Obama’s Tax Plan

10 Responses to Obama’s Tax Plan

1. Chris says:

   Thursday, August 23, 2012 at 1:49 pm

   This picture is too incomplete to be useful. For instance, Obama only favors raising the income tax rate to 39.6% on single individuals making over $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000. That’s only 2-3% of the population. Everyone else will see their income tax rates remain the same.

   Furthermore, Obama’s plan does not include a 55% estate tax. The tax was already scheduled to go back to 55% this year, but Obama has proposed a compromise with Republicans to make it 35%, with exemptions beginning as high as $5 million for individuals.

   http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/132813-estate-tax-proposal-draws-fire-from-conservatives-who-want-full-repeal

   I haven’t been able to research the rest, but it seems most of these tax increases primarily effect those who can afford them. The wealthy are doing better than ever, while the poor are doing worse. It isn’t class warfare to acknowledge that fact.

   Reply
2. Jim says:

   Friday, August 24, 2012 at 9:58 am

   Now lets look at the Romney/Ryan tax plan: Raise taxes on the middle class, lower taxes on the wealthy, cut middle class services such as Medicare. Which won’t even balance the budget for at least 23 years. This will reduce Romney’s tax rate from 13% to about 1%. It’s absurd.

   Reply
3. Tina says:

   Friday, August 24, 2012 at 11:19 am

   Jim you are being absurd.

   http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/08/23/dont-believe-obamas-ads-romney-is-a-middle-class-tax-cutter/

   Romney actually proposes cutting income tax rates across the board for everyone by 20%….

   …Romneys proposal would cut taxes for the middle class by reducing the 25% income tax rate, which applies today to singles earning between $35,350 and $85,650, and to couples earning between $70,700 and $142,700, down to 20%, and the 15% tax rate, which applies to singles earning between $8,700 and $35,350, and to couples earning between $17,400 and $70,700, down to 12%. Those would be the lowest federal income tax rates faced by the middle class since Franklin Roosevelts tax increases during the Great Depression.

   But that is just the start of the Romney tax cuts for the middle class. Romneys tax plan would extend all of the Bush tax rate cuts for everybody now scheduled to expire in January. That includes the Bush middle class tax cut reducing the 28% tax bracket to 25%. It also includes the Bush reduction in the 15% rate to 10% for the lowest income earning couples making less than $17,700 and singles making less than $8,700. Romneys tax plan would reduce that 10% rate to 8%, which is another tax cut for the middle class in higher tax brackets because it reduces the rate that applies to the first dollars they earn below those thresholds.

   Romney also proposes to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which was originally only supposed to stop the richest from avoiding any taxes, but now increasingly would apply to millions in the middle class, especially in high tax states like New York and California. Romney proposes to repeal as well the unfair death tax, which taxes yet again a lifetime of savings at death that have already been taxed multiple times. That tax crushes many small business owners at death when they try to pass the family business on to their children, often forcing it to be sold just to pay the rapacious tax.

   In addition, Romney proposes further sweeping tax cuts for the middle class by pledging to repeal Obamacare, which includes many middle class tax increases, in direct violation of Obamas 2008 campaign pledge not to increase taxes on singles making less than $200,000 a year, and couples making less than $250,000. Obama promised in 2008, I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. (emphasis added).

   Those Obamacare tax increases include the individual mandate, upheld by the Supreme Court precisely because it is an effective tax on working people and the middle class earning less than $200,000 a year for singles and $250,000 for couples, among others. The mandate forces working and middle income taxpayers to buy the expensive, politically correct health insurance not that they want to buy, but that Obamas HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius decides they must buy. While Obamacare includes new health insurance welfare to help pay that cost, the net that working and middle class taxpayers would have to pay is still like a new payroll tax or income tax. And the new health insurance welfare entitlement is paid for by taxpayers too, of course, which includes further Obamacare tax increases on the middle class.

   Those further middle class tax increases include:

   A new tax on health insurance premiums, totaling $60 billion over the first 10 years alone;

   A new tax on medical devices, which includes wheelchairs, pacemakers, stents used in heart surgery, and other common medical articles;

   A new tax on prescription drugs, totaling $27 billion over the first 10 years;

   A new 10% tax on tanning salons.

