Obama’s Not So Secret Plan to Raise Taxes

Not unheard of and reasons for doing so...

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Funding+Extended+Conflicts:+Korea,+Vietnam,+and+the+War+on+Terror.-a0213855029

I believe it is 10% of people pay 70% of the taxes.

Bill Hedges of MO 2:10PM March 05, 2010

I believe that during the W years the cost of the wars was never figured into the budget. That was a sneaky way of hiding the cost. If we want to invade other countries and put lots of expensive subcontractors to work, we have to be willing to pay up front. I support tax increases for the top money collectors in the US. They have redistributed the wealth to themselves, and the government can re-redistribute the wealth to pay for the wars and roads and health care for seniors, etc.

mothermary of OH 11:32PM February 11, 2010

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123870974208284245.html

APRIL 3, 2009

Congress Approves Obama's $3.6 Trillion Budget

“WASHINGTON -- The House and Senate Thursday approved their versions of a fiscal 2010 budget that included President Barack Obama's biggest priorities, giving the president a significant victory as he works to shift the government's direction from the Bush era.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29632177/

March 11, 2009

Obama signs massive, 'imperfect' spending bill

“WASHINGTON - Calling it an "imperfect" bill, President Barack Obama signed a $410 billion spending package Wednesday that includes billions in earmarks like those he promised to curb in last year's campaign.”

...

“The 1,132-page bill has an extraordinary reach, wrapping together nine spending bills to fund the annual operating budgets of every Cabinet department except Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs.”

…

“The $410 billion bill includes significant increases in food aid for the poor, energy research and other programs. It was supposed to have been completed last fall, but Democrats opted against election-year battles with Republicans and former President George W. Bush.”

The proposition that Bush's tax cuts caused the current budget woes is false. Obama could have easily removed those tax cuts had he wanted to. Both Obama and the Democrats decided not to because they wanted to political benefit apparently. Now they criticize Bush for their inaction, if they truly believed the economy would be helped by removing the tax cuts, then their only motivation for not removing the tax cuts can be politics.

There was a recession in 2001, when first Bush got into office.

Bush also had to deal with costly emergencies such as 911 and later Katrina and record midwest flooding.

In 2008 Bush was dealing with the recession and he did the first TARP, at $700 billion, but half of that was given to Obama after Bush left office. Most of that has been paid back after Bush left office, under Obama.

Bush signed only 3 of the 15 appropriations bills for fy 2009, i.e. funding bills that are based on the President's budget request. Congres s signed a continuing funding bill to fund the government at 2008 levels until March 2009. The rest were signed by Obama in March 2009 and Obama negotiated with Congress on them.

Obama signed the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bills in April 2009.

Obama also had another recovery bill for $787 billion in February 2009. Bush's economic stimulus bill was $152 billion for 2008.

win of IL 1:23PM February 05, 2010

One of the biggest "back door" tax increases is the proposed international tax reform bill If enacted, what incentive is there for companies like Coca-Cola to remain a US based multinational? Why not move the corporation to Switzerland, where the favorable corporate tax structure has long lured the operations of large MNCs such as Johnson & Johnson and Burger King Holdings Inc.

According to KPMG’s Corporate and Indirect Tax Survey 2009, the current effective U.S. Corporate tax rate is 40%, while in Switzerland the effective tax rate is 21.2%--and considerably less in some cantons. Under the proposed bill, the tax gulf will only grow wider.

The timing could not be better for companies looking to relocate their operations to Switzerland. An emerging trend among Swiss cantons is to compete for the business of MNCs by lowering their corporate tax rates. The cantons of Zug, Schaffhausen (just north of Zurich) and Lucerne have all cut their tax rates in a heated battle to lure more MNCs.

For U.S.-based MNC’s looking to dodge the proposed international tax bullet, Switzerland provides the most favorable corporate tax environment in which to relocate U.S. operations. It will be interesting to see what happens with the proposed tax. Until then, MNCs should take a look at the Swiss system of corporate taxation. This was the subject of an article in the International Business Law Advisor www.intlbusinesslaw.com

Santiago A. Cueto of FL 1:32AM February 05, 2010