PDA

View Full Version : Again we HOPE for CHANGE



RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/17/2010, 02:50 PM
this is not bashing, it's the truth.

In just six months, on January 1, 2011, 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, here’s what happens... (read it to the end, so you see all three waves)...

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 highermarginal 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 only, there is no death tax. (It’s a quirk!) 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, a business, a retirement account, could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones. Think of the farmers who don’t make much money, but their land, which they purchased years ago with after-tax dollars, is now worth a lot of money. Their children will have to sell the farm, which may be their livelihood, just to pay the estate tax if they don’t have the cash sitting around to pay the tax. Think about your own family’s assets. Maybe your family owns real estate, or a business that doesn’t make much money, but the building and equipment are worth $1 million. Upon their death, you can inherit the $1 million business tax free, but if they own a home, stock, cash worth $500K on top of the $1 million business, then you will owe the government $275,000 cash! That’s 55% of the value of the assets over $1 million! Do you have that kind of cash sitting around waiting to pay the estate tax?

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 not be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

The HSA (Health Savings Account) 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 IRAsand other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.


Third Wave:

The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) 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 currently 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.

PDF Version Read more: <http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171>; http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171#%23ixzz0sY8waPq1

And worse yet?


Now, your insurance will be INCOME on your W2's!

One of the surprises we'll find come next year, is what follows - - a little "surprise" that 99% of us had no idea was included in the "new and improved" healthcare legislation . . . the dupes, er, dopes, who backed this administration will be astonished!

Starting in 2011, (next year folks), your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or governmental body of some sort.

If you're retired? So what... your gross will go up by the amount of insurance you get.

You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen. Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year.

For many, it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse.

This is how the government is going to buy insurance for the15% that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases.

Not believing this??? Here is a research of the summaries.....
On page 25 of 29: TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS-(sec. 9001,
as modified by sec. 10901) Sec.9002 "requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employees gross income."

- Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters.
- Go to Kiplingers and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what is above.

yermom
8/17/2010, 03:04 PM
sounds like a lot of government subsidies are going away. you sure seem to like government handouts

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/17/2010, 03:13 PM
sounds like a lot of government subsidies are going away. you sure seem to like government handoutsIs this an approval of new taxes?

yermom
8/17/2010, 03:19 PM
are you approving of the whole article? you want to give an extra $500 to every welfare mother per kid? how about extra cash to every married couple for being married?

expiring tax cuts aren't new taxes

why shouldn't benefits be taxed? it just more money that people with good jobs get to hide that people with crappy jobs don't

and 39.6% tax rates are hardly historic

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/17/2010, 03:23 PM
are you approving of the whole article? you want to give an extra $500 to every welfare mother per kid? how about extra cash to every married couple for being married?

expiring tax cuts aren't new taxes

why shouldn't benefits be taxed? it just more money that people with good jobs get to hide that people with crappy jobs don't

and 39.6% tax rates are hardly historicIt's just info for voting America

Boomer.....
8/17/2010, 03:26 PM
IBTJM

JohnnyMack
8/17/2010, 03:35 PM
IBTJM

Pretzels and almonds make a nice, relatively healthy afternoon snack.

Boomer.....
8/17/2010, 03:57 PM
Salted or not? What is an appropriate serving?

Tulsa_Fireman
8/17/2010, 04:03 PM
Can pretzels and almonds be taxed?

Viking Kitten
8/17/2010, 04:07 PM
And worse yet?

Now, your insurance will be INCOME on your W2's!

One of the surprises we'll find come next year, is what follows - - a little "surprise" that 99% of us had no idea was included in the "new and improved" healthcare legislation . . . the dupes, er, dopes, who backed this administration will be astonished!

Starting in 2011, (next year folks), your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company...


No.

It won't.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/health-care-law-and-w-2-forms/

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/17/2010, 04:09 PM
No.

It won't.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/health-care-law-and-w-2-forms/You still okay with the Democrats?

Viking Kitten
8/17/2010, 04:12 PM
*shrugs*

Looks like you're okay with spreading lies around.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/17/2010, 04:16 PM
*shrugs*

Looks like you're okay with spreading lies around.If there was an error, glad you were kind enough to point it out. I guess you are still okay with the Dems, huh?

Viking Kitten
8/17/2010, 04:20 PM
You know it's weird, but somehow I don't believe you're really grateful for me being kind and pointing out your... um..."error." Just a hunch, I guess.

Ike
8/17/2010, 04:21 PM
I am reminded of a rhetorical question once posed by Milton Friedman.

