Big Buget, Big Taxes

[Perchoutofwater]

Obama budget would impose host of tax increases

AP

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 33 mins ago

 

WASHINGTON – While President Barack Obama is proposing to cut some taxes for companies that hire workers, his budget would raise a host of other taxes on businesses and wealthy individuals.

 

Obama's budget would extend his signature Making Work Pay tax credit — $400 for individuals, $800 for a couple filing jointly — through 2011. The administration released the budget Monday.

 

But it would also impose nearly $1 trillion in higher taxes on couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000 by not renewing Bush-era tax cuts for them. Obama would extend tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush for families and individuals making less.

 

Obama revived numerous proposals for business tax increases that didn't fare well in Congress last year, including a scaled-down plan to increase taxes on U.S. companies with major overseas operations, and plans to increase taxes on oil and gas companies.

 

His budget features $38 billion in tax cuts that he wants Congress to include in a new jobs bill. It would give companies a $5,000 tax credit for each new worker they hire in 2010. Businesses that increase wages or hours for their current workers in 2010 would be reimbursed for the extra Social Security payroll taxes they would pay.

 

The tax increases on wealthy families would fulfill a campaign pledge by Obama, who has blamed Bush's tax cuts and Medicare prescription drug program for swelling the government's debt by $7.5 trillion.

 

The Making Work Pay tax credit provides families with up to $800 a year and individuals up to $400 a year through small increases in their weekly pay. Extending the tax credit through 2011 would save them $31 billion.

 

Some of Obama's other tax proposals would:

 

_Raise the top two income tax rates for individuals, from 33 percent and 35 percent, to 36 percent and 39.6 percent, respectively. Unless Congress intervenes, those rates will rise next Jan. 1 when Bush's tax cuts expire. That government would reap $365 billion over the next decade.

 

_Limit the itemized tax deductions high earners can claim for charitable donations, mortgage interest and state and local taxes, raising about $210 billion for the next decade.

 

_Increase the top capital gains tax rate from 15 percent to 20 percent for families making more than $250,000 a year and individuals making more than $200,000. The proposal would raise about $105 billion.

 

_Make the research and experimentation tax credit permanent, saving businesses about $83 billion over the next decade.

 

_Extend a provision allowing businesses buying equipment such as computers to speed up depreciation through 2010, saving them $20 billion over the next decade.

 

_Impose a "financial crisis responsibility fee" on large financial institutions, raising $90 billion over the next decade.

 

_Repeal a widely ignored law that taxes the personal use of company-issued cell phones like other fringe benefits, saving taxpayers $2.8 billion over 10 years.

 

_Restrict the ability of international companies to defer taxes on profits made overseas, raising about $26 billion over the next decade.

 

_Impose a total of about $39 billion in tax increases on oil, gas and coal companies over the next decade.

 

_Change the way profits made by investment fund managers are taxed, raising an additional $24 billion over the next decade.

 

Link

 

Stick it to the producers in this country! I'm all for across the board tax increases if needed, but I'm sick and tired of "targeted" tax increases, particularly on those actually try to provide jobs for others.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[posty]

Do you know of any Democrat that doesn't use class envy?

[yo mama]

I wouldn't mind more taxes if went towards paying down debt. But this is getting out of freakin' control. President Obama may have inherited most of this mess. I just wish he wasn't a puss when it came to letting people suffer through the harsh economic medicine the country needs to swallow in order to get a handle on our long-term economic problems. Soon, interest on our debt will be the single largest expense in the budget. While the reality of the solution is undesirable, the result of inaction is unacceptable

[Perchoutofwater]

I wouldn't mind more taxes if went towards paying down debt. But this is getting out of freakin' control. President Obama may have inherited most of this mess. I just wish he wasn't a puss when it came to letting people suffer through the harsh economic medicine the country needs to swallow in order to get a handle on our long-term economic problems. Soon, interest on our debt will be the single largest expense in the budget. While the reality of the solution is undesirable, the result of inaction is unacceptable

 

I wouldn't mind more taxes if it went to pay down the debt, not on drunken spending, and if everyone was taxed instead of just one group. I'm sick of Washington playing favorites, and pitting one against another.

