Tax increase article....should be fun

[defenseman]

A good topic for discussion considering present conditions.....

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...713.shtml?s=lh

Pelosi Congress Sending You a $2,641 Bill
NewsMax.com Wires
Sunday, April 15, 2007

Reprint Information
Pelosi, Dems Sending You a $2,641 Bill



The average American family will have to pay an extra $2,641 a year if President Bush's 2003 tax cuts are allowed to expire -- but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats have given no indication they plan to extend the cuts.

"The mugging will lift $3.3 trillion from purses and wallets because the 2003 cuts will begin expiring soon," Ernest Istook – a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma and a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation – writes in the Washington Post.

"The budget resolution moving through Congress is the blueprint for what's coming. Higher spending – by hundreds of billions – is the plan. Renewing tax cuts isn't."

Istook calls the expiration of the tax cuts in 2010 a "back-door tax increase" because the Democratic-controlled Congress doesn't have to act to usher in the increase – it simply needs to take no action to extend the cuts or make them permanent, "something the new majority says it won't do."

Last September, Democrat Charles Rangel of New York – who is now chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee – said in an interview that he "cannot think of one" of Bush's first-term tax cuts that merit renewal.

In a January interview with John Browne, contributing editor of NewsMax's Financial Intelligence Report, Rangel was again asked about the tax cuts. He indicated he was open-minded about the issue, but was noncommittal, saying: "That's 2010. What happens in 2010, happens in 2010, depending on what the economy looks like … what the budget looks like…

"I for one just don't see how you can give tax cuts to the rich and just come to the Congress and ask them to put young people in harm's way and give tax cuts to the rich."

The tax cuts have not substantially reduced current tax revenues, according to a Heritage Foundation report in January, and economic growth rates have more than doubled since the 2003 cuts.

But if the tax cuts are allowed to expire, the federal government will grab more than 1.5 percent of GDP a year in extra tax revenue by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Without the cuts, "personal and business income tax rates will climb," Istook writes.

"Capital gains taxes will go up. The death tax will have new life. The marriage penalty will once more punish husbands and wives. Child tax credits won't continue. And the alternative minimum tax will hit more and more middle-income workers.

"The sneaky thing is that instead of voting to raise taxes and going on the record … Congress won't have to do a thing.
"Taxpayers should keep their eyes focused on their own pockets. They're about to get picked."


© NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved

[TailgateNut]

By posting this are you saying we should continue to fight a war and at the same time continue to give the "upper crust" tax cuts.

We as a nation have yet to sacrifice anything for this BS war and Bushs' horrible spending habits. It's time to tighten the belt and get us out of the hole the moron in charge has put us in.

I don't see the problem!

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

By posting this are you saying we should continue to fight a war and at the same time continue to give the "upper crust" tax cuts.

We as a nation have yet to sacrifice anything for this BS war and Bushs' horrible spending habits. It's time to tighten the belt and get us out of the whole the moron in charge has put us in.

I don't see the problem!

Your vote is noted...dman

[cswil]

is anyone surprised that Liberals want to raise taxes?

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by cswil

is anyone surprised that Liberals want to raise taxes?

If the a-hole republicans would'nt gouge the coffers as bad as they have, we wouldn't need to raise taxes.
Someone has to responsibly manage the funds.

BushCo has been like a teenager on spring break with Daddy's unlimited Credit Card.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by cswil

is anyone surprised that Liberals want to raise taxes?

Is anyone surprised that a lot of Bush backers don't understand what they are talking about when it comes to Bush cutting taxes for the wealthy?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Citizens for Tax Justice , 202-626-3780

June 12, 2002

Year-by-Year Analysis of the Bush Tax Cuts Shows Growing Tilt to the Very Rich Click here to see this analysis in PDF format.

