PDA

View Full Version : Economics Backdoor taxes to hit middle class


Stinger
02-02-2010, 08:30 AM
Backdoor taxes to hit middle class

By Terri Cullen Terri Cullen Mon Feb 1, 4:09 pm ET

NEW YORK (Reuters.com) --The Obama administration's plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year -- effectively a tax hike by stealth.

While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.

The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.

If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 -- though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.

Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.

Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year's levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy -- the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.

Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:

* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;

* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;

* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;

* Individuals who don't itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;

* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100201/bs_nm/us_budget_backdoortaxes

DJ's left nut
02-02-2010, 08:34 AM
Duh.

I think it was Banyon or Orange that came in here talking out his ass about how Obama's tax increases would only hit the rich and anyone that dared suggest they would simply be passed on to the middle class (as all taxes eventually are) was just peddling philisophical garbage.

Of course the middle class will pay for this crap, they always do.

KC native
02-02-2010, 08:38 AM
JFC, an expiration of a tax cut that wasn't permanent isn't a tax hike by Obama. The RWNJ's complain about the deficit and then when Obama lets the disastrous Bush tax cuts (which were the first tax cuts ever during a war) expire they bitch about him raising taxes. Sorry, RWNJ's but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

DJ's left nut
02-02-2010, 08:38 AM
I was wrong - it was Jaz.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5953115&highlight=middle+class#post5953115

Just another thread in the string of stupid to emerge from his keyboard...

DJ's left nut
02-02-2010, 08:40 AM
JFC, an expiration of a tax cut that wasn't permanent isn't a tax hike by Obama. The RWNJ's complain about the deficit and then when Obama lets the disastrous Bush tax cuts (which were the first tax cuts ever during a war) expire they bitch about him raising taxes. Sorry, RWNJ's but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

They complain about the deficit because your lunatic president and his cronies are spending like they'll just print more.

But you already knew that.

KC native
02-02-2010, 08:42 AM
They complain about the deficit because your lunatic president and his cronies are spending like they'll just print more.

But you already knew that.

He's your president too and let's not act like the other side was anywhere close to responsible during their time in office.

Donger
02-02-2010, 08:42 AM
I thought Obama said that anyone making below $250,000 wouldn't pay more taxes? In fact, I think he said that they would actually go down.

Donger
02-02-2010, 08:43 AM
JFC, an expiration of a tax cut that wasn't permanent isn't a tax hike by Obama. The RWNJ's complain about the deficit and then when Obama lets the disastrous Bush tax cuts (which were the first tax cuts ever during a war) expire they bitch about him raising taxes. Sorry, RWNJ's but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I'm sure that "the poor" will see it that way, too. "Jeez honey, we are paying more in taxes this year than last year. I'm sure glad it isn't a tax increase, though!"

KC native
02-02-2010, 08:43 AM
I thought Obama said that anyone making below $250,000 wouldn't pay more taxes? In fact, I think he said that they would actually go down.

At this point he's correct. If he gets his middle class tax breaks passed he may be correct going forward.

KC native
02-02-2010, 08:44 AM
I'm sure that "the poor" will see it that way, too. "Jeez honey, we are paying more in taxes this year than last year. I'm sure glad it isn't a tax increase, though!"

As of now they haven't paid more in taxes. 2009 still has the shrub tax cuts and if Obama passes his middle class tax cuts he was discussing then the poor have a good chance of not paying more in taxes.

The Mad Crapper
02-02-2010, 08:48 AM
Duh.

I think it was Banyon or Orange that came in here talking out his ass about how Obama's tax increases would only hit the rich

I was wrong - it was Jaz.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5953115&highlight=middle+class#post5953115

Just another thread in the string of stupid to emerge from his keyboard...

ROFL

petegz28
02-02-2010, 08:49 AM
At this point he's correct. If he gets his middle class tax breaks passed he may be correct going forward.

Unless you smoke or drink.

KC native
02-02-2010, 08:50 AM
Unless you smoke or drink.

Both voluntary activities. If you do neither then you don't have a tax increase.

petegz28
02-02-2010, 08:51 AM
Both voluntary activities. If you do neither then you don't have a tax increase.

So much for freedom. :shake:

talastan
02-02-2010, 08:54 AM
He's your president too and let's not act like the other side was anywhere close to responsible during their time in office.

First this is Obama's administration, not W's. I don't think the Bush administration was fiscally responsible at all. But just because they weren't doesn't mean that Obama gets a free ride either. Two wrongs don't make a right! Secondly a tax increase in ANY form during a recession is a freaking stupid idea. Even tax increases that are due to expiring tax cuts is still just that.......a tax increase. Combine this with unemployment, more foreclosures; and Double dip here we come...:shake:

DJ's left nut
02-02-2010, 08:56 AM
He's your president too and let's not act like the other side was anywhere close to responsible during their time in office.

By comparison, the Republican Congress/White House was Ebeneazer freakin' Scrooge. Granted, you've touched on Bush's greatest failure as a President; he spent way too much.

At the same time, he didn't even approach this monstrosity. Surely even you can acknowledge that the spending is way out of control.