[yo mama]

I wouldn't mind more taxes if it went to pay down the debt, not on drunken spending, and if everyone was taxed instead of just one group. I'm sick of Washington playing favorites, and pitting one against another.

Cutting certain types of spending is the same as raising taxes on various segments of society. I don't care what the call it, so long revenues exceed expenditures and everyone has to chip in something, relative to where we stand right now.

[bpwallace49]

Do you know of any Democrat that doesn't use class envy?

 

Cmon now . . . by unfunding tax credits for the wealthy, Bush didnt pay for his pet programs . . including the drug program that was never funded either. Plus Obama and ALL congresspeople are affected by that "tax increase" for the rich.

 

I like the idea of going back to the "pay as you go" method of budgeting, but that should have started NOW, not later. Enough with the tax games already . . both in credits and cuts. How about cutting wasteful programs and audit each area for efficiency and eliminate waste? Jeez . . cant ya just hire one of the thousand unemployed accountants to start a system by system audit?

 

When the economy went south, I bet most companies (I know I did) went through every line item by department and had to justify the existence of every expense. if only the gubment would ever have the balls to do so . . . .

[Perchoutofwater]

Cutting certain types of spending is the same as raising taxes on various segments of society. I don't care what the call it, so long revenues exceed expenditures and everyone has to chip in something, relative to where we stand right now.

 

I respectfully disagree. There is a big difference in me no longer giving you something, and me sticking a gun to your head telling you, that you have to give me something. For one if money is being confiscated from people they will be a lot less likely to vote in people that will spend more money causing more money to be confiscated from them.

[Perchoutofwater]

Cmon now . . . by unfunding tax credits for the wealthy, Bush didnt pay for his pet programs . . including the drug program that was never funded either. Plus Obama and ALL congresspeople are affected by that "tax increase" for the rich.

 

I like the idea of going back to the "pay as you go" method of budgeting, but that should have started NOW, not later. Enough with the tax games already . . both in credits and cuts. How about cutting wasteful programs and audit each area for efficiency and eliminate waste? Jeez . . cant ya just hire one of the thousand unemployed accountants to start a system by system audit?

 

When the economy went south, I bet most companies (I know I did) went through every line item by department and had to justify the existence of every expense. if only the gubment would ever have the balls to do so . . . .

 

The "wealthy" that got the tax credit still pay more in dollars and as a percentage than the majority of the moochers. So your argument there is weak.

 

Medicare D is the worst thing Bush did to us, but if anything it does more to help those with lower incomes.

 

I agree with on everything else you said.

[cre8tiff]

The "wealthy" that got the tax credit still pay more in dollars and as a percentage than the majority of the moochers. So your argument there is weak.

 

Medicare D is the worst thing Bush did to us, but if anything it does more to help those with lower incomes.

 

I agree with on everything else you said.

 

 

I'd like a link on that one. Sure they LOOK like they are paying more on a strict percentage basis, but I sincerely doubt there is anyone that makes that kind of money that isn't using some sort of tax strategy to lower that payment, likely substantially.

[yo mama]

I respectfully disagree. There is a big difference in me no longer giving you something, and me sticking a gun to your head telling you, that you have to give me something. For one if money is being confiscated from people they will be a lot less likely to vote in people that will spend more money causing more money to be confiscated from them.

You're right. Then we should restrict gun ownership.

[bpwallace49]

The "wealthy" that got the tax credit still pay more in dollars and as a percentage than the majority of the moochers. So your argument there is weak.

 

Medicare D is the worst thing Bush did to us, but if anything it does more to help those with lower incomes.

 

I agree with on everything else you said.

 

Perch there is a BIIIG difference in what the rates "say" they should pay versus what they "actually" pay after using every loophole and tax shelter in the books.

 

Poor people dont pay a lot in taxes perch . . . cause they dont make a lot of money in the first place. People thatr make more money (even with a flat tax with ZERO exemptions) wouls still pay more than poor people. That is the ultimate equality of a "flat tax".