---

A new study released today by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Children’s Defense Fund reveals for the first time who stands to benefit from the 2001-enacted Bush tax cuts in each year from 2001 through 2010. Among the key findings:

• Over the ten-year period, the richest Americans—the best-off one percent—are slated to receive tax cuts totaling almost half a trillion dollars. The $477 billion in tax breaks the Bush administration has targeted to this elite group will average $342,000 each over the decade.
• By 2010, when (and if) the Bush tax reductions are fully in place, an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest one percent—whose average 2010 income will be $1.5 million. Their tax-cut windfall in that year alone will average $85,000 each. Put another way, of the estimated $234 billion in tax cuts scheduled for the year 2010, $121 billion will go just 1.4 million taxpayers.
• Although the rich have already received a hefty down payment on their Bush tax cuts—averaging just under $12,000 each this year—80 percent of their windfall is scheduled to come from tax changes that won’t take effect until after this year, mostly from items that phase in after 2005.
• In contrast, the vast majority of taxpayers have already received most of their tax cuts from the 2001 legislation.
  • For the four out of five families and individuals making less than $73,000 this year, three-quarters of the tax cuts—averaging about $350 this year—are already in place.
  • Tax cuts for the 19 percent of taxpayers making between $73,000 and $356,000 this year will grow a little over the next four years as the cuts in the upper tax rates continue to kick in, but then will dwindle thereafter. By 2010, the tax cuts for this group will be no bigger as a share of income than they are now.
• As a result, freezing the Bush tax cuts at their 2002 levels would have little or no effect on 99 percent of the taxpayers, whose tax cuts are already mostly or completely “frozen.” Only the best-off one percent of the taxpayers will receive significant additional tax cuts if the rest of the Bush tax program continues to be implemented.

[Crushaholic]

It's definitely true that Bush likes to spend money. That's why he's been criticized as not being a true conservative. HOWEVER, it's also true that many politicians on the left side of the aisle would prefer people pay more in taxes.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Bush Tax Cuts Shows Growing Tilt to the Very Rich

As the President’s tax program moved through Congress in 2001, President Bush and his congressional allies struggled mightily to squeeze Bush’s $2.5 trillion ten-year tax cut into a $1.3 trillion budget target. They succeeded in doing so primarily by manipulating the dates on which the most expensive provisions will take effect. Since the most costly parts of the bill are the tax benefits for the very rich, the distribution of the tax cuts changes remarkably over time.

• From 2001 through 2005, the best-off one percent will receive “only” 19.8 percent of the Bush tax cuts.
• From 2006 through 2009, the share of the tax cuts going to the very rich jumps to 41 percent of the total.
• By 2010, when all of the provisions of the bill—including complete repeal of the estate tax on extremely large estates—are scheduled to be fully in place, 51.8 percent of the tax cuts are targeted to the top one percent.

In addition to delayed phase-ins, Congress and the President offered only a short-term, partial adjustment to the individual alternative minimum tax. Originally intended to stop very high-income taxpayers from using loopholes to pay little or nothing in income taxes, the essentially flat-rate alternative tax must be paid if it exceeds regular income taxes due. Because the Bush tax program sharply reduced regular tax rates, the alternative tax, whose exemptions are not indexed for inflation or income growth, will affect more and more taxpayers over time.


The 2001 tax act temporarily mitigated this problem by increasing the alternative tax exemption (from $45,000 to $49,000 for couples). But that partial relief expires after 2004. As a result, the number of families paying the alternative tax will explode after 2004.
As recently as 1999, only a million taxpayers, almost all of them very well off, actually paid the alternative tax, which added just $6.5 billion to federal revenues. But absent legislative change, by the time the Bush tax cuts are fully in place in 2010, 36 million families will have to fill out the complicated alternative tax forms, and cough up an extra $140 billion on top of their regular taxes. Even without change, however, the alternative tax has only relatively minor effects on the very wealthy, since their regular top marginal tax rate, even after falling to 33 percent, will still be well above the 26-28 percent alternative rate.


Comparison to earlier analyses
Some may recall that when CTJ previously analyzed the Bush tax cuts, we found that “only” 38 percent of the tax breaks were targeted to the top one percent —a statistic widely cited in the press. The reason why the rich’s share jumps to more than half by 2010 in CTJ’s new study reflects the exploding impact of the individual “alternative minimum tax.”


CTJ’s earlier analyses measured the distribution of the Bush tax program as if each element were “fully effective” (and we presented our results in 2001 dollars). That meant we counted the bill’s limited alternative-tax relief, even though that is oddly scheduled to expire after 2004. But in our latest effort, we analyzed the bill’s specific effects in each year from 2001 to 2010, taking account of the fact that after 2004, the alternative-tax relief disappears.
Our new 2010 snapshot find that two-thirds of the ostensible Bush income tax cuts for the 27 million taxpayers making between $100,000 and $500,000 in 2010 will be wiped out by the alternative tax. That in turn makes the share of the total tax cuts going to the millionaires in the top one percent (who will forfeit only 7 percent of their tax cuts due to the alternative tax) much larger.
Evenhanded?
CTJ’s new study conclusively exposes the chicanery of the Bush administration and its supporters in arguing that the tax cuts were even-handed. “After all,” they claimed, “the rich pay most of the taxes, so it’s only fair that they get the lion’s share of the tax cuts.” But in fact, in 2010 before the Bush tax cuts, the top one percent was expected to pay just over a quarter of all federal taxes (don’t feel too bad for these people; they’ll take in 19 percent of all the income). So a tax cut that gives the richest Americans more than half of its benefits is obviously anything but even-handed.