KC native
02-02-2010, 08:57 AM
First this is Obama's administration, not W's. I don't think the Bush administration was fiscally responsible at all. But just because they weren't doesn't mean that Obama gets a free ride either. Two wrongs don't make a right! Secondly a tax increase in ANY form during a recession is a freaking stupid idea. Even tax increases that are due to expiring tax cuts is still just that.......a tax increase. Combine this with unemployment, more foreclosures; and Double dip here we come...:shake:

Again we're at a cake and eat it to point. Either the US addresses the deficit over the next few years (which necessitates a tax increase) or our costs of borrowing sky rocket and we see stagflation again.

The Mad Crapper
02-02-2010, 08:58 AM
Again we're at a cake and eat it to point. Either the US addresses the deficit over the next few years (which necessitates a tax increase) or our costs of borrowing sky rocket and we see stagflation again.

Moron, tax increases result in less tax revenue. See Laffer Curve.

DJ's left nut
02-02-2010, 08:59 AM
Unless you smoke or drink.

Or purchase consumer goods of any sort. Or have a job.

I have no idea why the left refuse to acknowledge the realities of taxes on the wealthy and businesses.

Folks - !@#$ rolls downhill. Taxes go up? You pay more for your goods or your employer pays you less. It's the nature of the beast, those taxes will absolutely get passed on to the people at the bottom of the pile.

The middle class, those folks that have nobody left to pass the burden to, pay for EVERYTHING in this country.

The 'soak the rich' crowd still hasn't figured it out.

talastan
02-02-2010, 08:59 AM
At this point he's correct. If he gets his middle class tax breaks passed he may be correct going forward.

Big IF my friend. You really think he'll get Pelosi/Reid and the other spenders to jump on board when they won't be able to fund their "pet" pork projects? Highly doubtful since they will need the money after splurging on everything with the stimulus $$. Obama is going to once again leave it to the Congress to set up these tax cuts, and their are going to put in their pork and screw up the bill entirely.

KC native
02-02-2010, 09:00 AM
Moron, tax increases result in less tax revenue. See Laffer Curve.

Only at very high levels of taxation (70% marginal rates) and we are no where near that. You should look at the whole curve and not just the portion you want.

KC native
02-02-2010, 09:01 AM
Big IF my friend. You really think he'll get Pelosi/Reid and the other spenders to jump on board when they won't be able to fund their "pet" pork projects? Highly doubtful since they will need the money after splurging on everything with the stimulus $$. Obama is going to once again leave it to the Congress to set up these tax cuts, and their are going to put in their pork and screw up the bill entirely.

Yes it is a big if. At this point though, wouldn't you agree that it is premature to say that the middle and lower class is going to see a tax increase?

The Mad Crapper
02-02-2010, 09:03 AM
Only at very high levels of taxation (70% marginal rates) and we are no where near that. You should look at the whole curve and not just the portion you want.

Wrong. Bush's tax cuts created more tax revenue than Bill Clintons administration.

KC native
02-02-2010, 09:06 AM
Wrong. Bush's tax cuts created more tax revenue than Bill Clintons administration.

:shake: You really are a moron. Adjust for inflation and log scale it and you will see how wrong you are.

talastan
02-02-2010, 09:06 AM
Yes it is a big if. At this point though, wouldn't you agree that it is premature to say that the middle and lower class is going to see a tax increase?

No because if the tax cuts expire the taxes will increase. :rolleyes: It would require action on the part of the government to change that; and I have no faith in our leaders to get that done. Mainly because it is all monopoly money to them. As long as they get to fly privately across the globe, seperate from the unwashed masses, they want to get their projects funded at whatever the cost.

KC native
02-02-2010, 09:08 AM
No because if the tax cuts expire the taxes will increase. :rolleyes: It would require action on the part of the government to change that; and I have no faith in our leaders to get that done. Mainly because it is all monopoly money to them. As long as they get to fly privately across the globe, seperate from the unwashed masses, they want to get their projects funded at whatever the cost.

:rolleyes: The shrub tax cuts are still in effect as well as the recent stimulus related tax cuts that Obama did. IF nothing is done before taxes for 2010 then you can say that until then no one has paid more taxes.

The Mad Crapper
02-02-2010, 09:10 AM
:shake: You really are a moron. Adjust for inflation and log scale it and you will see how wrong you are.

We've already gone over this, yet you continue disseminating lies...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WpSDBu35K-8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WpSDBu35K-8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

fan4ever
02-02-2010, 09:11 AM
Both voluntary activities. If you do neither then you don't have a tax increase.

The liberal brain at its core.

KC native
02-02-2010, 09:12 AM
We've already gone over this, yet you continue disseminating lies...


ROFL You really are delusional. Never have you corrected anything I've written. I, OTOH, have blown up several of you threads.

DJ's left nut
02-02-2010, 09:14 AM
The liberal brain at its core.

Yeesh, nice catch.

Yup, I'd say that about covers it.

sparkky
02-02-2010, 09:21 AM
Folks - !@#$ rolls downhill. Taxes go up? You pay more for your goods or your employer pays you less. It's the nature of the beast, those taxes will absolutely get passed on to the people at the bottom of the pile.



this. corporate taxes go up and they just pass it on down the line one way or another.

