• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

In just six months, the largest tax hikes in the history

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
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: http://www.atr.org/sixmonths.html?content=5171#ixzz0t3UceQK3
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Those who support Obama and continually whine about the "Bush Bust" will look back and wonder at their sanity soon, if not already.
The Obama Wreckorama now in progress will make the so-called Bush Bust look like the "good old days" for sure. Mark my words.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
The sane ones are already starting to see what is happening!

The ones that claim to be so intelligent are still suffering from the bash Bush syndrome and refuse to seek help,
:wink: :wink:
 

Steve

Well-known member
the so-called Bush Bust look like the "good old days" for sure. Mark my words.

the bush boom, was ended by the election of the democratic congress in 06... and came to a crashing end when the working Americans realized that Obama would get elected...

I sure miss the good ol Bush Boom days...
 

Larrry

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
jingo2 said:
Never should have had tax cuts in the middle of 2 wars to start with....

Tax cuts stimulate the economy, and in return raise tax revenue for the Government.

Why is that so hard to understand?

It is odd so many liberals have that mental block and can't understand that.....maybe they just can't admit that a conservative is right. After all they are still running around with their nose up obamas crack.
 

jingo2

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
jingo2 said:
Never should have had tax cuts in the middle of 2 wars to start with....

Tax cuts stimulate the economy, and in return raise tax revenue for the Government.

Why is that so hard to understand?


Then why didn't it work?

The debt kept growing under Bush like a wildfire....


It's just common sense....you can't pay for 2 wars AND cuts the taxes--in essense the money that pays for the war----
 

Larrry

Well-known member
OK now take it slow and don't let your liberal logic get in your way.

Cutting Tax rates have increased revenue.

Spending is where they have gone wrong and increased the debt. Yes Bush spent too much. But we have obama that outdid Bush's spending by leaps and bounds.

So since you don't like Bush's spending.....what is your stance on obamas spending?????????????
 

jingo2

Well-known member
Larrry said:
OK now take it slow and don't let your liberal logic get in your way.

Cutting Tax rates have increased revenue.

Spending is where they have gone wrong and increased the debt. Yes Bush spent too much. But we have obama that outdid Bush's spending by leaps and bounds.

So since you don't like Bush's spending.....what is your stance on obamas spending?????????????


In certain areas...he's spent too much in the wrong places.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
jingo2 said:
hypocritexposer said:
jingo2 said:
Never should have had tax cuts in the middle of 2 wars to start with....

Tax cuts stimulate the economy, and in return raise tax revenue for the Government.

Why is that so hard to understand?


Then why didn't it work?

The debt kept growing under Bush like a wildfire....


It's just common sense....you can't pay for 2 wars AND cuts the taxes--in essense the money that pays for the war----
Bush example...your weekly pay check increases $100...you spend $200 more per week...your weekly debt(money you owe, but don't have) increases $100 per week.

Obama example...your weekly pay check decreases $100...you spend $400 more per week...your weekly debt(money you owe, but don't have) increases $500 per week.

Deficit spending has been happening with both Rep. and Dem. for far too long...it's time for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution!
 

Clarencen

Well-known member
I am no ecconomist, but here is the way I see it. the private sector, the money earned by the people is what runs our ecconomy. The government can print money, or just write IOUs. The government doesn't need to tax. But if that happened earned money would be practicaly worthles, and our assets would have little value. Germany tried that after World War I, they printed money. It got to the point where a farmer could just bring one wagon load of potatoes into town and use the money to pay all the mortgage off on his farm. You can see where this left the money lender, he became weak and volnerable.

Taxes are necessary to keep things in balance. You lower taxes to stimulate the economy, you raise them to slow it down. When there is a lot of un-earned money in circulation, your earned money will buy less. When there is inflation, interest rates have to raise, other wise the value of real money goes down.

War usually stimulates the economy, for some reason this war hasn't done that. I think it is because we now have the buy now, we can pay for it later, mentality.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I would add to Clarence's post that if the consumer spends his money on consumables, instead of taxes, there is still tax paid by the businesses they buy from on income.

More disposable money in the hands of consumers means less consumer credit also.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
jingo2 said:
hypocritexposer said:
jingo2 said:
Never should have had tax cuts in the middle of 2 wars to start with....

Tax cuts stimulate the economy, and in return raise tax revenue for the Government.

Why is that so hard to understand?


Then why didn't it work?

The debt kept growing under Bush like a wildfire....


It's just common sense....you can't pay for 2 wars AND cuts the taxes--in essense the money that pays for the war----

Yep- and his first Treasury Secretary (O'Neill) told him that- and issued a report of what would happen to the economy if he did...

So what did GW do ? Got a new Treasury Secretary and plodded forward...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
jingo2 said:
hypocritexposer said:
Tax cuts stimulate the economy, and in return raise tax revenue for the Government.

Why is that so hard to understand?


Then why didn't it work?

The debt kept growing under Bush like a wildfire....


