Tax hikes now? Can this be accurate?

[D_N Flay Table]

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:
(N.B. This version of the document contains even more tax hikes than the original version did)

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.

<EDIT : Post truncated to comply with ToS>

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

 

[dandelion]

Just recently I saw a bit of debate about british plans to withdraw from Afghanistan. There was something about US views that Europe does not spend nearly enough on defence and is leaving the US to unfairly shoulder all the cost of military operations. We, on the other hand, take the view the US spends vastly too much on defence, which isnt really defence but offence and buys nothing but enemies. A quick look at the eternally helpfull wikipedia suggests that US military spending approximately equals the entire UK government budget. Approximately equals all the military spending for the rest of the world. approximately 1 trillion dollars, or 30% of the federal budget. For those that believe in state medical care, how about spending that money on health instead? For those that don't like tax rises, how about fewer wars instead?

To me it is a nice example that Bush's military adventurism is costing american lives at home, not simply soldiers dying abroad. Actually feels good to think americans might be suffering just a bit for having decided to go out and blow up other peoples countries. I am personally getting rather tired of the regular reports 'a soldier has died...'. The government had got into the habit of reporting to the house of commons each week the deaths of british soldiers on duty. When there were relatively few this was simply a mark of respect. But as the number grows steadily, it becomes a reminder of what the hell are we doing there, which the government once begun cannot now stop giving us each week however high the absurdity and embarrassment level rises.

 

[SilverTrain]

It's against lpsg's TOS to post whole, unabridged articles from other sources. Even the blatantly partisan ones.

 

[TomCat84]

It's against lpsg's TOS to post whole, unabridged articles from other sources. Even the blatantly partisan ones.

Indeed. I stopped reading after I read "Death Tax". Anyone who is outraged by the Estate Tax doesn't know why we have it. These people want to be able to conduct wars in two far off countries, but dont want to pay for it?

 

[vince]

Yep. Higher taxes. Time has come to pay for all those Bush/Republican deficits. They didn't manage to balance the books once in eight years. What's worse? Tax and spend or Borrow and spend? The latter I'd say. They cut taxes on the people most able to pay them and then went on a spending spree with a credit card from the Bank of China. And a majority of the dimwits in the congress, the media and the general public went along with it.

You're lucky I'm not your President. I'd tax the crap out of you all and cut the war games and the toys you use to play them with. And no universal healthcare until the books are in order either! It would take about three to four years to set things right and in ten you'd have a booming economy. But it will never happen. A long slow steady decline is in the cards for the USA.

 

[deleted15807]

A long slow steady decline is in the cards for the USA.

And if the Republicans get back in power the decline will surely acclerate. The End of Empire is never pretty.

 

[TomCat84]

In reference to the Estate Tax, dont cry any tears. The purpose of it is to ensure that dynastic families don't develop as they did in Europe. A child or other relative inheriting something really has no right to the property other than through statute, as they did not earn the wealth.

 

[midlifebear]

As an owner of several small businesses in the USA, I can hardly wait for the Reagan and Bush "tax cuts" to be repealed.

When Reagan became the POTUS I suddenly had to pay income tax on my scholarships for grad school.

When Reagan became POTUS the ability to deduct all sales taxes (you saved all sale receipts for everything and added them up as a single deduction) from your Federal tax burden was eliminated, thus -- for the first time -- allowing EVERYONE to be double taxed on goods and services. Sadly, this type of "universal" deduction will not return.

When Reagan became POTUS, only the modestly wealthy on up (those with a minimum of $500,000 income+) could actually take advantage of the sudden tax cuts that would supposedly create "trickle down economics" and thus, the poor would be able to suckle at the dripping pennies re-invested in companies or that fell to the floor in small businesses because "the wealthy will be more inclined to spend, spend, spend!" Guess what? Trickle down economics was and still is a complete, miserable failure. It's a fantasy of the rich and pseudo rich.

Businesses having to go back to the old way and amortize the tax depreciation on new equipment is much better than how it currently works. It's a much more fair and equitable way to make tax deductions, rather than in chunks of $50,000 and $25,000, which most business owners used as a means of buying a luxury car they not only did not need but did not enhance the productivity of their business. I've yet to meet the owner of a landscape business NEED a new Escalade or Navigator with a trailer hitch to care for property.