BigRedChief
02-02-2010, 09:25 AM
Backdoor taxes to hit middle class

By Terri Cullen Terri Cullen Mon Feb 1, 4:09 pm ET


Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:


* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;

* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100201/bs_nm/us_budget_backdoortaxes Crap, with a kid starting college next year there goes my cash for clunkers money.:doh!:

DJ's left nut
02-02-2010, 09:27 AM
Crap, with a kid starting college next year there goes my cash for clunkers money.:doh!:

Well you must be making more than $250K/yr, right?

BigRedChief
02-02-2010, 09:31 AM
Well you must be making more than $250K/yr, right?I was just having a little fun. All of these preliminary articles about doom and gloom and then when it actually becomes a bill or even debate starts have nothing even close to what the issues were in the original article.

I have confidence that the Obama administration is not going to raise taxes on households making more than $250K. Yes, my household is doing okay financially but no where near the $250K limit.

Velvet_Jones
02-02-2010, 09:33 AM
ROFL You really are delusional. Never have you corrected anything I've written. I, OTOH, have blown up several of you threads.

Hehehe. KC Native is full of himself. He is the only one that doesn't realize that he is an idiot.

Stinger
02-02-2010, 09:37 AM
OK take this for what is worth but Reutgers has pulled the story in OP............

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100202/bs_nm/us_budget_backdoortaxes

KC native
02-02-2010, 09:40 AM
OK take this for what is worth but Reutgers has pulled the story in OP............

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100202/bs_nm/us_budget_backdoortaxes

Good, that was a POS article.

BigRedChief
02-02-2010, 09:45 AM
OK take this for what is worth but Reutgers has pulled the story in OP............

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100202/bs_nm/us_budget_backdoortaxes
See what I mean.....ROFL

KC Dan
02-02-2010, 09:46 AM
Native just riddle me this: How in the world in this budget proposal do you raise taxes (let cuts expire) by $1.4 Trillion with a "T" and still the deficit increases and then claim you are cutting spending and address the rising debt load?

See, the issue here is that the American public have woke up due to many things including high unemployment and their own struggles to pay off debt and they KNOW that the gov't is full of _____.

KC native
02-02-2010, 09:49 AM
Native just riddle me this: How in the world in this budget proposal do you raise taxes (let cuts expire) by $1.4 Trillion with a "T" and still the deficit increases and then claim you are cutting spending and address the rising debt load?

See, the issue here is that the American public have woke up due to many things including high unemployment and their own struggles to pay off debt and they KNOW that the gov't is full of _____.

It's obviously going to take longer than one year. JFC I swear the myopia of some of you guys is amazing.

HonestChieffan
02-02-2010, 09:53 AM
He has no options. To deal at all with deficits, he has to raise taxes and will be forced to on all people.

The Tax the rich is not close to enough. And so we will see, in my opinion, the VAT approach for one as well as probably a widening of the tax tables to begin to tax deeper into the taxable ranks.

By increasing the tax on the 250 and above he will slam the door tighter on any hope for small business expansion or job growth as this hits those small business owners directly and removes capital available to expand if they had any hope to.

The lies and discontent with these people will grow through November at an increasing rate as we see these assaults on the economy continue.

bkkcoh
02-02-2010, 09:54 AM
JFC, an expiration of a tax cut that wasn't permanent isn't a tax hike by Obama. The RWNJ's complain about the deficit and then when Obama lets the disastrous Bush tax cuts (which were the first tax cuts ever during a war) expire they bitch about him raising taxes. Sorry, RWNJ's but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Is that like a pocket veto isn't really a veto either?

I find it amazing that the tax cuts have a sunset clause for them, but then tax increases don't ever have a sunset clause for them. :(

InChiefsHell
02-02-2010, 10:01 AM
He's your president too and let's not act like the other side was anywhere close to responsible during their time in office.

No shit, hense the reason Obama was elected. It should bother you that Barry's administration is actually WORSE than the "other side" when they were in office...and that's saying a lot.

Why is it you libs always go to "Oh yea, well, Bush sucked"? WE KNOW! HE'S GONE NOW. GET...THE FUCK...OVER IT!!!

Amnorix
02-02-2010, 10:08 AM
I'd be fine with tax hikes if they were AT LEAST match dollar for dollar by spending cuts. Instead, all I see are ever-spiraling costs, outpacing inflation by a wide margin, and a federal government that constitutes an ever-increasing portion of our national GDP.

Amnorix
02-02-2010, 10:10 AM
Is that like a pocket veto isn't really a veto either?

I find it amazing that the tax cuts have a sunset clause for them, but then tax increases don't ever have a sunset clause for them. :(

The cuts had a sunset clause because they wouldn't have gotten through Congress without them. Because they knew they might need to go back to where they were to fund a massive deficit. Because everyone said Bush's projections were too rosy. Because it was hoped that it would take the political heat off them if they reverted back to pre 2001 levels because they didn't have to vote IN FAVOR of doing it.

And instead the right is acting like this is an active step taken by a new administration and Democratic Congress to raise taxes without justification. Yeah....no.

All that said, we need to trim spending too. By alot. EVERYWHERE!

KC Dan
02-02-2010, 10:11 AM
It's obviously going to take longer than one year. JFC I swear the myopia of some of you guys is amazing.myopia - rich, rich... So, you raise taxes $1.4 Trillion (with a "T") and cut $20 billion (with a little "b") a year and all you have to say is that it will take longer than a year? Are you serious? No Chit, it will take longer than a year, how about 80 F'N years at that rate. ($1.6 Trillion deficit and cut $20 billion/year). Face it, they have ZERO intentions to slash this deficit. They think they need to spend to get reelected, that's all there is to it.