It's just common sense....you can't pay for 2 wars AND cuts the taxes--in essense the money that pays for the war----

Yep- and his first Treasury Secretary (O'Neill) told him that- and issued a report of what would happen to the economy if he did...

So what did GW do ? Got a new Treasury Secretary and plodded forward...

As with illegals, procrastinating on a war that needed to be fought sooner or later, would have cost more in the long run.

It is funny that on the illegal immigrant issue, most Dems. will cite humantarian reasons for allowing them to stay, but when it comes to war for humantarian reasons, it's the cost that's the problem.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
jingo2 said:
Then why didn't it work?

The debt kept growing under Bush like a wildfire....


It's just common sense....you can't pay for 2 wars AND cuts the taxes--in essense the money that pays for the war----

Yep- and his first Treasury Secretary (O'Neill) told him that- and issued a report of what would happen to the economy if he did...

So what did GW do ? Got a new Treasury Secretary and plodded forward...

As with illegals, procrastinating on a war that needed to be fought sooner or later, would have cost more in the long run.

It is funny that on the illegal immigrant issue, most Dems. will cite humantarian reasons for allowing them to stay, but when it comes to war for humantarian reasons, it's the cost that's the problem.

Ironically O'Neill did not agree with that either.. In his book The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of PaulO'Neill , described the Bush administration duringO'Neill's tenure.

Written by former Wall Street Journal reporter and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind, the book says Bush's economic policies were irresponsible, Bush was unquestioning and uncurious, and the war in Iraq was planned from the first National Security Council meeting, soon after the administration took office, even though Bush had promised not to engage in nation building during his campaign (which since has been backed by other former Bush appointees and inner circle)...

He objected to the invasion of Iraq in the name of the war on terror — and considered it as nothing but a simple excuse for a war decided long before by neoconservative elements of the first Bush Administration...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
Yep- and his first Treasury Secretary (O'Neill) told him that- and issued a report of what would happen to the economy if he did...

So what did GW do ? Got a new Treasury Secretary and plodded forward...

As with illegals, procrastinating on a war that needed to be fought sooner or later, would have cost more in the long run.

It is funny that on the illegal immigrant issue, most Dems. will cite humantarian reasons for allowing them to stay, but when it comes to war for humantarian reasons, it's the cost that's the problem.

Ironically O'Neill did not agree with that either.. In his book The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of PaulO'Neill , described the Bush administration duringO'Neill's tenure.

Written by former Wall Street Journal reporter and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind, the book says Bush's economic policies were irresponsible, Bush was unquestioning and uncurious, and the war in Iraq was planned from the first National Security Council meeting, soon after the administration took office, even though Bush had promised not to engage in nation building during his campaign (which since has been backed by other former Bush appointees and inner circle)...

He objected to the invasion of Iraq in the name of the war on terror — and considered it as nothing but a simple excuse for a war decided long before by neoconservative elements of the first Bush Administration...



Hussein was killing how many people a year? Call it terrorism or mass killings or what ever you want. The war in Iraq saved lives. The guy needed to go, sooner or later.

If he was still in power, he'd be working with Iran right now in their quest to kill many more, maybe millions.

At first it was Bush lied about WMDs, now it is the cost, or nation building.

Make up your mind.

Why don't you find an accurate cost for the war in Iraq and compare that to other waste in the system, that does not save lives. Then let us know if you think the saving of lives in the long run in Iraq was justified, or you still think it was too expensive.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
As with illegals, procrastinating on a war that needed to be fought sooner or later, would have cost more in the long run.

It is funny that on the illegal immigrant issue, most Dems. will cite humantarian reasons for allowing them to stay, but when it comes to war for humantarian reasons, it's the cost that's the problem.

Ironically O'Neill did not agree with that either.. In his book The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of PaulO'Neill , described the Bush administration duringO'Neill's tenure.

Written by former Wall Street Journal reporter and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind, the book says Bush's economic policies were irresponsible, Bush was unquestioning and uncurious, and the war in Iraq was planned from the first National Security Council meeting, soon after the administration took office, even though Bush had promised not to engage in nation building during his campaign (which since has been backed by other former Bush appointees and inner circle)...

He objected to the invasion of Iraq in the name of the war on terror — and considered it as nothing but a simple excuse for a war decided long before by neoconservative elements of the first Bush Administration...



Hussein was killing how many people a year? Call it terrorism or mass killings or what ever you want. The war in Iraq saved lives. The guy needed to go, sooner or later.

If he was still in power, he'd be working with Iran right now in their quest to kill many more, maybe millions.

At first it was Bush lied about WMDs, now it is the cost, or nation building.

Make up your mind.

Why don't you find an accurate cost for the war in Iraq and compare that to other waste in the system, that does not save lives. Then let us know if you think the saving of lives in the long run in Iraq was justified, or you still think it was too expensive.

And many world experts believe that Saddam and the threat he presented to them was the one holding Iran from gaining any power-- and that his downfall promoted their freedom to trouble make more...
 
Top