Snowbamacare and taxes

[UserRemoved1]

We are soooooooo %$%$%$%$ED

"Six Months to Go Until
The Largest Tax Hikes in History

From Ryan Ellis on Thursday, July 1, 2010 4:15 PM

BREAKING: Wounded Warriors Face New Tax This Independence Day
In just six months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2011:

First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief

In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011:

Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
- The 25% bracket rises to 28%
- The 28% bracket rises to 31%
- The 33% bracket rises to 36%
- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

Higher taxes on marriage and family. The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.

The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax. For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.

Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

Second Wave: Obamacare

There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:

The “Medicine Cabinet Tax” Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

The “Special Needs Kids Tax” This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes

When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they’ll be in for a nasty surprise—the AMT won’t be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired. The major items include:

The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress’ failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families—rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.

Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear. Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or “depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be “depreciated.”

Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses. There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the “research and experimentation tax credit,” but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.

Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced. The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available. Tax credits for education will be limited. Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses. Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut. Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed. The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.

Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA. This contribution also counts toward an annual “required minimum distribution.” This ability will no longer be there.

Read more: Six Months to Go Until<br> The Largest Tax Hikes in History"

[UserRemoved1]

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&

I think snow bama will argue that a roll back to old tax rates is not an increase, but a roll back...

Im moving to new zealand

[spence]

Tax cuts expiring doesn't mean that Congress won't draft new tax cuts to replace them. I'd note that under Obama there have been substantial cuts to taxes, including about a 1/3 of the Stimulus bill.

Granted, tax cuts under Obama have been less friendly to the rich as they were under Bush. No surprises here...

But to be honest, I think tax increases were inevitable regardless of who was elected in 2008. Even with dramatic spending controls the fiscal situation is too serious to correct without increasing collections through higher rates.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Even with dramatic spending controls the fiscal situation is too serious to correct without increasing collections through higher rates.

-spence

So with the dramatic spending increases, what we have is a need for much higher taxes Nothing will kill the "recovering economy" like a huge tax increase.

Happy Dependence Day

[JohnnyD]

Almost half my income already goes to the government... what's a few more percentage points.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Almost half my income already goes to the government... what's a few more percentage points.

this is brilliant stuff...why don't you just volunteer all of your money if that is your attitude?...you would have been great help during the Revolution

[PaulS]

Letting tax cuts expire isn't the same as putting in a tax increase.

The 2 parties need to face reality and compromise. Reality is that there needs to be some tax increases and some spending cuts.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Almost half my income already goes to the government... what's a few more percentage points.

A few percentage points at a time and, eventually, you're talkin' real money.

Turn the heat up a little at a time and, eventually, you're comfortably dead.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Letting tax cuts expire isn't the same as putting in a tax increase.

.

Really? in both cases you will be paying higher taxes... do you "feel" better telling yourself that you aren't paying higher taxes...you are just paying less tax cuts

mindboggling

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Letting tax cuts expire isn't the same as putting in a tax increase.

The 2 parties need to face reality and compromise. Reality is that there needs to be some tax increases and some spending cuts.

Just tax increases in general? What's the point of a tax increase? More money into Government coffers? What's the money for? So the Government can spend more? To pay(huh?) for spending cuts? And we're talking Federal Government here. How about if the Federal Government got out of the business of being an economic stimulator, stuck to its Constitutionally limited duties, let the people and their local governments handle their economies in a healthy competitive way?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

Really? in both cases you will be paying higher taxes... do you "feel" better telling yourself that you aren't paying higher taxes...you are just paying less tax cuts

mindboggling

so Obama proposed some legislation raising taxes?

Mindboggling

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Just tax increases in general? What's the point of a tax increase? More money into Government coffers? What's the money for? So the Government can spend more? To pay(huh?) for spending cuts?

To pay down/cut the deficit, balance the books. There is no way we can cut enough to balance the budget.

And frankly, I don't want to live in a country that has no safety net.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

so Obama proposed some legislation raising taxes?

Mindboggling

barely any at all...............

ABC News
Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011


Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

1) On people making more than $250,000.

$338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire
$179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction
$118 billion - capital gains tax hike

Total: $636 billion/10 years

2) Businesses:

$17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes
$24 billion - tax carried-interest as income
$5 billion - codify "economic substance doctrine"
$61 billion - repeal LIFO
$210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform
$4 billion - information reporting for rental payments
$5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
$3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs
$62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants
$49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
$13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies
$1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers
$882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit

Total: $353 billion/10 years


wake the bleep up!

