Buried in Nancy Pelosi's health-care bill is a provision that will partially repeal tax indexing for inflation, meaning that as their earnings rise over a lifetime these youngsters can look forward to paying higher rates even if their income gains aren't real. This is a sneaky way for politicians to pry more money out of workers every year without having to legislate tax increases. The negative effects of failing to index compound over time, yielding a revenue windfall for government as the years go on. The House tax surcharge is estimated to raise $460.5 billion over 10 years, but only $30.9 billion in 2011, rising to $68.4 billion in 2019, according to the Joint Tax Committee.
And by the way, this surcharge has also been sneakily written to apply to modified adjusted gross income, which means it applies to both capital gains and dividends that are taxed at lower rates. So the capital gains tax rate that is now 15% would increase in 2011 to 25.4% with the surcharge and repeal of the Bush tax rates. The tax rate on dividends would rise to 45% from 15% (5.4% plus the pre-Bush rate of 39.6%).
The return of the inflation tax demonstrates once again the stealth radicalism that animates ObamaCare. In the case of inflation indexing, Democrats would repeal a 30-year bipartisan consensus that it is unfair to tax unreal gains in income, thus hitting millions of middle-class Americans over time with tax rates advertised as only hitting "the rich." Oh, and the House vote on this exercise in dishonest government will come as early as Saturday.
> Buried in Nancy Pelosi's health-care bill is a provision that will > partially repeal tax indexing for inflation, meaning that as their > earnings rise over a lifetime these youngsters can look forward to paying > higher rates even if their income gains aren't real. > This is a sneaky way for politicians to pry more money out of workers > every year without having to legislate tax increases. The negative effects > of failing to index compound over time, yielding a revenue windfall for > government as the years go on. The House tax surcharge is estimated to > raise $460.5 billion over 10 years, but only $30.9 billion in 2011, rising > to $68.4 billion in 2019, according to the Joint Tax Committee.
> And by the way, this surcharge has also been sneakily written to apply to > modified adjusted gross income, which means it applies to both capital > gains and dividends that are taxed at lower rates. So the capital gains > tax rate that is now 15% would increase in 2011 to 25.4% with the > surcharge and repeal of the Bush tax rates. The tax rate on dividends > would rise to 45% from 15% (5.4% plus the pre-Bush rate of 39.6%).
> The return of the inflation tax demonstrates once again the stealth > radicalism that animates ObamaCare. In the case of inflation indexing, > Democrats would repeal a 30-year bipartisan consensus that it is unfair to > tax unreal gains in income, thus hitting millions of middle-class > Americans over time with tax rates advertised as only hitting "the rich." > Oh, and the House vote on this exercise in dishonest government will come > as early as Saturday.
> Buried in Nancy Pelosi's health-care bill is a provision that will partially > repeal tax indexing for inflation, meaning that as their earnings rise over > a lifetime these youngsters can look forward to paying higher rates even if > their income gains aren't real. > This is a sneaky way for politicians to pry more money out of workers every > year without having to legislate tax increases. The negative effects of > failing to index compound over time, yielding a revenue windfall for > government as the years go on. The House tax surcharge is estimated to raise > $460.5 billion over 10 years, but only $30.9 billion in 2011, rising to > $68.4 billion in 2019, according to the Joint Tax Committee.
> And by the way, this surcharge has also been sneakily written to apply to > modified adjusted gross income, which means it applies to both capital gains > and dividends that are taxed at lower rates. So the capital gains tax rate > that is now 15% would increase in 2011 to 25.4% with the surcharge and > repeal of the Bush tax rates. The tax rate on dividends would rise to 45% > from 15% (5.4% plus the pre-Bush rate of 39.6%).
> The return of the inflation tax demonstrates once again the stealth > radicalism that animates ObamaCare. In the case of inflation indexing, > Democrats would repeal a 30-year bipartisan consensus that it is unfair to > tax unreal gains in income, thus hitting millions of middle-class Americans > over time with tax rates advertised as only hitting "the rich." Oh, and the > House vote on this exercise in dishonest government will come as early as > Saturday.