KC Dan
02-02-2010, 10:11 AM
I'd be fine with tax hikes if they were AT LEAST match dollar for dollar by spending cuts. Instead, all I see are ever-spiraling costs, outpacing inflation by a wide margin, and a federal government that constitutes an ever-increasing portion of our national GDP.This

Amnorix
02-02-2010, 10:13 AM
First this is Obama's administration, not W's. I don't think the Bush administration was fiscally responsible at all. But just because they weren't doesn't mean that Obama gets a free ride either. Two wrongs don't make a right! Secondly a tax increase in ANY form during a recession is a freaking stupid idea. Even tax increases that are due to expiring tax cuts is still just that.......a tax increase. Combine this with unemployment, more foreclosures; and Double dip here we come...:shake:

Cutting spending in a recession is also considered dumb by many economists. So which poison pill do you favor -- increasing taxes, cutting spending, or widening deficit?

The first two likely worsen the economy. The third doesn't help it any either, and is just defers an already horrible price we'll need to pay.

Amnorix
02-02-2010, 10:13 AM
They think they need to spend to get reelected, that's all there is to it.

I note that this applies to both sides of the aisle.

KC Dan
02-02-2010, 10:27 AM
I note that this applies to both sides of the aisle.yes, of course. They are all under the same wild-spending tent.

KC native
02-02-2010, 10:28 AM
myopia - rich, rich... So, you raise taxes $1.4 Trillion (with a "T") and cut $20 billion (with a little "b") a year and all you have to say is that it will take longer than a year? Are you serious? No Chit, it will take longer than a year, how about 80 F'N years at that rate. ($1.6 Trillion deficit and cut $20 billion/year). Face it, they have ZERO intentions to slash this deficit. They think they need to spend to get reelected, that's all there is to it.

So, you're going to assume zero growth over that time line too?

Chief Faithful
02-02-2010, 10:32 AM
I note that this applies to both sides of the aisle.

You say that so often you need to make it your signature.

Chief Faithful
02-02-2010, 10:35 AM
Cutting spending in a recession is also considered dumb by many economists. So which poison pill do you favor -- increasing taxes, cutting spending, or widening deficit?

The first two likely worsen the economy. The third doesn't help it any either, and is just defers an already horrible price we'll need to pay.

If the government did nothing the economy would eventually come out of the recession on its own, but out of those options you presented only cutting spending helps the private sector and reduces the future burden.

KC Dan
02-02-2010, 10:43 AM
So, you're going to assume zero growth over that time line too?gotta run to some meetings but suffice it to say that I do not assume zero growth but certainly NOT the growth this admin espouses. Our semiconductor industry is seeing growth now but in the overall economy, I expect a much smaller growth than our gov't is assuming. I expect 2-3% GDP growth at best after the inventory building is done. Spending hasn't spiked enough to warrant 5-6% Gdp growth. That last huge number was gov't spending and inventory replinishment. Unless spending explodes (which it won't as consumers pay off debt and save), growth will be dampened for the next year or so.
Leave the economy alone, it will recover on its own. funny how that works and always has.

Bootlegged
02-02-2010, 10:44 AM
So, you're going to assume zero growth over that time line too?

There are phuking idiots and then there is you. A class all to yourself. I bet your credit card debt isn't "debt" either.

Defend O till ya die!!

The Mad Crapper
02-02-2010, 10:50 AM
You say that so often you need to make it your signature.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CavaVZI_xDc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CavaVZI_xDc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

KC native
02-02-2010, 10:51 AM
There are phuking idiots and then there is you. A class all to yourself. I bet your credit card debt isn't "debt" either.

Defend O till ya die!!

Ah, are you upset that you didn't get to post the blatantly false thread of the day? poor wittle bootlegged

Bootlegged
02-02-2010, 10:53 AM
Ah, are you upset that you didn't get to post the blatantly false thread of the day? poor wittle bootlegged

No - just upset that people like you get a vote.

KC native
02-02-2010, 10:55 AM
No - just upset that people like you get a vote.

Well, you can always move. America! LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT! ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

The Mad Crapper
02-02-2010, 10:55 AM
Ah, are you upset that you didn't get to post the blatantly false thread of the day? poor wittle bootlegged

Jackass.

Amnorix
02-02-2010, 10:56 AM
You say that so often you need to make it your signature.

It's my job to remind people that they need to look in the mirror also...

Amnorix
02-02-2010, 10:57 AM
The cuts had a sunset clause because they wouldn't have gotten through Congress without them. Because they knew they might need to go back to where they were to fund a massive deficit. Because everyone said Bush's projections were too rosy. Because it was hoped that it would take the political heat off them if they reverted back to pre 2001 levels because they didn't have to vote IN FAVOR of doing it.

And instead the right is acting like this is an active step taken by a new administration and Democratic Congress to raise taxes without justification. Yeah....no.

All that said, we need to trim spending too. By alot. EVERYWHERE!

Listen to those crickets...

Bootlegged
02-02-2010, 10:58 AM
It's my job to remind people that they need to look in the mirror also...

