Tax hikes with healthcare bill

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-07-2009
Tax hikes with healthcare bill
79
Fri, 03-19-2010 - 8:36pm

http://kudlowsmoneypolitics.blogspot.com/2010/03/two-really-bad-deals.html



skip to main | skip to sidebar






Pro-growth, strong defense, virtuous values, business, and stocks










Thursday, March 18, 2010



Two Really Bad Deals


I don't know if ObamaCare is going to pass the House or not. As of this morning, the Intrade pay-to-play betting parlor is giving a 75 percent probability that it will go through. So Intrade seems to think so. But here's what I do know: ObamaCare's worst tax hike is the imposition of a new 3.9 percent Medicare payroll tax on capital gains and other investments. What will this do? It will depress the economy, depress wages and depress jobs. Washington doesn't understand that you can't create jobs without new healthy businesses.

Can there be anything dumber?

Look, raising the capital gains tax to 24 percent from 15 percent, which includes repealing the Bush tax cut, is a 60 percent tax increase. So instead of keeping 85 cents on the extra dollar invested, you will only get to keep 76 cents. That's a 10 percent drop in the after tax incentive for capital formation. Incentives matter. This is a bad deal for everyone.

If Washington keeps hiking taxes on investment and risk-taking, then we are not going to get the new entrepreneurial businesses and job creation or productivity or high risk innovation and invention that is so essential to a healthy and vibrant economy.

Here's another really bad deal: the protected and privileged class of mostly unionized government workers at all levels is bankrupting this country. They are demanding exorbitant wages and benefits. Get this: a new Bureau of Labor Statistics report shows these government workers have a 44 percent excess of their total compensation versus their private sector counterparts. And this, despite the fact that these government workers have much better job security.

I’ve talked about this before, but a recent Barron’s article highlights the states’ problems, where pensions look to be $3 trillion dollars in the hole with double dipping and spiking. This is going to create huge problems down the road in the tax-free municipal bond markets. Of course, it’s also going to be a problem for taxpayers who may wind up having to finance these ridiculously exorbitant pensions with all their double-dipping and spiking. It’s ultimately one gigantic stranglehold on the entire economy.

So to be blunt: ObamaCare's tax-and-spend and government unions spend and spend is basically thumbing their nose at taxpayers and economic growth.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-10-2008
Fri, 03-19-2010 - 9:09pm

I disagree. People seem to want a free lunch. Yes taxes need to go up! How else can the government pay for what the public demands. One of the biggest problem is Wall Street's interest in short term gains. It is conservative to see long term gains and planning rater than get rich quick schemes. If one looks at the past some of the years we most like to remember the income tax rate was between 92 and 70 percent!!
Double dipping? In other word a person should not plan their work life to benefit them but to benefit some gambler? Stock market is GAMBLING!! Just as much as going to Las Vegas.
"New entrepreneurial businesses"; are starting up all over. but it is the greed of the states that has impacted that area the most.
*http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iqGbLVyJ3dr_eGwAUkoDmckNAksgD9EEJHCO0

Since when is a living wage exorbitant? When failed Wall streeter leave with a 80 million dollar payout?*http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/04/lehman-wives-201004?currentPage=3

That will make being pushed out feel really good!!
Again the pensions are to be fully funded so what's wrong with that. The states knew that they have these obligations. Like businesses they are into cheating on their financial obligations Yet Joe or Mary citizen can't? Oh yes remember the state's sales taxes. When Joe or Mary cannot afford to spend the same states are crying into their champagne.

The problem is with both political parties. Both are guilty of non regulation of the financial sector. Using outmoded models of economics. Worse not keeping up with the times!!

xvra
Hornycomments.com for myspace adult comments
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Fri, 03-19-2010 - 9:47pm

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-07-2009
Fri, 03-19-2010 - 9:53pm

exactly Anthony, capital gains, which are going up at the end of the year any way plus this.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Fri, 03-19-2010 - 11:02pm

Yes, it's not like we pay 10% in taxes or something. When you add up every which way the government hits you up already... income tax, capital gains, sales, property, taxes on your cell phone, garbage, 911 security taxes, etc... I bet most of us pay 50% or more in the end. Then you have the double and triple taxing situations like corporations and estates.


