« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Looming Obama Tax Increases Will Hit Working Americans Right Where it Hurts Most

Taking money from the wallet of the person who writes your paycheck is *not*a good idea

Talking of “Bush tax cuts” at this point, as so many seem to do when discussing the change in tax policy set to go into force this coming New Years Day, is beyond absurd.  What’s coming on Jan. 1, 2011 is the Obama Tax Increase — no less than the largest tax increase in our history, courtesy of a president who, last Tax Day, declared that working Americans should be “saying thank you” for the hefty check they had to write Uncle Sam in order to support the eternally vacationing president and his increasingly out-of-control federal bureaucracy.

At a time when copious amounts of smoke and mirrors are required to even create the illusion of an economic recovery in this country, the Obama tax increases are a disaster in the making that will drive the “progressive” knife further into the backs of the American working man and woman.

In their zealous, rigidly ideological desire to both fund their pet programs (like the $800 billion ”porkulus” project) and lavish state trips and to punish the nefarious “rich” who dared to be successful in a country built on merit-based reward, the president and his party — neither of whom are particularly perceptive when it comes to unintended consequences — are setting up the working class not only for an increase in taxes, but a decrease once again in employment and profitability.

The Obama Tax Increases aren’t, of course, limited just to those eeeevil “rich.” Rather, they will directly affect every American who currently pays into our bloated federal system, and in more than one way.

Back in July, Americans for Tax Reform released an outstanding one-pager on what we can expect when the Obama Tax Increases kick in January 1. Here are a few highlights:

- 10% [income tax] bracket rises to an expanded 15%
- The 25% bracket rises to 28%
- The 28% bracket rises to 31%
- The 33% bracket rises to 36%
- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

The marriage penalty will be expanded and the child tax credit reduced, and “the capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013″ (ATR, same citation). Adding further insult and hardship to this is the return of the Death Tax, which is set to jump from 0 to 55%, meaning that over half of what you leave to your children when you die will go directly into Barack Obama and the Federal Government’s pockets. It may be time to start hiding that inheritance cash under a mattress or loose floorboard, unless you really do wish to will Obama & Co. as many rounds of golf and $200m/day Indian vacations as half-plus-five of your legacy can purchase.

The ramifications of the Obama Tax Increases for working class Americans are not limited to money being directly lifted from their paychecks and investment returns by the federal government, though. The fact is, even if the tax increases on the low and middle income portion of the work force (arguable and elastic designations both) are done away with by a lame duck session of the Democrat-led 111th Congress, and increases are put in place only for the “rich,” money — and, worse, jobs — will still be taken directly from working class Americans.

In June, economist Arthur Laffer wrote the following about the looming Obama Tax Increase:

…if people know tax rates will be higher next year than they are this year, what will those people do this year? They will shift production and income out of next year into this year to the extent possible. As a result, income this year has already been inflated above where it otherwise should be and next year, 2011, income will be lower than it otherwise should be.

Also, the prospect of rising prices, higher interest rates and more regulations next year will further entice demand and supply to be shifted from 2011 into 2010. In my view, this shift of income and demand is a major reason that the economy in 2010 has appeared as strong as it has. When we pass the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 2011, my best guess is that the train goes off the tracks and we get our worst nightmare of a severe “double dip” recession.

This was put much more casually and accessibly by Senator-elect Rand Paul (R-KY) on Tuesday night, when he responded to Wolf Blitzer’s on-air inquiry about the wisdom of a tax increase “on only the wealthiest Americans — those making $250,000 a year or more.” Paul said (paraphrase), “We all make a living working for, or selling things to, ‘rich’ people,” so taking more money out of their pockets directly affects the people whose livelihoods depend on that work and those sales.

Spot on.

Unfortunately, extravagant vacations and failed spending programs require capital — and the easiest way for the current administration to gain that is to simply take more of it, at the point of a gun, from the people who currently have it.

As Nathan Wurtzel wrote Wednesday on Twitter, following the president’s amazingly out-of-touch post-election press conference, “People who are scared of freedom bitterly cling to their government and spending” — a play (albeit a true one) on the ivory tower president’s campaign statement that when those wrong-headed, uneducated Americans “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustration.”

Given the penchant this president and his party have already shown for thumbing their collective nose at the wishes of the American people (on the “stimulus,” on Obamacare, etc.), and for referring to those who dare question their policies as “unpatriotic, “dangerous to our democracy” and “our enemies,” it should be no surprise that the outcry of the citizenry, demonstrated both in protests and at the ballot box, would be swept aside by “progressives” who clearly believe they simply know better than everybody else what this country and its people need.