And here's a comment from the article that I felt was appropriate to include, since you posted only a portion of the full article:
James Samans replied
"Hmm. Let's see... assuming 3% inflation and a 5% pay increase per year, meaning a real increase of 2%... yes, the average twentysomething now making $50,000 per year will hit the $500,000 non-indexed cap in 127 years.
I guess the middle class should start sweating now." _____________
There will be hundreds, if not thousands, of tax loopholes forged into any final document.
No matter how many times you scream about it, the fact remains that the Democrats do not have enough votes to force this through BOTH chambers. -- Tin Lizzie "Elephant: A mouse built to government specifications."-Lazarus Long
> And here's a comment from the article that I felt was appropriate to > include, since you posted only a portion of the full article:
> James Samans replied
> "Hmm. Let's see... assuming 3% inflation and a 5% pay increase per year, > meaning a real increase of 2%... yes, the average twentysomething now > making $50,000 per year will hit the $500,000 non-indexed cap in 127 > years.
> I guess the middle class should start sweating now." > _____________
> Tin Lizzie > "Elephant: A mouse built to government specifications."-Lazarus Long
I do not understand how James Samans calculated. When I do the math it is only 48 years assuming a 5% pay raise every year. And if you assume that inflation is running 5% and a real wage increase of 2% , then I calculate it as 34 years. So the 20 something is likely to feel the effects well before he is eligible for Social Security.
> As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very well > when tax rates were much higher than they are now.
> A combination of low tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.
> i
Actually they were not much higher overall. Lots of deductions went away, so the effective tax rate is much higher at the same percentage. You use to be able to deduct all interest, Credit card, mortgage, auto loans, sales tax. etc.
Should the legislation become law and take effect in 2011 it will reduce the the income of seniors who planned their retirement around investing in stocks that pay dividends significantly lowering thier standard of living. And we have individuals that if they need to cash out thier investments will have to pay an outragous capitol gains tax.
It will be intresting in 2012 when those people get a huge tax bill for making all the right decisions in thier youth, i suspect many will remember that check they wrote on april 15th in november.
One would think the dems would have waited until 2013 for these new rates to go into effect to prevent another clean sweep that happened in 2008 and retain the structure they now enjoy. Perhaps they are to drunk with power to look down the road 2 years.
Ignoramus8745 wrote: > As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very well > when tax rates were much higher than they are now.
> A combination of low tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.
> i
During the Eisenhower administration the country boomed. The tax rate on the ultra rich was 90% and they still did well. Conservatives make a big deal about Kennedy putting in tax cuts. Yeah, he did. But he lowered the rate on the richest from 90% all the way down to 70%. The rich did well then too. Slapping high income taxes on the rich has never hurt them. It's only fair for people making a billion a year to pay most of it in taxes. That's the price you have to pay for living here and getting rich. If they don't like it they can move to another country. Now where did I hear that?
<ignoramus8...@NOSPAM.8745.invalid> wrote: >As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very well >when tax rates were much higher than they are now.
>A combination of low tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.
>i
Blink blink...so we simply tax everyone at say...75% of their gross income and pay off the deficet really quickly..right?
"IMHO, some people here give Jeff far more attention than he deserves, but obviously craves. The most appropriate response, and perhaps the cruelest, IMO, is to simply killfile and ignore him. An alternative, if you must, would be to post the same standard reply to his every post, listing the manifold reasons why he ought to be ignored. Just my $0.02 worth."
> Ignoramus8745 wrote: >> As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very well >> when tax rates were much higher than they are now. A combination of low >> tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.
>> i
> During the Eisenhower administration the country boomed. The tax rate on > the ultra rich was 90% and they still did well. Conservatives make a big > deal about Kennedy putting in tax cuts. Yeah, he did. But he lowered the > rate on the richest from 90% all the way down to 70%. The rich did well > then too. Slapping high income taxes on the rich has never hurt them. It's > only fair for people making a billion a year to pay most of it in taxes. > That's the price you have to pay for living here and getting rich. If they > don't like it they can move to another country. Now where did I hear that?
