Expiring tax cuts hit taxpayers at every level

[doctordog]

WASHINGTON – Here's some pressure for lawmakers: If they don't reach agreement on extending soon-to-expire Bush-era tax cuts, nearly all their constituents back home will get big tax increases.

A typical family of four with a household income of $50,000 a year would have to pay $2,900 more in taxes in 2011, according to a new analysis by Deloitte Tax LLP, a tax consulting firm. The same family making $100,000 a year would see its taxes rise by $4,500.

Wealthier families face even bigger tax hikes. A family of four making $500,000 a year would pay $10,800 more in taxes. The same family making $1 million a year would get a tax increase of $52,300.

The estimates are based on total household income, including wages, capital gains and qualified dividends. The estimated tax bills take into account typical deductions at each income level.

Democrats have been arguing for much of the past decade that tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 under former President George W. Bush provided a windfall for the wealthy. That's true, but they also reduced taxes for the working poor, the middle class, and just about everyone in between.

Those tax cuts expire at the end of the year, setting the stage for a high-stakes debate just before congressional elections in November. If Congress fails to act, families at every income level will see more taxes being withheld from their paychecks come January.

The tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 reduced marginal income tax rates at every level. They also provided a wide range of income tax breaks for education, families with children and married couples.

Taxes on capital gains and dividends were reduced, while the federal estate tax was gradually repealed, though only for this year.

President Barack Obama wants to extend the tax cuts for individuals making less than $200,000 and joint filers making less than $250,000 in adjusted gross income. That's income from wages, capital gains and dividends, before standard deductions and exemptions are subtracted.

Republicans and a growing number of Democrats in Congress want to extend all the tax cuts, at least temporarily.

On Thursday, House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio said he wants an up-or-down vote on extending all the tax cuts before congressional elections in November.

"Raising taxes on anyone, especially small businesses, is the wrong thing to do in a struggling economy," Boehner said. "On the issue of job killing tax hikes the American people are not going to accept anything less than the vote that they deserve."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., wouldn't commit to vote on any tax proposals before the election. She did, however, pledge to address them by the end of the year.

"The only thing I can tell you is that the tax cuts for the middle class will be extended this Congress," Pelosi told reporters Thursday.

More than half the country backs raising taxes on the richest Americans, according to a new Associated Press-GfK Poll. The survey showed that by 54 percent to 44 percent, most people support raising taxes on the highest earners.

Discrimnation by is ok when it involves the upper income class of people.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100916/ap_on_bi_ge/us_tax_cuts

[Hawkeye2j]

WASHINGTON – Here's some pressure for lawmakers: If they don't reach agreement on extending soon-to-expire Bush-era tax cuts, nearly all their constituents back home will get big tax increases.

A typical family of four with a household income of $50,000 a year would have to pay $2,900 more in taxes in 2011, according to a new analysis by Deloitte Tax LLP, a tax consulting firm. The same family making $100,000 a year would see its taxes rise by $4,500.

Wealthier families face even bigger tax hikes. A family of four making $500,000 a year would pay $10,800 more in taxes. The same family making $1 million a year would get a tax increase of $52,300.

The estimates are based on total household income, including wages, capital gains and qualified dividends. The estimated tax bills take into account typical deductions at each income level.



Democrats have been arguing for much of the past decade that tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 under former President George W. Bush provided a windfall for the wealthy. That's true, but they also reduced taxes for the working poor, the middle class, and just about everyone in between.

Those tax cuts expire at the end of the year, setting the stage for a high-stakes debate just before congressional elections in November. If Congress fails to act, families at every income level will see more taxes being withheld from their paychecks come January.

The tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 reduced marginal income tax rates at every level. They also provided a wide range of income tax breaks for education, families with children and married couples.

Taxes on capital gains and dividends were reduced, while the federal estate tax was gradually repealed, though only for this year.

President Barack Obama wants to extend the tax cuts for individuals making less than $200,000 and joint filers making less than $250,000 in adjusted gross income. That's income from wages, capital gains and dividends, before standard deductions and exemptions are subtracted.

Republicans and a growing number of Democrats in Congress want to extend all the tax cuts, at least temporarily.

