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

The Mother of all Tax Hikes

Mike

Well-known member
Memo: McCrery on "Mother of All Tax Hikes"
October 25, 2007

By Ways and Means Republican Press Office

MEMO

RE: “Mother of All Tax Hikes” Bill

TO: Republican Members, Republican Staff

FROM: Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Jim McCrery


My Friends,

At a bipartisan Ways and Means caucus last night, Chairman Rangel outlined his long-awaited “Mother of All Tax Hikes” legislation. The basics of the package are simple: This is the largest individual income tax increase in history.

The bill will add a 4% surtax on Americans earning more than $150,000 a year ($200,000 for couples). That is on top of the scheduled expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. So, under Democrats’ plan, over the next few years, the individual income top tax rate in the United States will rise from 35% to 44%. By way of comparison, the other 29 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries – basically other developed nations - have an average top marginal tax rate of 35.7%. In fact, only five OECD countries would have higher top marginal tax rates in 2011 than the United States if the Democrats’ bill is enacted.

This crushingly high tax rate will affect approximately 10 million taxpayers directly - including those who report business income, like small business owners and farmers - but the damage will ripple throughout our economy. Because small businesses and family farms often pay their income taxes as individuals, this is a massive tax hike on the engine that drives job growth in this country.

In addition, the surtax is on adjusted gross income, not taxable income. This sounds like a technical issue, but it means that Rangel’s bill will erode the value of a series of tax deductions – including for mortgage interest, charitable giving, medical expenses, state and local taxes, and the standard deduction. And, because the surtax kicks in at $150,000 for individuals and $200,000 for couples, the bill creates a monster of a marriage penalty.

Chairman Rangel will claim that these tax increases go to provide tax cuts to 90 million Americans, but he is selling pure snake-oil. Many if not most of those taxpayers are getting a purely imaginary “tax cut.” Some of them are the roughly 20 million people that Republicans shielded with the Alternative Minimum Tax patch. Millions more are people who have benefited from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and only get “tax cuts” if you assume that the 10% bracket, marriage penalty, and $1,000 per child tax credit will expire. Others, like single people who will now be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, are getting a tax refund from the government even though they don’t actually pay income taxes.

It will take time to analyze this bill and sort through the data, but we know from the start that the 90 million figure is pure hokum. In fact, before you know it more taxpayers may wind up paying higher taxes – and fewer paying less - under Rangel’s plan than they did last year.

Which brings us to the larger fallacy of the Democrats’ “paygo” system. There is no need to “pay for” protecting taxpayers from a massive AMT tax hike. The government never meant for the AMT to affect middle-class Americans, and we have a responsibility to make sure it doesn’t. By arguing that preventing this tax increase requires us to raise taxes elsewhere, Democrats are trying to lock Congress into a system where we are guaranteed to raise taxes by $3.5 trillion over ten years.

That’s right. $3.5 trillion. The baseline that the Democrats are using for “paygo” includes revenue from an “un-patched” AMT and from the tax increases that occur when the 2001 and 2003 tax laws expire after 2010. Together they total $3.5 trillion over ten years. If we play by the Democrats “paygo” rules, that is the size of the tax increase we are imposing on the American people. That will hurt our nation’s competitiveness and cost us American jobs. The Rangel bill is the first step down a road none of us want to follow, and I urge you to oppose it strongly.
******************************************************

OT, Are you sure you want to go down the "Democratic" road? :lol:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Well you can Thank GW for it all. One day...some one's gonna have to pay the bills for all this Rep. spending and tax cuts at the same time.

It's unavoidable I'm afraid!
 

Mike

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Well you can Thank GW for it all. One day...some one's gonna have to pay the bills for all this Rep. spending and tax cuts at the same time.

It's unavoidable I'm afraid!

You must be as dumb as a rock. :lol: (Don't take it personally)

The way to increase productivity, jobs, the GDP, and increase taxes paid in is to lower the percentages paid.

John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan showed you that!

This particular scam by Rangel is nothing but way to get more money from the working class.

