Obama's budget plan

President Obama released his budget this morning. Rather than focusing on Washington’s over-spending problem, the budget calls for higher taxes on families and small businesses to pay for even more government spending. Under the Obama budget, tax revenues will grow from 14.4% of GDP in 2011 to 20% of GDP in 2021. By comparison, the historical average is only 18% of GDP.


Tax hike lowlights include:

•Raising the top marginal income tax rate (at which a majority of small business profits face taxation) from 35% to 39.6%. This is a $709 billion/10 year tax hike
•Raising the capital gains and dividends rate from 15% to 20%
•Raising the death tax rate from 35% to 45% and lowering the death tax exemption amount from $5 million ($10 million for couples) to $3.5 million. This is a $98 billion/ten year tax hike
•Capping the value of itemized deductions at the 28% bracket rate. This will effectively cut tax deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions, property taxes, state and local income or sales taxes, out-of-pocket medical expenses, and unreimbursed employee business expenses. A new means-tested phaseout of itemized deductions limits them even more. This is a $321 billion/ten year tax hike
•New bank taxes totaling $33 billion over ten years
•New international corporate tax hikes totaling $129 billion over ten years
•New life insurance company taxes totaling $14 billion over ten years
•Massive new taxes on energy, including LIFO repeal, Superfund, domestic energy manufacturing, and many others totaling $120 billion over ten years
•Increasing unemployment payroll taxes by $15 billion over ten years
•Taxing management capital gains in an investment partnership (“carried interest”) as ordinary income. This is a tax hike of $15 billion over ten years
•A giveaway to the trial lawyers—not letting companies deduct the cost of punitive damages from a lawsuit settlement. This is a tax hike of $300 million over ten years
•Increasing tax penalties, information reporting, and IRS information sharing. This is a ten-year tax hike of $20 billion.
Add it all together, and this budget is a ten-year, $1.5 trillion tax hike over present law. That’s $1.5 trillion taken out of the economy and spent on government instead of being used to create jobs.

The “tax relief” in the budget is mostly just an extension of present law, and also some refundable credit outlay spending in the tax code. There is virtually no new tax relief relative to present law in the President’s budget.

Read more: www.atr.org...

Any suggestions (within T&C)?

I'm not a lawyer, though I did spend the night at a Holliday Inn Express. . . .
But this looks like tax increases for anyone within the categories specified. I'm not smart enough to debate tax code, tax law, but I can figure out a tax increase when I see it.

Peace.

reply to post by beezzer


I have an honest question. This is not partisan or advocacy, just an honest question. How do we dig ourselves out of the hole that bailing out the airlines, banks, and auto companies on top of fighting two unfunded wars we are STILL apparently fighting without raising taxes?

Originally posted by Sinnthia
reply to post by beezzer

 

I have an honest question. This is not partisan or advocacy, just an honest question. How do we dig ourselves out of the hole that bailing out the airlines, banks, and auto companies on top of fighting two unfunded wars we are STILL apparently fighting without raising taxes?

We stop spending. Across the board. No military? Fine. No extensions on unemployement, to hand-outs for programs. No more G*damned government charity.

We stop all earmarks. We stop programs that fail. This isn't a lft/right issue anymore.
The repubicans came to bail out the well wth a thimble.
The democrats feel that digging the well deeper will get us out.

We were scroomed 20 years ago, but the Fed kept us propped up.

We, the grown-ups, have to take the reins of this run-away wagon.

STOP. SPENDING. MONEY. YOU. DON'T. HAVE.

Now is the time to let the "drunk" hit rock bottom. Get him off the "juice" (our damned money)

reply to post by beezzer


Well, the Republicans want to see the deficit destroyed. But [ACCORDING TO THE MILITARY-INSUSTRIAL COMPLEX OWNED WASHINGTON ZEITGEIST] the War Department, Homeland "Security", Medicare and Social Security are all untouchable. [THIS IS WRONG AND SOMETHING THAT I DISAGREE WITH, BUT IS A POLITICAL REALITY] The pitiful remainder of the budget (the so-called "discretionary spending") cannot yield the kind of spending cuts that are needed to bring things back in line.

Taxes need to be raised. It sucks, but it's true. You can either have a government that continues to spend itself into oblivion or you can have some tax hikes to go along with your spending cuts. Neither one alone is going to accomplish the task at hand.

Speaking of which, where's the thread on all the spending cuts Obama is putting on the table?