Compared to the federal taxes that would have been paid in 2010 before the tax cuts, Bush’s program reduces taxes on the wealthiest by 15 percent. For the remaining 99 percent of us, the tax cuts average only 5 percent. More tellingly, by 2010, the very rich will see their taxes fall by 5.7 percent of their income. For the remaining 99 percent, the average tax cut is only 1.2 percent of income.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Big Gain for Rich Seen in Tax Cuts for Investments
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: April 5, 2006

The first data to document the effect of President Bush's tax cuts for investment income show that they have significantly lowered the tax burden on the richest Americans, reducing taxes on incomes of more than $10 million by an average of about $500,000.

An analysis of Internal Revenue Service data by The New York Times found that the benefit of the lower taxes on investments was far more concentrated on the very wealthiest Americans than the benefits of Mr. Bush's two previous tax cuts: on wages and other noninvestment income.

When Congress cut investment taxes three years ago, it was clear that the highest-income Americans would gain the most, because they had the most money in investments. But the size of the cuts and what share goes to each income group have not been known.

As Congress debates whether to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, The Times analyzed I.R.S. figures for 2003, the latest year available and the first that reflected the tax cuts for income from dividends and from the sale of stock and other assets, known as capital gains.

The analysis found the following:

¶Among taxpayers with incomes greater than $10 million, the amount by which their investment tax bill was reduced averaged about $500,000 in 2003, and total tax savings, which included the two Bush tax cuts on compensation, nearly doubled, to slightly more than $1 million.

¶These taxpayers, whose average income was $26 million, paid about the same share of their income in income taxes as those making $200,000 to $500,000 because of the lowered rates on investment income.
CONT.

[Bronco Bob]

About time the rich started paying their fair share again. Another reason I voted Democrat.

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

It's definitely true that Bush likes to spend money. That's why he's been criticized as not being a true conservative. HOWEVER, it's also true that many politicians on the left side of the aisle would prefer people pay more in taxes.

Well, my math tells me that if you're spending money faster than you can recoup it, it's time to increase taxes to balance ye old checkbook!

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

If the a-hole republicans would'nt gouge the coffers as bad as they have, we wouldn't need to raise taxes.
Someone has to responsibly manage the funds.

BushCo has been like a teenager on spring break with Daddy's unlimited Credit Card.

Oh, I understand, you mean like all the "pork" that was added to a very recent bill to buy votes? Yeah, that was all the republicans now wasn't it. C'mon, they spend money on pork just like the republicans if given the opportunity it appears...dman

[defenseman]

[QUOTE=Crushaholic;1552460]It's definitely true that Bush likes to spend money. That's why he's been criticized as not being a true conservative. HOWEVER, it's also true that many politicians on the left side of the aisle would prefer people pay more in taxes.[/QUOTE]

this is very true. But, that is the way it's been for quite a while, no surprise here. they also do like their pork on the dem side of the aisle just like the repub......dman

[Crushaholic]

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

Well, my math tells me that if you're spending money faster than you can recoup it, it's time to increase taxes to balance ye old checkbook!

...or reduce spending...

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

About time the rich started paying their fair share again. Another reason I voted Democrat.

And time for you to pay alot more also. Enjoy...dman

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by defenseman

Oh, I understand, you mean like all the "pork" that was added to a very recent bill to buy votes? Yeah, that was all the republicans now wasn't it. C'mon, they spend money on pork just like the republicans if given the opportunity it appears...dman

Tell me how much the "pork" has cost us vs the cost of Bush's War!

I'm waiting!

Which one has "killed" our budget

BTW: how republican of you to bold the "HOWEVER, it's also true that many politicians on the left side of the aisle would prefer people pay more in taxes" and yet you neglect to bold the "It's definitely true that Bush likes to spend money" although he spends it like a drunken sailor!

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

...or reduce spending...

That's a crock. One can reduce spending, but it will not "play catch up", which we now need to do!