I thought it was your job to rant about the evils of generational wealth? Or have you moved on?

vailpass
02-02-2010, 10:59 AM
That can't be; the middle class is safe. obama promised they wouldn't suffer any tax increases.

Bootlegged
02-02-2010, 11:03 AM
Well, you can always move. America! LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT! ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

Once BHO is sent back to the projects where he belongs and your job as his personal fluffer no longer pays the bills for your Dodge Neon - you will be able to enjoy the America you so badly want for the rest of us.

vailpass
02-02-2010, 11:06 AM
Listen to those crickets...

Crickets? You point out yet another example where obama has bullshitted the public and expect a response?

"Now let me be perfectly clear, there won't be any new taxes*"


*this statement is not intended to reflect an actual promise, any commitment applied or actual is hereby nullified, actual results may vary, results not typical, do not use while operating a family budget. Not responsible for any misinterpretation on the part of the American public no matter how reasonable said misinterpretation may be and regardless of said misinterpretation being directly caused by intentional obfuscation on the part of the non-promisor.

KC native
02-02-2010, 11:06 AM
Once BHO is sent back to the projects where he belongs and your job as his personal fluffer no longer pays the bills for your Dodge Neon - you will be able to enjoy the America you so badly want for the rest of us.

hey hey another RWNJ and a ghey/penis reference.

Seriously, WTF is the deal with your guys' obsession with homosexual acts and penises?

The Mad Crapper
02-02-2010, 11:06 AM
I thought it was your job to rant about the evils of generational wealth? Or have you moved on?

If moonbats want to replace the income tax with a wealth tax, I'm down with that program; alot of "progressives" are quite wealthy:

http://www.heritage.org/press/commentary/ed110607a.cfm

And these scumbags won't be able to pass it down to the peasants like the corporations do.

:clap:

Amnorix
02-02-2010, 11:27 AM
I thought it was your job to rant about the evils of generational wealth? Or have you moved on?

I'm perfectly capable of multi-tasking. :D

Donger
02-02-2010, 11:31 AM
At this point he's correct. If he gets his middle class tax breaks passed he may be correct going forward.

If is correct.

Donger
02-02-2010, 11:32 AM
Again we're at a cake and eat it to point. Either the US addresses the deficit over the next few years (which necessitates a tax increase) or our costs of borrowing sky rocket and we see stagflation again.

You don't have to increase taxes to address the deficit.

Donger
02-02-2010, 11:33 AM
I'd be fine with tax hikes if they were AT LEAST match dollar for dollar by spending cuts. Instead, all I see are ever-spiraling costs, outpacing inflation by a wide margin, and a federal government that constitutes an ever-increasing portion of our national GDP.

:clap:

KC native
02-02-2010, 11:33 AM
You don't have to increase taxes to address the deficit.

Let's be real, we're not going to see any meaningful spending cuts. Raising taxes is the only way it is going to be addressed.

Donger
02-02-2010, 11:34 AM
Let's be real, we're not going to see any meaningful spending cuts. Raising taxes is the only way it is going to be addressed.

Only because thinking like that has become acceptable to some people. I'm not one of them.

HonestChieffan
02-02-2010, 11:36 AM
Let's be real, we're not going to see any meaningful spending cuts. Raising taxes is the only way it is going to be addressed.

Taxes are usually a % not a flat amount and thus are only increased if the taxable revenue increases. Raising the tax rate does not always translate into a revenue increase and can result in a revenue decline.

Dems dont get that math thing.

KC native
02-02-2010, 11:38 AM
Taxes are usually a % not a flat amount and thus are only increased if the taxable revenue increases. Raising the tax rate does not always translate into a revenue increase and can result in a revenue decline.

Dems dont get that math thing.

:shake: Just walk away from the keyboard.

Brock
02-02-2010, 12:27 PM
Advisory: Backdoor taxes to hit middle class

Mon Feb 1, 8:07 pm ET
The story Backdoor taxes to hit middle class has been withdrawn. A replacement story will run later in the week.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 12:30 PM
Only because thinking like that has become acceptable to some people. I'm not one of them.

How come you're not in the let's commit mass murder on Persians thread?

Donger
02-02-2010, 12:31 PM
Advisory: Backdoor taxes to hit middle class

Mon Feb 1, 8:07 pm ET
The story Backdoor taxes to hit middle class has been withdrawn. A replacement story will run later in the week.

Why was it withdrawn?

Donger
02-02-2010, 12:31 PM
How come you're not in the let's commit mass murder on Persians thread?

Could you be more specific?

Amnorix
02-02-2010, 12:52 PM
:shake: Just walk away from the keyboard.


Well, his point is correct in the sense that a higher percentage of lower taxable income might result in lower tax receipts. i.e. a tax rate of 90% of $1,000 (i.e. $9,000) results in less tax revenues than a tax rate of 10% on 1,000,000 (i.e. $10,000).

The general concept of decreasing tax revenues despite increasing tax rates is generally known as the Laffer curve or Laffer effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

Amnorix
02-02-2010, 12:57 PM
Taxes are usually a % not a flat amount and thus are only increased if the taxable revenue increases. Raising the tax rate does not always translate into a revenue increase and can result in a revenue decline.

Dems dont get that math thing.

I get it just fine. Anything you care to try to explain to little ole me?

And I doubt George Soros and Warren Buffett have any trouble with "that math thing" either. Nor do Robert Rubin, Larry Summers or a host of other people I could mention, for that matter.