> "Hawke" <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message > news:hd537k$taa$1@aioe.org... >> Ignoramus8745 wrote: >>> As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very >>> well when tax rates were much higher than they are now. A >>> combination of low tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.
>>> i
>> During the Eisenhower administration the country boomed. The tax rate >> on the ultra rich was 90% and they still did well. Conservatives make >> a big deal about Kennedy putting in tax cuts. Yeah, he did. But he >> lowered the rate on the richest from 90% all the way down to 70%. The >> rich did well then too. Slapping high income taxes on the rich has >> never hurt them. It's only fair for people making a billion a year to >> pay most of it in taxes. That's the price you have to pay for living >> here and getting rich. If they don't like it they can move to another >> country. Now where did I hear that?
>> Hawke
> And how many actually paid 90% or even 70%?
None, because of the then-extant collection of "deductions" (ie. gummint- approved ways to spend/make money) that "encouraged" the few in those tax brackets to invest in specific types of securities (Municipal Bonds, for example) and to pay their Tax Attorneys and Accountants well.
Many, in fact, never paid anything at all in Income Taxes. <G>
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:33:09 -0600, Ignoramus8745 > <ignoramus8...@NOSPAM.8745.invalid> wrote:
>>As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very well >>when tax rates were much higher than they are now.
>>A combination of low tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.
>>i
> Blink blink...so we simply tax everyone at say...75% of their gross > income and pay off the deficet really quickly..right?
Nope democrats enact a global tax on financial transactions over $900k, say a flat of 90% tax on all proffit with no deductions, all payments go dirrectley to the the irs which deducts the tax owed and the taxpayer recieves a check for the balance. Only then will warren buffet and others like him pay thier fair share.
>> "Hawke" <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message >> news:hd537k$taa$1@aioe.org... >>> Ignoramus8745 wrote: >>>> As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very >>>> well when tax rates were much higher than they are now. A >>>> combination of low tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.
>>>> i
>>> During the Eisenhower administration the country boomed. The tax rate >>> on the ultra rich was 90% and they still did well. Conservatives make >>> a big deal about Kennedy putting in tax cuts. Yeah, he did. But he >>> lowered the rate on the richest from 90% all the way down to 70%. The >>> rich did well then too. Slapping high income taxes on the rich has >>> never hurt them. It's only fair for people making a billion a year to >>> pay most of it in taxes. That's the price you have to pay for living >>> here and getting rich. If they don't like it they can move to another >>> country. Now where did I hear that?
>>> Hawke
>> And how many actually paid 90% or even 70%?
> None, because of the then-extant collection of "deductions" (ie. gummint- > approved ways to spend/make money) that "encouraged" the few in those tax > brackets to invest in specific types of securities (Municipal Bonds, for > example) and to pay their Tax Attorneys and Accountants well.
> Many, in fact, never paid anything at all in Income Taxes. <G>
It was a good time for the cattle business, though. Half the cows in Texas probably were owned by Wall Street investors. 'Git along, little dividend...
Let the Record show that Gunner Asch <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> on or about Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:42:05 -0800 did write/type or cause to appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:33:09 -0600, Ignoramus8745 ><ignoramus8...@NOSPAM.8745.invalid> wrote:
>>As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very well >>when tax rates were much higher than they are now.
>>A combination of low tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.
>Blink blink...so we simply tax everyone at say...75% of their gross >income and pay off the deficet really quickly..right?
You'll note that Buffet took advantage of the tax laws to move most of his fortune into a foundation, which is being administered by the Gates.