And for the record, I was NEVER able to deduct any of the interest that was charged on the one $5,000 student loan that I took out in grad school. Even though I worked full-time after grad school, it was never a meaningful deduction.

So, the typical scare tactics listed in the OP are just that: scare tactics. The vast majority of US citizens are going to enjoy a more equitable Federal Tax than what is currently in place. If you happen to make more than $250,000, don't worry -- you are not going to starve to death.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

In just six months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect...

So let me get this straight... You people complain about the deficit being a problem, to the point that you'll send millions of laid off workers into the streets, before you'll extend unemployment insurance for them. Even though it's a well known fact that such an act is verifiably toxic to the economy, and will in fact directly cause jobs to be lost if this keeps up.

Yet Obama comes up with an ingenious solution; Hey, let's repeal that lame series of tax cuts the Republicans passed in the early 2000s, that were paid for by expanding the nation's line of credit, that we very obviously can no longer afford to keep paying for.

The Republican tax cuts were never paid for from day one, and Obama's only mistake here is that he didn't make it clear from his first day in office that due the expanding deficit, he was going to end one of the nation's largest ongoing purchases made with its credit.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Yep. Higher taxes. Time has come to pay for all those Bush/Republican deficits. They didn't manage to balance the books once in eight years. What's worse? Tax and spend or Borrow and spend? The latter I'd say. They cut taxes on the people most able to pay them and then went on a spending spree with a credit card from the Bank of China. And a majority of the dimwits in the congress, the media and the general public went along with it.

You're lucky I'm not your President. I'd tax the crap out of you all and cut the war games and the toys you use to play them with. And no universal healthcare until the books are in order either! It would take about three to four years to set things right and in ten you'd have a booming economy. But it will never happen. A long slow steady decline is in the cards for the USA.

We'd vote for you as long as you maintained your cock shots. :wink:

 

[vince]

We'd vote for you as long as you maintained your cock shots. :wink:

NO! no cock shots until the budget is balanced! (gotta have some incentives :tongue: ).

I'd also put the Nimitz in drydock for 10 years. You'd only have enough military to defend the homeland and we'll keep the nukes just so the Cubans or someone doesn't get any funny ideas. All those researchers currently looking for ways to blow stuff up would learn how to make better nuclear plants and solar panels and transportation and farms.

USA needs to return to being a nation of producers instead of consumers. God I hate that word... "consumers".

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

USA needs to return to being a nation of producers instead of consumers.

But is there even the faintest hope?

 

[Cowabanga]

Not only cut military spending but also outlaw mercenaries on our soil. Blackwater forces far out number our military force all paid for by huge corporate. Never again our gov't shall ever create or outsource war to a private corporation. Costing us triple of what our military could do.

 

[D_Martin van Burden]

As an owner of several small businesses in the USA, I can hardly wait for the Reagan and Bush "tax cuts" to be repealed.

When Reagan became the POTUS I suddenly had to pay income tax on my scholarships for grad school.

When Reagan became POTUS the ability to deduct all sales taxes (you saved all sale receipts for everything and added them up as a single deduction) from your Federal tax burden was eliminated, thus -- for the first time -- allowing EVERYONE to be double taxed on goods and services. Sadly, this type of "universal" deduction will not return.

When Reagan became POTUS, only the modestly wealthy on up (those with a minimum of $500,000 income+) could actually take advantage of the sudden tax cuts that would supposedly create "trickle down economics" and thus, the poor would be able to suckle at the dripping pennies re-invested in companies or that fell to the floor in small businesses because "the wealthy will be more inclined to spend, spend, spend!" Guess what? Trickle down economics was and still is a complete, miserable failure. It's a fantasy of the rich and pseudo rich.

Businesses having to go back to the old way and amortize the tax depreciation on new equipment is much better than how it currently works. It's a much more fair and equitable way to make tax deductions, rather than in chunks of $50,000 and $25,000, which most business owners used as a means of buying a luxury car they not only did not need but did not enhance the productivity of their business. I've yet to meet the owner of a landscape business NEED a new Escalade or Navigator with a trailer hitch to care for property.