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And frankly, I don't want to live in a country that has no safety net.

it's not a "safety net"...it's a freekin' trampoline

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And frankly, I don't want to live in a country that has no safety net.

That's the problem, government is so big and local, county, state and federal taxes so high you can't save and make your own safety net to take care of yourself.
Nanny state, SAD.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Almost half my income already goes to the government... what's a few more percentage points.

Anyone who thought I was serious with this remark is a patsy.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

How about if the Federal Government got out of the business of being an economic stimulator, stuck to its Constitutionally limited duties, let the people and their local governments handle their economies in a healthy competitive way?

Yes, because the States are so much more fiscally responsible

-spence

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, because the States are so much more fiscally responsible

-spence

yes, MA certainly is.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, because the States are so much more fiscally responsible

-spence

Because the Federal Gov. has gone far beyond its original responsibility. It has gathered power from the States and the people to the point of being and becoming more and more a dagerously over-centralized power over us rather than a defender of our rights against itself. And, yes, some States are more fiscally responsible than the Federal Government. Certainly, none are less so. The Federal Government has not only sucked the the power from the States, but has sucked their wealth through massively higher taxes and unfunded mandates. And, yes, having all the states compete in diverse ways of regulating, taxing, attracting businesses, hospitals, promoting conditions for producing wealth, attracting foreign professionals and investment, creating different methods of public safety, etc., would result in more options and better options simply because of the evolutionary symbiosis. Competitive diversity leads to suiccessful evolutionary models and outcomes. Central, unilateral dictation of power and method ultimately leads to evolutionary stagnation and failure.

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Because the Federal Gov. has gone far beyond its original responsibility. It has gathered power from the States and the people to the point of being and becoming more and more a dagerously over-centralized power over us rather than a defender of our rights against itself. And, yes, some States are more fiscally responsible than the Federal Government. Certainly, none are less so. The Federal Government has not only sucked the the power from the States, but has sucked their wealth through massively higher taxes and unfunded mandates. And, yes, having all the states compete in diverse ways of regulating, taxing, attracting businesses, hospitals, promoting conditions for producing wealth, attracting foreign professionals and investment, creating different methods of public safety, etc., would result in more options and better options simply because of the evolutionary symbiosis. Competitive diversity leads to suiccessful evolutionary models and outcomes. Central, unilateral dictation of power and method ultimately leads to evolutionary stagnation and failure.

Sounds more and more like the fall of the Roman Empire

[RIJIMMY]

im screwed

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

To pay down/cut the deficit, balance the books. There is no way we can cut enough to balance the budget.

Yes we can. Just don't spend more than is being taken in. That would "balance the budget." Perhaps you are confusing the deficit with the debt. You don't pay down the deficit. You create a deficit by overspending. That creates a debt, which every administration does and passes on to its successor. It is the debt that is difficult to "pay down" since it continues to grow--because more is spent than is taken in.

The idea that, surely, we must raise taxes as well as cut spending to balance a budget means that there is some free money floating around out there in the private market that we can confiscate at will to provide for all the goodies needed to get us elected. And the more goodies we provide, the more and more we (politicians/government) must provide to justify our re-election since the old goodies become a staple to be expected and we must satisfy the what are you doing for me lately psychosis. The more the Gov. does, the more we expect it to do. The Federal Government has bloated massively beyond what it was originally allowed, but it doesn't seem to want to halt the trend.

Unfortunately, the money is not free. The private sector can balance its books by spending less and/or raising prices. Raising prices in a competitive market can lead to shrinking sales which leads to either higher prices or deeper cutbacks (or both). The Federal Gov., not having competition, operates under the assumption that it can raise its price at will. The problem is that its source of revenue is from the private sector which cannot so easily do so. When that source is taxed at higher rates, the private sector must either cut back or raise its prices to pay those rates. Which not only leads to the private market's aforementioned problem, but leads to problems with its source of income--the consumer, who must now pay more for the goods, because of the goodies promised to him by those he elected. And some of his consumer buddies will have lost jobs due to cutbacks, so the Government will have to hand out more goodies . . . and on . . . and on.