It is not slavery, we're just having your salary put in escrow, and then the government will provide you with what you need.
tschus pyotr - pyotr filipivich We will drink no whiskey before its nine. It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
<ignoramus8...@NOSPAM.8745.invalid> wrote: >On 2009-11-08, Gunner Asch <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote: >> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:33:09 -0600, Ignoramus8745 >><ignoramus8...@NOSPAM.8745.invalid> wrote:
>>>As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very well >>>when tax rates were much higher than they are now.
>>>A combination of low tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.
>>>i
>> Blink blink...so we simply tax everyone at say...75% of their gross >> income and pay off the deficet really quickly..right?
>You can take any good idea and carry it to the point of absurdity.
>i
Yes..YOU certainly can.
Gunner
"IMHO, some people here give Jeff far more attention than he deserves, but obviously craves. The most appropriate response, and perhaps the cruelest, IMO, is to simply killfile and ignore him. An alternative, if you must, would be to post the same standard reply to his every post, listing the manifold reasons why he ought to be ignored. Just my $0.02 worth."
> Ignoramus8745 wrote: >> As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very well >> when tax rates were much higher than they are now. A combination of low >> tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.
>> i
> During the Eisenhower administration the country boomed. The tax rate on > the ultra rich was 90% and they still did well. Conservatives make a big > deal about Kennedy putting in tax cuts. Yeah, he did. But he lowered the > rate on the richest from 90% all the way down to 70%. The rich did well > then too. Slapping high income taxes on the rich has never hurt them. It's > only fair for people making a billion a year to pay most of it in taxes. > That's the price you have to pay for living here and getting rich. If they > don't like it they can move to another country. Now where did I hear that?
> Hawke
What do you think "rich" people do with their wealth? And, define "rich".
>> "Hawke" <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message >> news:hd537k$taa$1@aioe.org... >>> Ignoramus8745 wrote: >>>> As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very >>>> well when tax rates were much higher than they are now. A >>>> combination of low tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.
>>>> i
>>> During the Eisenhower administration the country boomed. The tax rate >>> on the ultra rich was 90% and they still did well. Conservatives make >>> a big deal about Kennedy putting in tax cuts. Yeah, he did. But he >>> lowered the rate on the richest from 90% all the way down to 70%. The >>> rich did well then too. Slapping high income taxes on the rich has >>> never hurt them. It's only fair for people making a billion a year to >>> pay most of it in taxes. That's the price you have to pay for living >>> here and getting rich. If they don't like it they can move to another >>> country. Now where did I hear that?
>>> Hawke >> And how many actually paid 90% or even 70%?
> None, because of the then-extant collection of "deductions" (ie. gummint- > approved ways to spend/make money) that "encouraged" the few in those tax > brackets to invest in specific types of securities (Municipal Bonds, for > example) and to pay their Tax Attorneys and Accountants well.
> Many, in fact, never paid anything at all in Income Taxes. <G>
That is one thing that has not changed. There is a group of very rich people who have it set up so they pay no income taxes at all. Many corporations pay none either. Too bad normal people can't find ways to do that. Ah, yes, another perk of being in the upper class.
Buerste wrote: > "Hawke" <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message > news:hd537k$taa$1@aioe.org... >> Ignoramus8745 wrote: >>> As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very well >>> when tax rates were much higher than they are now. A combination of low >>> tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.
>>> i
>> During the Eisenhower administration the country boomed. The tax rate on >> the ultra rich was 90% and they still did well. Conservatives make a big >> deal about Kennedy putting in tax cuts. Yeah, he did. But he lowered the >> rate on the richest from 90% all the way down to 70%. The rich did well >> then too. Slapping high income taxes on the rich has never hurt them. It's >> only fair for people making a billion a year to pay most of it in taxes. >> That's the price you have to pay for living here and getting rich. If they >> don't like it they can move to another country. Now where did I hear that?
>> Hawke
> What do you think "rich" people do with their wealth? And, define "rich".
Rich people either spend or invest their wealth. Most of what they spend is simply wasting money on things they don't need or have any use for. For example, Jennifer Anniston spent 250K on a nursery for her adopted baby. Why a baby would need that kind of money spent on it makes no sense to me but when you have millions of dollars more than you need you tend to throw it away on useless things like that.
