Income Tax Increases

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-10-2010
Income Tax Increases
145
Wed, 08-11-2010 - 11:36am

When the Bush tax cuts sunset out, the top two brackets will still be pay lesser income tax than they did during the Clinton years:


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/politics/11tax.html?_r=1


~OPAL~   onoz_omg2.gif OMG ONOZ image by KILLER_BOB11694

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-16-2005
Wed, 08-11-2010 - 11:42am
Did you include the increases due to healthcare reform?





iVillage Member
Registered: 03-10-2010
Wed, 08-11-2010 - 12:05pm
Is that part of income tax starting in January 2011? Income taxes on those who file in the top two income tax brackets will still be lower in 2011 than they were prior to the 2001 income tax cuts. That makes sense because the lower brackets would hold their current rates and our tax system has graduated rates/brackets.

~OPAL~

~OPAL~   onoz_omg2.gif OMG ONOZ image by KILLER_BOB11694

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Wed, 08-11-2010 - 12:12pm

<>


Hmmmm, interesting.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-15-2010
Wed, 08-11-2010 - 12:15pm

I guess my question has to be so what? Seriously. All this is saying is that taxes are being raised but not as high as they may have been during other times in history. So what? Is this another of those "it's OK" because it "could be worse"?

Raising taxes in this economy is bad for this economy.

Why not lower taxes or at least leave them alone and cut spending?

Those would both be GOOD for the economy. But it may not adequately feed into the class warfare theme enough to win many votes.

I am a small business owner and being able to invest my own capital in my own business serves to better not only my customers but all of my employees. When you take from me, in reality what you've really done is you've taken from them. Why is that so hard for so many to grasp?

And--here's the other thing. The value of what's taken from me is diluted along the way. There are costs involved with the "taking" itself. So a dollar I get to keep is a dollar I get to use to benefit a customer or an employee or a vendor. That same dollar diluted by government is no longer worth a dollar by the time it gets to its intended target.

>>Luck is what you call it when preparation meets opportunity<<
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-10-2010
Wed, 08-11-2010 - 12:26pm
The top two brackets will pay more than today but less than before the 2001 tax cuts. So, while the beleaguered high-incomers will have something to gripe about, they're still better off federal-income-tax-wise than they were before those 2001 tax cuts. I wonder how much pain that $6700 tax cut change will be considering they've gotten used to a $17,500 cut. The difference will be $10,800 in actual dollars, and how much pain is $10,800 anyway for someone with that high of an income? For someone in the $500K to $1M range, I'm not sure that will mean they'll roll up the sidewalks and move to the Galt's Gulch, because they're still better off (income tax-wise) than they were in before 2001. Were they moving to Galt's Gulch in 2000? I really don't know the answer, but my guess is that they just got used to paying taxes at those pre-2001 rates and went about their regular lives.

~OPAL~

~OPAL~   onoz_omg2.gif OMG ONOZ image by KILLER_BOB11694

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2009
Thu, 08-12-2010 - 9:07am




""<>


Hmmmm, interesting.

      â€œYou have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes. You can steer yourself in any direction you choose."


-Dr. Suess

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2009
Thu, 08-12-2010 - 9:34am

Very nice "reminder."


"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society."


       Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Avatar for rollmops2009
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-24-2009
Thu, 08-12-2010 - 9:40am
I am a small business owner too, and if I want to minimize my tax hit, the smartest option is usually to invest back into my business. Good for the business, good for the vendors, good for the employees and in the end good for me.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.
– George Orwell
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-16-2005
Thu, 08-12-2010 - 9:46am

Yes, biased but interesting..


CNBC Demonstrates Why Liberals Don't Understand Economics




By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
November 25, 2008 - 16:19 ET



Doesn't it amaze you when some liberal media member actually claims that raising taxes is good for the economy, and uses the Clinton Era to prove his or her specious point?

Such transpired Tuesday afternoon when CNBC's Trish Regan invited liberal columnist David Sirota on to discuss president-elect Barack Obama's plans to get the economy rolling again.

True to the liberal motif, Sirota spoke fiscal and economic non sequiturs that only the deluded and/or uneducated could possibly agree with (video embedded right):

DAVID SIROTA, LIBERAL COLUMNIST: Well, we have a history of knowing that when you raise taxes on the very wealthy, and you use it for spending and economic stimulus, that can build the economy. That's what happened in 1993 when President Clinton came into office. So, Grover's arguments...

TRISH REGAN, CNBC ANCHOR: Okay, so wait, I want to stop you there. You're saying Clinton raising taxes actually resulted in stronger GDP growth?

SIROTA: What I'm saying is the entire economic package that he presented did, and that the entire economic package was in part funded with a tax on the wealthy in order to spur the kind of spending and stimulus that needed to happen. The point here is that we need an economic stimulus. We should be okay with some modicum of deficit, but we should also be looking to make sure the deficit doesn't get out of control to create high interest rate pressure. And I think that we have a history in this country of knowing that if you raise taxes in an appropriate way on the very wealthy that that can create an economic boom. That is what happened over fifteen years ago.


Ummm, no David, that's not what occurred over fifteen years ago, for you, like most of your liberal brethren, conveniently forget that the '90s recession actually ended in the first quarter of 1991.


As tables available at the Bureau of Economic Analysis show, the Gross Domestic Product grew 2.6 percent in the second quarter of 1991, 1.9 percent in Q3, 1.9 percent in Q4, 4.2 percent in Q1-1992, 3.9 percent in Q2-1992, 4.0 percent in Q3-1992, and 4.5 percent in Q4-1992. As such, the economy had been growing for a full seven quarters before Clinton was inaugurated.

Sadly, liberals choose to ignore this inconvenient truth, and instead falsely claim almost ad nauseum that Clinton's tax hikes caused the '90s economic expansion.

In fact, the 3.3 percent growth in 1992 exceeded the 2.7 percent growth the economy experienced in 1993 the first year after Clinton increased taxes. Two of the four years in Clinton's first term produced lower growth rates than the year before he raised taxes. And, the average yearly growth rate in Clinton's first term was 3.2 percent, less than the year before he took office.

What most liberals also choose to ignore is that the real explosion in the economy began in 1997 when Clinton finally agreed to tax cuts the Republican Congress had been pushing for since they took over in 1995. The GDP grew 4.5 percent in 1997, 4.2 percent in 1998, 4.5 percent in 1999, and 3.7 percent in 2000. This is an average yearly growth rate of 4.2 percent, a full percentage point (or 31 percent!) better than during his first term when taxes were higher.

Moreover, the real explosion in revenues also occurred after taxes were cut in 1997. After Clinton's tax hike, revenues grew by $362 billion from 1992 to 1996, or 33 percent. By contrast, once the GOP finally got Clinton to cut taxes, revenues grew by $572 billion, or 39 percent from 1996 to 2000.

Sadly, such facts didn't prevent Sirota from continuing with his inanities:

The issue here is you have to ask "what is the prudent course of action?" Are we risking too much by creating a bigger deficit by not raising some revenues or should we not raise taxes at all? What I'm saying here is very clear. In the recent history of this country, we have had a very clear example where a past administration saw a recession, saw that prudently raising taxes on the wealthy in order to fund an economic stimulus was something that brought the economy back. We have that history.


iVillage Member
Registered: 07-15-2010
Thu, 08-12-2010 - 9:59am

>>I am a small business owner too, and if I want to minimize my tax hit, the smartest option is usually to invest back into my business. Good for the business, good for the vendors, good for the employees and in the end good for me.<<

Please explain further.

>>Luck is what you call it when preparation meets opportunity<<

Pages