Obama to raise taxes, SUCKERS! I told you!

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
Obama's First Budget Seeks To Trim Deficit

Plan Would Cut War Spending, Increase Taxes on the Wealthy

By Lori Montgomery and Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writers

Sunday, February 22, 2009; Page A01

President Obama is putting the finishing touches on an ambitious first budget that seeks to cut the federal deficit in half over the next four years, primarily by raising taxes on businesses and the wealthy and by slashing spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, administration officials said.

In addition to tackling a deficit swollen by the $787 billion stimulus package and other efforts to ease the nation's economic crisis, the budget blueprint will press aggressively for progress on the domestic agenda Obama outlined during the presidential campaign. This would include key changes to environmental policies and a major expansion of health coverage that he hopes to enact later this year.

A summary of Obama's budget request for the fiscal year that begins in October will be delivered to Congress on Thursday, with the complete, multi-hundred-page document to follow in April. But Obama plans to unveil his goals for scaling back record deficits and rebuilding the nation's costly and inefficient health care system tomorrow, when he addresses lawmakers and budget experts at a White House summit on restoring "fiscal responsibility" to Washington.

Yesterday in his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama said he is determined to "get exploding deficits under control" and said his budget request is "sober in its assessments, honest in its accounting, and lays out in detail my strategy for investing in what we need, cutting what we don't, and restoring fiscal discipline."

Reducing the deficit, he said, is critical: "We can't generate sustained growth without getting our deficits under control."

Obama faces the long-term challenge of retirement and health programs that threaten to bankrupt the government years down the road, as well as the more immediate problem of deficits bloated by spending on the economy and financial system bailouts. His budget proposal takes aim at the short-term problem, administration officials said, but also would begin to address the nation's chronic budget imbalance by squeezing savings from federal health programs for the elderly and the poor.

Even before Congress approved the stimulus package this month, congressional budget analysts forecast that this year's deficit would approach $1.2 trillion -- 8.3 percent of the overall economy, the highest since World War II. With the stimulus and other expenses, some analysts say, the annual gap between federal spending and income could reach $2 trillion when the fiscal year ends in September.

Obama proposes to dramatically reduce those numbers, said White House budget director Peter Orszag: "We will cut the deficit in half by the end of the president's first term." The plan would keep the deficit hovering near $1 trillion in 2010 and 2011, but shows it dropping to $533 billion by 2013, he said -- still high but a more manageable 3 percent of the economy.

To get there, Obama proposes to cut spending and raise taxes. The savings would come primarily from "winding down the war" in Iraq, a senior administration official said. The budget assumes continued spending on "overseas military contingency operations" throughout Obama's presidency, the official said, but that number is lower than the nearly $190 billion budgeted for Iraq and Afghanistan last year.

Obama also seeks to increase tax collections, mainly by making good on his promise to eliminate some of the temporary tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. While the budget would keep the breaks that benefit middle-income families, it would eliminate them for wealthy taxpayers, defined as families earning more than $250,000 a year. [or was it $120,000? Ask Joe Biden!] Those tax breaks would be permitted to expire on schedule in 2011. That means the top tax rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, the tax on capital gains would jump to 20 percent from 15 percent for wealthy filers and the tax on estates worth more than $3.5 million would be maintained at the current rate of 45 percent.

Obama also proposes "a fairly aggressive effort on tax enforcement" that would target corporate loopholes, the official said. And Obama's budget seeks to tax the earnings of hedge fund managers as normal income rather than at the lower 15 percent capital gains rate.

Overall, tax collections under the plan would rise from about 16 percent of the economy this year to 19 percent in 2013, while federal spending would drop from about 26 percent of the economy, another post-World War II high, to 22 percent.

Republicans, who are already painting Obama as a profligate spender, are laying plans to attack him on taxes as well. Even some nonpartisan observers question the wisdom of announcing a plan to raise taxes in the midst of a recession. But senior White House adviser David Axelrod said in an interview that the proposals reflect the ideas that won the election.

"This is consistent with what the president talked about throughout the campaign," and "restores some balance to the tax code in a way that protects the middle class," Axelrod said. "Most Americans will come out very well here."

The budget also puts in place the building blocks of what administration officials say will be a broad restructuring of the U.S. health system, an effort aimed at covering some of the estimated 46 million Americans who lack insurance while controlling costs and improving quality.