[Perchoutofwater]

I'd like a link on that one. Sure they LOOK like they are paying more on a strict percentage basis, but I sincerely doubt there is anyone that makes that kind of money that isn't using some sort of tax strategy to lower that payment, likely substantially.

 

Maybe the uber-wealthy like John Heinz-Kerry or is it Kerry-Heinz? Seriously you have point, they hire enough tax people to build enough shelters that there actual percentage is pretty low in some cases. Unfortunately in order to penalize the wealthy for their largess you hurt the small and medium sized business owners and by extension their employees. All the more reason for either a flat tax with no exemptions or a sales tax instead of the crap we have now where you almost have to hire a professional just to keep the IRS from throwing you in jail for missing something on page 6,437 of the tax code.

[bpwallace49]

Maybe the uber-wealthy like John Heinz-Kerry or is it Kerry-Heinz? Seriously you have point, they hire enough tax people to build enough shelters that there actual percentage is pretty low in some cases. Unfortunately in order to penalize the wealthy for their largess you hurt the small and medium sized business owners and by extension their employees. All the more reason for either a flat tax with no exemptions or a sales tax instead of the crap we have now where you almost have to hire a professional just to keep the IRS from throwing you in jail for missing something on page 6,437 of the tax code.

 

Perch if you make over a quarter million dollars a year and you are married . . . . you count as wealthy. I doubt you will find too many sad violins ballads lamenting your tax status . . .

[westvirginia]

Here's what I don't get - does the obamessiah not have someone there telling him "dude (well, they probably call him "sir", but still) you REALLY don't want to raise any taxes right now because that will hurt the people who actually provide the jobs"?

 

And cre8tin (haven't heard that in a while, huh?) The data's out there. Here is a link from CNN. and here is one from the National Taxpayers Union. The data isn't hidden, it's just not widely publicized except on talk radio and the like. The left thinks this is just fine, but eventually, half the people will tire of the other half living off them.

[westvirginia]

Perch there is a BIIIG difference in what the rates "say" they should pay versus what they "actually" pay after using every loophole and tax shelter in the books.

 

Poor people dont pay a lot in taxes perch . . . cause they dont make a lot of money in the first place. People thatr make more money (even with a flat tax with ZERO exemptions) wouls still pay more than poor people. That is the ultimate equality of a "flat tax".

 

Sure, there's a difference in the nominal and effective rates, but as my previous post shows - you're unequivocally, flatly, wrong.

 

Now, if you're talking about people like the Rockerfellers, Carnegies, etc, then they don't have incomes. This is just another reason to get rid of the income tax as we know it and go to straight consumption taxes.

[Yukon Cornelius]

but eventually, half the people will tire of the other half living off them.

kinda like the north taken care of the south??

[Perchoutofwater]

Perch if you make over a quarter million dollars a year and you are married . . . . you count as wealthy. I doubt you will find too many sad violins ballads lamenting your tax status . . .

 

Just think of how I could expand my business, possibly start a new business (I was actually contemplating that a couple of years ago), buy new assets and what not that would help stimulate the economy if that money weren't confiscated by the government. Buy hey I'm sure the government can spend my money and create jobs much more efficiently than I can.

 

BTW, what difference should it make? We should all be taxed the same percentage as far as I'm concerned. It would be nice for a few other people to actually have some ownership in this government. I firmly believe if everyone was taxed at the same rate we wouldn't have the runaway spending we've had for the last 40 some odd years, because they would realize these programs actually cost them money too.

[bpwallace49]

This is just another reason to get rid of the income tax as we know it and go to straight FLAT tax.

 

Fixed for equality . . . .

[bpwallace49]

Just think of how I could expand my business, possibly start a new business (I was actually contemplating that a couple of years ago), buy new assets and what not that would help stimulate the economy if that money weren't confiscated by the government. Buy hey I'm sure the government can spend my money and create jobs much more efficiently than I can.

 

BTW, what difference should it make? We should all be taxed the same percentage as far as I'm concerned. It would be nice for a few other people to actually have some ownership in this government. I firmly believe if everyone was taxed at the same rate we wouldn't have the runaway spending we've had for the last 40 some odd years, because they would realize these programs actually cost them money too.