[Crushaholic]

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

That's a crock. One can reduce spending, but it will not "play catch up", which we now need to do!

We need to elect people (in both the executive and legislative branches) who know the meaning of fiscal responsibility. Raising taxes isn't the answer.

[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

About time the rich started paying their fair share again. Another reason I voted Democrat.

I dunno. If it's going to have an affect anything like Colorado's C & D, all I know is this "rich" guy went from getting nearly $500 back in taxes last year when C & D weren't in affect to $11 this year (and that's only because my wife was able to go back to work at mid-year and she doesn't get paid much; otherwise, I would have owed taxes).

I'm terrified to see what would happen if my Federal taxes went up.

But, that's just a rich guy talking.

[bendog]

How you guys can support this war, or at the very least not admit you got sold a pig in a poke, and b**** about taxes cracks me up.

Moreover, the newsmax article it typically bull****. IF d-mnan even sees "newsmax" he should assume bull****, but for some reason he takes them to the bank, which is one reason I seriously question his legitmacy as an honest poster.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed...121taxcuts.htm

First, congress has already pushed back the AMT, which would be the big bite on us middle income guys. Newsmax's real gripe is on the estate tax and the top 1% getting most of the cut on income tax. As usual the bushies are just used as the rich's toilet bowl cleaner. You'd think they'd finally catch a clue.

[BroncoFanatic]

At least the Defense Dept budget is Constitutionally authorized, unlike the plethora of social programs that you hard core lefties love so much...

Citing the CDF as your source is hilarious, given that Hillary was a board member. Their history shows their left wing bias, so of course their analysis of the tax burden is tilted accordingly.

The Congressional Budget Office data shows a very different story, that the highest income brackets pay the highest tax rate. You lefties, along with Karl Marx, should love this.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7...veTaxRates.pdf

Both parties overspend, clearly. Greed and corruption exist in both parties, which is why IMO they both need to be thrown out. Most conservative people agree with that, while I find most liberals just hate the Republicans, and don't have a clue that the Dems are as guilty, if not more so, of such things.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by BroncoFanatic

At least the Defense Dept budget is Constitutionally authorized, unlike the plethora of social programs that you hard core lefties love so much...

Citing the CDF as your source is hilarious, given that Hillary was a board member. Their history shows their left wing bias, so of course their analysis of the tax burden is tilted accordingly.

The Congressional Budget Office data shows a very different story, that the highest income brackets pay the highest tax rate. You lefties, along with Karl Marx, should love this.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7...veTaxRates.pdf

Both parties overspend, clearly. Greed and corruption exist in both parties, which is why IMO they both need to be thrown out. Most conservative people agree with that, while I find most liberals just hate the Republicans, and don't have a clue that the Dems are as guilty, if not more so, of such things.

What is that link suppose to show, that tax rates are based on income? Well no kidding!

Report: Bush tax cuts will prolong deficits
By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Making President Bush's tax cuts permanent will prolong big budget deficits into the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office projected Thursday.

But if those tax cuts are allowed to expire after 2010 — effectively a tax increase Bush has sworn to oppose — the budget would begin showing a surplus in 2012, the CBO's budget projections showed. Bush wants Congress to make the tax cuts permanent before he leaves office in 2009.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

No Correlation Between Bush Tax Cuts and
Job Creation, Report Shows
"By cutting taxes on income, we helped create jobs," President Bush said in an address Friday to business executives at the Economic Club in Chicago.

While two million jobs were created in 2005, this is 3.5 million jobs short of expectations by the President's Council of Economic Advisors, who estimate job growth at 3.1% in a normal year. Jobs grew by only 1.5% in 2005.

"The president's tax-cutting policy is a failure in regard to job creation, and we need to recognize it as such, " said Anisha Desai, program director at UFE and one of the report's co-authors. "While there is no evidence that massive tax cuts create jobs, there is considerable evidence that they contribute to economy-choking deficits."

The report reviewed administration claims that "tax cuts create jobs" and found the following:

* Tax cuts have no predictable effect on employment, either in job creation or job destruction.
* Since 2003, job creation has fallen millions of jobs short of the administration's promises.
* The current weakness in job creation during an economic recovery is unprecedented since World War II.

