For us Yankees only.

http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171#

If we rework the House and Senate could the Tax Hikes and other nonsense recently enacted be repealed in time to prevent the total wreckage of our society?

So? Obama is having to fix the damage done by W's largest tax reduction(for the wealthy) in history. One has to happen to end the other.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

So? Obama is having to fix the damage done by W's largest tax reduction(for the wealthy) in history. One has to happen to end the other.

Perhaps you should have read it. All of it.

Somehow making your health insurance taxable income doesn't sound like it is for the wealthy.

---

So? Obama is having to fix the damage done by W's largest tax reduction(for the wealthy) in history. One has to happen to end the other.

Perhaps you should have read it. All of it.

Somehow making your health insurance taxable income doesn't sound like it is for the wealthy.

Or maybe you should have read it, health insurance will not become taxable income under current provisions, though employers will be required to report it on W-2s, which the author characterizes as:

Employer Reporting of Health Insurance Costs on a W-2. This will start for W-2s in the 2011 tax year. While not a tax increase in itself, it makes it very easy for Congress to tax employer-provided healthcare benefits later.

Another motive may be to collect accurate information.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

So? Obama is having to fix the damage done by W's largest tax reduction(for the wealthy) in history. One has to happen to end the other.

To that remark I say this.

---

Welcome to 1937 when a backlash to the deficit spending forced Roosevelt to back off the dspending and works programs. What we know now is that the industrial complex hadn't recovered and this cutting of benefits caused what is now evident as the cause of the "double dip" depression that occurred.

The trouble with cutting benefits and stimulus is actually knowing when to stop. Even for Economists its not an easy task. To assume all is well when we still have 8+% unemployment in Texas and much higher in the rust belt, is incredibly short sighted. For a full recovery its not just important to get the stock exchanges and bank back in order. We need people working and paying taxes.

Heres what happens when you don't support people. Those that were former working and living in homes, default on loans, mortgages, leases and bill because they have no money to pay them. these people either moving in with relatives or live on the street. MOst likely they'll turn to stealing to support their families which makes matters worse because we now have honest working people forced to steal/commit crimes just to eat. This is hardly beneficial to anyone considering that the people they steal from are likely you and me. Our congressmen have little to fear from this but we do.
Taking this another step further. THe Police are being furloughed because of budget cuts. This puts an additional burden on the remaining Police who cannot possible catch all the new criminals. When caught we spend even more money housing, trying, convicting and then sending the individual back into society with a giant red X on his forehead which forever prevents him from holding down a decent job.

So I think I'm willing to spend a few bucks and keep this crap from happening as much as possible. Short sightedness just keeps one focused on the end of your nose. Sometimes its best to look beyond that

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Welcome to 1937 when a backlash to the deficit spending forced Roosevelt to back off the dspending and works programs. What we know now is that the industrial complex hadn't recovered and this cutting of benefits caused what is now evident as the cause of the "double dip" depression that occurred.

The trouble with cutting benefits and stimulus is actually knowing when to stop. Even for Economists its not an easy task. To assume all is well when we still have 8+% unemployment in Texas and much higher in the rust belt, is incredibly short sighted. For a full recovery its not just important to get the stock exchanges and bank back in order. We need people working and paying taxes.

Heres what happens when you don't support people. Those that were former working and living in homes, default on loans, mortgages, leases and bill because they have no money to pay them. these people either moving in with relatives or live on the street. MOst likely they'll turn to stealing to support their families which makes matters worse because we now have honest working people forced to steal/commit crimes just to eat. This is hardly beneficial to anyone considering that the people they steal from are likely you and me. Our congressmen have little to fear from this but we do.
Taking this another step further. THe Police are being furloughed because of budget cuts. This puts an additional burden on the remaining Police who cannot possible catch all the new criminals. When caught we spend even more money housing, trying, convicting and then sending the individual back into society with a giant red X on his forehead which forever prevents him from holding down a decent job.

So I think I'm willing to spend a few bucks and keep this crap from happening as much as possible. Short sightedness just keeps one focused on the end of your nose. Sometimes its best to look beyond that

You haven't looked at New Deal or Raw Deal yet. To create or save a job, it takes Obama between $300,000 and $500,000 a job. He would be better off paying each of the $50,000 a year and saving the rest. The only public workers who are losing jobs are those who have strong unions and are not willing to take a pay cut!