"The budget will kick off or facilitate a focus on getting health care done this year," the senior official said, adding that the White House is planning a health care summit. The event has been delayed by former senator Thomas A. Daschle's decision to withdraw from consideration as health secretary because of tax problems, a move that left Obama without a key member of his health team.

Administration officials and outside experts say the most likely path to revamping the health system is to begin with Medicare, the federal program for retirees and people with disabilities, and Medicaid, which serves the poor. Together, the two programs cover about 100 million people at a cost of $561 billion in 2007. Making policy changes in those programs -- such as rewarding physicians who computerize their medical records or paying doctors for results rather than procedures -- could improve care while generating long-term savings, experts say.

Obama's budget request would create "running room for health reform," the official said, by reducing spending on some health programs so the administration would have money to devote to initiatives to expand coverage. The biggest target is bonus payments to insurance companies that run managed-care programs under Medicare, known as Medicare Advantage.

The Bush-era program has attracted nearly a quarter of Medicare beneficiaries to private health insurance plans that cover a package of services such as doctor visits, prescription drugs and eyeglasses. But the government pays the plans 13 to 17 percent more than it pays for traditional fee-for-service coverage, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, which advises Congress on Medicare financing issues.

Officials also are debating whether to permit people as young as 55 to purchase coverage through Medicare. That age group is particularly vulnerable in today's weakened economy, as many have lost jobs or seen insurance premiums rise rapidly. The cost would depend on whether recipients received a discount or were required to pay the full price.

In addition to the substantive proposals, Obama's team boasts of improving the budget process itself. For years, budget analysts complained that former president George W. Bush tried to make his deficits look smaller by excluding cost estimates for the war in Iraq and domestic disasters, minimizing the cost of payments to Medicare doctors and assuming that millions more families would pay the costly alternative minimum tax. Obama has banned those techniques, the senior official said.
 
"I don't care, he's only going to raise taxes on 'rich people. That won't have any affect on my life, infact, I'm glad they're going to pay more."

I have not seen Washington make a single decision that will strengthen this country. This is an indictment of Bush as well, but I am absolutely stunned by not just the reckless danger associated with the policies of this current government, but the speed at which they are pursuing it.
 
Now we all know when we discussed the (then) 55 Trillion US long term debt that whoever got elected would have to raise taxes and cut spending as a longterm policy.
 
Now we all know when we discussed the (then) 55 Trillion US long term debt that whoever got elected would have to raise taxes and cut spending as a longterm policy.
Yeah, and we all know that Obama lied to the country when he said he would cut taxes. Fact is, they're going up.
 
Here in New York arguably second behind California in state crisis the same sentiment of hitting "rich" people is taking hold.

I'm expecting a 5% increase in my taxes at some point but it may not be for a few years. At least I get to keep all the money I'll put away at current rates till then.

As to Obama lied well all politicians lie sometimes and shade the truth.
They say they believed what they said then but things have changed so they're changing with them.
We elect the best liar.
Reminds me of an old saw.

Lawyer, Liar? It's just a matter of pronunciation.