Your broad paintbrush has some serious gaps in it. You may want to try one a little finer.

Toadkiller
02-02-2010, 01:00 PM
http://mediamatters.org/research/201002020028

Reuters misreads Obama budget plan to claim it institutes "backdoor taxes" on middle class
2 hours and 10 minutes ago — 8 Comments

A February 1 Reuters article - subsequently withdrawn by the wire service -- claimed that the Obama administration's budget plan includes "backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families," citing increases to marginal federal income tax rates that would go into effect if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire, and an increase in middle class families that would be subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) without the renewal of a patch to limit its impact. In fact, Obama's 2011 budget calls for the Bush tax cuts to be extended for individuals making $200,000 or less and couples making $250,000 and for the AMT patch to be extended at its 2009 parameters through 2020.

KC native
02-02-2010, 01:01 PM
Well, his point is correct in the sense that a higher percentage of lower taxable income might result in lower tax receipts. i.e. a tax rate of 90% of $1,000 (i.e. $9,000) results in less tax revenues than a tax rate of 10% on 1,000,000 (i.e. $10,000).

The general concept of decreasing tax revenues despite increasing tax rates is generally known as the Laffer curve or Laffer effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

I'm very familiar with the Laffer Curve. It was his poor wording that I took issue with.

BIG_DADDY
02-02-2010, 01:07 PM
I'm very familiar with the Laffer Curve. It was his poor wording that I took issue with.

Of course you are.

KC native
02-02-2010, 01:16 PM
Of course you are.

Aw how cute. You're following me around now too.

vailpass
02-02-2010, 01:21 PM
I'm very familiar with the Laffer Curve. It was his poor wording that I took issue with.

"It was his poor wording with which I took issue."

Need I say more?

The Mad Crapper
02-02-2010, 01:22 PM
Why was it withdrawn?

It didn't flatter Dear Leader.

Amnorix
02-02-2010, 01:26 PM
"It was his poor wording with which I took issue."

Need I say more?

Poor wording in Internet speak is when what you say is unclear, not when you're not gramatically perfect.

And what HonestChieffan said wasn't exactly a stellar example of clear writing.

vailpass
02-02-2010, 01:38 PM
Poor wording in Internet speak is when what you say is unclear, not when you're not gramatically perfect.

And what HonestChieffan said wasn't exactly a stellar example of clear writing.

Stop. I know you see the sweet irony in someone calling out poor wording with a poorly worded sentence. Especially when that someone makes a career out of name-slinging and race-baiting and is among the least-liked posters on the planet.

KC native
02-02-2010, 01:44 PM
Stop. I know you see the sweet irony in someone calling out poor wording with a poorly worded sentence. Especially when that someone makes a career out of name-slinging and race-baiting and is among the least-liked posters on the planet.

Post a poll then bitch.

HonestChieffan
02-02-2010, 01:45 PM
I get it just fine. Anything you care to try to explain to little ole me?

And I doubt George Soros and Warren Buffett have any trouble with "that math thing" either. Nor do Robert Rubin, Larry Summers or a host of other people I could mention, for that matter.

Your broad paintbrush has some serious gaps in it. You may want to try one a little finer.



No. Was just a simple point that raising tax rates does not in and of itself increase tax revenues.

You get it. You are smarter than some. Smart is not a bad thing.

Id be careful on the Buffett as a means of support thing..Warren aint to pleased with Obo right now...

KC native
02-02-2010, 01:48 PM
Post a poll then bitch.

Aw, what's a matter shitty? Don't have anything to add to the discussion?ROFL

Backdoor taxes to hit... 02-02-2010 02:46 PM E. Norma Stitz Suck my balls

vailpass
02-02-2010, 02:00 PM
Post a poll then bitch.

ROFL I know you are but what am I?

Do you like me? Check one box yes or no.

KC native
02-02-2010, 02:01 PM
ROFL I know you are but what am I?

Do you like me? Check one box yes or no.

What's a matter you scared the results won't fall how you want them to?

The Mad Crapper
02-02-2010, 02:02 PM
Aw, what's a matter shitty? Don't have anything to add to the discussion?ROFL




I just did.

Backdoor taxes to hit... 02-02-2010 02:46 PM E. Norma Stitz Suck my balls

Donger
02-02-2010, 02:02 PM
Post a poll then bitch.

Okay. Would you like to suggest a thread title and poll questions?

Bootlegged
02-02-2010, 02:03 PM
What's a matter you scared the results won't fall how you want them to?

Are you old enough to drink?

KC native
02-02-2010, 02:09 PM
Okay. Would you like to suggest a thread title and poll questions?

No, I leave that up to fail since he's the one making the claims. You can kindly fuck off now.

Donger
02-02-2010, 02:10 PM
No, I leave that up to fail since he's the one making the claims. You can kindly **** off now.

How about:

Who Is The Least Liked CP Member?

Option 1 = vailpass
Option 2 = KC native

The Mad Crapper
02-02-2010, 02:18 PM
How about:

Who Is The Least Liked CP Member?

