It's inevitable; your Federal taxes are going up in 2011. It's not just the failure of Congress to extend the Bush tax cuts but also the first wave of Obamacare. Even if Republicans win the House and Senate in November, Democrats will still hold the majority until the new Congress starts in January 3, 2011. The new Congress can pass all the legislation it wants (extend Bush tax cuts, repeal Obamacare) but the President still holds the veto pen. Deadlock or compromise will result. If deadlock, your taxes revert to the higher rates in effect from the Clinton years plus new taxes for Obamacare, if compromise, your taxes will go up a lesser amount but still up. This will pose a conundrum for the "I will never, ever vote to raise your taxes!" candidates.
The best one can hope for is a strong Republican majority in the next Congress to provide negotiating power with Obama and hold the line until November 2011 when the American people can add "change" to "hope".
Thanks to DV for alerting me to the below site which summaries the what's coming January 1, 2011. Best to be seated before reading.
http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171#%23ixzz0sY8waPq1
But hey... "deficits don't matter", as long as Republican is in the White House.
Posted by: demo kid on September 4, 2010 12:44 PMMaybe if you want to live three hundred years ago. Tea Partiers may have a fetish for the 1700s, but I'd prefer to live in the present, thank you very much.
Posted by: demo kid on September 4, 2010 12:48 PMThe game is up for the Dems, and most of them know it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 4, 2010 01:35 PMWhat was the deficit for FY2007, the last GOP/Bush budget?
What was the deficit for FY2008, the first Pelosi/Reid/Obama budget? How about FY2009, or FY2010, both signed by President Obama?
Answer those and we can then talk honestly about fiscal responsibility.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 4, 2010 03:22 PMDon't confuse "fiscal responsibility" with "cooking the books", or Republican fiscal policy with "honesty".
Posted by: demo kid on September 4, 2010 04:17 PMIt seems likely that John Boehner will become Speaker of the House. Can you imagine? How enjoyable is it going to be to have him as Speaker? Boehner smokes, enjoys his liquor, is tanned and, unlike Obama, has a good golf swing. Boehner is already driving the big city elite left crazy. I read an article last week comparing Boehner to the characters on Mad Men. Boehner embodies everything the left despises about America. So did John Wayne. Soon enough the left will realize that they live in a country that doesn't like them at all.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 4, 2010 05:08 PMWhich is why I can't understand how anyone likes conservatives these days.
And it seems that conservatives resort to the same talking points they have had for months as well. Too bad they're lying through their teeth, eh?
Posted by: demo kid on September 4, 2010 05:40 PMOf course you can't. You're a leftist. You think it's fine that parents have to buy school supplies when the government currently spends in excess of $10,000 per pupil a year.
Americans have had it.
Demo may not differentiate the different factions in the GOP for a limp rhetorical advantage but that doesn't mean they don't exist. So Demo, there are three factions: the totalitarian Christians, the libertarians, and the warmongering neocons. The result of the 2008 election is that the neocons have been marginalized and the libertarians and totalitarian Christians have formed a tenuous majority faction called the Tea Party. What is really funny is that the GOP portion ofthe Tea Party wouldn't have been enough to overwhelm the democrats this November. But, because of the blatant "fuck you, you ignorant trailer park troll" attitude of the democrat party most "independent" and some democrats to align with the tea party as well.
Demo, why should we continue with the Obama+Pelosi+Reid plan for America? Where do you see it going if by some miracle the GOP doesn't take control of either part off confess? What are the features of living in Obamaland in, say, 2016?
Posted by: blindman on September 4, 2010 06:33 PMWhat leftists don't get is that they are insulting decent Americans. Branding them as racists, or Islamophobics. We are neither and we resent being pigeonholed by leftists who look down their noses at anyone living outside of liberal enclaves such as Seattle. Ask Sarah Palin.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 4, 2010 06:52 PMThe Dems, the party of the common man, know far better than you what is good for you. Your job is to dutifully pull the lever for the urban leftist whenever it is required.
Posted by: Attila on September 4, 2010 07:45 PMWell, considering the federal deficit for the month of July, 2010 exceeds all of FY 2007, it's clear you don't have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about.
Posted by: jimg on September 4, 2010 09:19 PMDon't listen to what Obama says, look at what he does!
I wonder what the trolls have to say to the claims Obama made about not raising anybody's taxes who earns less than 250k---claims which were bogus, we now know.
PS---Note that the highest percentage increase in income taxes is coming on the lowest income earners!
Include those numbers, if you like. See if you can get to a $1.5 TRILLION deficit for anything from FY2007 or earlier (you know, when the GOP actually wrote the budget).
Go ahead. Try.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 4, 2010 11:02 PMNo lie: Ethics probe of Joe Wilson's travel wider than disclosed
Since he joined Congress after a December 2001 special election, Wilson's overseas travel has cost taxpayers about $100,000 all told in itemized expenses, including roughly $38,000 in per diem money intended to cover only meals and lodging.