---

For us Yankees only.

http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171#

If we rework the House and Senate could the Tax Hikes and other nonsense recently enacted be repealed in time to prevent the total wreckage of our society?

I remember back in 2001 when the temporary tax reductions were going to usher in an economic golden age. A mere seven years later we started to reap those benefits with a recession bordering on a depression.

And now people object to the end of these temporary reductions whose end every rational person planned for.

Point of order,

Wealthy people will pay 35% of, let's say, an income of $250,000 which is $87,500. They also pay 7.5% of around $100,000 which is $7,500 in Socialist Security tax. They also pay 2.5% Medicare which is $6,250. By my reckoning then they would pay over $100,000 in tax or 40% of their income.

A family making $40,000 pays nothing in income tax which is 0. They would pay maybe $4,000 overall in Social Welfare tax. So they pay 10% or so of their income to Uncle Sugar.

Now, You tell me who is getting screwed or who has been unfairly benefitting from a small reduction in tax put in by Bush.

I have been wealthy and I have now been poor in retirement so I have perspective on both sides of the argument. I think that we should all carry the load in equal measure or at least in equal proportion. We have no right to ask or expect the fat cats to subsidize our inability to make our own way to the level that we like to live.

When taxation hit 45% in England, many, many of their professionals worked overseas to avoid taxes. The US still taxes their ex-patriots when they earn foreign income so I predict more off-shore accounts or changes in citizenship if we go much higher.

I have paid into Medicare since 1965, that's 45 years. Now, when I am a recipient of Medicare, my health care still costs me around $300 per month which is more than what it is worth anyway . In theory the government is pouring additional hundreds into this program each month for me. We wanted cost reduction and containment via Healthcare legislation and we got proliferation of a bloated, predatory, corrupt system and cost increases instead.

What do you all think?

Not sure where you get your infor from but I make about $50k and I can tell you I pay in $5k every year. Second, I'ds like to meet 1 person/corporation that is actually paying 35% in taxes. 35% is a starting point. Once done with Itemizations/credits/amoritizations/capital improvements/depreciation/capital losses/mileage/etc you see that this so called tax rate is more like 20% which is barely 2X what the person writing this post makes. This is a fine example of the Tax code being manuevered and adjusted by lobbyists. Simply put if you make less than $250k you most likely won't, can't or don't use those previously mentioned deductions unless you make more than $150-$200K those below that use their money to actually live. For them their is generally not a whole lot of "extra" money to play with. Thus the term excess income. Does it really take $250K+ to live. Probably not. Thus the term progressive tax burden.

Think of it this way. You pay more to protect your freedom to make that kind of money. should a person making $250k pay the same tax rate as one making less than $40k, absolutely not. thus the progressive system. Heck if the rich actually paid what they did in the 1970's the Gov't wouldn't have the fiscal problems they are in now.

I can see how lowering the taxes have made them able to do so much more to guard against losing it. Buying thteir congressmen to lobbying tax laws so much so that the average IRS agent doesn't even know what half of the code means. Yes, this country can do much better for the people

And BTW, The poor still pay a substantially larger amount of their income in sales tax for items.
to prove my point : 2 shoppers go to Home depot for a drill. both pay in cash for the same hammer. For the sake of arguement the drill costs $50

customer #1 makes minimum wage($7.25/hour or $290/week or $15,080/year)
cutomer #2 has a salary of $15,000/month
you don't have to be very good at math to see which person is affected more by the sales tax. So when you talk about someone not paying taxes, you're talking about someone that is scratching out an existance.

Lastly, I find people that complain about the rich being overtaxed to be so morally bancrupt to not be worthy of discussion. Did the well to do and wealth forget their basic moral human duty to help those less fortunate than they are. This goes beyond handing out a present or 2 at Christmas or serving food one day at the local shelter during the holidays. This is every for some. Consider how those tax breaks help those in need and then quietly than them for your meals/lawn service/carwash/etc. the people you most detest and want to get less are the very ones that you need the most. Think again friend think again.