COMMENTS

  • http://www.tobytoons.com TobyToons

    -nt

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    borrowing money from our kids to pay ourselves with lower taxes today, and since we have had about zero fiscal restraint on the spending side (by either party) in the last 40-45 years or so, that is exactly what we are doing. Should we really be borrowing another $4 trillion over ten years when we are already $13 trillion in the hole so we can live a bit better today, but screw our kids tomorrow? While I loved the Bush cuts when they passed, I had assumed that they were going to be accompanied by fiscal restraint and were “paid for” out of the surpluses we were running at the time. Now that I know better, I would like to see the spending cuts and entitlement reform first before we start borrowing for more tax cuts.

    Also, I am not sure that Bush got the cuts “right” in the first place and I would much rather see comprehensive tax reform (get rid of all subsidies and simplify the code) take place following a solid round of real spending cuts.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      to replace the liquidity that additional taxation removed from the private economy?

    • msctex

      You can’t “pay for” being allowed to keep more of your own money. All we pay for is spending and Government expansion.

      • Death_of_the_Donkey

        If you are unwilling to cut spending to stay in line with current tax revenues then you are absolutely borrowing to keep in place (or create new) lower levels of taxation. Do you think the holders of the bonds we floated to cover our deficit care whether we used the proceeds for spending or tax cuts?

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
          • Death_of_the_Donkey

            is this you speak of?

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
          • Death_of_the_Donkey

            Is the money falling from trees? If we have a certain amount of spending obligations we have chosen to undertake (which we have), then choosing to instead of pay for them but to take tax cuts is exactly financing the tax cuts. You can spin it all you want as financing spending, but since we consciously made the choice to lower taxes and not commensurately lower spending, we are in fact borrowing for tax cuts.

            Let’s put this a different way. Let’s assume for a minute that we have a country whose entire budget is $1 million a year for defense and that defense spending is paid for with $1 million of taxes each year. Now, let’s assume that the citizens of that country decide they want a 50% tax cut, thus leaving the country with a 50% deficit each year. Are you actually going to argue semantically that the borrowed money is not for the tax cuts?

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
        • msctex

          I’d do away with entire Departments, as quickly as could it could be accomplished in a responsible manner.

          But what does that have to do with the fact that you no more “pay for” tax cuts than you “pay for” getting a raise at work? More money in the pocket of the citizen means more spending, which is what stimulates an economy. If money isn’t there to be spent, there is stagnation. More money in the pocket of the Government, likewise and unfortunately, means more Government spending, which only makes things worse.

          Income and Outgo are disparate sides of any ledger. Higher tax rates do NOT create greater Government revenue, as they undercut the means of production of the very thing they attempt to harness.

        • JSobieski

          However, the US government is not an individual. So what are the differences:

          (1) Perpetual rollovers are possible. The US can sustain certain debts and deficits on an ongoing and perpetual basis. The US government is never going to “stop working”, retire, or die. Debt and deficits matter as it relates to the percentage of the economy.

          (2) Tax law shapes the economy in ways that go beyond spending and receipts. The CBO underrestimates the revenues that will be collected from any tax increase. Conversely, the CBO overestimates the “costs” associated with tax cuts. The bottom line is that there is a supply side impact of tax policy. Tax cuts don’t necessarily “pay for themselves” although some kinds of tax cuts do (like the Bush cuts in capital gains).

          Some tax cuts are analogous to having an unskilled worker receive training to become a plumber or carpenter, they truly are an investment in the future. However different types of taxes have different magnitude of supply-side impacts. Estate taxes, while harmful, don’t have a supply side impact. Capital gains taxes are on the opposite end of the continuum, with income taxes being in the middle.

          • msctex

            . . .not have a supply side impact? Ignoring for the moment they are less a “tax” and more a confiscation of money already taxed every which way imaginable over the course of a lifetime, how could allowing that money to be passed to heirs, where it would be either invested or spent, not have a supply side impact? Hell, is this not the very definition of Supply Side Economics? That an economy cannot improve without capital available to stimulate it?

            We seem to pretend that money in the hands of the Government has positive attributes, when in fact it more often than not leads to spending which leads to the need for more Government revenue. And without any sense of fiscal restraint, they will spend this money as well, and the cycle becomes perpetual, and we end up 13 trillion in debt.