On Thursday, House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio said he wants an up-or-down vote on extending all the tax cuts before congressional elections in November.

"Raising taxes on anyone, especially small businesses, is the wrong thing to do in a struggling economy," Boehner said. "On the issue of job killing tax hikes the American people are not going to accept anything less than the vote that they deserve."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., wouldn't commit to vote on any tax proposals before the election. She did, however, pledge to address them by the end of the year.

"The only thing I can tell you is that the tax cuts for the middle class will be extended this Congress," Pelosi told reporters Thursday.

More than half the country backs raising taxes on the richest Americans, according to a new Associated Press-GfK Poll. The survey showed that by 54 percent to 44 percent, most people support raising taxes on the highest earners.

Discrimnation by is ok when it involves the upper income class of people.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100916/ap_on_bi_ge/us_tax_cuts
Boloney. The Democrats have proposed a major tax cut for the Middle Class. Boehner agreed to sign off on it. That more than offsets any hike.

[doctordog]

So you advocate discrimination?

[Hawkeye2j]

So you advocate discrimination?
Debate the topic Wayers. Your bullshit is getting tiresome.

[doctordog]

Debate the topic Wayers. Your bullshit is getting tiresome.

So is yours, answer the question puss, do you support dsicrimination against high income earners?

[Moby]

Discrimination?

So do you believe that capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as wage earners?

Would you call discrimination giving big spenders a discount as so many companies do?

We know that since the Bush tax cuts took effect the economy has grown at a much slower rate than it has with other tax rates. We know that the deficit has grown faster.

What should we do Wayers?

[Hawkeye2j]

So is yours, answer the question puss, do you support dsicrimination against high income earners?
I have already stated that wealth is taxed at a lower rate than work. This will remain so even after the Bush tax cuts expire.
To use your logic why do you want to discriminate against work?

[Citizen]

I have already stated that wealth is taxed at a lower rate than work. This will remain so even after the Bush tax cuts expire.
To use your logic why do you want to discriminate against work?

Well, the top 10% pay 70% of all taxes. The top 1% pay 40% of all taxes.

The bottom 50% pay only 3% of all taxes.

So when taxes go up, yeah, some of the people that advocate for higher taxes MAY foot a SMALL percentage of the bill. But it's basically the richest amongst us paying for everybody's shit. So while it may not exactly be demanding something for nothing, it's pretty darn close. Let's call it demanding something for ALMOST nothing relative to the actual cost.

[doctordog]

Discrimination?

So do you believe that capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as wage earners?

Would you call discrimination giving big spenders a discount as so many companies do?

We know that since the Bush tax cuts took effect the economy has grown at a much slower rate than it has with other tax rates. We know that the deficit has grown faster.

What should we do Wayers?

cut government spending, get rid of the czars, advisors, bullshit jobs that come with each new administration. Federal and state funded jobs are taking over the private sector. Expect our Congressman to earn their money, they do not need staffs. DC could be cut by 30% and operate efficiently but it would require people that want to work.

[MintJulep]

Well, the top 10% pay 70% of all taxes. The top 1% pay 40% of all taxes.

The bottom 50% pay only 3% of all taxes.

So when taxes go up, yeah, some of the people that advocate for higher taxes MAY foot a SMALL percentage of the bill. But it's basically the richest amongst us paying for everybody's shit. So while it may not exactly be demanding something for nothing, it's pretty darn close. Let's call it demanding something for ALMOST nothing relative to the actual cost.BINGO........

[Hawkeye2j]

The fact still is that wealth is taxed at a lower rate than work.

[doctordog]

The fact still is that wealth is taxed at a lower rate than work.

Are you sure?

Federal Income Tax Brackets For 2010 – Based On Taxable Income Ranges


Tax Rate
Married Couples Filing Jointly Most Single Filers

10% Not over $16,750 Not over $8,375
15% $16,750 – $68,000 $8,375 – $34,000
25% $68,000 – $137,300 $34,000 – $82,400
28% $137,300 –$209,250 $82,400 – $171,850
33% $209,250 – $373,650 $171,850 – $373,650
35% Over $373,650 Over $373,650

[bairdi]

Are you sure?

