romney/Ryan's budget calls for 80% of the spending that Obama does. So even if Romney's tax cuts aren't "revenue neutral", it's stll going to be a lot smaller hole than Obama. And putting people back to work and growing the economy is going to help more.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Wait, what?
  Obama is in favor all the tax cuts expiring?
  New to me.
  
  I know the President was to extend most of the the tax cuts, and then allow some to slip a little, for the top wealthy. (Which, I am not totally in favor of happening FWIW)
  BTW, it is Congress that would be to blame also if they can't get anything to pass. Yes, the President has blame, but he can only control so much. It is up to the worthless Senate and House to bring up back from the tax brink.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  gut;1267238 wrote:Romney/Ryan's budget calls for 80% of the spending that Obama does. So even if Romney's tax cuts aren't "revenue neutral", it's stll going to be a lot smaller hole than Obama. And putting people back to work and growing the economy is going to help more.

  Wow, how't that work?
  I know their DOD budget increases.
  That leaves SS and Medicare to cut. Hmmm, how they doing that?
  
  Or are we just talking non-mandatory spending? Which is easy to say, but good luck.
• jhay78

  

  ccrunner609;1267133 wrote:We are $16 billion in debt.....the rich and the poor arent paying for it.

  You meant trillion. $16 Billion flushes down the toilet in an average of 5 days.
• gut

  ptown_trojans_1;1267389 wrote:Wow, how't that work?

  going back to historic averages. Really not that difficult of an achievement. There's a lot of "discretionary" handouts bloating those entitlement numbers. A LOT.
• Footwedge

  gut;1267238 wrote:Romney/Ryan's budget calls for 80% of the spending that Obama does. So even if Romney's tax cuts aren't "revenue neutral", it's stll going to be a lot smaller hole than Obama. And putting people back to work and growing the economy is going to help more.

  Funny. funny stuff there Gut. Have you overpaid for bridges in Manhatten lately? The budget will never be 20% less no matter who is in office. And please...stop it with the Romney will increase jobs nonsense. He's into streamlining and offshoring American work.
• gut

  Footwedge;1267445 wrote:Funny. funny stuff there Gut. Have you overpaid for bridges in Manhatten lately? The budget will never be 20% less no matter who is in office. And please...stop it with the Romney will increase jobs nonsense. He's into streamlining and offshoring American work.

  The budget was rarely over 20% of GDP until Obama took office. Obama wants to run it 25%+. 20 is 80% of 25, So, once again I'm correct and you have no clue about the issues. Or, alternatively, Romney/Ryan want to restore normative spending levels while Obama is looking to make permanenet a 25% increase. Either way...
  
  Or how about not that Romney will increase jobs, but that Obama is decreasing them with his anti-business agenda. Either way, everyone will be better off under Romney, except perhaps those looking for a free ride off the gubmit.
• believer

  

  gut;1267460 wrote:Or how about not that Romney will increase jobs, but that Obama is decreasing them with his anti-business agenda. Either way, everyone will be better off under Romney, except perhaps those looking for a free ride off the gubmit.

  Of this I have no doubt. Romney may not have all the answers but it is crystal clear that Obama has none.
• jmog

  Footwedge;1267445 wrote:Funny. funny stuff there Gut. Have you overpaid for bridges in Manhatten lately? The budget will never be 20% less no matter who is in office. And please...stop it with the Romney will increase jobs nonsense. He's into streamlining and offshoring American work.

  He said 20% LESS THAN THE OBAMA BUDGET, not 20% LESS THAN THE CURRENT BUDGET.
  
  English, it is your friend.
• BGFalcons82

  

  I'm thinking the government, in all its wisdom and fairness, should spend 75% of GDP. That way, no one has to work very hard, The Man will work for us while we sit around, and we can bang on the drum all day. I had no idea the entitlement gang had all the fun. Time to change sides since we're already destined for the shit hole.
• believer

  

  BGFalcons82;1267588 wrote:I'm thinking the government, in all its wisdom and fairness, should spend 75% of GDP. That way, no one has to work very hard, The Man will work for us while we sit around, and we can bang on the drum all day. I had no idea the entitlement gang had all the fun. Time to change sides since we're already destined for the shit hole.

  If the American sheeple are dumb enough to re-elect Obama, I may do just that. Where's my slice of the pie? Come to think of it, I'm still waiting for my share of Barry's $780 billion Porkulus Sammich.
• gut

  ccrunner609;1268369 wrote:Obama 5 trillion = $16,000 foe every man, women, child in this country. If they just gave that money to the people this country would be rolling.