          • JSobieski

            As is the fact that there are many ways in which estate taxes can be avoided.

            Estate taxes don’t hit the very rich because they have planned around them for years. They don’t hit the poor or the middle class either.

            Estate taxes tend to hit small business owners who aren’t so rich that they have their lawyers number on their speed dial.

            In other words, people aren’t adjusting their behavior until it is too late.

            Death is something one can’t control. You can ramp up or ramp down your business activities, but an estate tax isn’t a tax on a business activity—it is not a tax on income earned, a transaction, or a gain—it is a tax on net worth that is triggered by an event that is totally unrelated to the tax.

            I am open to being wrong on this, but you can show people that in years with cuts in capital gains rates, revenues from capital gains taxes are actually up. I am not aware of any such data with regards to estate taxes, and that is because a tax on death is the one kind of tax that doesn’t impact the taxed activity.

            A sales tax will reduce the number of sales/

            An income tax can discourage income.

            Can a tax on death discourage death?
            Can reducing a tax on death encourage death?

          • msctex

            . . .that it is not a tax. As you say, a “tax” is an event triggered by controllable behavior, and death simply does not qualify. I can tell you from firsthand experience that there is only so much an Estate Tax lawyer can do, and that if there is a 45% rate, a sizable portion of any Estate which qualifies will be paying that 45%. This is while also acknowledging the devastation it can wreak on family farms and/or any business just large enough to qualify, and not liquid enough to withstand the blow.

          • JSobieski

            The effective tax rate paid by the truly reach is remarkably low—in the same way that John Kerry pays very little income tax.

            The key to avoiding taxes are things like trusts, corporations, etc.

          • Death_of_the_Donkey

            (1) I would argue that we are close to approaching the unsustainable level of deficits/debt and thus the rollovers (especially since at some point we are going to roll over into higher interest rates) are going to become more difficult.

            (2) I would also argue that cap gains taxes are one of the few (if not only) area where “tax cuts pay for themselves” (as at a lower cap gains rate we get more sales of gains and thus more transactions at a lower rate generate more total revenue). Income tax rates (at the margins) would have little effect on total revenue as those sales/services will still be demanded/consumed even if an individual actor decides not to “work” anymore to avoid the higher tax rate, his competition will simply get that business.

            My problem isn’t really with tax cuts, it is with our inability to meaningfully cut spending/subsidies and without those spending cuts, any tax cuts (or extension thereof) do in fact add to both the debt and deficit (this would be akin to you deciding you really want to save an extra $50/week but doing so by borrowing another $50/week on your credit card to keep up your current consumption).

          • JSobieski

            nt

    • eastbaylarry

      While I agree that the fiscal restraint that should have gone alone with the cuts did not happen, we’re talking about nearly a decade of the *existing tax rates* now being raised at the worst possible time.

    • Flagstaff

      The issue is what is coming. Installation of new “Obama tax increases.”

      Or, “Obama’s job-killing, economy-destroying, recession-prolonging tax increases.”

      Jeff does a great service by using the right terminology in this article.

      • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel
  • http://www.moccasincreekminutemen.com VizBiz

    take the average income and that tax bracket, and figure out what each person is paying for Obamas India trip. 8 days x 200mil = $2.4bill (is this correct?)

    • http://www.moccasincreekminutemen.com VizBiz
  • crosley

    My fear is Republicans will throw a life preserver to Obama and extend the Bush tax cuts for an additional 2 years. This would SUBSTANTIALLY increase the likelihood that Obama gets reelected. It would make Obama look like a consensus-building moderate. As soon as he got reelected, taxes would go through the roof.

    The Republican leadership should say either make them permanent, or no deal.

    • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

      …the Obama Tax Increase is scheduled to go into effect.

      • msctex

        They play on perception, not Reality. If things improve, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to see BHO get another term.

        Fortunately, he is a zealot, and will likely only make symbolic gestures which will do no good, hoping they are enough to allow him to manipulate perception.