"When is a tax cut not a tax cut? When the so-called tax cut is accompanied by a larger rise in government spending than in prices."

That is all.

tator
8/17/2010, 04:30 PM
are you approving of the whole article? you want to give an extra $500 to every welfare mother per kid? how about extra cash to every married couple for being married?

expiring tax cuts aren't new taxes

why shouldn't benefits be taxed? it just more money that people with good jobs get to hide that people with crappy jobs don't

and 39.6% tax rates are hardly historic
This was my thinking

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/17/2010, 04:40 PM
I am reminded of a rhetorical question once posed by Milton Friedman.

"When is a tax cut not a tax cut? When the so-called tax cut is accompanied by a larger rise in government spending than in prices."

That is all.MR. ECONOMICS! Have you read "Free To Choose"? It should be required reading in jr. HS or HS.

XingTheRubicon
8/17/2010, 04:40 PM
are you approving of the whole article? you want to give an extra $500 to every welfare mother per kid?

I hope you're not serious. About 80% of working American families qualify for the child tax credit. The middle class needs that tax credit pretty damn bad after paying for the bottom 20% maggots on the government tit.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/17/2010, 04:49 PM
I hope you're not serious. About 80% of working American families qualify for the child tax credit. The middle class needs that tax credit pretty damn bad after paying for the bottom 20% maggots on the government tit.That boy's brain is wired differently. He buys Progressivism.

Tulsa_Fireman
8/17/2010, 05:08 PM
I hope you're not serious. About 80% of working American families qualify for the child tax credit. The middle class needs that tax credit pretty damn bad after paying for the bottom 20% maggots on the government tit.

My single income, public servant household with a child must shoot me up in the 20% range because I haven't qualified for a child tax credit in forever.

An exemption, yes. But not the child tax credit.

XingTheRubicon
8/17/2010, 08:42 PM
You must be one hell of a fireman.



9. Limitations - The credit is limited if your modified adjusted gross income is above a certain amount. The amount at which this phase-out begins varies depending on your filing status. For married taxpayers filing a joint return, the phase-out begins at $110,000. For married taxpayers filing a separate return, it begins at $55,000. For all other taxpayers, the phase-out begins at $75,000. In addition, the Child Tax Credit is generally limited by the amount of the income tax you owe as well as any alternative minimum tax you owe.


Certain gov't employees may not qualify, I'm not sure.

yermom
8/18/2010, 01:21 AM
I hope you're not serious. About 80% of working American families qualify for the child tax credit. The middle class needs that tax credit pretty damn bad after paying for the bottom 20% maggots on the government tit.

why should i be paying for their kids?

SicEmBaylor
8/18/2010, 03:32 AM
Pretzels and almonds make a nice, relatively healthy afternoon snack.

I made my second round of homemade potato chips tonight. To hell with healthy, I've been munching on these all evening:

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs145.ash2/40564_428695018483_511923483_4688564_4668884_n.jpg

SicEmBaylor
8/18/2010, 03:36 AM
I am reminded of a rhetorical question once posed by Milton Friedman.

"When is a tax cut not a tax cut? When the so-called tax cut is accompanied by a larger rise in government spending than in prices."

That is all.

THIS. THIS. THIS.

There was a time when conservatives opposed tax-hikes without corresponding cuts in spending (or at the very least reducing the growth of spending). Of course that's back in the days when conservatism actually meant something....

I always find it amusing when conservatives use the Kennedy tax cuts as a way to justify the Bush tax cuts when the great AuH20 fought those tax cuts tooth and nail because he considered it irresponsible to cut taxes without cutting spending.

XingTheRubicon
8/18/2010, 09:25 AM
why should i be paying for their kids?

It's not our fault you can't get laid.


Perhaps you should concern yourself with the bottom 20% (mostly worthless liberals) being the richest poor people in the history of civilization...and still wanting more.

Bourbon St Sooner
8/18/2010, 12:33 PM
THIS. THIS. THIS.

There was a time when conservatives opposed tax-hikes without corresponding cuts in spending (or at the very least reducing the growth of spending). Of course that's back in the days when conservatism actually meant something....

I always find it amusing when conservatives use the Kennedy tax cuts as a way to justify the Bush tax cuts when the great AuH20 fought those tax cuts tooth and nail because he considered it irresponsible to cut taxes without cutting spending.

Why is it not hard for me to believe that somebody that doesn't work doesn't care about taxes going up?

Bourbon St Sooner
8/18/2010, 12:40 PM
are you approving of the whole article? you want to give an extra $500 to every welfare mother per kid?

