Report: $2.4 Trillion in New Tax Hikes Coming

You couldnt be more right on!!

casual encounter of AL 8:03PM November 27, 2011

The tax code is so complicated, that I would bet that most people do not maximize their tax deductions, simply because they can not figure out what to claim. It's time to go to a simple 10% flat tax with zero deductions. You make a dollar, you pay 10 cents. Simple as that.

Dave of SD 4:00PM October 27, 2010

The rich pay a greater share of total federal taxes but a lower proportion of their total income. Thus, they pay a lower effective rate of taxation. It is quite impossible for them to pay more of their income in taxes after a tax cut; if they paid 4.6% more taxes nominally it means their income went up even more. It is logically and mathematically impossible for one to pay a greater effective rate of taxation after a tax cut.

I addressed the top 40% issue and it is irrelevant; the CBO analyzes quintiles and also the top 1% and 5%. The top quintile saw a greater reduction in their tax RATE than all other quintiles. This is my point and the CBO data confirms this fact.

You also keep pushing this lie about tax cuts resulting in greater revenue. I've debunked this many times over. Bush had the lowest rate of growth of federal revenue growth, GDP growth and job growth in any business cycle expansion since the late 1940s.

"...the 2001-2007 economic expansion was among the weakest since World War II with regard to overall economic growth. Moreover, revenue growth was very poor during 2001-2007. Real per-capita revenues fell deeply in 2001, 2002, and 2003 and have since risen to barely 2 percent above their 2001 level. Over the course of other postwar economic expansions, they grew by an average of 12 percent."

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=507

Even the BEA data shows this;

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=87&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=2001&LastYear=2008&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no

Note that in 2001, federal tax revenue from all sources was about $1.25 trillion. By 2008, it had increased to only $1.45 trillion. Assuming that these figures are adjusted for inflation we are talking about a less than 2% average annual rate of revenue growth, the lowest in post-WWII history. The financial crisis and recession that took place from 2007 onward was largely responsible.

The problem is that there was very little to invest in other than financial assets; the $2.1 trillion in tax cuts for the rich went into financial speculation causing instability.

Obama doesn't have an anti-business agenda; big business were the only ones to benefit from the bailout/stimulus packages. In the second quarter of this year gross corporate profits before dividend payments were at a record $1.6 trillion; this represents a 37% increase over the second quarter of 2009 when the stimulus package went into effect. Obviously, "socialism" must be quite good for the capitalists!

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2010/pdf/gdp2q10_3rd.pdf (see tables 11&12)

The JFK tax cuts went into effect when the economy was already booming. They weren't really tax cuts anyhow; the 91% top rate was an emergency measure from WWII long overdue for elimination. The 70% top rate that replaced it still produced much higher growth than the economy had under Bush's 35% rate.

steve of IL 9:48PM October 26, 2010

Funny Steve of IL…He writes:

“The fact that the top 40% pay such a large share of total federal income tax is because their income has grown faster than the bottom 50%, many of whose real income has actually declined”

Steve 40+ 50= 90 %. 50 should be 60 to equal 100 %.

Steve says:

“The share of the tax burden of any one income group is meaningless if their overall tax rate declined”

Well rich paid 4.6 % more with tax cut.

Steve says:

“the top 20% saw a three percentage point fall in their total effective federal tax rate; this was more than any other quintile. ”

Yes, but but top 40 % paid 4.6 % more taxes. They were into more investment thanks to tax cuts. Read John F. Kennedy quotes have provided before.

“"But haven’t the [Bush] tax cuts put more of the burden on the backs of the middle class and the poor? No. I examined the Treasury Department analysis of how much the rich would have paid without the Bush tax cuts and how much they actually did pay. The rich are now paying more than they would have paid, not less, after the Bush investment tax cuts. For example, the Treasury’s estimate was that the top 1 percent of earners would pay 31 percent of taxes if the Bush cuts did not go into effect; with the cuts, they actually paid 37 per­cent. Similarly, the share of the top 10 percent of earners was estimated at 63 percent without the cuts; they actually paid 68 percent."

http://factcheckdigest.com/factcheckdigestweb/bush_tax_cuts.htm

Steve says:

“The rich may pay a larger share of total federal taxes than the rest but their income has increased much faster as well”

Exactly what John F. Kennedy says. Cut taxes and rich invest. Pay more taxes. Kennedy started longest Bull Market.

Who cares if “effective rate of taxation” “declined”. They paid more taxes. Allowing many not to have to pay any tax. Rich can support the poor.

Now reason $ 2 + trillion is not invested is fear of losing Bush tax cuts, recession, and obama’s anti business agenda.

I’ve put my money back into my trading account. Bought a few stocks. Preparing for election.

While obama is waving obamacare taxes so business don’t drop their health care before election.

Juan Williams is still a liberal.

Enjoy Nov. 2...

Bill Hedges of MO 8:26PM October 26, 2010