Talk of state's ‘millionaires’ tax’ expands to not-so-rich

By Tom Precious
NEWS ALBANY BUREAU

ALBANY — Just how much money does it take to be rich in this state?
What started as a debate over whether to hit the wealthy with higher income taxes to help balance the state budget has expanded to talk of a “millionaires’ tax” on households with annual incomes exceeding $250,000.
That means a tax plan originally focused on 36,000 of the state’s wealthiest residents would extend to nearly 300,000 additional households, according to 2006 state tax figures, the most recent available.
For many lawmakers, particularly upstaters, the choice is relatively easy: Tax the few higher-income residents of their districts rather than tell constituents why so many popular programs are being cut.
“I think the issue is that, over the last 10 years or so, the amount of tax money paid by [wealthy people] is not the same as the rate paid by working families,” said Sen. Antoine M. Thompson, a Buffalo Democrat who said his district has 70 $1 million-plus households.
He has co-sponsored legislation to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 per year — which some estimate would raise an additional $6 billion in revenues for the cash-strapped state.
Proponents also see a tax fairness issue: Why should someone making $45,000 a year pay the same tax rate — 6.75 percent — as someone making 10 or 20 times that amount?
The campaign, dubbed “Fair Share Tax Reform,” has attracted some of the state’s most powerful interests: unions representing teachers, state workers, and health care workers, plus hospital trade groups, among others. That group includes the small but influential Working Families Party, which is spearheading the public face of the effort.
Lining up behind the campaign is the Democratic-controlled Assembly, which already has backed a millionaires’ tax — twice. It also has strong backing in the Democratic-led State Senate, although some liberal Democrats — especially those from Long Island, where a$250,000
annual salary doesn’t go anywhere nearly as far as in Buffalo or Niagara Falls — have shied away from the push.
And with good reason, critics say. Raising anyone’s taxes during an economic implosion is risky business, they argue. In 2003, when the state last imposed a temporary surcharge on wealthy residents, the economy was on the upswing. Now, it’s in a recession.
Critics also note that the richest 1 percent of state residents paid 41 percent of state income taxes in 2007, up from 26 percent a decade earlier.
B. Thomas Golisano, the Rochester billionaire businessman who opposes increasing taxes on the wealthy, says he has been “extremely amused” by the rhetoric in the debate.
“Fairness is just an excuse to take from one group of people and spread it to another,” he said.
The Buffalo Sabres owner says he is certain higher taxes on upper-income people will dissuade corporate executives from wanting to stay — or relocate — in the state. He also said the number of Fortune 500 companies that have left over the decades correlates directly with the state’s reputation for high taxes.
“If you want to drive those people away, tax them higher,” Golisano said.
He also predicted charitable donations would take a hit with a bigger tax.
“If I had moved 10 years ago, I think Western New York would say, ‘Gee, we didn’t get $115 million he contributed,’ ” Golisano said of his charitable donations.
Some charities, already struggling to raise money in a troubled economic climate, are worried about whether their wealthy benefactors would continue to give.
“We have a fair reliance on individuals who have incomes above $250,000,” said James Tilley, chairman-elect of the United Way of Buffalo and Erie County. “My sense is that private industry as well as charitable organizations will fare better if individuals are allowed to determine where they want their money to go, which is another way of saying I think lower tax rates are better.”
Millionaire localities
So where do the wealthy live?
A tax on millionaires could almost be dubbed a “Manhattan tax.”
According to 2006 figures from the state Department of Taxation and Finance, Manhattan had 16,000 millionaire households, or 22 out of every 1,000 households. Westchester County followed with 6,900 millionaire filers, or 21 out of every 1,000 households.
Upstate, the story changes. In Erie County, the 611 millionaire filers represent only 1.6 out of 1,000. Niagara County had 52, or 0.6 out of 1,000 households, with 16 in Cattaraugus County and 26 in Chautauqua.
But expanding the tax to those earning more than $250,000 would multiply those numbers. In Erie County, for example, 6,600 households had incomes of $250,000 to $1 million in 2006, while Manhattan had 99,000 such filers.
While not ruling out the tax increase, Gov. David A. Paterson, has been the loudest voice against it. The timing, he contends, is wrong and could drive wealthy people from the state. The economic downturn, his budget office projects, already is taking its toll as projections show the number of millionaires in the state will drop by nearly 10 percent this year from last year.
A tax increase, he has said, also would be “counterintuitive” to the federal stimulus package intended to jump-start the economy. He also warned that the state could “rue the day that we tax the rich if the rich, who are the job creators in New York, stop doing it.”
Still, Paterson has sent mixed signals. Friday, in the latest twist, he suggested he wants a broader reworking of the state’s income tax system so that lower-income and upper-income residents do not pay the same tax rates. But he made no specific proposal.
Tax overhaul difficult
The Legislature’s most forceful advocate for the tax increase has been Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Manhattan Democrat. Cuts in health care and education, he pointed out, would not hit the wealthy.
“We call upon them to pay a little more” to help the state get through its fiscal crisis, Silver said.
He also claimed that “no evidence” shows that raising the tax would prompt the rich to leave the state. After the 2003 temporary surcharge, he noted, the number of millionaires actually increased.
“And, no matter whose polling you follow, 80 percent of people in this state support that proposal,” Silver said of the tax increase.
He has signaled an interest in lowering the Assembly’s threshold below the $1 million level, but hasn’t settled on a number.
Other ideas include a more comprehensive reshaping of the state’s income tax rates, including lowering rates for lower- and middle-income taxpayers. But such a major overhaul could be logistically difficult with the governor insisting on meeting the March 31 deadline for a new budget.
Democrats are not united on the issue, and Senate Republicans, who are narrowly in the minority, appear unwilling to provide any votes to push the issue in that house.
“It would encourage an exodus of companies and jobs from New York,” said Assemblyman Robin Schimminger, D-Kenmore, chairman of the Assembly’s economic development committee.
Thompson insists he is not pushing for higher taxes on the wealthy to spend more money, but rather to make the tax code fairer, to add money to the state’s rainy day fund and to eliminate some of the more than $500 million in “nuisance” tax increases that Paterson has proposed.
While saying he would prefer to limit the increase to incomes exceeding $1 million, Thompson described the new, $250,000 level as part of the “art of compromise
 