And for the record, I was NEVER able to deduct any of the interest that was charged on the one $5,000 student loan that I took out in grad school. Even though I worked full-time after grad school, it was never a meaningful deduction.

So, the typical scare tactics listed in the OP are just that: scare tactics. The vast majority of US citizens are going to enjoy a more equitable Federal Tax than what is currently in place. If you happen to make more than $250,000, don't worry -- you are not going to starve to death.

Absolute genius, midlifebear. You know your numbers!

 

[TomCat84]

NO! no cock shots until the budget is balanced! (gotta have some incentives :tongue: ).

I'd also put the Nimitz in drydock for 10 years. You'd only have enough military to defend the homeland and we'll keep the nukes just so the Cubans or someone doesn't get any funny ideas. All those researchers currently looking for ways to blow stuff up would learn how to make better nuclear plants and solar panels and transportation and farms.

USA needs to return to being a nation of producers instead of consumers. God I hate that word... "consumers".

Isn't the Nimitz stationed in San Diego? Why don't you pick on ships stationed in Bremerton instead? :tongue:

 

[KTF40]

Now? The Obama Administration has already been raising taxes on the American people. Remember that healthcare bill that Obama said, "is absolutely not a tax increase?" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html?_r=2&ref=politics

 

[deleted15807]

Now? The Obama Administration has already been raising taxes on the American people. Remember that healthcare bill that Obama said, "is absolutely not a tax increase?" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html?_r=2&ref=politics

You left a big part out, those who choose not to buy coverage are assessed a penalty, it is that penalty that is being called a 'tax'. Now you can play word games with that but if you choose not to do something, say not get your car inspected and you are charged a fine for that and if you want to call that fine a tax fine.

 

[KTF40]

You left a big part out, those who choose not to buy coverage are assessed a penalty, it is that penalty that is being called a 'tax'. Now you can play word games with that but if you choose not to do something, say not get your car inspected and you are charged a fine for that and if you want to call that fine a tax fine.

There's a HUGE difference between a person required to get their car inspected and the government forcing a person to buy health insurance so your comparison isn't applicable in this situation.

Personally, I believe it's a fine (an unconstitutional fine at that). It's President Obama calling it a tax. Yes, that same President who claimed he wouldn't raise taxes on the poor or middle class. This tax increase does exactly that.

 

[unabear09]

There's a HUGE difference between a person required to get their car inspected and the government forcing a person to buy health insurance so your comparison isn't applicable in this situation.

Personally, I believe it's a fine (an unconstitutional fine at that). It's President Obama calling it a tax. Yes, that same President who claimed he wouldn't raise taxes on the poor or middle class. This tax increase does exactly that.

Ok, so why are people bitching about getting fined for not having insurance? Do they not realize how much money the taxpayers are having to pay to foot the bill of those without insurance? I call it bullshit hypocracy. Those who call themselves conservatives are now standing up for the little people who can't afford anything. BULLSHIT!

 

[B_talltpaguy]

I still think it's hilarious to listen to Congressional Republicans howl and grandstand with their demand that the Dems can only pass laws that 'are paid for' (aka; revenue neutral).

As a voter, I'm still waiting for Congressional Republicans to pay for their own legislation that added to the deficit. What is the Republican plan to offset the cost of the tax cuts for the rich they passed in the 2000s? How do they propose to pay the American people back for that debt? Additionally, What is the Republican plan to offset the cost of the two wars they started with no plan on how to win them? How do they propose to pay the American people back for that debt? I'll start trusting the Republicans' advice about the monetary cost of things, just as soon as the Republicans in Congress pay for the debt they piled up that got us here in the first place. To try and pin the national debt on the guy in office, when several Presidents, especially the Republican ones, have been piling it up for nearly two generations running. Hell, just a few years ago, the Republicans were crowing about how deficits are good, as they gleefully voted up the national debt ceiling, often times just minutes before also passing a spending bill which spent that new line of credit as fast as they had just created it for themselves.