Federal Income Tax Brackets For 2010 – Based On Taxable Income Ranges


Tax Rate
Married Couples Filing Jointly Most Single Filers

10% Not over $16,750 Not over $8,375
15% $16,750 – $68,000 $8,375 – $34,000
25% $68,000 – $137,300 $34,000 – $82,400
28% $137,300 –$209,250 $82,400 – $171,850
33% $209,250 – $373,650 $171,850 – $373,650
35% Over $373,650 Over $373,650
Capital gains, which is wealth producing income and not work is taxed at 15%. So yes, I would say that Hawkeye is pretty sure of what he speaks.

[doctordog]

Capital gains, which is wealth producing income and not work is taxed at 15%. So yes, I would say that Hawkeye is pretty sure of what he speaks.

But the original income that created it they paid more. Capital Gains should not be taxed more as the money used to make it has already taken a hard hit, that is double dipping, nothing more.

[Citizen]

The fact still is that wealth is taxed at a lower rate than work.

Argle Bargle!

[Moby]

But the original income that created it they paid more. Capital Gains should not be taxed more as the money used to make it has already taken a hard hit, that is double dipping, nothing more.
Many corporations are allowed to pay owners and consultants (working as full time employees) through dividends which are taxed as capital gains. You don't have to have money to avoid not earning wages and instead earn from capital gains.

You should really take a hard look into tax laws or talk to a few accountants before making such a statement.

[Moby]

cut government spending, get rid of the czars, advisors, bullshit jobs that come with each new administration. Federal and state funded jobs are taking over the private sector. Expect our Congressman to earn their money, they do not need staffs. DC could be cut by 30% and operate efficiently but it would require people that want to work.
Wayers, we have amassed $12 Trillion in debt and most of it has occurred through tax cuts. How will pay off that debt? Right now if we cut spending back to the year before Bush took office we'd still have a short fall. We need new roads, Americans want more military and we need to build infrastructure.

What do we do?

[doctordog]

Many corporations are allowed to pay owners and consultants (working as full time employees) through dividends which are taxed as capital gains. You don't have to have money to avoid not earning wages and instead earn from capital gains.

You should really take a hard look into tax laws or talk to a few accountants before making such a statement.

Some does not mean all Moby, you should really thing about what you write so you do not look like you are painting everyone the same. There should be not Capital gains taxes period.

[doctordog]

Wayers, we have amassed $12 Trillion in debt and most of it has occurred through tax cuts. How will pay off that debt? Right now if we cut spending back to the year before Bush took office we'd still have a short fall. We need new roads, Americans want more military and we need to build infrastructure.

What do we do?

Why did you not call your President out when he took taxpayer money for infrastructure and then did not use it for that? Odd that you want to address tax cuts using infrastructure for the excuse yet you do not hold Obama and company accountable for misdirection of the money.

[John Galt]

Some does not mean all Moby, you should really thing about what you write so you do not look like you are painting everyone the same. There should be not Capital gains taxes period.
Billions of dollars traded hands by way of shortselling, credit default swaps,futures trading, and other heinous methods that don't come to mind right now.

These windfall profits all contributed to the demise of our economy, as well as a general wealth redistribution from the middle up.

The profits on such predatory acts should indeed be taxed.

At a much higher rate.

[doctordog]

Billions of dollars traded hands by way of shortselling, credit default swaps,futures trading, and other heinous methods that don't come to mind right now.

These windfall profits all contributed to the demise of our economy, as well as a general wealth redistribution from the middle up.

The profits on such predatory acts should indeed be taxed.

At a much higher rate.

predatory?:lmao2:

Business should be held accountable because some of your ilk are dumbasses?:lmao2:

[Hawkeye2j]

predatory?:lmao2:

Business should be held accountable because some of your ilk are dumbasses?:lmao2:
Wayers you have to get into the real world. I ran into major financial trouble because of the disgusting acts of the credit card companies. First they lowered my credit rating despite making every payment on time to lower than my balance. That allowed them to charge excessive over the limit charges. They then without warning raised the interest rate to 29%. I had trouble making the minimum payments. This is what these companies did to the Middle Class.
The mortgage companies pulled the same crap. This is a major reason for the forclosures.