It is really amazing when you think that this administration still wants huge tax increases on top of what we already pay. The founders never wanted a government that takes so much from us. It is supposed to be by the people, for the people, not the other way around.


Obama is already a terrible stain on this country, if he manages to get this massive government expansion past the people, it will be one of the darkest moments in our history, and one that we will regret and pay for over decades and decades. God help us and our children.

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-14-2010
Sat, 03-20-2010 - 1:42am

" Yes taxes need to go up!"


We hear that a lot but the truth is government spending needs to go down.


iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2009
Sat, 03-20-2010 - 9:52am

Yes taxes need to go up! How else can the government pay for what the public demands.


Well, concerning health care, it depends on which poll you are looking at as to whether the public wants this specific bill or not.


Regardless, I have to ask this question to those liberals who love, love, love to raise taxes...Who get's their taxes raised?


So far I've heard that the health care reform bill is going to cost about a trillion dollars but save tens of billions over time; okay, great. But who pays for the initial investment? IMO, it would have to be the tax payers...Which leads me back to my original question of which ones?


In my opinion, *EVERYONE* should pay for it, the rich all the way down to the poor. If as littlenote states "most people want this reform," well, then we should have "most people" pay for it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-10-2008
Sat, 03-20-2010 - 10:46am
I strongly disagree.
We knew decades ago the the pyramid scheme that is SS was going to have problems. It was obvious since WW2. The planners never factored in the oops of the baby boom. At it's inception the average male died at 45: Females earlier. Now we have decades of robbing the till. Gee what did congress expect? that everyone would magically die at 45 so they would no have to pay?
Actually the "cash for clunkers" is based on German and Japanese laws that practically force purchase of "new" cars. There is a great effort made to destroy the "aftermarket" car parts industry.
Since I never mentioned bonds that was not part of my missive. However the stock portion I stand by. The stock market has been shown to need strict regulation. We do not learn from the mistakes of the past!
Somehow there was a miss the affiliate problem. States want to have Amazon collect sales taxes in states where they have no physical presence. So what that means is Amazon not the seller is to collect taxes in whatever state the affiliate resides in. They are state by state going after that money. Somehow there was a misunderstanding of what the article was.
Both parties are at fault. But I do not expect it to get better as the corporate takeover is just around the corner. Due to the Supreme court ruling on political ads by corporations and the fact the big money sponsors of candidates means tat instead of representing the constituents enmasse they represent whom ever fills their coffers.xvra


Edited 3/20/2010 10:48 am ET by xvza
Hornycomments.com for myspace adult comments
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-10-2008
Sat, 03-20-2010 - 11:14am
If one passes laws that are going to cost money there needs to be ways to pay for it.
The high tax issue is a false hood. Tax laws have been misused.
Ben Stein's book "Ludes" mentions one method of destroying job making tax codes.
Prosperity means different things to different people. For many it means a good standard of living. Right now higher taxes are a must. It is like that old commercial pay now or pay a lot more later!
There are some very wealthy people that are saying the same. From Ben Stein:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Stein
"Though often labeled as a political and economic conservative, Stein has criticized the U.S. tax code for being too lenient on the wealthy. He has repeated the observation made by Warren Buffett, one of the richest individuals in the world (who pays mostly capital gains tax), that Buffett pays a lower overall tax rate than his secretaries (who pay income taxes). Stein has advocated increasing taxation on the wealthy.* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Stein
xvra
Hornycomments.com for myspace adult comments
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-14-2010
Sat, 03-20-2010 - 7:40pm

"Gee what did congress expect? that everyone would magically die at 45 so they would no have to pay?"


I agree that is

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-10-2008
Sat, 03-20-2010 - 10:16pm
Well,since there were better congress people that had no idea the longevity would explode nor the baby boom it can be explained . What cannot is the theft of SS funds to cover other governmental expenses.
Now we are to blame the retired which avg. a whopping $1000.00 per month in SS funds! So this country expects them to just die. As immortality is coming then what?
xvra
Hornycomments.com for myspace adult comments

Pages