   These taxes will be incorporated in the prices for these products and services that middle class consumers and working people will pay regardless of income, again violating Obamas central 2008 pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class. Further Obamacare tax increases that the middle class and working people will pay include:

   The itemized deduction from federal income taxes for medical expenses is reduced by raising the threshold from 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income to 10 percent, a tax increase expected to raise $15.2 billion a year.

   Funds in health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), and health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) can no longer be used to buy non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines except insulin, meaning those drugs must be purchased with taxable income.

   The tax penalty on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA increases from 10 percent to 20 percent.

   Deposits into FSAs, currently unlimited, will be capped at $2,500, indexed to inflation after 2013.

   And there are still others. But Romneys pledge to repeal Obamacare would mean cutting taxes on the middle class still more by repealing all these Obamacare tax increases on the middle class as well.

   Finally, still another middle class tax cut in Romneys plan would eliminate federal income taxes completely on long term capital gains, dividends, and interest income for middle class and lower income workers earning less than $100,000 and married couples earning less than $200,000. This is the one tax cut in the plan that is unprincipled, because there is no good reason to treat taxpayers above those thresholds differently than taxpayers below those thresholds. (continues)

   Please, Jim, explain why anyone that has accumulated wealth (their personal property) should be required to bail out the country especially when our government shows no sign of changing its wasteful, spending ways…and after the egregious mismanagement of our tax money and the false promises regarding costs of programs that our legislators have made over fifty plus years?

   The best use of the wealth that these people, and the millions of workers that are saving for retirement in investments hold is putting it to work in the private sector. It won’t find its way into wealth building, job creating ventures in the private sector as long as we continue to threaten high taxes, draconian regulation, ridiculous energy killing policies and increased risk.

   The Ryan plan seeks to put policies in place that encourage risk taking and investment in the private sector and better management of programs that are admittedly unsustainable in the public sector. It isn’t a perfect solution…PERFECT SOLUTIONS DON’T EXIST! But it is a lot more realistic, practical, and possible than anything else anyone has proposed so far.

   And Chris Obama’s tax plan is irrelevant. He forms it based on class envy and greed. He’s simply pandering to the crowd hoping for votes. Moreover, his utopian promises in healthcare and his energy killing efforts will ensure that NOBODY has a job within a very short time.

   Three years of lousy employment, stagnant growth, blunted investment opportunity, and reports of waste and abuse should be waking you up by now. Not holding my breath.

   Reply
4. Jim says:

   Friday, August 24, 2012 at 12:22 pm

   Tina,
   Independent analysis of Romney’s tax plan indicated that it will increase taxes on the middle class. The key words are that his tax policy will be “revenue neutral.” So to give the big tax breaks he wants to give himself and other wealthy investors, he will have to increase taxes for everyone else.

   http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/how-romneys-tax-plan-could-raise-middle-class-taxes/

   Now of course that can change at any time. Romney has been changing his opinion frequently lately. Sometimes he has reversed his opinion on the same day.

   “Please, Jim, explain why anyone that has accumulated wealth (their personal property) should be required to bail out the country especially when our government shows no sign of changing its wasteful, spending ways…and after the egregious mismanagement of our tax money and the false promises regarding costs of programs that our legislators have made over fifty plus years?”

   You bet. Do you want a strong military? Benefits for veterans? Well that costs money. In fact, the military is the most expensive expensive part of the federal discretionary budget. Most people who have been in the military tell me that the waste is unbelievable. And Romney wants to increase military spending. That’s one reason we need tax revenue.

   (Just for the record, I tried to enlist for the military when I was 18, but was rejected due to health reasons.)

   “The best use of the wealth that these people, and the millions of workers that are saving for retirement in investments hold is putting it to work in the private sector. It won’t find its way into wealth building, job creating ventures in the private sector as long as we continue to threaten high taxes,…”

   Agreed, that would be the best use of assets, however that isn’t happening is it? Corporations are sitting on a lot of cash, and people like Romney are stashing cash overseas. So the solution is to raise taxes, unless they invest it back into American jobs. Just like we did around here 40 years ago.

   “…draconian regulation, ridiculous energy killing policies and increased risk. ”

   Well the regulations don’t seem to be hurting the large corporations, but they are killing small business. Follow the money, who does that benefit? Yes, the large corporations. It reduces competition from small business.