[John Galt]

predatory?:lmao2:

Business should be held accountable because some of your ilk are dumbasses?:lmao2:
In case you missed the question again.

How many jobs were created by shortselling?


Edit...I suppose it wasn't you, who made this post?


http://www.dcjunkies.com/showpost.php?p=76058&postcount=11


snip



THe UAW is as corrupt as Wall Street and needs to break up

What did you mean by 'Wall St. is corrupt'?

[doctordog]

Wayers you have to get into the real world. I ran into major financial trouble because of the disgusting acts of the credit card companies. First they lowered my credit rating despite making every payment on time to lower than my balance. That allowed them to charge excessive over the limit charges. They then without warning raised the interest rate to 29%. I had trouble making the minimum payments. This is what these companies did to the Middle Class.
The mortgage companies pulled the same crap. This is a major reason for the forclosures.

First, only you can lower your credit rating, no one can do it for you:lmao2:

You are a prime of example of people living beyond their means. You should hire an attorney or accountant every time you spend money you don't have because you clearly show with this post you do not know how to manage debt to income.

[Hawkeye2j]

First, only you can lower your credit rating, no one can do it for you:lmao2:

You are a prime of example of people living beyond their means. You should hire an attorney or accountant every time you spend money you don't have because you clearly show with this post you do not know how to manage debt to income.
I gave the wrong word. I didn't mean rating I meant limit.

[Hawkeye2j]

These practices are now outlawed. Thank you Democrats.

[doctordog]

These practices are now outlawed. Thank you Democrats.

Somebody has to protect dumbasses from themselves.:thumbsup:

[John Galt]

In case you missed the question again.

How many jobs were created by shortselling?


Edit...I suppose it wasn't you, who made this post?


http://www.dcjunkies.com/showpost.php?p=76058&postcount=11


snip





What did you mean by 'Wall St. is corrupt'?


What? You missed this post?


No answer?

[doctordog]

What? You missed this post?


No answer?

You asked this before I answered, perhaps if you would leave dsolo's manhood alone long enough you could keep up. Just because you repeat yourself over and over doesn't mean everyone has to.:thumbsup:

[MintJulep]

You asked this before I answered, perhaps if you would leave dsolo's manhood alone long enough you could keep up. Just because you repeat yourself over and over doesn't mean everyone has to.:thumbsup: :lmao2::lmao2::lmao2:

[John Galt]

You asked this before I answered, perhaps if you would leave dsolo's manhood alone long enough you could keep up. Just because you repeat yourself over and over doesn't mean everyone has to.:thumbsup:
Oh really?

You claim that Wall St. is corrupt, but you don't understand the predatory practices?


Yea...I think you'd better stick to perv threads.

THe UAW is as corrupt as Wall Street and needs to break up, a Job bank so you don't have to work for 2 years, no one deserves that, damn these UAW workers are reaping what they have sewn

[doctordog]

Oh really?

You claim that Wall St. is corrupt, but you don't understand the predatory practices?


Yea...I think you'd better stick to perv threads.

I think you need a new doctor so you can keep threads straight and stop all the constant crying when here.

[John Galt]

I think you need a new doctor so you can keep threads straight and stop all the constant crying when here.
So you have no answer?

[doctordog]

So you have no answer?

for why you disrupt multiple threads here with your whining. NO

[John Galt]

for why you disrupt multiple threads here with your whining. NO
Nope...just this thread. You laughed about predatory practices on Wall St, and you refuse to answer my question about how many jobs shortselling created.

If you answered...just link me the post.


As to the Wall St. issue, you claimed that they are corrupt. So how can you not see that they were also predators?


If you call my demand that you back up your bullshit with facts 'disruptive', then I guess you're just admitting defeat.





Checkmate.

[doctordog]

Nope...just this thread. You laughed about predatory practices on Wall St, and you refuse to answer my question about how many jobs shortselling created.

If you answered...just link me the post.
.

it is on you to keep up.

it is not part of this thread topic, it was answered days ago, you have nothing, have offered nothing. Same ole deez, but I am enjoying the kissing of dsolo's ass by you.:taunt:

[John Galt]

it is on you to keep up.

it is not part of this thread topic, it was answered days ago, you have nothing, have offered nothing. Same ole deez, but I am enjoying the kissing of dsolo's ass by you.:taunt:
No problem...just admit that you have no answer to your contradictions.


