PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obamas 3 Trill Tax Increase, and its not just the rich now.


HonestChieffan
11-17-2009, 04:28 PM
This guy and his staff have no shame.

Remember when he sold everyone on the wealthy paying the bills....well hold up boys n girls, old Cynthia Romer has floated the trial ballon just for all you who got sucked into the "soak rich folk" programs.....

Is Obama planning a $3 trillion income tax increase?
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/11/17/is-obama-planning-a-3-trillion-income-tax-increase/

November 17th, 2009
Is Obama planning a $3 trillion income tax increase?
Posted by: James Pethokoukis

Did I just see a trail balloon launched? Over at a Wall Street Journal conference, Christina Romer, chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers had this to say about deficit reduction:

But the chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers admitted that health reform and a growing economy isn’t enough to bring down the deficit. She did mention one other place that revenue could come from: letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

Me: Since Obama already wants to get rid of the income and capital gains tax cuts for wealthier Americans that expire at the end of 2010, clearly what Romer is referring to is the rest of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. Letting all the 2001 cuts — rate reductions, child tax credit marriage penalty relief — expire would raise tax revenues by $2.5 trillion through 2019. (These CBO numbers assume no negative economic feedback impact from higher taxes.) And letting the 2003 tax cuts on capital gains and dividends expire would be tantamount to a $350 billion tax increase through 2019. And none of this includes possible plans for a VAT that could raise $400 billion a year more to close the huge projected gap — maybe 7 percentage points — between spending as a percentage of GDP and revenues as a percentage of GDP.

Chief Henry
11-17-2009, 04:45 PM
So much for job creation.

banyon
11-17-2009, 04:49 PM
"Did I just see a trail balloon launched?"

Serious journalism.

Also Repeal the Bush Tax Cuts = "$3 trillion dollar tax increase"

They just forgot the "over a decade" part.

BigRedChief
11-17-2009, 04:51 PM
"Did I just see a trail balloon launched?"

Serious journalism.

Also Repeal the Bush Tax Cuts = "$3 trillion dollar tax increase"

They just forgot the "over a decade" part.What are facts? Sensationalism sells and makes it on to here with a new thread.

Donger
11-17-2009, 04:54 PM
Yeah, I figured that a VAT was on the radar. I suppose Obama will have to amend his "if you make less than $250,000 a year, your taxes won't go up one cent!" pledge if that happens. And, yes, that was paraphrased.

HonestChieffan
11-17-2009, 04:56 PM
Isnt Reuters serious enough? Or are they not serious when they expose such things as this?

I agree Donger, VAT will be the way they eventually go but before they do they will try to jack all tax rates on all levels of income.

Donger
11-17-2009, 04:56 PM
Also Repeal the Bush Tax Cuts = "$3 trillion dollar tax increase"

They just forgot the "over a decade" part.

It's right there in the article. Besides, I doubt even Obama would try to raise taxes that much in a year. Gotta spread those taxes around, see.

banyon
11-17-2009, 04:56 PM
Yeah, I figured that a VAT was on the radar. I suppose Obama will have to amend his "if you make less than $250,000 a year, your taxes won't go up one cent!" pledge if that happens. And, yes, that was paraphrased.

none of this includes possible plans for a VAT that could raise $400 billion a year

:spock:

Donger
11-17-2009, 04:58 PM
:spock:

I believe it is you who are reading that wrong, banyon.

BucEyedPea
11-17-2009, 04:58 PM
But the chairman of the presidentís Council of Economic Advisers admitted that health reform and a growing economy isnít enough to bring down the deficit. She did mention one other place that revenue could come from: letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

:shake: ROFL

banyon
11-17-2009, 05:01 PM
I believe it is you who are reading that wrong, banyon.

How so? It wasn't just base speculation that a VAT was possible? There was some type of confirmation about a VAT in the article that I missed?

Donger
11-17-2009, 05:05 PM
How so? It wasn't just base speculation that a VAT was possible? There was some type of confirmation about a VAT in the article that I missed?

Well, with this quote: "none of this includes possible plans for a VAT that could raise $400 billion a year," you seemed to be implying that because the VAT contribution wasn't included in the revenue numbers, it isn't planned.

I don't know if it is planned or not, but it wouldn't surprise me.

wild1
11-17-2009, 05:39 PM
"a growing economy isn't going to bring down the deficit" ROFL

Well, not if the ruling party has their way, it won't.

Garcia Bronco
11-18-2009, 10:34 AM
"Did I just see a trail balloon launched?"

Serious journalism.

Also Repeal the Bush Tax Cuts = "$3 trillion dollar tax increase"

They just forgot the "over a decade" part.

And as if that money will be a line item somewhere to pay down debt.

talastan
11-18-2009, 02:47 PM
And as if that money will be a line item somewhere to pay down debt.

Gotta pay for those green jobs projects somehow. :shrug:

I'm sorry but if you didn't see this coming when he was elected, I've got some oceanfront.....nevermind. :shake:

Chief Henry
11-18-2009, 03:16 PM
This does not surprise me at all. Does it surprise any of you ?

So much for that pledge to not raise taxes on people who earn less than
$250,000...........hook,line,sinker...

Taco John
11-18-2009, 05:59 PM
"Did I just see a trail balloon launched?"

Serious journalism.

Also Repeal the Bush Tax Cuts = "$3 trillion dollar tax increase"

They just forgot the "over a decade" part.



It's a blog.

Taco John
11-18-2009, 06:00 PM
Also Repeal the Bush Tax Cuts = "$3 trillion dollar tax increase"



When you repeal a tax cut, you're raising taxes, no matter how much you like to goof with the language.

Saul Good
11-18-2009, 06:00 PM
This does not surprise me at all. Does it surprise any of you ?

So much for that pledge to not raise taxes on people who earn less than
$250,000...........hook,line,sinker...

Maybe he meant $250,000 over a 10 year period.

CrazyPhuD
11-18-2009, 06:19 PM
This is why Roth IRAs can be bad....when(not if) a vat comes here, you get fucked in the butt. Convenient with the government trying to convince people to convert their regular IRAs to Roth next year.

Saul Good
11-18-2009, 06:22 PM
This is why Roth IRAs can be bad....when(not if) a vat comes here, you get ****ed in the butt. Convenient with the government trying to convince people to convert their regular IRAs to Roth next year.

Wait until they start taxing life insurance payouts.

Royal Fanatic
11-18-2009, 06:23 PM
This does not surprise me at all. Does it surprise any of you ?

So much for that pledge to not raise taxes on people who earn less than
$250,000...........hook,line,sinker...
That's exactly what I was thinking.

How can anyone be surprised by this? Anyone who actually PAID ATTENTION during the election had to know that Obama's numbers don't add up and that it is a foregone conclusion that he will let the Bush tax cuts expire.

patteeu
11-18-2009, 07:15 PM
This is why Roth IRAs can be bad....when(not if) a vat comes here, you get ****ed in the butt. Convenient with the government trying to convince people to convert their regular IRAs to Roth next year.

Yes. I've been skeptical of Roths from the beginning for this reason. You can never trust Congress not to change the tax laws to your detriment so it's better, IMO, to get your tax advantage in advance.

Saul Good
11-18-2009, 07:21 PM
Yes. I've been skeptical of Roths from the beginning for this reason. You can never trust Congress not to change the tax laws to your detriment so it's better, IMO, to get your tax advantage in advance.

It wouldn't be the first time that tax laws were changed resulting in double-taxation. Besides, Roths are only advantageous if you are in a lower bracket contributing than you would be when you retire.