        • davesinsanantonio

          perception is reality.
          Now, that is true if you mean that a person tends to act on his/her perceptions. But, if you mean that your perception can change facts, and that is how the Left usually treats such things, then, of course, you are dead wrong. For example, when stoked to the gills you have the perception that you can fly and thus leap off a tall building…..
          The problem is that such fuzzy thinking is ruining our economy, and the Narcissist in Chief’s perception is that his policies are good for America, and that the people would love them if they were just smart enough to understand them.
          And, no matter what we do, we will not be able to change his perception!!! So, we must work on members of the other branches of government and make sure their perceptions are anchored in reality, and that they forestall any real harm until we can change the fact of his presidency into the fact of his former presidency. Then we can get on with the healing of the wounds he and his nefarious fellow-travellers have inflicted on all of us.

      • audax
    • JSobieski

      Obama is clearly a follower being pulled in this direction. The fact that that it was issue 198935012 on his priority list is pretty clear.

      • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

        All that takes is passing a budget with the specific levels of funding in it. The choice for the Senate and President will be to sign on or let government stop completely.

        The deficit spending needs to stop instantly. We will not be able to sell many, if any, more bonds to China. We need to look at how Harding cut spending in the Depression of 1920 and do the same thing. I think he cut spending (begun by Wilson) by 50% or so. That is a good target now too. Adjust retirement ages for SS and other transfer programs to make them hit the target this year. The point is that when a household runs out of money it cannot spend more than it brings in. The US cannot do that either. And doing it under the regime of Obama will focus the blame for the pain on Obama. The Republicans can earn a reputation for being the tough guys who take tough action to rescue a country on the brink of collapse and become the preferred party for tough times for the next 100 years.

        • JSobieski

          “My fear is Republicans will throw a life preserver to Obama and extend the Bush tax cuts for an additional 2 years. This would SUBSTANTIALLY increase the likelihood that Obama gets reelected. It would make Obama look like a consensus-building moderate. As soon as he got reelected, taxes would go through the roof.

          The Republican leadership should say either make them permanent, or no deal.”

          If the choice becomes a 2 year extension or nothing, I say take the 2 year extension because it is better policy even though it may incrementally help Obama.

    • Scope

      First, remember Obama’s deficit commission is supposed to come out with their recommendations in December, in the heart of the lame duck session. Didn’t Pelosi and the Democrats promise to vote on those recommendations as soon as they are proposed?

      I would fight to extend the Bush tax cuts, for all income brackets, for 2 years, if that’s all they can get. Obama will never sign any permanent tax cut legislation. In 2 years, as the cuts are again soon to expire, the Republican candidates can promise to make the tax rates permanent during the 2012 season. When we elect a Republican President, and gain more seats in the House and Senate, they can pass permanent tax legislation.

      It would be the ultimate of foolishness, and like cutting off your nose to spite your face, to demand all or nothing, particularly with a President that will only continue to invite disdain with the American people every time he opens his mouth, or takes yet another $2 billion dollar vacation, while unemployment is at almost 10%.

  • The_Rebel

    session is a plan to bail out the vastly underfunded union pension plans. Here is the scenario I envision:

    Republicans want to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, but the Democrats only want just a one or two year extension. Plus, they do not want to extend them for those earning above $250,000. Stalemate. But Lindsey Graham (or the Maine twins) is willing to compromise by giving union pension plans hundreds of billions in bailout funds in return for making the cuts permanent at all income levels.

    We must start pinning down our current leadership as to where they stand on this possible compromise. Any that are going wobbly must be called to task immediately. We need to draw the line in the sand right now. We will not allow union bailouts to be attached to any lame duck legislation.

    • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

      And will go right back into the campaigns of Democrats. Any Republican who casts a vote for them is literally voting for the US government to fund his opponent’s campaign against him, and against every member of the Republican caucus.

      • davesinsanantonio

        making any kind of deal, no matter how damaging to even themselves in the long term, if it will give them some anticipated gain in the short term. That is why we have to start looking for statesmen to run, and stop supporting politicians, even politicians who claim to be on our side.
        Just to be clear, a couple of definitions:
        Statesman: someone who puts the best interests of the country ahead of his own.
        Politician: A person whose primary concern is his/her re-election.

  • Scope

    and it reminded of the Drudge headlines yesterday. First there was the article about the 34 war ships going to India, below that was an article about the bomb proof kilometer long, air-conditioned tunnel being constructed for Obama’s visit to the Ghandi museum, and below that was an article entitled- Obama allows GM executives to fly on private jets again.