Perhaps tomorrow, when you aren't drunk, you can make an intelligent response.

[doctordog]

No problem...just admit that you have no answer to your contradictions.


Perhaps tomorrow, when you aren't drunk, you can make an intelligent response.

Perhaps tomorrow you remember post from days past where you can move on with a thread, but trolls like you and PR that are only here to carry on bullshit will never learn.

[Hawkeye2j]

Clever elites running and ruing our country discovered all kinds of ingenious ways to sell mortgages to Americans still believing in the American dream. They had help from the Federal Reserve. So called unconventional or exotic mortgages were crafted to lure people in and make billions of dollars for the financial sector. The whole trick was to get home buyers to pay as little as possible initially. No cash down, no payments toward the principal and low adjustable interest rates were the main ways to pump up the housing market (the bubble) and, therefore, the whole economy. Yet another gambit was to give mortgages to people that really could not afford them, making them pay higher interest. These "sub-prime" mortgages create a debt to income ratio that is out of whack, which means mortgage payments that take too big a chunk of income. When interest rates rise and other costs of living creep up, people quickly sink and drown in debt.



The maximum percentage for household debt which would include a mortgage, credit cards and car payments is supposed to be around 36%. But now many homeowners find themselves paying most of their income – more than 50 percent – to their mortgage, especially after those monthly payments increase sharply. And they are going up because of rising interest rates, which is happening as wages are at best stagnant and other costs of living are rising. Once, homeowners in a hot housing market could refinance and take money out. In fact, from 2001 to 2005, they took out $500 billion in cash from their home ATMs. This propped up consumer spending as wage incomes stagnated, keeping the economy looking good. Now, with home values declining, they can find themselves forced to pay a lot more or lose their home.



Look at the larger picture. In 1980 household debt, including mortgages, car loans and other borrowing, was $1.4 trillion. Guess what it was in 2005? It had skyrocketed some 745 percent to $11.8 trillion. In 1980 credit card debt totaled $69 billion. Guess what it was in 2005? It had mushroomed to an amazing $1.8 trillion - a 2,500 percent increase! In 1980 credit card debt was just 5 percent of household debt; by 2005 it had jumped to 15 percent. This has happened when people also got suckered into risky mortgages.

Maintaining consumer spending has been the chief economic goal of the plutocracy. And to keep it growing it required Americans to be convinced that they should borrow more and go into greater debt. What kind of political leaders would want to do this to their citizens? The worst kind: Democraps and Republicrooks. Corrupt politicians care more about making corporations profitable and the rich richer. Economic inequality is like a cancer. They are willing to destroy the middle class on behalf of elites and the Upper Class.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15483.htm

[doctordog]

Clever elites running and ruing our country discovered all kinds of ingenious ways to sell mortgages to Americans still believing in the American dream. They had help from the Federal Reserve. So called unconventional or exotic mortgages were crafted to lure people in and make billions of dollars for the financial sector. The whole trick was to get home buyers to pay as little as possible initially. No cash down, no payments toward the principal and low adjustable interest rates were the main ways to pump up the housing market (the bubble) and, therefore, the whole economy. Yet another gambit was to give mortgages to people that really could not afford them, making them pay higher interest. These "sub-prime" mortgages create a debt to income ratio that is out of whack, which means mortgage payments that take too big a chunk of income. When interest rates rise and other costs of living creep up, people quickly sink and drown in debt.



The maximum percentage for household debt which would include a mortgage, credit cards and car payments is supposed to be around 36%. But now many homeowners find themselves paying most of their income – more than 50 percent – to their mortgage, especially after those monthly payments increase sharply. And they are going up because of rising interest rates, which is happening as wages are at best stagnant and other costs of living are rising. Once, homeowners in a hot housing market could refinance and take money out. In fact, from 2001 to 2005, they took out $500 billion in cash from their home ATMs. This propped up consumer spending as wage incomes stagnated, keeping the economy looking good. Now, with home values declining, they can find themselves forced to pay a lot more or lose their home.