 

 

Perch . . . did you do so when these were introduced starting in 2001? Or did you just pocket the money? You have enjoyed those benefits for the last 8 years . . .

 

Cause our current economic situation doesnt exactly paint a rosy picture of the results of those tax cuts that Bush put in place . . . . just sayin' I really dont see how they have helped the economy in our current situation

[Perchoutofwater]

Perch . . . did you do so when these were introduced starting in 2001? Or did you just pocket the money? You have enjoyed those benefits for the last 8 years . . .

 

Cause our current economic situation doesnt exactly paint a rosy picture of the results of those tax cuts that Bush put in place . . . . just sayin' I really dont see how they have helped the economy in our current situation

 

From 2001 to now we have increased our office staff by 58% and our field staff by roughly 34%. We have given a 7% cost of living raise in all but one of those years, and have averaged 5 figure bonuses to all our salaried employees. Also during that time we have bought two or three computers per employee as well as at least two vehicles per employee. We have also purchased two new plotters not to mention other office equipment.

 

ETA the figures per employee are per salaried employee. We actually have more salaried employees than we do hourly employees most of the time.

 

ETA2 the office number is really closer to 29% when you consider that two of our office people are now semi-retired and two of the people we hired were to pick up their work load.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[westvirginia]

Fixed for equality . . . .

 

Again, wrong. The flat tax can still be manipulated by fedgov for social ends. Who would disagree that the rich spend more on a house, car, etc.? Who would disagree that the illegals need to pay into the system they're abusing? And the way my favorite plan - the Fair Tax, is set up, everyone gets a prebate monthly for the amount of the estimated goods/services needed by folks at the poverty level. So the whiners can't even complain that it's regressive.

[Azazello1313]

Perch there is a BIIIG difference in what the rates "say" they should pay versus what they "actually" pay after using every loophole and tax shelter in the books.

 

Poor people dont pay a lot in taxes perch . . . cause they dont make a lot of money in the first place. People thatr make more money (even with a flat tax with ZERO exemptions) wouls still pay more than poor people. That is the ultimate equality of a "flat tax".

 

the top 1% of earners pay 40% of all income tax. the top 5% pay 61%, the top 25% pay 87%. apparently, some of them missed the memo about loopholes and shelters, because they are funding the government.

[bpwallace49]

From 2001 to now we have increased our office staff by 58% and our field staff by roughly 34%. We have given a 7% cost of living raise in all but one of those years, and have averaged 5 figure bonuses to all our salaried employees. Also during that time we have bought two or three computers per employee as well as at least two vehicles per employee. We have also purchased two new plotters not to mention other office equipment.

 

ETA the figures per employee are per salaried employee. We actually have more salaried employees than we do hourly employees most of the time.

 

ETA2 the office number is really closer to 29% when you consider that two of our office people are now semi-retired and two of the people we hired were to pick up their work load.

 

Perch this is why I love our little chats. No matter what the rest of the economy does in terms of benefits, business expansion, etc. You always buck the trend and are a bonafide American success story. Congrats on your business doing so well (seriously.)!

 

Do you do any residential building at all? cause I keep looking for you on "Extreme Home Makeover" every week . . . but I still havent seen your company . . .

[westvirginia]

the top 1% of earners pay 40% of all income tax. the top 5% pay 61%, the top 25% pay 87%. apparently, some of them missed the memo about loopholes and shelters, because they are funding the government.

 

Oh, thhhhhhhnap!

[bpwallace49]

the top 1% of earners pay 40% of all income tax. the top 5% pay 61%, the top 25% pay 87%. apparently, some of them missed the memo about loopholes and shelters, because they are funding the government.

 

Where do you get that from Az? I am not disputing it . . . just asking for your info. Most sites I have seen list "income taxes paid in" but neglect to add now much they get REFUNDED every year.

 

Is this strictly income tax? Or are you lumping in capital gains taxes with it? Cause most poor people dont own stocks and therefore would not pay that in anyways . . .

 

That swhy i liek a flat tax. Whether you make millions (and complain about taxes) or 20k a year . . . 10% across the board covers everyone equally. Everyone pays the same rate