As to Obama lied well all politicians lie sometimes and shade the truth.
They say they believed what they said then but things have changed so they're changing with them.

Sad, sad deflection. Man up and take responsibility for electing this moron. I'd have more repsect for you that way. As is, typical sheepled response.
 
New York is looking to raise the income tax to 11% on those earning over $250k. If you live in or around the city, you know that $250k there won't get you nearly as far as it would any where else in the country. A family of four need $160k a year to just satisfy "middle-class" living standards.

And that's 11% state income after the outrageous property taxes, sales taxes, city taxes, "user fees and tolls" ($8 to cross a bridge), and then the nickle and dime regulations and fees, and the hundreds of new small taxes Patterson passed last month.

The finance crash has hit the state hard, half of it's value has disappeared. Raising taxes like the Democrat majority in that state are going to will just lead to an exodus of productivity. The finance sector and importing were the fuel of that city, without that anchor, productive people are going to leave for the states where productivity and personal liberty are still somewhat respected.

And, NO, it was not a guarantee that tax rates were going to go up, especially prior to the banking fiasco with the fed and the various bailouts.
 
New York is looking to raise the income tax to 11% on those earning over $250k. If you live in or around the city, you know that $250k there won't get you nearly as far as it would any where else in the country. A family of four need $160k a year to just satisfy "middle-class" living standards.

And that's 11% state income after the outrageous property taxes, sales taxes, city taxes, "user fees and tolls" ($8 to cross a bridge), and then the nickle and dime regulations and fees, and the hundreds of new small taxes Patterson passed last month.

The finance crash has hit the state hard, half of it's value has disappeared. Raising taxes like the Democrat majority in that state are going to will just lead to an exodus of productivity. The finance sector and importing were the fuel of that city, without that anchor, productive people are going to leave for the states where productivity and personal liberty are still somewhat respected.

And, NO, it was not a guarantee that tax rates were going to go up, especially prior to the banking fiasco with the fed and the various bailouts.
New York's tax increase will be revenue neutral, as enough 'wealthy' people will move out of state to avoid the tax. Thus, there won't be as many to tax, and there won't be a benefit.
 
New York's tax increase will be revenue neutral, as enough 'wealthy' people will move out of state to avoid the tax. Thus, there won't be as many to tax, and there won't be a benefit.

That is why in the long run, tax increases hurt tax revenue. It won't simply be neutral in the long run, it will be negative.

745px-Laffer-Curve_svg.png
 
There's more to the economic equation than just taxes.
Yes they're mostly high in New York, but in the Buffalo area real estate is cheap and property taxes are reasonable.
In 2006 we bought a 140,000 sq ft industrial building in decent shape with 10 overhead cranes for just under a million(about 7.00 a sq ft) about 1/7th what it would cost in a booming area.
Property taxes for this building are about 40,000.00 a year.
I bought my 15 minutes from work gentleman's farm country 2400 sq ft ranch house on a mature maple treed 2 acre lot with inground pool outright for 155,000.00(in 1999) and the property tax this year is 3500.00
This kind of property would be closer to 1 million in almost any other urban area, current meltdown notwithstanding.
One of my employees bought an ok distressed house in the city for less than 5000.00.
This upstate New York real estate advantage far outweighs the tax disadvantage for some people.
 
He said cuts for 95% of people.

Did you not hear that?

95% is not equal to %100. Just a FYI. I thought it was pretty basic but apparently not.
 
He said cuts for 95% of people.

Did you not hear that?

95% is not equal to %100. Just a FYI. I thought it was pretty basic but apparently not.
95% of the people don't even pay taxes in this country. So how could it be true?
 
AGAIN THE 5% THAT "THINK" and "PLAN" AHEAD will be carrying the DIPSH*TS that run their lives AMOCK
 
We have a small family business,,it's seasonal,,we work 16hrs. a day (unless it storms) 7 days a week. I've done it for 32 yrs. Now I feel like were taking two steps forward,,but getting three steps back.
 