Look at the larger picture. In 1980 household debt, including mortgages, car loans and other borrowing, was $1.4 trillion. Guess what it was in 2005? It had skyrocketed some 745 percent to $11.8 trillion. In 1980 credit card debt totaled $69 billion. Guess what it was in 2005? It had mushroomed to an amazing $1.8 trillion - a 2,500 percent increase! In 1980 credit card debt was just 5 percent of household debt; by 2005 it had jumped to 15 percent. This has happened when people also got suckered into risky mortgages.

Maintaining consumer spending has been the chief economic goal of the plutocracy. And to keep it growing it required Americans to be convinced that they should borrow more and go into greater debt. What kind of political leaders would want to do this to their citizens? The worst kind: Democraps and Republicrooks. Corrupt politicians care more about making corporations profitable and the rich richer. Economic inequality is like a cancer. They are willing to destroy the middle class on behalf of elites and the Upper Class.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15483.htm

I agree the rich are controlling both parties creating a larger gap between them and everyone else.

[Hawkeye2j]

I agree the rich are controlling both parties creating a larger gap between them and everyone else.
Well we found some agreement

[John Galt]

Perhaps tomorrow you remember post from days past where you can move on with a thread, but trolls like you and PR that are only here to carry on bullshit will never learn.
I've displayed your contradiction in THIS thread. Address it, or don't.

There's no need to ponder threads from days past, because you never address the question of job losses due to the thieves on Wall St.

You just use the same tactics seen in this thread.


Wall St. is a job killer. Admit it, or don't. You called for it's abolition in earlier comments.

[doctordog]

Galt, stop trashing the thread with your own agenda, you posed that same question in another thread it was answered, move on. This is about expiring tax cuts, focus, maybe you can keep up, but I doubt it.

[John Galt]

Galt, stop trashing the thread with your own agenda, you posed that same question in another thread it was answered, move on. This is about expiring tax cuts, focus, maybe you can keep up, but I doubt it.
The topic IS Wall St. idiot. I don't care what title you posted. Those who are subject to cap gains evade taxes every day.

No different than the bullshit gold thread.

In another thread, I addressed Ford's failure. You avoided that too, because you typed yourself into a corner.

How did you buy Ford stock at a bargain, if they didn't fail?

Another assinine comment you made, that you cannot support.

You're turning this place into a sewer.


If the discussion is too big for you, then go back to posting filth with your friends.

If you'd read your own threads, you wouldn't be left behind in these discussions.

[doctordog]

The topic IS Wall St. idiot. I don't care what title you posted. Those who are subject to cap gains evade taxes every day.

No different than the bullshit gold thread.

In another thread, I addressed Ford's failure. You avoided that too, because you typed yourself into a corner.

How did you buy Ford stock at a bargain, if they didn't fail?

Another assinine comment you made, that you cannot support.

You're turning this place into a sewer.


If the discussion is too big for you, then go back to posting filth with your friends.

If you'd read your own threads, you wouldn't be left behind in these discussions.

Ford did not fail you idiot? Did they slide, yes, fail no. How fucking stupid are you or are you just a fucking drunk?

There stock slided down like everyone elses however they had a plan without goverment intervetion and turned it around. I took a chance that I could afford to lose if it did not work out unlike some of those mortgage idiots that took chances on real estate they could not afford if the value fell.

If you don't understand risk taking and the ups and downs of the market just stfu and go back to your ghost forum.

[Hawkeye2j]

There stock slided down

More of that Southern education

[doctordog]

There stock slided down

More of that Southern education

It did slide but anyone that was doing their research on Ford and was aware of the Chrylser/Gm bailout knew there was a high probability of a Ford recovery in stock value just from public perception if nothing else. Many people jumped ship when the other two required bail outs. Sales at Ford jumped almost immediately.

[Hawkeye2j]

It did slide but anyone that was doing their research on Ford and was aware of the Chrylser/Gm bailout knew there was a high probability of a Ford recovery in stock value just from public perception if nothing else. Many people jumped ship when the other two required bail outs. Sales at Ford jumped almost immediately.
Over your head.

[doctordog]

Over your head.

No it wasn't just irrelevant, I am watching the Colts/Giants, when you resort to being the grammar police I know you have nothing to say.