As to the taxes portion of things (puts on asbestos suit):

•Raising the top marginal income tax rate (at which a majority of small business profits face taxation) from 35% to 39.6%. This is a $709 billion/10 year tax hike

--I'll admit that that sounds like it sucks, especially since the people in the top marginal income bracket have a tendency to hold the economy hostage by saying that they "want" to hire but don't know if they can. The fact is that additional employee(s) should add value regardless of the percentage at which business owners are taxed. I don't buy the "hesitation" canard that's being floated around these days. Is hiring a value add for your company or not? Yes or No? No business owner I know is willing to altruistically take a loss on new personnel just because they "want" to hire. It's a business decision.

•Raising the capital gains and dividends rate from 15% to 20%

-- You know what? Capital gains and dividends are generally unearned income. If I get dividends from my investment in Microsoft, it's not because I write good software. It's because I'm a good opportunist and a leech on the company and its actual workers since the dividend that goes to me should more rightly go to someone who actually contributed to Microsoft's success. (this coming from someone with some Microsoft in his admittedly meager portfolio)

•Raising the death tax rate from 35% to 45% and lowering the death tax exemption amount from $5 million ($10 million for couples) to $3.5 million. This is a $98 billion/ten year tax hike

-- Aw . . . you mean Paris Hilton might not get as much of Daddy's legacy money? Again, this is largely unearned money. Can't shed too many tears over this one either. I mean 3.5 million? That's a lot of money. The estate tax could cut that 3.5 mil down to 1.76 mil? Boo-friggin-hoo.

•Capping the value of itemized deductions at the 28% bracket rate. This will effectively cut tax deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions, property taxes, state and local income or sales taxes, out-of-pocket medical expenses, and unreimbursed employee business expenses. A new means-tested phaseout of itemized deductions limits them even more. This is a $321 billion/ten year tax hike

-- Depends largely on the cap. I notice the language of this article quickly breaks down in terms of it's specificity. Enough that I won't bother commenting on MOST OF the generalized concerns for the rest of the list.

•New bank taxes totaling $33 billion over ten years
•New international corporate tax hikes totaling $129 billion over ten years
•New life insurance company taxes totaling $14 billion over ten years
•Massive new taxes on energy, including LIFO repeal, Superfund, domestic energy manufacturing, and many others totaling $120 billion over ten years
•Increasing unemployment payroll taxes by $15 billion over ten years
•Taxing management capital gains in an investment partnership (“carried interest”) as ordinary income. This is a tax hike of $15 billion over ten years

•A giveaway to the trial lawyers—not letting companies deduct the cost of punitive damages from a lawsuit settlement. This is a tax hike of $300 million over ten years

How is that a giveaway to trial lawyers? Aside from companies hiring more of them to try and avoid paying out lawsuits. This is actually a GREAT idea as allowing companies to deduct Punitive Damage suits accomplishes nothing but passing the cost of Corporate Incompetence/Malfeance on to the tax payers. This is a GREAT move.

•Increasing tax penalties, information reporting, and IRS information sharing. This is a ten-year tax hike of $20 billion.
Add it all together, and this budget is a ten-year, $1.5 trillion tax hike over present law. That’s $1.5 trillion taken out of the economy and spent on government instead of being used to create jobs.

Originally posted by Sinnthia
reply to post by beezzer

 

I have an honest question. This is not partisan or advocacy, just an honest question. How do we dig ourselves out of the hole that bailing out the airlines, banks, and auto companies on top of fighting two unfunded wars we are STILL apparently fighting without raising taxes?

We can't there is no way we can raise taxes high enough to pay off the debt. Now we are seeing the effects of constantly lowering taxes over the years. Besides with this budget it looks like companies that have been enjoying breaks over the years will now have to pay more taxes.

Hi all,

Cripes, I used to believe in that Man. My thought is, he's fullfilling his elected commitment to Bild-this-burg group.
Such sillyness. Read Huff's site:

Caption:

"President Barack Obama, less than two months after signing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans into law, is proposing a budget to congress that attacks programs that assist the working poor, help the needy heat their homes, expand access to graduate-level education and undermine that type of community-based organizations that gave t he president his start in Chicago. Obama's new budget puts forward a plan to achieve $1.1 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade. Those reductions -- averaging just over $100 billion each year -- are achieved mainly by squeezing social programs"

Where's this Man taking You??