Option 1 = vailpass
Option 2 = KC native

At least make it competitive:

Option 1 = Frankie
Option 2 = KC native

Bootlegged
02-02-2010, 02:18 PM
No, I leave that up to fail since he's the one making the claims. You can kindly **** off now.

sandy vagitis

Taco John
02-02-2010, 02:21 PM
Post a poll? What is this? Fourth grade?

vailpass
02-02-2010, 02:21 PM
What's a matter you scared the results won't fall how you want them to?

ROFL

Donger
02-02-2010, 02:22 PM
Post a poll? What is this? Fourth grade?

It's KC native.

KC native
02-02-2010, 02:25 PM
ROFL

That's what I thought.

KC native
02-02-2010, 02:26 PM
sandy vagitis

encephalitis

Donger
02-02-2010, 02:26 PM
That's what I thought.

Do you want me to post it in The Lounge or here?

KC native
02-02-2010, 02:27 PM
Do you want me to post it in The Lounge or here?

Is vail a mult of yours?

Donger
02-02-2010, 02:28 PM
Is vail a mult of yours?

I don't have another account. I think I'll post it here. No need to clutter the Lounge with your suggestion. Agree?

BIG_DADDY
02-02-2010, 02:29 PM
Do you want me to post it in The Lounge or here?

Whaterver you do post it so we can see who voted how so kcn doesn't pull a phoney gonzales.

Brock
02-02-2010, 02:29 PM
Post a poll as to whether you should post this ghey idea of a poll.

KC native
02-02-2010, 02:30 PM
I don't have another account. I think I'll post it here. No need to clutter the Lounge with your suggestion. Agree?

I find it curious that you feel the need to be involved considering your name isn't vailpass.

Also, if you insist on starting one put it in the lounge. No need for a poll that most won't see.

KC native
02-02-2010, 02:31 PM
Whaterver you do post it so we can see who voted how so kcn doesn't pull a phoney gonzales.

Damn, you're not even good at talking smack. WTF is a phoney gonzales?

Brock
02-02-2010, 02:31 PM
Which of these douchebags is less of a douchebag

Donger
02-02-2010, 02:32 PM
I find it curious that you feel the need to be involved considering your name isn't vailpass.

Okay.

Also, if you insist on starting one put it in the lounge. No need for a poll that most won't see.

As you wish.

KC native
02-02-2010, 02:34 PM
Okay.



As you wish.

Is there any reason that you feel vail can't post this poll? I find it funny that you feel the need yet again to defend his racist ass.

Donger
02-02-2010, 02:39 PM
Is there any reason that you feel vail can't post this poll? I find it funny that you feel the need yet again to defend his racist ass.

I don't feel that he can't post this poll.

I don't see how I'm defending him at all.

The poll is now up in the Lounge, per your request.

KC native
02-02-2010, 02:46 PM
I don't feel that he can't post this poll.

I don't see how I'm defending him at all.

The poll is now up in the Lounge, per your request.

I saw it. Looks like it's a hit. ROFL

Iowanian
02-02-2010, 02:47 PM
A back door tax is really going to pound San Fran and the Twin Cities.

BIG_DADDY
02-02-2010, 02:52 PM
Damn, you're not even good at talking smack. WTF is a phoney gonzales?

Uhm, that's not smack. The very fact that I have to explain that to you takes all the fun out ever posting any. Kind of like feeling good about running circles around the mentally handicapped.

KC native
02-02-2010, 02:57 PM
Uhm, that's not smack. The very fact that I have to explain that to you takes all the fun out ever posting any. Kind of like feeling good about running circles around the mentally handicapped.

Ah so it's yet another one of your vague references to nothing. Got it :thumb:

BIG_DADDY
02-02-2010, 03:05 PM
Ah so it's yet another one of your vague references to nothing. Got it :thumb:

ROFL You really are that dumb, amazing. So please explain to me how telling you that I was not talking smack was a vague reference. Just so you are aware what I said after that was smack. God I hate having to explain everything to you.

Never mind me your name is in lights. This is your big day, people are actually paying attention to you. Just put me on ignore.

Donger
02-02-2010, 03:05 PM
I saw it. Looks like it's a hit. ROFL

Not really. In fact, it seems like quite a dud.

KC native
02-02-2010, 03:06 PM
Not really. In fact, it seems like quite a dud.

Your sarcasm meter is broken.

KC native
02-02-2010, 03:07 PM
ROFL You really are that dumb, amazing. So please explain to me how telling you that I was not talking smack was a vague reference. Just so you are aware what I said after that was smack. God I hate having to explain everything to you.

Never mind me your name is in lights. This is your big day, people are actually paying attention to you. Just put me on ignore.

You are quite dense huh? I was referring to the post before that. Nice to see that you're a coward and want to run away though. color me not surprised.

patteeu
02-02-2010, 03:15 PM
Both voluntary activities. If you do neither then you don't have a tax increase.

As if that makes a difference.

Responsible people who make less than $250K but who invest for their futures will be hit with increased taxes on dividends and capital gains because those are the result of voluntary activities too. Is it a good idea to punish those who save relative to those who squander?

I suppose at some point, when actual tax rates end up going up on the middle class you'll be pointing out that working for a living is voluntary too.

BIG_DADDY
02-02-2010, 03:17 PM
You are quite dense huh? I was referring to the post before that. Nice to see that you're a coward and want to run away though. color me not surprised.