    Anyone worried about Obama gaining positive recognition for agreeing to extend the tax cuts, and that giving him an advantage in his 2012 re-election, is missing the bigger picture. There is no end in sight for the lowering of unemployment numbers, and, food and gas prices are due to increase dramatically. Foreclosures are still going like gangbusters everywhere, now including many commercial properties. There are many countries that the Obama’s have still to vacation in, on the tax payers dime. One doesn’t need a Harvard degree, or even a very high IQ to be able to find Waldo in the picture.

  • commander

    Bilderberger influenceTO THE WEAK-KNEED REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRAT?..TO ALL THE COMMUNIST IN THE IG,FBI,CIA,AND U.S. Senators and the left wing media outlets?..Wake up america!!!! This goverment is the most corrupt we have had in years. The good old boy network is very much in charge.Mr. obama and pelosi are the puppet masters.How many of their good friends benefited by the agreement ? what a farce. All of the u.sSenators voted for this. I am ashamed to say I voted for the these corupted self serving politicians.With good reason they picked an out of towner to be president.All u.s departments need an overhaul. We need to rid ourselves of the puppet masters and the dept heads that bow down to obama and pelosi.I am sick of the lip service I have been getting from these dummies over violations, their friends are getting away with.in the goverment . Barack Hussein Obama , threatens friends and bows to Mmslim.
    INPEACH OBAMA ,GOD OPEN YOUR EYES.///For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain american or we come under the thumb of the communist Mmslim Barack Hussein OBAMA. This latter must not occur.//////// I love communist obama.will you ,thank you,the commander.ps aka red ink obama.//////// Repost this if you agree, IS communist obama ONE , Because of its secrecy and refusal to issue news releases, the Bilderberg group is frequently accused of political conspiracies. This outlook has been popular on both extremes of the ideological spectrum, even if they disagree on what the group wants to do. Left-wingers accuse the Bilderberg group of conspiring to impose capitalist domination,[21] while some right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society have accused the group of conspiring to impose a world government and planned economy.Obama’s India trip really an Emergency Bilderberger Meeting ?THE COMMADER //////// .Is Barack Obama pushing forward dangerous policies that are bringing the United States closer to a socialist dictatorship. Are you even aware?

    2. What is the major proof of the Bilderberger influence over many of the world events in the last decade!

    3. Is it really true that the recent global financial collapse was engineered by the Bilderberg Group. Why was their 2010 annual meeting held in Greece?
    4. Bilderberger influence,president George W. Bush says he was “blindsided” by the financial crisis that shadowed his final months in office, but adds that the Democratic-controlled Congress shares some of the blame. -

    Now that the agenda for global government and a centralized world economic system is public and out in the open, the importance of the Bilderberg Group?s annual conference rests on grooming political candidates. The lion?s share of Bilderberg?s 2010 agenda has already been announced by its members weeks before ? it will revolve around a potential military strike on Iran as well as the future collapse of the euro.

    —– Bilderberg group in United States——-
    George W. Ball (1954, 1993),[13] Under Secretary of State 1961-1968, Ambassador to U.N. 1968
    Sandy Berger (1999),[14] National Security Advisor, 1997?2001
    Timothy Geithner(2009),[15] Treasury Secretary
    Lee H. Hamilton (1997),[1] former US Congressman
    Christian Herter,[16] (1961, 1963, 1964, 1966), 53rd United States Secretary of State
    Charles Douglas Jackson (1957, 1958, 1960),[17] Special Assistant to the President
    Joseph E. Johnson[18] (1954), President Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
    Henry Kissinger[19] (1957, 1964, 1966, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1977, 2008),[20] 56th United States Secretary of State
    Colin Powell (1997),[1] 65th United States Secretary of State
    Lawrence Summers,[15] Director of the National Economic Council
    Paul Volcker,[15] Chair of the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board and Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1979?1987
    Roger Altman (2009),[15] Deputy Treasury Secretary from 1993?1994, Founder and Chairman of Evercore Partners
    [edit] Presidents
    Bill Clinton (1991),[21][22] President 1993-2001
    Gerald Ford (1964, 1966),[4][23] President 1974-1977
    [edit] Senators
    John Edwards (2004),[24][25] Senator from North Carolina 1999-2005
    Chuck Hagel (1999, 2000),[26] Senator from Nebraska 1997-2009
    Sam Nunn (1996, 1997),[1] Senator from Georgia 1972-1997
    [edit] Governors
    Rick Perry (2007),[27] Governor of Texas 2000-current
    Mark Sanford (2008),[28] Governor of South Carolina , the United States closer to a socialist dictatorship. Are you even aware? Repost this if you agree,