Decoy

Originally posted by RobertAntonWeishaupt
reply to post by beezzer

 

Well, the Republicans want to see the deficit destroyed. But the War Department, Homeland "Security", Medicare and Social Security are all untouchable. The pitiful remainder of the budget (the so-called "discretionary spending") cannot yield the kind of spending cuts that are needed to bring things back in line.

Bull cookies. Man up. Do more with less. We've been hearing that from government to the military for years. Give me a red sharpie and I'll whittle away the spending in no time.

Taxes need to be raised. It sucks, but it's true. You can either have a government that continues to spend itself into oblivion or you can have some tax hikes to go along with your spending cuts. Neither one alone is going to accomplish the task at hand.

Ahhh, instead of smaller government, you propose bigger government, with tax increases.


. . . . why do I bother. . . . .

Speaking of which, where's the thread on all the spending cuts Obama is putting on the table?

Please, start a thread on Obama's tax "decreses!

As to the taxes portion of things (puts on asbestos suit):

•Raising the top marginal income tax rate (at which a majority of small business profits face taxation) from 35% to 39.6%. This is a $709 billion/10 year tax hike

--I'll admit that that sounds like it sucks, especially since the people in the top marginal income bracket have a tendency to hold the economy hostage by saying that they "want" to hire but don't know if they can. The fact is that additional employee(s) should add value regardless of the percentage at which business owners are taxed. I don't buy the "hesitation" canard that's being floated around these days. Is hiring a value add for your company or not? Yes or No? No business owner I know is willing to altruistically take a loss on new personnel just because they "want" to hire. It's a business decision.

Start a small business and get back to me.

•Raising the capital gains and dividends rate from 15% to 20%

-- You know what? Capital gains and dividends are generally unearned income. If I get dividends from my investment in Microsoft, it's not because I write good software. It's because I'm a good opportunist and a leech on the company and its actual workers since the dividend that goes to me should more rightly go to someone who actually contributed to Microsoft's success. (this coming from someone with some Microsoft in his admittedly meager portfolio)

•Raising the death tax rate from 35% to 45% and lowering the death tax exemption amount from $5 million ($10 million for couples) to $3.5 million. This is a $98 billion/ten year tax hike

-- Aw . . . you mean Paris Hilton might not get as much of Daddy's legacy money? Again, this is largely unearned money. Can't shed too many tears over this one either. I mean 3.5 million? That's a lot of money. The estate tax could cut that 3.5 mil down to 1.76 mil? Boo-friggin-hoo.

I'm so glad you are in a position to who gts to have money and who doesn't. Must be nice, judging who should be rich and who shouldn't.

•Capping the value of itemized deductions at the 28% bracket rate. This will effectively cut tax deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions, property taxes, state and local income or sales taxes, out-of-pocket medical expenses, and unreimbursed employee business expenses. A new means-tested phaseout of itemized deductions limits them even more. This is a $321 billion/ten year tax hike

-- Depends largely on the cap. I notice the language of this article quickly breaks down in terms of it's specificity. Enough that I won't bother commenting on MOST OF the generalized concerns for the rest of the list.

•New bank taxes totaling $33 billion over ten years
•New international corporate tax hikes totaling $129 billion over ten years
•New life insurance company taxes totaling $14 billion over ten years
•Massive new taxes on energy, including LIFO repeal, Superfund, domestic energy manufacturing, and many others totaling $120 billion over ten years
•Increasing unemployment payroll taxes by $15 billion over ten years
•Taxing management capital gains in an investment partnership (“carried interest”) as ordinary income. This is a tax hike of $15 billion over ten years

•A giveaway to the trial lawyers—not letting companies deduct the cost of punitive damages from a lawsuit settlement. This is a tax hike of $300 million over ten years

Um, okay.

How is that a giveaway to trial lawyers? Aside from companies hiring more of them to try and avoid paying out lawsuits. This is actually a GREAT idea as allowing companies to deduct Punitive Damage suits accomplishes nothing but passing the cost of Corporate Incompetence/Malfeance on to the tax payers. This is a GREAT move.

Um, okay.

•Increasing tax penalties, information reporting, and IRS information sharing. This is a ten-year tax hike of $20 billion.
Add it all together, and this budget is a ten-year, $1.5 trillion tax hike over present law. That’s $1.5 trillion taken out of the economy and spent on government instead of being used to create jobs.

edit on 14-2-2011 by RobertAntonWeishaupt because: Had a Colombo moment. "Oh yeah, one more thing . . . "

Look, you want socialism, you want government control, you want government oversight?

Rock on!

I'm still going to fight the good fight.