The report highlighted other concerns about jobs and the economy as well. For example, the number of good quality jobs (defined as those paying at least $16 an hour, providing employer-paid health insurance, and providing a pension) has remained flat at 25% of all workers. Significant racial disparities exist: black employment is at 89.6%, compared to 95.2% for whites. And Latino workers average more than $10,000 per year less in earnings than whites, and this gap is increasing.

The report, entitled "Nothing to Be Thankful For: Tax Cuts and the Deteriorating U.S. Job Market" was co-authored by Anisha Desai, Scott Klinger, Gloribell Mota, and Liz Stanton. The authors are available for interviews by calling 617-423-2148 ext. 119, or emailing ckasica@faireconomy.org. Call for hard copies.

United for a Fair Economy (www.faireconomy.org) is a national non-profit that spotlights the growing economic divide in the U.S.

[Rohirrim]

Yeah! What the Dems need is lessons from the Repugs about how to control spending.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Trillion-Dollar Gimmick

Extending Bush's Tax Cuts Through Sleight of Hand

By David S. Broder
Sunday, February 19, 2006; Page B07

Back when the late John Mitchell was attorney general in the Nixon administration, he advised reporters, "Watch what we do, not what we say."


That advice certainly applies to the Bush administration as well. The latest bit of evidence to come to my attention is what you might think of as the Case of the Disappearing Trillion.
The tip-off arrived last week in an e-mail from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. It is a Washington research organization with a distinctly liberal point of view but a deserved reputation for accuracy in its figures.
In this case, the information the center cites was confirmed to me -- though with a very different interpretation -- by officials of the White House Office of Management and Budget. It involves the treatment in the budget of the Bush tax cuts passed by Congress in 2001 and 2003.


Those rate reductions, when enacted, had expiration dates of 2010, designed to keep their long-term costs within the limits set by the budget resolutions of which they were a part. The president is urging Congress to make those tax cuts permanent, but his proposal is controversial and has not yet passed.
This year, however, the budget the president submitted on Feb. 6 simply assumes that the tax cuts have been made permanent -- and thus includes them in the "baseline" for all future years.
The effect, according to the center's analysis, is that "legislation to make these tax cuts permanent will be scored as having no cost whatsoever."


In fact, this analysis says, "The administration's proposal, by changing the rules after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were enacted but before they are extended, would ensure that the cost of continuing the tax cuts in the years after the current sunset dates would never be counted. The costs in those years were not counted when the tax cuts were first enacted. . . . Now, the administration is proposing that the tax cuts for those years also be ignored when the tax cuts are extended. To fail ever to count the cost of the tax cuts in the years after the sunset dates . . . would represent one of the largest and most flagrant budget gimmicks in recent memory."


How large? The Congressional Budget Office scores the cost of making these tax cuts permanent at $1.6 trillion over the next decade. The administration's estimate is somewhat less -- $1.35 trillion.
But, the folks at the OMB told me, it's wrong to claim that they are hiding that cost. They told me to get out my copy of the budget, and they told me right where to look. And sure enough on Column 8, Line 11 of Table S-7 on Page 324 of the green-bordered book, I found the very figure they had cited -- $1.35 trillion.


The heading on the chart of Effects of Proposals on Receipts reads: "Make Permanent Certain Tax Cuts Enacted in 2001 and 2003 (assumed in the baseline)." Those last four words conceal more than a trillion dollars worth of lost revenue.
But that is not all, my OMB friends argued. If you turn to a 396-page volume called Analytical Perspectives, as any conscientious citizen should do, on Page 215 and again on Page 360, you will also find acknowledgment of the change in the bookkeeping. The key passage says, without elaboration, that "the 2001 Act and 2003 Act provisions were not intended to be temporary, and not extending them in the baseline raises inappropriate procedural roadblocks to extending them at current rates."
That sentence must be parsed. The basis for saying those two tax cuts were "not intended to be temporary" is that when Bush recommended them to Congress, he said they should be permanent. But Congress put time limits on them -- which Bush now finds it inconvenient to acknowledge.


And those "inappropriate procedural roadblocks to extending them"? Translation: If you tell Congress the cost of making those tax cuts permanent, lawmakers might have second thoughts about doing it.


In fact, it turns out that Bush tried to get Congress to go along with this bookkeeping switch back in 2004, actually submitting legislation to authorize the change. The House refused to accept it. He put it back in his budget last year, with the same result. But this year he's back again, with more urgency, as he presses the case to make these tax cuts permanent.


Now that you know exactly how easy it is to find this all explained in the budget, I'm sure you are as reassured as I am about the candor of this administration.