How many workers do people hire that make less than $20,000.00 per year? Huh? Huh?
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
You must be older than I thought....( don't take it personally) as I don't even remember JFK!

The working class ALWAYS takes up the slack. Man, I didn't know Alabama was such a high paying state!!! Must be nice !!!
 

Mike

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
You must be older than I thought....( don't take it personally) as I don't even remember JFK!

The working class ALWAYS takes up the slack. Man, I didn't know Alabama was such a high paying state!!! Must be nice !!!

You read it wrong or I wrote it wrong.......

How many people who make less than $20,000.00 per year hire workers?

This bill by Rangel will be disastrous to small business. Write it down.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Well someone is going to have to start paying for the last 7 years of spending on the credit card- and our $9 Trillion dollar debt... :???:

I would support a surcharge to pay the cost of all war costs...When GW announced his tax reductions he made the statement that that was what was needed for a "peacetime" economy...But that didn't last long :roll:


Wars May Cost $2.4 Trillion Over Decade

Monday, October 22, 2007 5:39 PM


WASHINGTON -- The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost as much as $2.4 trillion through the next decade, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday. The White House brushed off the analysis as "speculation."


The estimate was the most comprehensive and far-reaching one to date. It factored in costs previously not counted and assumed that large number of forces would remain in the regions.


According to analysis, the U.S. has spent about $604 billion on the wars, including $39 billion in diplomatic operations and foreign aid.
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Wars_cost/2007/10/22/43671.html
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Everyone here was so Bully Pulpit and " American" to sit back and say ' sic'em to the Bush and his war(s) ....now it's time to be patriotic and pay the bills!

When you get what you want....you pay the bill for it.

Remember Freedom is not Free!!!
 

Mike

Well-known member
Well someone is going to have to start paying for the last 7 years of spending on the credit card- and our $9 Trillion dollar debt...

What about the $5 trillion that was inherited by Bush.

Was that not on a credit card?

You talk like he accumulated the $9 trillion all this by himself. :lol:

No. Much of it was spent on "Social" programs.

I will not be for stopping the war until it's finished whatever the cost.

But if you'all want to learn to speak like the Islams just keep going. You'll get it.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Mike said:
Well someone is going to have to start paying for the last 7 years of spending on the credit card- and our $9 Trillion dollar debt...

What about the $5 trillion that was inherited by Bush.

Was that not on a credit card?

You talk like he accumulated the $9 trillion all this by himself. :lol:

No. Much of it was spent on "Social" programs.

I will not be for stopping the war until it's finished whatever the cost.



But if you'all want to learn to speak like the Islams just keep going. You'll get it.




What about the $5 trillion that was inherited by Bush.

What about it? Like all Trust Fund babies....he blew it!! He had no responsibility and just added to it.

All these ' faith' based social policies are junk....expensive junk at that.


En'shallah
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Yep-- The new Spend and "Charge it" Republican ideology.... :roll: :( :( Building the biggest bureaucracy in the history of the US :( :mad:

I prefer to pay as I go. And we no longer have a "peacetime" economy...
I'd rather be paying more taxes than giving this huge debt to my kids and grandkids....Still love to see a "Balanced Budget" Constitutional amendment......
 

Mike

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Mike said:
Well someone is going to have to start paying for the last 7 years of spending on the credit card- and our $9 Trillion dollar debt...

What about the $5 trillion that was inherited by Bush.

Was that not on a credit card?

You talk like he accumulated the $9 trillion all this by himself. :lol:

No. Much of it was spent on "Social" programs.

I will not be for stopping the war until it's finished whatever the cost.



But if you'all want to learn to speak like the Islams just keep going. You'll get it.




What about the $5 trillion that was inherited by Bush.

What about it? Like all Trust Fund babies....he blew it!! He had no responsibility and just added to it.

All these ' faith' based social policies are junk....expensive junk at that.


En'shallah

Kola. You've shown your cards again. That was a $5 TRILLION debt Bush inherited. NOT $5 trillion in dollars.

I will say this. I would be all for a tax hike if it was specifically earmarked for the war effort or for paying interest on debt. But if I know politicians like I think I know politicians, this tax hike will go towards some type of uneeded "Social" program!
 