Actually the child tax credit is non-refundable so you have to actually pay taxes to get it. Welfare mothers aren't paying taxes.

yermom
8/18/2010, 12:48 PM
It's not our fault you can't get laid.


Perhaps you should concern yourself with the bottom 20% (mostly worthless liberals) being the richest poor people in the history of civilization...and still wanting more.

how about not having kids unless you can afford them?

why exactly should the tax code encourage you to have more kids? last time i checked we didn't need to increase our population. the growing number of dependents in the system doesn't seem to be slowing down

OhU1
8/18/2010, 01:03 PM
how about not having kids unless you can afford them?

why exactly should the tax code encourage you to have more kids?

Exactly, if anything people with kids should pay more taxes (for schools at least). They should not get an exemption. Why should people without kids subsidize other people's rug rats?

OklahomaTuba
8/18/2010, 01:16 PM
Better yet, make people pay a little tuition to their public schools.

ndpruitt03
8/18/2010, 01:27 PM
I don't really care about taxes that much if we weren't spending so much. That's the change we really need. Raising taxes and spending has a long history of destroying economies.

XingTheRubicon
8/18/2010, 02:11 PM
Exactly, if anything people with kids should pay more taxes (for schools at least). They should not get an exemption. Why should people without kids subsidize other people's rug rats?

It's just a voting numbers thing. If 75% of America's population was made up of single men and women, then there would be tax credits for condoms, smart phones and Dave & Busters.

btw, I thought the same thing when I was a single earner...

XingTheRubicon
8/18/2010, 02:20 PM
why exactly should the tax code encourage you to have more kids?


I hope you don't think that your average working family considers $1,000 tax credit as a motivation to raise a human being for 18 years.

It's just a little help for those who work, provide for themselves, and provide for those who sit at home.

yermom
8/18/2010, 02:26 PM
It's just a voting numbers thing. If 75% of America's population was made up of single men and women, then there would be tax credits for condoms, smart phones and Dave & Busters.

btw, I thought the same thing when I was a single earner...

so it's okay to buy votes from people with jobs, just not people without jobs?

Tulsa_Fireman
8/18/2010, 02:26 PM
Yes.

Next question.

Ike
8/18/2010, 02:47 PM
Consider your subsidy for others raising kids to be a down payment on their (the kids) subsidization of your retirement. Especially considering that yours will cost more since you won't have kids to look after you.

LosAngelesSooner
8/18/2010, 04:20 PM
:les: WE WANT BALANCED BUDGETS!!!!

:les: WE WANT TAX CUTS!!!!!

:les: HOW DARE YOU CUT ANY OF THE PROGRAMS WE LIKE!!!!

:rolleyes:

SicEmBaylor
8/18/2010, 04:20 PM
Why is it not hard for me to believe that somebody that doesn't work doesn't care about taxes going up?

:sigh: I do care. A lot. I detest taxes. I would much rather taxes not rise. I detest the income tax. I favor the flat-tax. Having said all that, we have this thing called the deficit and it's kind of out of control and golly-gee-whiz I tend to believe that both cutting taxes and massively increasing spending may not be such a swell idea.

SicEmBaylor
8/18/2010, 04:21 PM
Better yet, make people pay a little tuition to their public schools.

They do -- they're most often called property taxes.

Bourbon St Sooner
8/18/2010, 04:23 PM
Exactly, if anything people with kids should pay more taxes (for schools at least). They should not get an exemption. Why should people without kids subsidize other people's rug rats?

The problem with that logic is that the welfare state is built on having an ample supply of young workers (taxpayers) to finance the mega transfer programs (Social Security and Medicare).

Bourbon St Sooner
8/18/2010, 04:26 PM
:sigh: I do care. A lot. I detest taxes. I would much rather taxes not rise. I detest the income tax. I favor the flat-tax. Having said all that, we have this thing called the deficit and it's kind of out of control and golly-gee-whiz I tend to believe that both cutting taxes and massively increasing spending may not be such a swell idea.

eh, I just like to yank your chain for being a college lifer.

The Remnant
8/18/2010, 09:06 PM
If I voted for Obama I would be discussing "pretzels and almonds"as well. Heck, I might even expand the discussion to include all manner of gastronomics.

yermom
8/18/2010, 11:16 PM
:les: WE WANT BALANCED BUDGETS!!!!

:les: WE WANT TAX CUTS!!!!!

:les: HOW DARE YOU CUT ANY OF THE PROGRAMS WE LIKE!!!!

:rolleyes:

exactly.