I used to be a TOM HANKS fan,,until he opened his mouth the other day. JUST ENTERTAIN ME,,I DON'T CARE WHAT YOUR POLITICS ARE!!
 
95% of the people don't even pay taxes in this country. So how could it be true?

Really Foss - last numbers I can find (it was 2005 numbers, but those are really only 2 years old) it was 1/3 of the people in the US don't pay taxes... Where did you get the 95% number?
 
Really Foss - last numbers I can find (it was 2005 numbers, but those are really only 2 years old) it was 1/3 of the people in the US don't pay taxes... Where did you get the 95% number?
Read my comment a different way. If what you say is true, and 33% of the people in the US don't pay taxes, then how can Obama give 95% a tax cut?
 
Read my comment a different way. If what you say is true, and 33% of the people in the US don't pay taxes, then how can Obama give 95% a tax cut?

Obama is giving 95% of working families tax cuts, not 'all' the people in the US, but 95% of 'working' families...

Read the article - the amount taken out of your paycheck will lessen starting April 1st.

But, wow foss, nice try to save on '95% don't pay taxes' -;)
 
Obama is giving 95% of working families tax cuts, not 'all' the people in the US, but 95% of 'working' families...

Read the article - the amount taken out of your paycheck will lessen starting April 1st.

But, wow foss, nice try to save on '95% don't pay taxes' -;)
It wasn't a save, fox. It was a misread on your part. Not my fault you don't know how to read things.

Are you saying to me that nobody who pays zero taxes works? Do you even know what the income cutoff is?

Furthermore, when Obama raises corporate taxes, do you really think the measly $13 a week in 'tax cuts' will cover the increase in prices? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.

Net result will be a tax increase. You can spin it any way you want, but you can only fool some people.
 
It wasn't a save, fox. It was a misread on your part. Not my fault you don't know how to read things.

It sure read like a misdirect on your part Foss...;)

Are you saying to me that nobody who pays zero taxes works? Do you even know what the income cutoff is?

Lots of people who don't pay taxes work. I don't know the cutoff for EITC, you might have it at your fingers though Foss...

Furthermore, when Obama raises corporate taxes, do you really think the measly $13 a week in 'tax cuts' will cover the increase in prices? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.

And I will cross that bridge when I get it Foss. So, when do you think he will raise corporate taxes?

Net result will be a tax increase. You can spin it any way you want, but you can only fool some people.

And...
Nearly two-thirds of U.S. companies and 68% of foreign corporations do not pay federal income taxes, according to a congressional report released Tuesday.

Twice the 1/3 of individuals who don't pay taxes...
 
It sure read like a misdirect on your part Foss...;)
I don't really care what you think about it. You can misread it all you want.

Lots of people who don't pay taxes work. I don't know the cutoff for EITC, you might have it at your fingers though Foss...

So how can all 'working families' get a tax cut if some of them don't pay taxes?
And I will cross that bridge when I get it Foss. So, when do you think he will raise corporate taxes?
I posted a thread on this already. A bit slow on the uptake, aren't you?

And...
Nearly two-thirds of U.S. companies and 68% of foreign corporations do not pay federal income taxes, according to a congressional report released Tuesday. Twice the 1/3 of individuals who don't pay taxes...
So? Are you saying that this is an oversight that needs to be corrected? What do companies do when their taxes go up? Do you think they should become nonprofits and shut down, or do they raise their prices to compensate?
 
So how can all 'working families' get a tax cut if some of them don't pay taxes?

I am not sure, but I believe the EITC is being increased as well.


I posted a thread on this already. A bit slow on the uptake, aren't you?
I certainly don't have time to read every Obama hate post out here, it would take days. I have better things to do - like work on a campaign for 2010. I would at this point like to see the Senate go 61/39


So? Are you saying that this is an oversight that needs to be corrected? What do companies do when their taxes go up? Do you think they should become nonprofits and shut down, or do they raise their prices to compensate?

Nope, maybe they should quit taking profits off-shore. Maybe we should get rid of the loopholes, and then we could actually lower the taxes that companies pay. With those loopholes we are at 34%, estimates are without loopholes we would be at 30% and collect more in total tax revenues. That is what Obama wants to do is get rid of the loopholes.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top