Originally posted by Decoy
Hi all,

Cripes, I used to believe in that Man. My thought is, he's fullfilling his elected commitment to Bild-this-burg group.
Such sillyness. Read Huff's site:

Caption:

"President Barack Obama, less than two months after signing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans into law, is proposing a budget to congress that attacks programs that assist the working poor, help the needy heat their homes, expand access to graduate-level education and undermine that type of community-based organizations that gave t he president his start in Chicago. Obama's new budget puts forward a plan to achieve $1.1 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade. Those reductions -- averaging just over $100 billion each year -- are achieved mainly by squeezing social programs"

Where's this Man taking You??

Decoy

The social programs go because the real big spenders, specifically the War Department are untouchable. Welcome to politics in America today: "We need to trim the budget! Just keep your hands off of 84 percent of it! And the remaining 16% consists largely of smaller scale but very popular warm and fuzzy programs. Here's your scalpal,have fun!"

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt


Did Obama get voted in on the promises of no new taxes and reducing military engagements? That makes them very much touchable in the voice of the people along with everything else he promised, otherwise what is the point of elections? Not letting companies deduct the cost of punitive damages from a lawsuit settlement is a good idea.

Seems to me, bonner (bohner) say slice the US Tax Cuts for the rich and President Obama uses this political hype to extent the cuts to the filthy wealthy.

What surprised me more, was Pelosi's end of HS seat diabolical UN-willed--will to put Obama's cut-rich-tax horse# through. UN-believable!!
NOw Boehner is supporting cutting measly millions that effect low income Peoples. WOW. Really should pay just a wee-bit more attention over at AJ's radio site.

Decoy

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by RobertAntonWeishaupt
reply to post by beezzer

 

Well, the Republicans want to see the deficit destroyed. But the War Department, Homeland "Security", Medicare and Social Security are all untouchable. The pitiful remainder of the budget (the so-called "discretionary spending") cannot yield the kind of spending cuts that are needed to bring things back in line.

Bull cookies. Man up. Do more with less. We've been hearing that from government to the military for years. Give me a red sharpie and I'll whittle away the spending in no time

Agreed! I didn't say those things are rightfully untouchable. I'm talking political realities. Heck, if you shut down 75% of our needless foreign bases, cut the missile defense boondoggle and hasten our withdrawal timetables in our ill advised wars of choice, then we would be well on our way to fiscal rationality. Now get someone in Washington other than Ron Paul to accept this.

Taxes need to be raised. It sucks, but it's true. You can either have a government that continues to spend itself into oblivion or you can have some tax hikes to go along with your spending cuts. Neither one alone is going to accomplish the task at hand.

Ahhh, instead of smaller government, you propose bigger government, with tax increases.


. . . . why do I bother. . . . .

Um . . . the size of the Government (when you talk about Bigger Government) is determined not exclusively by taxation but by it's spending. If these higher taxes are accompanied by spending cuts and used to whittle down the debt, then it is possible to have smaller government with higher taxes until we get into the black.

Speaking of which, where's the thread on all the spending cuts Obama is putting on the table?

Please, start a thread on Obama's tax "decreses!

I said spending cuts, not tax decreases. Big difference. Huge difference. Spending cuts are the programs he is talking about reducing funding on or cutting completely so that more of these tax increases could (theoretically) go to reducing the debt.

As to the taxes portion of things (puts on asbestos suit):

•Raising the top marginal income tax rate (at which a majority of small business profits face taxation) from 35% to 39.6%. This is a $709 billion/10 year tax hike

--I'll admit that that sounds like it sucks, especially since the people in the top marginal income bracket have a tendency to hold the economy hostage by saying that they "want" to hire but don't know if they can. The fact is that additional employee(s) should add value regardless of the percentage at which business owners are taxed. I don't buy the "hesitation" canard that's being floated around these days. Is hiring a value add for your company or not? Yes or No? No business owner I know is willing to altruistically take a loss on new personnel just because they "want" to hire. It's a business decision.

Start a small business and get back to me.

I know more than a few small business owners and talk this stuff over with them pretty regularly. I stand by my statement.