  Gov of ND on today saying they have 3M+ jobs and can't find qualified people, can't find people willing to relocate. Being paid to sit on your ass will do that for people, as opposed to learning a skill and then going to where the work is.
• stlouiedipalma

  You folks must not have any confidence in your standard-bearer Mitt Romney. If these "taxes" were actually going to go into effect, Mitt would simply wave his magic underwear and repeal them all on January 20th. Of course, none of this is true, just like the myth that Mitt can actually win this thing.
• QuakerOats

  Mitt can win because the producers still outnumber the takers by the slim margin of 52 - 48. However, 4 more years of obama and the takers will outnumber the producers by 65 - 35, and the slide into the ash heap of history will have been completed and you will have your dictator, perhaps forever.
• QuakerOats

  100 days until the largest tax hikes in American history:
  
  http://www.atr.org/days-taxmageddon-a7203
  
  
  Change we can believe in .....
• BoatShoes

  What is fascinating is that in post #21 QuakerOats laments the 48% of "takers" who don't pay federal income taxes....largely because of many of the tax provisions that are expiring in 100 days and then, in the very next post...complains about those tax hikes which would make those "takers" have "skin in the game."
  
  The incoherence is palpable.
• QuakerOats

  ^^^ funny.
  
  The 48% who work but pay no federal income taxes should obviously have to pay at least a nominal amount for national defense and to fund the federal judiciary etc... say just $500 for instance. No pain there, just 'fairness' - right?
  
  Aside from that, the obama '13 tax hikes, along with at least 20 NEW TAXES, are about to hammer this nation, and the results will not be pretty.
  
  
  The failed leadership of this regime is simply hard to fathom. Actually it is criminal.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  QuakerOats;1271381 wrote:Mitt can win because the producers still outnumber the takers by the slim margin of 52 - 48. However, 4 more years of obama and the takers will outnumber the producers by 65 - 35, and the slide into the ash heap of history will have been completed and you will have your dictator, perhaps forever.

  What the hell are you talking about? Damn, take a chill pill there chief. Dictator, ash heap of history? Ok, chicken little.
  I would have loved to hear you if we still lived in the Cold War. "The Soviets will bomb us to the stone age!" "Commies will overrun the whole society!"
  

  QuakerOats;1276889 wrote:100 days until the largest tax hikes in American history:
  
  http://www.atr.org/days-taxmageddon-a7203
  
  
  Change we can believe in .....

  I love the complete lack of any criticism of the body that you know will pass the tax laws?
  Congress, especially the House, seems to escape so much of the blame, yet it is all on the President.
  Yes, the President is the leader, but in domestic policy, and especially on budget and taxes, the Executive Branch has little or no say.
  
  And, it is funny, as I thought most do not want Congress to do anything? Yet, they want action by them now? Which is it? Is some action good? Or no action good?
  
  I highly doubt anything will happen until during the Lame Duck (which R's hammered should exist in 2010, remember?)
  As everyone will go into election mode, any action on the taxes or sequestration will be after Turkey day.
• gut

  ptown_trojans_1;1276946 wrote: Yes, the President is the leader, but in domestic policy, and especially on budget and taxes, the Executive Branch has little or no say.

  So does he have little influence, or is he not a leader? Kind of a slight contradiction there.
  
  Unfortunately you are 100% correct because Obama cannot even lead his own party, much less the country.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  gut;1276948 wrote:So does he have little influence, or is he not a leader? Kind of a slight contradiction there.
  
  Unfortunately you are 100% correct because Obama cannot even lead his own party, much less the country.

  I expected this reply.
  The short answer is, he has little influence, and he could be Clinton or Reagan and still have little influence.
  
  Congress goes through waves where they give a lot of lead way and power to the Executive Branch. In the 1970s, the took a lot the power away, in terms of domestic policy. That went back and forth in the 80s and 90s. Then, Congress gave a ton of power to the Bush administration in terms of domestic policy. As a result, and starting really in 2006-now, the Executive Branch does not really need the input of the Executive Branch in terms of budget or taxes. The House and Senate feel it is their job, and the President only submits, and then gives his consent on the matters, but has little say on the final product.
  
  We saw this come to a head in 2008-2010, after Congress gave in (in their view) and did the bailouts/ TARP. As a result, we saw them bulk at any and nearly all Executive actions on the budget/ tax reform.
  
  We also saw this last summer with the debt ceiling. Congress did not care for the Executive Branch and said we can do it ourselves.
  
  So, even if Romney is elected, I highly doubt he would have much impact on the budget or taxes, as the real power players will be Senate and House appropriators.
  
  Romney would have have zero say on sequestration or the tax deal.
  
  That is also why I stress the need to focus on foreign policy items when really electing a President.
  Dan Drezner, has an Op-ed in the NYT that says largely the same thing, that Presidents wield more influence in the foreign policy realm due to lack of domestic policy.
  http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/why-presidents-love-foreign-affairs/