The Remnant
8/19/2010, 12:11 AM
I would settle for a balanced budget. Is that okay FROZEN SOONER?

Crucifax Autumn
8/19/2010, 12:25 AM
So bring Clinton back?

Frozen Sooner
8/19/2010, 12:29 AM
I would settle for a balanced budget. Is that okay FROZEN SOONER?

Yeah, that'd be fine with me, so long as there's recognition that budget balancing isn't necessarily annual in nature: you use surpluses generated in upswings to pay off deficits incurred in downswings.

Thanks for asking my opinion, though.

The Remnant
8/19/2010, 12:31 AM
Tell that to Sacramento!

Frozen Sooner
8/19/2010, 12:35 AM
Dude, I had a hard enough time telling it to Juneau when they CARED about my vote. I doubt anyone in Sacramento cares what I think about it. :D

The Remnant
8/19/2010, 01:20 AM
Sacramento hasn't balanced a budget in years. We have had one party rule for over a decade.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/19/2010, 01:52 AM
Sacramento hasn't balanced a budget in years. We have had one party rule for over a decade.Too bad Ahnold doesnt appear to be willing or able to combat the tyranny/stupidity, and is certainly part of the problem.

Jacie
8/19/2010, 11:54 AM
http://www.impactlab.net/2010/08/19/a-nation-of-90000-governments-maximizing-our-own-failure-points/#more-61128

A Nation of 90,000 Governments – Maximizing Our Own Failure Points

The total number of governmental bodies in the U.S. is approaching a staggering number – 90,000. During normal economic times there is plenty of money to go around, but now every city, state, county, parish, township and special taxing district is competing for the same tax dollars that the federal government is.

Governmental entities are living, breathing organisms, each fighting for survival. With tax shortfalls cropping up in nearly every corner of the U.S. economy, most are struggling to preserve their own piece of the pie. With money declining, many are compensating with unusual policy decisions that they hope will shore up their balance sheets.

But it’s not just about money issues. Along with taxing authority, each one of these governments has its own ability to create and enforce new laws, rules and regulations. Working with a limited set of tools in their toolbox, governments have resorted to using laws and regulations to solve virtually every conceivable problem. The sheer volume of laws emerging from these 90,000 rule-making bodies is truly stunning.

Abraham Lincoln once said, ““The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” Similarly, the quickest way to bring America to its knees is to strictly enforce all of its laws.

Maximizing the Failure Points

Complexity creates failure points. Every decision point along the way increases the odds that something will go wrong, and we have moved into an era of non-stop decision points.

A country with 90,000 governments, whose primary tools for solving problems involves creating new laws, is a country that has maximized the number of failure points.

As I’ve often said, “The health of a nation is inversely proportional to the number of laws needed to govern it.” From this perspective, we live in a very sick nation.

Over time, these complexity-laden systems will invariably descend into the lower levels of disfunctionality, with anger and finger-pointing setting the stage for more graphic battles to follow.

In a tough global economy, the good people of the U.S. have chosen to tie ankle weights of complexity around their legs as they attempt to swim towards a better economy.

The Futurist Perspective

Backcasting is a tool used by futurists to look at the present from some point in the future.

In much the same way we stand in amazement as we read about the Salem witch trials, or 18th century doctors who used bleeding to cure diseases, or Polynesian tribes who sacrificed virgins to appease the volcano-gods, a country comprised of 90,000 governments is destined to appear equally ludicrous in the future.

One hundred years in the future, people in 2110 will look back at this era of history and marvel at the insanity of our times. They will be amazed at how people managed to live in a country with more laws than anyone can count, a tax code that, according to NPR, is over 67,000 pages long with 1,638 different tax forms, and a justice system that controls one out of every 31 people in the country and has the highest incarceration rate of any nation in history.

All of our defensive posturing for maintaining the status quo will quickly deteriorate into the equivalent of modern caveman thinking as future generations make us the punchline of their jokes and the universal symbol of “what not to do.”

Reining in the Unreinable

So how do we reverse the avalanche of complexity that is cascading around us? In philosophical terms, how do we create the immovable object to deal with the unstoppable force?

The short answer is that abrupt change is simply not possible. Systems that have evolved over decades cannot instantly be traded in for something new.

With a society that is already heavily invested in our current systems, and people already pre-programmed to think and act accordingly, the operating system can only be changed by rewriting the source code. In short, we need to create systems for changing the system.

We currently have no check-and-balance system for impeding the excessive law-writing now taking place. Simply by adding friction to the rule-making process will slow it down. Adding a lifespan to the laws will help force decision-makers to focus on the highest priorities.