   “Moreover, his (Obama) utopian promises in healthcare…”
   Obamacare was patterned after Romneycare. Which most folks in Massachusetts are happy with. I feel that easing the health insurance burden on small business will help them.

   Tina, I really wish I could share your enthusiasm for Romney, since I’m not happy with Obama. However every indication is that Romney will be worse. We are in enough trouble and the recovery is tenuous at best. We don’t need someone like Romney to make things worse.

   Reply
5. Chris says:

   Friday, August 24, 2012 at 3:25 pm

   “And Chris Obama’s tax plan is irrelevant.”

   Seriously? Why did your blog devote a post to Obama’s tax plan, titled, “Obama’s Tax Plan,” if Obama’s tax plan is irrelevant?

   I know consistency has never been your strong suit, but give me a break.

   Reply
6. Tina says:

   Friday, August 24, 2012 at 5:07 pm

   Jim if Romney’s tax plan is as “revenue neutral” as were the Reagan, Clinton/Gingrich, and Bush tax plans, what do I care if the rich get richer? Why do you? You and I will have an opportunity to make money too. And by the way if it wasn’t mentioned it is worth mentioning that his plan is to also propose ending tax loopholes for the wealthy and corporations.

   It’s just a guess but I would place a small bet that those “independent analysts” are Obama friendly Keynesians.

   The federal government has a Constitutional requirement to defend the nation. This is one of the few things the federal government should be doing. Jim I’m for a strong military. I’m for taking good care of our service members and veterans. Anyone that has ever been to a veterans hospital knows that more could be done to take care of our vets. Where there is waste it should be eliminated but I can’t complain about funding that goes to defend our nation, it’s something that serves us best done federally.

   “…however that isn’t happening is it? Corporations are sitting on a lot of cash, and people like Romney are stashing cash overseas. So the solution is to raise taxes, unless they invest it back into American jobs>

   Beating a dead horse will not bring it back to life. American business is a stallion and it wants to run…set it free!

   We’ve done a great job of dehumanizing the people that run corporations but the truth is 99% of them want to create jobs for their fellow Americans. They aren’t sitting on their cash because they’re stingy; they’re sitting on their cash because the environment for investment and growth stinks…the risk is too high.

   We’ve been in non-recovery mode for three long years under an administration that demonizes business, proposes raising taxes, fees, and compliance costs, empowers the EPA to place impossible standard requirements on energy producers, that favors some (Solyndra) and sets out to destroy others (Gibson Guitar, coal companies), and has done nothing to encourage risk taking overall. GM is touted as an Obama gold star but the entire bail out stunk to high heaven…it was a bail out for the unions healthcare and pension obligations and was done in a way that screwed small support companies and dealers and the investor bond holders. Watching government picking winners and losers makes business and banks very uncomfortable.

   “Well the regulations don’t seem to be hurting the large corporations, but they are killing small business. Follow the money, who does that benefit? Yes, the large corporations. It reduces competition from small business.”

   The regulations are still a disincentive to invest and to invest in America. The big guys just hire a couple of lawyers but they still have no reason to invest for growth given the entire anti-business hammer the Obama team wields.

   We need clean, clear regulation and a simple tax code with competitive rates.

   “I feel that easing the health insurance burden on small business will help them.”

   There are better ways to help small business and individuals with health insurance than building a big bureaucratic, tyrannical, federal behemoth. Have you noticed that at least some people are reporting higher insurance costs? The protocol for one of my meds has changed. It will save a lot of money for insurers, including medicare, but my joints will deteriorate faster…is federal mandate of such things a a smarter way to go or should doctors and patients be making those decisions? All indications are that over time America’s premiere health care industry will be destroyed.

   “However every indication is that Romney will be worse.”

   Other than a lot of political nonsense I’m not sure what you mean. No politician is without fault and most find themselves on more than one side in voting simply because the bills they vote on have traps set in them. Compromise looks real good to some and to others is worse than death but our founders gave us a system where struggle is the battle that must be waged.

   I think Romney has the skills needed in a president and he has particular skills needed in our current financial and economic situation. I also think he is basically a decent man and I thin he loves America and the system of government we were given…time will tell how well he performs. He will stand head and shoulders over Obama in terms of jobs and business….particularly small business.