•Raising the capital gains and dividends rate from 15% to 20%

-- You know what? Capital gains and dividends are generally unearned income. If I get dividends from my investment in Microsoft, it's not because I write good software. It's because I'm a good opportunist and a leech on the company and its actual workers since the dividend that goes to me should more rightly go to someone who actually contributed to Microsoft's success. (this coming from someone with some Microsoft in his admittedly meager portfolio)

•Raising the death tax rate from 35% to 45% and lowering the death tax exemption amount from $5 million ($10 million for couples) to $3.5 million. This is a $98 billion/ten year tax hike

-- Aw . . . you mean Paris Hilton might not get as much of Daddy's legacy money? Again, this is largely unearned money. Can't shed too many tears over this one either. I mean 3.5 million? That's a lot of money. The estate tax could cut that 3.5 mil down to 1.76 mil? Boo-friggin-hoo.

I'm so glad you are in a position to who gts to have money and who doesn't. Must be nice, judging who should be rich and who shouldn't.

Hey, it's the Ayn Rand worshipping laissez-faire capitalists who are always going on about those who create wealth, make things happen and actually produce for a society should be the ones getting rewarded. Money handed to you on the backs of the dead is pure gravy. If you can't make a great and rewarding life for yourself with 1.76 million than you sure as heck don't deserve to get 3.5 million

•Capping the value of itemized deductions at the 28% bracket rate. This will effectively cut tax deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions, property taxes, state and local income or sales taxes, out-of-pocket medical expenses, and unreimbursed employee business expenses. A new means-tested phaseout of itemized deductions limits them even more. This is a $321 billion/ten year tax hike

-- Depends largely on the cap. I notice the language of this article quickly breaks down in terms of it's specificity. Enough that I won't bother commenting on MOST OF the generalized concerns for the rest of the list.

•New bank taxes totaling $33 billion over ten years
•New international corporate tax hikes totaling $129 billion over ten years
•New life insurance company taxes totaling $14 billion over ten years
•Massive new taxes on energy, including LIFO repeal, Superfund, domestic energy manufacturing, and many others totaling $120 billion over ten years
•Increasing unemployment payroll taxes by $15 billion over ten years
•Taxing management capital gains in an investment partnership (“carried interest”) as ordinary income. This is a tax hike of $15 billion over ten years

•A giveaway to the trial lawyers—not letting companies deduct the cost of punitive damages from a lawsuit settlement. This is a tax hike of $300 million over ten years

Um, okay.

How is that a giveaway to trial lawyers? Aside from companies hiring more of them to try and avoid paying out lawsuits. This is actually a GREAT idea as allowing companies to deduct Punitive Damage suits accomplishes nothing but passing the cost of Corporate Incompetence/Malfeance on to the tax payers. This is a GREAT move.

Um, okay.

•Increasing tax penalties, information reporting, and IRS information sharing. This is a ten-year tax hike of $20 billion.
Add it all together, and this budget is a ten-year, $1.5 trillion tax hike over present law. That’s $1.5 trillion taken out of the economy and spent on government instead of being used to create jobs.

edit on 14-2-2011 by RobertAntonWeishaupt because: Had a Colombo moment. "Oh yeah, one more thing . . . "

Look, you want socialism, you want government control, you want government oversight?

Rock on!

I don't want any of those things. As a matter of fact, Obama's spending cuts will reduce government assistance to pay for heating costs ("socialism"), as well as reducing the budget of several oversight bodies, but you're too busy ranting about the tax increases to worry about that.

I'm still going to fight the good fight.

reply to post by beezzer

So if you bailed out of the military adventures, and brought the taxes on the rich back to pre-Reagan levels...seems to me things would just be tickety-boo. Mind you, that's not nearly as much self-inflicted fun as squeezing the poor and the middle class...but it might just work.

Not there's a platform for the tea party!

Like the rest of nature, taxes are cyclical.

If it wasn't for the untamed and unregulated greed of American corporations, we would't be at war in Afghanistan and also Iraq. They believed the American military would bring democracy and capitalism and develop new customers for their goods and services. They ultimately supported both wars by not lobbying against them because they knew what they stood to gain. Bush, Cheney, and all his other corporate american cronies.

Guess what?

That's the cost of doing business within the structure of any government. If these companies are outraged by escalated taxes they should move to China and Venzuela and see if they like the government taking over their business and kicking them out the country.

Just as American citizens have to die in war, the corporations who plan to profit from the spoils of war must also pay a cost. Otherwise what's the point of being an American. You might as well become a communist and move to China.

Some CEOs and businesses made a killing for eight years or so and that cycle has now come to the end. They were lucky and now others have to pay higher taxes. They were no more lucky than those who bought penny stock and made fortunes versus those that had their fortune reduced to pennies. It's nature, it's life and it's time to stop whining. Life isn't fair, get over it.