Who is going to cook your meals at the gourmet restaurants if these folks are cast aside and become homeless because of some heavyhanded jerk that thinks that those people are just getting over. that if they'd just go get a "real" job they'd be better off. Well guess what? The economy sucks and a lot of former middle managers are having a hard time adjusting to minimum income. they are finding life very unpleasant. Perhaps if they have thought of a social safety net instead of thier next new car they wouldn't be having the struggles they are in now

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Thanks for your reply.

If you had two kids, a wife and a mortgage, gave to charity and paid state taxes you would pay almost nothing. I'll stick to my statement that a family with a mortgage and making $40,000 will pay essentially zero in federal taxes. I know, since myself and my in-laws are now in this income bracket.

You will find that those in this $250,000 tax bracket are denied most of their deductions and almost all deductions on Schedule A. There is an income test for most deductions and they disappear quickly with rising income. If they don't get you here they get you on Alternative Minimum Tax. I have a large mortgage and have still paid over $100,000 in Federal Income tax each year in the few years that we made the $250,000.

Now that I am poor and can hardly get to the next month I have nothing more to groan about personally.

Probably a flat tax of 20% would pay the bills. The quarter of a million guy would pay $50,000 and the $40,000 dollar guy would pay $8,000.

My concern is mainly about Capital Gains tax treatment and those extra expenses for small (and Large) businesses in regard to health care. There is disincentive to hire and take risks if a high percentage of your capital formation is eroded by taxes.

A self employed person earning $100,000 would pay well over 50% in state federal and local taxes. My wife and I quit working years ago when it became obvious that Taxes would take the bulk of our pay checks. At the time we had adequate investments and figured that $40,000 per year was not much less than $100,000 when taxes , socialist security self employment tax, medicare and state taxes were deducted.

Since I was once in the top 5%, I am not so eager to say "soak the rich" even though I now am impecunious.

regards,

Daddio

There are many ways the affluent can currently avoid paying their full share of the taxes. One of the simplest is to open a business. Money not returned is a loss, money that grows, if it is used towards expenses FOR that business(expanding inventory, real estate for expansion, etc so on and so forth) are used to offset company profits.. income produced, sales and other income.
Expenses can include office space(it will be checked out and scrutinized, but it can be in their homes) company cars, air travel, travel for related seminars and related training(ever wonder why many seminars are held in resort areas?)
lodging...

There are IRA's there are ROTH IRA's There are Keough's..
There are tax credits. There are many tools that can be and are used. This is how Britain at one point had tax rates over 90%.. because the people making a lot of money still were not paying much.


If everyone could deduct food, rent, clothes, utilities.. I doubt many would be upset with high tax brackets. That is however not the case.

That is why a "flat tax" with NO deductions(based on GROSS) would be infinately more fair. Raise the minimum wage to $10 at the same time, and very few in the lower brackets would find it troubling.

As far as a "Family" making 40K and paying very little taxes, I suppose it depends on the size of that family.

---

Janice

It was discovered in the early 1920's in the United States that companies think a tax rate of 20% is a fair tax rate. If the tax rate is 20% or less, taxes are payed in full. If taxes go above that, companies start looking ways to avoid paying taxes. It takes money to hide money so the average person is unable to do this. That's why the Laffer curve shows the government takes in less money than expected by hiking the tax rate and can receive more money than expected by lowering the tax rate.
I suspect few people in congress have ever taken a corse in Economics because many of the laws they pass are not based in reality.

---

Lets put some perspective on taxes.
I don't make that much, but I don't have any of those cushy deductions either.
Last year I was without a job yet I paid $3432.49 in total taxes.
Year before, employed, I paid $13944.99 in total taxes.

Oh and last year, despite a almost zero income, I didn't qualify for any of those poor people's credits, because I did the right thing and planed for a disaster. (In case you are wondering even though I was without a job my total net worth actually went up. Maybe I'll be able to retire when the time comes.)

And William Rothamel's actions prove the Laffer curve. And suggest its trip point is much lower than the figures some people bandy about as fact.

---

On the subject of IRA's.

It is a mixed bag. Consider the following.

