A promise is a promise

[moneymakers]

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/...t_backdoortaxes

[Duchess Jack]

So - if Obama let's somebody elses plan expire - he's raising taxes? Wouldn't that be the fault of the guy who put an expiration date on the tax cuts?

[SEC=UGA]

So - if Obama let's somebody elses plan expire - he's raising taxes? Wouldn't that be the fault of the guy who put an expiration date on the tax cuts?

 

Yes, as usual it IS Bush's fault. You'd think the Republican senate and congress could have pushed this through w/o any democratic support, but they couldn't. So in order to get it passed they had to negotiate w. the democrats, thus giving it horizons (I am guessing that this is the case and have no concrete evidence that this occurred as I described it.)

[dmarc117]

So - if Obama let's somebody elses plan expire - he's raising taxes? Wouldn't that be the fault of the guy who put an expiration date on the tax cuts?

 

 

really?

[Perchoutofwater]

So - if Obama let's somebody elses plan expire - he's raising taxes? Wouldn't that be the fault of the guy who put an expiration date on the tax cuts?

 

You are right, it is the fault of the Dems in congress who insisted on the sunset provisions or "gasp" threatened to filibuster the legislation. By allowing these tax reductions to lapse Obama is using semantics, as it is obvious that those making less than $250,000 a year are about to get hit with a tax hike. I'm not saying that is wrong, it is what it is.

[westvirginia]

So - if Obama let's somebody elses plan expire - he's raising taxes? Wouldn't that be the fault of the guy who put an expiration date on the tax cuts?

 

You're a big enough boy to not really believe what you're saying, aren't you?

 

The bigger issue is the obamessiah raising ANY taxes right now. Someone please show me one instance of a country taxing and spending its way to prosperity?

[Kid Cid]

You can't continue to spend without someone paying for it. There is enough debt that everyone needs to shoulder the additional burden. That's what happens when the government can't stop spending money. You'll notice I said government. It doesn't matter what political party the person belongs to, a politician never saw another person's dollar that he or she doesn't want to spend.

[westvirginia]

You can't continue to spend without someone paying for it. There is enough debt that everyone needs to shoulder the additional burden. That's what happens when the government can't stop spending money. You'll notice I said government. It doesn't matter what political party the person belongs to, a politician never saw another person's dollar that he or she doesn't want to spend.

 

This is true, and I'm not saying some increase shouldn't happen at some point. Now is NOT the time for increased tax burdens or increased spending, IMO.

[Ursa Majoris]

You are right, it is the fault of the Dems in congress who insisted on the sunset provisions or "gasp" threatened to filibuster the legislation. By allowing these tax reductions to lapse Obama is using semantics, as it is obvious that those making less than $250,000 a year are about to get hit with a tax hike. I'm not saying that is wrong, it is what it is.

 

 

You're a big enough boy to not really believe what you're saying, aren't you?

 

The bigger issue is the obamessiah raising ANY taxes right now. Someone please show me one instance of a country taxing and spending its way to prosperity?

 

Why don't you two look at this as a temporary tax relief from the norm, which is what it is. Your entitlement mentalities are showing through here, no different to what Leshaun and Latrissa down the welfare office would be saying if they'd had a 10 year bump in their welfare reduced back to where it was before.

[dmarc117]

Why don't you two look at this as a temporary tax relief from the norm, which is what it is. Your entitlement mentalities are showing through here, no different to what Leshaun and Latrissa down the welfare office would be saying if they'd had a 10 year bump in their welfare reduced back to where it was before.

 

 

entitlement?? we work for our money!!!! we dont get handouts!!!!!

[TimC]

Anyone not making at least $250,000 a year to payback the suckling of the teet should be burned as fuel, or at least enslaved. Really, what are their purpose in life otherwise...to simply exist in their own filth and squalor?

[bpwallace49]

Anyone not making at least $250,000 a year to payback the suckling of the teet should be burned as fuel, or at least enslaved. Really, what are their purpose in life otherwise...to simply exist in their own filth and squalor?

 

Their purpose is to work for low wages and provide the wealthy business owners with more wealth.

[WaterMan]

You can't continue to spend without someone paying for it. There is enough debt that everyone needs to shoulder the additional burden. That's what happens when the government can't stop spending money. You'll notice I said government. It doesn't matter what political party the person belongs to, a politician never saw another person's dollar that he or she doesn't want to spend.

 

This is going to get lost in the Obama is Satan Tailgate.

[Perchoutofwater]

Why don't you two look at this as a temporary tax relief from the norm, which is what it is. Your entitlement mentalities are showing through here, no different to what Leshaun and Latrissa down the welfare office would be saying if they'd had a 10 year bump in their welfare reduced back to where it was before.

 

See that is where you drop all logic. How is it an entitlement to not confiscate the funds that I earn at a +/-4% higher rate when I already by a higher rate. That is just a total disconnect from logic.

[TimC]

Their purpose is to work for low wages and provide the wealthy business owners with more wealth.