That total puts Wilson at No. 29 among the 435 members of the House - and at No. 39 among 730 members who've served since 1994, according to data published in the Congressional Record, the official proceedings of the House and Senate and analyzed by Congressional Quarterly
You got exactly the change you hoped for and of which we warned against.
Now we have a significant chance for change to make it all RIGHT.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on September 5, 2010 08:41 AMWhat was the deficit in 2007, and what is the deficit now? Simple question, really.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 5, 2010 09:28 AMUS Federal Deficit As Percent Of GDP
Fiscal Years 2000 to 2010 Year GDP-US
$ billion Federal Deficit -fed
pct GDP
2000 9951.5 -2.37 a
2001 10286.2 -1.25 a
2002 10642.3 1.48 a
2003 11142.1 3.39 a
2004 11867.8 3.48 a
2005 12638.4 2.52 a
2006 13398.9 1.85 a
2007 14077.6 1.14 a
2008 14441.4 3.18 a
2009 14258.2 9.91 a
2010 14623.9 10.64 b
Legend:
a - actual reported
b - budgeted estimate in US fy11 budget
So under Obama the debt has skyrockted while Bush basically managed it to acceptable levels.
Posted by: Crusader on September 5, 2010 11:20 AMIn other words, the upcoming tax increase will disproportionately affect the poor. Women and children hit hardest, naturally...
So why do the Democrats feel the need to penalize the poor, and jack their rates up by 50%?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 5, 2010 12:11 PMEspecially since the top 25% pay 60% of ALL Federal Revenues from just their income taxes and social security taxes. Not including capital gains, interest, etc. Just income and social security.
ALL other taxpayers (75%), all corporations, all duties and tariffs and fees, all capital gains taxes, all estate taxes - everything else - accounts for just 40% of the revenue to the Federal Government.
"The Rich" are not only paying their "fair share", they're paying for most people. But it's so much easier to demonize them and play the class warfare card because they're a minority - just 1 out of 4.
Rational, reasonable people would consider them already taxed enough, and look at ways to either cut spending down, or work with the other 75% population and all corporations to cover deficits. When 25% of your customers provide 60% of your revenue, usually they're not the ones you want to squeeze.
But then, that assumes the leaders in DC have any rational thoughts or actual background in business...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 5, 2010 02:07 PMThe top 25% earn ~65% of all income, but pay 86% of all income taxes. They pay approximately 75% of all social security taxes. They pay more than their fair share of income-based taxes, and then some.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 5, 2010 07:01 PMHow much should "the rich" pay? You already said they should pay an equitable share of the taxes on all income, and the facts show they pay more.
So how much?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 6, 2010 11:06 AMThe power of images turned against the Democrats
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on September 6, 2010 12:09 PMIf we want to blow the big gains in November this ad is exactly the way our side will fall on its own sword.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 6, 2010 06:59 PMInstead, talk about how Obama is trying to be Reagan in reverse. Instead of trickle down prosperity, Mr. Obama wants to implement trickle up poverty with his big government tax schemes - there are plenty of examples to be shown and the Democrats have been behind them.
Posted by: KDS on September 6, 2010 07:39 PMLeftists are going to throw everything but the kitchen sink at us between now and November. They are already playing the race card, and the anti-Muslim card. They will set every trap they can think of.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 6, 2010 07:53 PMThe TEA Party is an amorphous group - those who are mainstream are good, but those on the radical fringes are not and need to be held in check. The one good thing that the TEA party is doing is holding the Republican Party's feet to the fire and maybe even doing a hostile takeover. I support this, because if it weren't for the GOP party, we would not be in the fix we find ourselves in.
Posted by: KDS on September 6, 2010 09:33 PMUmm..where on earth do you get this nonsense Shanghai Dan? Pull it out of your ass?
The "rich" (top 5% or household income over ~$160k/year) pay less in taxes already than any other western nation. The top 1% of the country currently control over 42% of all the wealth. A bit disproportionate eh?
The Bible says it best "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48
This board is rather confusing. Given the statistics, its highly unlikely that many of you even come close to making $200k/year in incoming (top 4%). Thus, you'll have no tax increase. What exactly is the issue?
Any tax increase on people making over $250k/year isn't going to affect things negatively, because those people won't change their spending habits. Perhaps they'll save slightly less, but thats it.
Posted by: Proteus on September 7, 2010 09:52 AM
The tax rate pre-Bush-cuts for the lowest payers was 15%; it dropped to 10% with his cuts. Those go away. Ergo, 10% becomes 15% and that is a 50% increase.
The top 25% of income earners in the US already pay the lion's share (60%) of all Federal revenues in just income and social security taxes. Is that not enough? How much should they pay?
Note about the Bible - it's talking about individuals doing with their own money, not Government forcing redistribution from individuals. Would think someone who could quote the Bible would understand that, but perhaps not...
And those above $250K/year (not the only people facing an increased tax rate - EVERY tax payer will pay more) already showed they will adjust their spending habits based upon taxation. Remember when the Democrats and President Clinton pushed through the "luxury tax" on yachts? Nearly killed our domestic yacht-making industry, including Tolleycraft and Bayliner, based right here in WA State.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 8, 2010 05:54 PM