Mike

Well-known member
Yep-- The new Spend and "Charge it" Republican ideology....

Nothing new about borrowing and charging U.S. dollars by the goverment.

It's been happening every year since about 1940. Dems too. :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Yep-- The new Spend and "Charge it" Republican ideology....

Nothing new about borrowing and charging U.S. dollars by the goverment.

It's been happening every year since about 1940. Dems too. :lol: :lol:

So in other words- on getting screwed by over spending- both parties are about the same anymore.... :???: :( :mad:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Yep-- The new Spend and "Charge it" Republican ideology....

Nothing new about borrowing and charging U.S. dollars by the goverment.

It's been happening every year since about 1940. Dems too. :lol: :lol:

So in other words- on getting screwed by over spending- both parties are about the same anymore.... :???: :( :mad:

EGGSAKLY!

Just depends on what you want to spend it on. Either fight a war that needs fightin' or give it down to the "Less Fortunate" that don't like work.
 

alabama

Well-known member
I just don’t understand why the percentage of tax we pay keeps going up and has for the last 100 years. We make more than ever so, the government should get more every year but it ain’t enough they want a bigger slice of the pie.
We need to stop giving away out tax dollars and spend less.
Make congress balance the budget and quit giving this nation to the black folks.

Watched the news out in California and notice how the victims reacted wanting to help the firefighters and such. But back when Katrina hit all those that were effected wanted to know was “where my check.”


Work or go hungey.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It will be interesting to see actually what ends up in the bill...Definitely a lot of corporate "loopholes" that need plugging-- and GW ain't gonna do it....

In contrast to the bill’s provisions for individual income taxes, Mr. Rangel’s proposals for corporate taxes are in many ways similar to ideas championed by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr.

Mr. Paulson has argued that it is possible to reduce corporate tax rates substantially by eliminating breaks like the tax credit for research and development and by simplifying the tax code.

Mr. Rangel’s plan would reduce the top corporate rate to 30.5 percent from 35 percent now, costing an estimated $364 billion over 10 years.

To make up for that lost revenue, the bill would eliminate a variety of tax breaks — many of them ones business groups fought hard to achieve in a sprawling corporate tax measure just three years ago.

Mr. Rangel’s biggest revenue-raiser would come from eliminating a special tax break on profits from domestic manufacturing — a provision that Democrats championed in 2004 over the opposition of Mr. Bush.

But even if the administration agrees with that idea, it is likely to oppose provisions that would make it harder for American companies to escape income taxes on profits from their foreign subsidiaries. Those provisions would raise $106 billion over 10 years, but they affect tax breaks that provide major benefits to the pharmaceutical industry, international banks and globe-spanning conglomerates like General Electric.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/business/25tax.html
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
What about it? Like all Trust Fund babies....he blew it!! ( here I mean his chance to make things all better)

He had no responsibility and just added to it.
( here I mean that he shows no fiscal responsibility and just added to the debt)


Mikey baby.....you must be really old cause you're not able to see what I wrote.

I translated it for you.
 

Mike

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
What about it? Like all Trust Fund babies....he blew it!! ( here I mean his chance to make things all better)

He had no responsibility and just added to it.
( here I mean that he shows no fiscal responsibility and just added to the debt)


Mikey baby.....you must be really old cause you're not able to see what I wrote.

I translated it for you.

But, but, but, when Clinton left office the debt was higher than when he went in too. Plus the fact that he had no "911" dropped on him either.

But he had "Fiscal Responsiblity"?

Help me here. I know I'm old and blind but you're still not making sense. :lol: :lol:
 

Texan

Well-known member
Mike said:
I will not be for stopping the war until it's finished whatever the cost.
Yep, I agree. Whatever the cost. I also agree with you and OT about a tax increase to pay for it - as long as it's dedicated to the war only. I would support something like a 10% surcharge on taxes if it was set up right. But I'd want EVERYBODY to pay for it - not just the 'rich' - like some of the dems advocate.
 
Top