 

The poor should be required to cut the boss's lawn at least once a month for the indirect pay their laziness receives from the taxes they don't pay to benefit society. Be thankful the rich don't go barn loving on people's broke ass.

[WaterMan]

See that is where you drop all logic. How is it an entitlement to not confiscate the funds that I earn at a +/-4% higher rate when I already by a higher rate. That is just a total disconnect from logic.

 

It's too hard to be rich. Poor Perch.

[yo mama]

So - if Obama let's somebody elses plan expire - he's raising taxes? Wouldn't that be the fault of the guy who put an expiration date on the tax cuts?

It's really six of one, half a dozen of the other. But just so were clear, OBAMA isn't raising taxes. CONGRESS is merely not intervening in the natural expiration of legislation that will certainly increase the tax liability of some Americans. Though query as to whether those Bush tax cuts should have ever been given in the first place: they are one of the (many, many) reasons that our country is in current financial pickle.

 

And let's not pretend that either Bush or Obama have clean hands here, people. The Bush plan blew up deficits by cutting taxes and increasing borrowing and spending. The Obama plan is to increase spending, taxes, and borrowing. Both fiscal policies lack common sense but were justified by the crisis du jour. I'm so sick of people aping about the democrats and republicans, as if one were less fiscally retarded than the other.

Edited February 2, 2010 by yo mama

[Savage Beatings]

Social Security already pays out more than it takes in. Medicare will be bankrupt before the decade is out as well. And not only are we not seriously looking at how to fix these budget busting problems, but we are adding to them instead. The projected deficits for the next 10 years are necessarily going to transform the nation. Of course taxes are going to increase. And trust me, they are not just going to increase for the wealthy... maybe not immediately, but it's pretty obvious that taxes are going to skyrocket for everyone that actually pays in to the government. How could it be otherwise?

Edited February 2, 2010 by Savage Beatings

[westvirginia]

Why don't you two look at this as a temporary tax relief from the norm, which is what it is. Your entitlement mentalities are showing through here, no different to what Leshaun and Latrissa down the welfare office would be saying if they'd had a 10 year bump in their welfare reduced back to where it was before.

 

Somone needs to get out the thorazine and straight jacket, because ursa just went over the high side.

 

You can see the difference between keeping what you earn and objecting to having it taken at the point of a gun, and some whining moocher who can only get her nails done once a month "cause those evil rich bastards won't let go a' that money", can't you? You're resorting to ad homeneim because logic doesn't work here? Should someone NOT feel entitled to what they earn?

 

I don't exist, work and live to provide the government looters or the parasitic looters a means to eat. If you feel that way then I invite you to do what I invited sqeegie to do - go find some derelict. Give them all your money except what you absolutely NEED. You'll never do it, yet you expect, through your vote, to be able to decide just how much others get to keep. That is morally reprehensible when you get right down to it.

[westvirginia]

It's really six of one, half a dozen of the other. But just so were clear, OBAMA isn't raising taxes. CONGRESS is merely not intervening in the natural expiration of legislation that will certainly increase the tax liability of some Americans. Though query as to whether those Bush tax cuts should have ever been given in the first place: they are one of the (many, many) reasons that our country is in current financial pickle.

 

And let's not pretend that either Bush or Obama have clean hands here, people. The Bush plan blew up deficits by cutting taxes and increasing borrowing and spending. The Obama plan is to increase spending, taxes, and borrowing. Both fiscal policies lack common sense but were justified by the crisis du jour. I'm so sick of people aping about the democrats and republicans, as if one were less fiscally retarded than the other.

 

And this was my point in its entirety. The obamessiah is either getting bad advice, or deliberately tanking the economy. Since I don't believe in conspiracy theories, I choose to believe the former.

[i_am_the_swammi]

people do realize that the tax cuts enacted at the beginning of the decade are a hugh contributor to our current deficit, right?

 

people do realize that....right???

[WaterMan]

I don't exist, work and live to provide the government looters or the parasitic looters a means to eat.

 

That's the question, what is life all about? Many of you were brainwashed into thinking: lots of money = i'm doing the right thing.

[bushwacked]

as if one were less fiscally retarded than the other.

 

Isn't spending a ton and cutting taxes a bit more retarded than spending a ton and raising taxes?

[WaterMan]

people do realize that the tax cuts enacted at the beginning of the decade are a hugh contributor to our current deficit, right?

 

people do realize that....right???

 

All the blame should be placed on people who received food stamps. They are the ones writing the laws and handing out billions to companies during our triple war effort.

[Perchoutofwater]

people do realize that the tax cuts enacted at the beginning of the decade are a hugh contributor to our current deficit, right?

 

people do realize that....right???

 

You remember the tech bubble, or 9/11? Do you think they had an impact on the economy? Now look at this graph. It wasn't until after 9/11 we started running deficits, and the trend from 2004 until 2008 (Pelosi's first budget) was that of shrinking deficits. Does the current deficit have more to do with tax cuts, or the out of control spending? You do realize it has more to do with out of control spending, people do realize that....right???