So the post you quoted wasn't actually the one you were making the reply to.That was some other post. I am also dense and a coward. Got it. There are crack heads who have been up for two weeks that make more sense than you do right now.

KC native
02-02-2010, 03:20 PM
As if that makes a difference.

Responsible people who make less than $250K but who invest for their futures will be hit with increased taxes on dividends and capital gains because those are the result of voluntary activities too. Is it a good idea to punish those who save relative to those who squander?

I suppose at some point, when actual tax rates end up going up on the middle class you'll be pointing out that working for a living is voluntary too.

I don't view a return to prior tax rates when the tax cuts were designed to expire as a penaty.

KC native
02-02-2010, 03:21 PM
So the post you quoted wasn't actually the one you were making the reply to.That was some other post. I am also dense and a coward. Got it. There are crack heads who have been up for two weeks that make more sense than you do right now.

Reading comprehension fail.

BIG_DADDY
02-02-2010, 03:22 PM
As if that makes a difference.

Responsible people who make less than $250K but who invest for their futures will be hit with increased taxes on dividends and capital gains because those are the result of voluntary activities too. Is it a good idea to punish those who save relative to those who squander?

I suppose at some point, when actual tax rates end up going up on the middle class you'll be pointing out that working for a living is voluntary too.

Dude don't even start. KCNaive knows what's best for everyone. Their money, their kids, their moral compass, everything. If you don't agree he has a bunch of names he can call you.

BIG_DADDY
02-02-2010, 03:23 PM
Reading comprehension fail.

ROFL

KC native
02-02-2010, 03:23 PM
Dude don't even start. KCNaive knows what's best for everyone. Their money, their kids, their moral compass, everything. If you don't agree he has a bunch of names he can call you.

Sweet more projection. Keep it coming because these projections really display your intelligence.

patteeu
02-02-2010, 03:24 PM
Only at very high levels of taxation (70% marginal rates) and we are no where near that. You should look at the whole curve and not just the portion you want.

Think about what you're saying here. If the goal is to generate maximum revenue in order to reduce the deficit, the place where the laffer curve helps the tax increaser's cause the most is at the low end of the tax rate spectrum. It's unclear whether the rate on the wealthy is above or below the maximum on the curve. But if you want to tap into guaranteed revenue increases, taxes on the poor should be raised.

KC native
02-02-2010, 03:26 PM
Think about what you're saying here. If the goal is to generate maximum revenue in order to reduce the deficit, the place where the laffer curve helps the tax increaser's cause the most is at the low end of the tax rate spectrum. It's unclear whether the rate on the wealthy is above or below the maximum on the curve. But if you want to tap into guaranteed revenue increases, taxes on the poor should be raised.

The Laffer curve applies to tax RATES. If you're talking about expanding the tax base that's something entirely different. Beyond that squeezing blood from a turnip isn't going to reduce the deficit in anyway.

patteeu
02-02-2010, 04:10 PM
The Laffer curve applies to tax RATES. If you're talking about expanding the tax base that's something entirely different. Beyond that squeezing blood from a turnip isn't going to reduce the deficit in anyway.

I know what the Laffer Curve applies to. That's why I said a tax increase is most likely to raise revenues at the "low end of the tax rate spectrum.

I'm talking about raising rates for the bottom tax brackets and flattening the rate structure for maximum revenue generation at whatever overall rates we find necessary.

If I were pulling the levers of government, I'd decrease top marginal rates further unless I could be convinced that those rates had already dropped below the Laffer curve maximum point.

Note: I did say "taxes on the poor should be raised", but the truth is that an increase in the bottom rates would apply to all, rich and poor alike.

KC native
02-02-2010, 05:25 PM
I know what the Laffer Curve applies to. That's why I said a tax increase is most likely to raise revenues at the "low end of the tax rate spectrum.

I'm talking about raising rates for the bottom tax brackets and flattening the rate structure for maximum revenue generation at whatever overall rates we find necessary.

If I were pulling the levers of government, I'd decrease top marginal rates further unless I could be convinced that those rates had already dropped below the Laffer curve maximum point.

Note: I did say "taxes on the poor should be raised", but the truth is that an increase in the bottom rates would apply to all, rich and poor alike.

Be honest until marginal tax rates are flat you wouldn't say they have been decreased enough.

We are well beyond the point where the Laffer curve increases government revenue.

Bootlegged
02-02-2010, 06:58 PM
Be honest until marginal tax rates are flat you wouldn't say they have been decreased enough.

We are well beyond the point where the Laffer curve increases government revenue.

Racist assshole.

patteeu
02-02-2010, 09:51 PM
Be honest until marginal tax rates are flat you wouldn't say they have been decreased enough.

Since you mention it, in addition to being an economic benefit and a major weapon in the fight against the deficit, it would also be a huge political reform. It would reduce the ability of politicians to play one class against the other when it comes to tax policy and the accompanying elimination of loopholes would reduce the ability of politicians to trade tax favors for campaign contributions. No less a liberal than Jerry "Governor Moonbeam" Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Brown) supported a flat tax when he ran for POTUS in 1992 for the political reform it would represent. The New York Times and The New Republic, no conservative shills, both endorsed the idea.

We are well beyond the point where the Laffer curve increases government revenue.

I realize that this is your opinion, but I disagree. And we undeniably have room to improve the revenue efficiency of the bottom brackets by bringing them up.