Roth IRA contributions are not tax deferred--taxes are paid in full on your income GOING IN to the IRA.

Regular IRA's can be a screw job --due to the fact that Capital Gains are taxed at 15% ( I know-- this is supposed to change due to OBAMA), and income is taxed at around 34%-38%.
All of your capital gains in an IRA are considered to be INCOME and not Capital gains and are therefore taxed at the much higher rate. If Obama tries to tax Capital gains at the Income rate then capital formation will be a thing of the past and so will our society as we know it.

Also, money put into an IRA incurs an "opportunity cost" of not being able to use it to create capital other than what your investment earns. The capital formed due to an IRA investment will be taxed as INCOME in a conventional IRA.

Roth IRA is most likely a better deal in the long run if you are going to be quite successful in choosing your investments. Don't forget that all stock market and commodities markets are most likely being manipulated by front - running insiders, Market Makers, Monopolies, exchange seat holders etc.

I applied for a job with Doctor Laffer --didn't even get an acknowledgement. A real laugher so to speak.

On the subject of IRA's.

It is a mixed bag. Consider the following.

Roth IRA contributions are not tax deferred--taxes are paid in full on your income GOING IN to the IRA.

Regular IRA's can be a screw job --due to the fact that Capital Gains are taxed at 15% ( I know-- this is supposed to change due to OBAMA), and income is taxed at around 34%-38%.
All of your capital gains in an IRA are considered to be INCOME and not Capital gains and are therefore taxed at the much higher rate. If Obama tries to tax Capital gains at the Income rate then capital formation will be a thing of the past and so will our society as we know it.

Also, money put into an IRA incurs an "opportunity cost" of not being able to use it to create capital other than what your investment earns. The capital formed due to an IRA investment will be taxed as INCOME in a conventional IRA.

Roth IRA is most likely a better deal in the long run if you are going to be quite successful in choosing your investments. Don't forget that all stock market and commodities markets are most likely being manipulated by front - running insiders, Market Makers, Monopolies, exchange seat holders etc.

I applied for a job with Doctor Laffer --didn't even get an acknowledgement. A real laugher so to speak.

For people of moderate means.. these are major issues. For someone of immense means...
the regular IRA provides a complete deduction from the income to the allowed amount. Up to $6,000 tax free going in last I checked, but it changes annually.
The taxes while it grows( and it can be invested a number of ways to grow substantially) taxes on those funds are completely defered. Until you pull funds out.

The funds that go into a ROTH IRA are not deducted true. But not only do the funds GROW without incurring taxes, they can be WITHDRAWN without additional taxes on ANYTHING EARNED IN THE ACCOUNT!!. There are no additional taxes for putting money into the ROTH.

As far as market manipulations and many other games being played.. yes. That is true. But there are ways to reliably earn money with these accounts IF you do your homework. And that does not mean following the whim of the talking heads.
There is risk involved. There is also potential involved. This does not mean
manipulating markets (although the "Haves" might be able to do this.. a normal investor 1:can not do it reliably and 2: will be hauled off in handcuffs and have assetts siezed if they even tried.) But by paying attention to what the markets are doing, and other tools provided that few pay attention to.

The largest problem with MOST managed funds is the fees incurred. It is not uncommon to see over all fees being charged to exceed 1% of the balance PER YEAR. This is of the balance, and not of the profits, for doing nothing more than select a mutual fund that already has internal management fees for asset
allocation. Now if you are withdrawing 4% per year.. and the value goes up 4.5%, that 1% can take you to a LOSS for the year, when the hope is to hedge against inflation at least. If you lose 2$ you lose 3% because they still take that 1%(that you worked all those years for).

simply put.. if you have $200,000 worth of IRA's, you can if you are not careful
pay someone $2,000 PER YEAR to do less than an hours work each year. Some are even higher. If someone is retiring semi-comfortably with $1 million, that is $10,000 per year. If they live for 20 years past retirement(just random example)
assuming despite the fees they have maintained the value.. $200,000 or more.

Fraught with risk? Yep. So is doing nothing. And in the ocean of investment bigger eats smaller. But for the "Haves"... it is still a clear blue sea.

---

Janice