Nowadays rich is defined as someone who has assets worth around two and a half million dollars. It's not income but assets or net worth that count. That's just the starting point. But the maldistribution of wealth is such that 1% of the population is worth more than 95% of everybody else, and one tenth of one percent has most of that one percent. We already have wealth redistribution. The problem is that it went from the middle class to the top 5%. But for some reason that is okay with many of you. If you're middle class that should make you mad.
> Buerste wrote: >> "Hawke" <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message >> news:hd537k$taa$1@aioe.org... >>> Ignoramus8745 wrote: >>>> As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very well >>>> when tax rates were much higher than they are now. A combination of low >>>> tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.
>>>> i
>>> During the Eisenhower administration the country boomed. The tax rate on >>> the ultra rich was 90% and they still did well. Conservatives make a big >>> deal about Kennedy putting in tax cuts. Yeah, he did. But he lowered the >>> rate on the richest from 90% all the way down to 70%. The rich did well >>> then too. Slapping high income taxes on the rich has never hurt them. >>> It's only fair for people making a billion a year to pay most of it in >>> taxes. That's the price you have to pay for living here and getting >>> rich. If they don't like it they can move to another country. Now where >>> did I hear that?
>>> Hawke
>> What do you think "rich" people do with their wealth? And, define >> "rich".
> Rich people either spend or invest their wealth. Most of what they spend > is simply wasting money on things they don't need or have any use for. For > example, Jennifer Anniston spent 250K on a nursery for her adopted baby. > Why a baby would need that kind of money spent on it makes no sense to me > but when you have millions of dollars more than you need you tend to throw > it away on useless things like that.
> Nowadays rich is defined as someone who has assets worth around two and a > half million dollars. It's not income but assets or net worth that count. > That's just the starting point. But the maldistribution of wealth is such > that 1% of the population is worth more than 95% of everybody else, and > one tenth of one percent has most of that one percent. We already have > wealth redistribution. The problem is that it went from the middle class > to the top 5%. But for some reason that is okay with many of you. If > you're middle class that should make you mad.
> Hawke
Why did that nursery cost $250k? Where did that money go?
> Eregon wrote: >> "Bill McKee" <bmckeespam...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in >> news:HIidncfbmuFDtGvXnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@earthlink.com: >>> "Hawke" <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message >>> news:hd537k$taa$1@aioe.org... >>>> Ignoramus8745 wrote: >>>>> As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very >>>>> well when tax rates were much higher than they are now. A >>>>> combination of low tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.
>>>>> i
>>>> During the Eisenhower administration the country boomed. The tax rate >>>> on the ultra rich was 90% and they still did well. Conservatives make >>>> a big deal about Kennedy putting in tax cuts. Yeah, he did. But he >>>> lowered the rate on the richest from 90% all the way down to 70%. The >>>> rich did well then too. Slapping high income taxes on the rich has >>>> never hurt them. It's only fair for people making a billion a year to >>>> pay most of it in taxes. That's the price you have to pay for living >>>> here and getting rich. If they don't like it they can move to another >>>> country. Now where did I hear that? >>>> Hawke >>> And how many actually paid 90% or even 70%?
>> None, because of the then-extant collection of "deductions" (ie. gummint- >> approved ways to spend/make money) that "encouraged" the few in those tax >> brackets to invest in specific types of securities (Municipal Bonds, for >> example) and to pay their Tax Attorneys and Accountants well.
>> Many, in fact, never paid anything at all in Income Taxes. <G>
> That is one thing that has not changed. There is a group of very rich > people who have it set up so they pay no income taxes at all. Many > corporations pay none either. Too bad normal people can't find ways to do > that. Ah, yes, another perk of being in the upper class.
> Hawke
Corporations do not pay taxes. They pay a business expense and pass that expense along to those who buy their product. Just like electricity and sewer costs.
|