   Reply
7. Tina says:

   Friday, August 24, 2012 at 5:44 pm

   Chris: “Seriously? Why did your blog devote a post to Obama’s tax plan, titled, “Obama’s Tax Plan,” if Obama’s tax plan is irrelevant?”

   Well Mr. Smarmy Pants, were you too busy attempting to think up clever quips to finish reading? The answer to your irreverent query followed in the next sentences, to wit:

   He forms it based on class envy and greed. He’s simply pandering to the crowd hoping for votes. Moreover, his utopian promises in healthcare and his energy killing efforts will ensure that NOBODY has a job within a very short time.

   Must I spell it out for you? Without jobs there will be no profit to tax!

   “I know consistency has never been your strong suit, but give me a break.”

   Which arm?

   Reply
8. Peggy says:

   Friday, August 24, 2012 at 8:56 pm

   Off topic, but good news to share.

   DSouzas Anti-Obama Documentary No.1 at Box Office Friday

   Dinesh DSouzas anti-Obama documentary, 2016: Obamas America began playing in 1,090 North American theaters on Friday and is opening as the number one movie at the domestic box office today, Deadline reports.

   Playing in a third of the theaters as some big-budget Hollywood blockbusters like The Expendables 2 (3,335 theaters), DSouzas intriguing look into the life of President Obama is showing incredible promise. Rocky Mountain Pictures is releasing the documentary.

   (Ps: Yuba City theater is working on getting it at the request of local Tea Party members.)

   Full story here:
   http://www.theblaze.com/stories/dsouzas-anti-obama-documentary-no-1-at-box-office-friday/

   Reply
9. Chris says:

   Saturday, August 25, 2012 at 1:53 pm

   Tina: “He forms it based on class envy and greed. He’s simply pandering to the crowd hoping for votes. Moreover, his utopian promises in healthcare and his energy killing efforts will ensure that NOBODY has a job within a very short time.”

   I guess when you can’t defend the errors of fact in the main post, just distract with generalized smears that have no basis in reality.

   “Must I spell it out for you? Without jobs there will be no profit to tax!”

   But you’ve yet to show any reliable evidence that Obama’s policies are harmful to jobs. On the flip side, we have the last ten years as proof that lowering taxes on the rich doesn’t create jobs. You want to go back to the policies that got us into the recession, and you want to make them even more extreme. You want to elect a candidate who is running on tax policy and his business record, while hiding his taxes and his business record. I think the voters in November will respond to that with a “Thanks, but no thanks.”

   Reply
10. Tina says:

    Saturday, August 25, 2012 at 8:05 pm

    Chris: “But you’ve yet to show any reliable evidence that Obama’s policies are harmful to jobs.”

    And I thought credibility was big with you. (See my latest post)

    “On the flip side, we have the last ten years as proof that lowering taxes on the rich doesn’t create jobs.”

    Wrong! On several counts! 1. Taxes were lowered for everyone under Bush…not just the rich. 2. The evidence that lowering taxes creates a strong economy and jobs is evident in history under both democrats and republicans (Kennedy,Reagan, Clinton, Bush) 3. Unemployment figures are higher and sustained under Obama; the number of people seeking work that cannot get work is greater; the number of people on food stamps and the number of people in poverty are at depression levels. there is no way you can claim Obama’s policies are better than Kennedy,Reagan, Clinton, or Bush when it comes to Americans working and able to provide for themselves.

    “You want to go back to the policies that got us into the recession, and you want to make them even more extreme.”

    I want to do what we KNOW works. How do we know? We have done it before and it worked under presidents of both parties (PSSSST….IT IS OBAMA THAT IS EXTREME)

    “You want to elect a candidate who is running on tax policy and his business record, while hiding his taxes and his business record.”

    Horsepucky! Man you are desperate! His record in business is one of extreme success. He has an 80% record of turning troubled companies around and making them successful. He has a personal record of making money and of being very charitable as well as paying his taxes according to the tax laws…OR THE IRS WOULD BE ON HIS DOORSTEP! Shame on you for repeating this baseless Obama smear.

    “I think the voters in November will respond to that with a “Thanks, but no thanks.”

    You may be right. People are often swayed by BS.

    Reply