100 days to US Taxmageddon

Amerika

We only have 100 days from Sunday until all hell breaks loose. On January 1, 2013 (the day George W. Bush-era tax cuts expire and Obamacare taxes kick in) the US will undergo the largest tax hikes in history.

http://www.atr.org/days-taxmageddon-a7203

If President Obama wins election, it will leave him and Congress just six weeks to devise solutions. If Romney wins he has promised to do something about the soaring increases, but he can’t really do anything till January 20, 2013 when he takes the oath of office. And Congress will be full of lame ducks who will just complicate matters regardless who wins the election.

Thank you Barack Obama for letting this (what Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke calls "a massive fiscal cliff") go to the midnight hour, with seemingly no hope of something being done in the meantime.

Not a good scenario at this point, regardless who becomes POTUS and who ends up controlling the House and Senate.

Unless something is done immediately, January 1, 2013 will be the start of a worldwide recession of great magnitude IMO.

BUY GOLD NOW!

latenia

How do these new tax rates compare to those under previous Republican presidents from the last 60 years?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

We only have 100 days from Sunday until all hell breaks loose. On January 1, 2013 (the day George W. Bush-era tax cuts expire and Obamacare taxes kick in) the US will undergo the largest tax hikes in history.

http://www.atr.org/days-taxmageddon-a7203

If President Obama wins election, it will leave him and Congress just six weeks to devise solutions. If Romney wins he has promised to do something about the soaring increases, but he can’t really do anything till January 20, 2013 when he takes the oath of office. And Congress will be full of lame ducks who will just complicate matters regardless who wins the election.

Thank you Barack Obama for letting this (what Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke calls "a massive fiscal cliff") go to the midnight hour, with seemingly no hope of something being done in the meantime.

Not a good scenario at this point, regardless who becomes POTUS and who ends up controlling the House and Senate.

Unless something is done immediately, January 1, 2013 will be the start of a worldwide recession of great magnitude IMO.

BUY GOLD NOW!

Oh the humanity! It's time to start hoarding tins of beans.

Although, I have to admit I'm confused as to how a slight rise in tax on the rich in the USA will cause a massive global recession.

Brian?

By the way it's the Grover Norquists "pledge" that is stopping any deal on tax.

The Dems are unwilling to sign a deal that will not raise taxes on the rich, Mr. Norquist won't allow this.

So how is this President Obamas fault again? It's nothing to do with him.

joseph brand

briankeating wrote: »

Oh the humanity! It's time to start hoarding tins of beans.

Although, I have to admit I'm confused as to how a slight rise in tax on the rich in the USA will cause a massive global recession.

Doomsday Preppers. Those intelligent folks got their sh1t together.

BTW, I hear some stores are doing deals on a tonne of dry crackers. :rolleyes:

How will the rich survive having their lives the exact same? Their circumstances won't change but, eh, what are they going to do?

Denerick

Fiscally responsible conservatives would raise taxes because of the dreadful budget crisis. An honest conservative would recognise since no-one wants to touch the main items of expenditure (military spending, social security, medicare) that taxes would simply have to go up, there would be no alternative.

Amerika

On an individual level, average taxpayers will see their taxes increase by about $2,000 to $4,000 next year! Money they don’t have. Money that will go to the government to waste, and not into the economy. Less investment. Fewer jobs. Nothing to worry about? Just stick your heads in the sand and keep joking about it, eh?

Dirk Gently

I suppose since the rapture and the mayan calender where an anti-climax we need some new doomsday shit to tie us over for a while.

These are nowhere near the largest tax hikes in history.

Duck Soup

briankeating wrote: »

By the way it's the Grover Norquists "pledge" that is stopping any deal on tax.

The Dems are unwilling to sign a deal that will not raise taxes on the rich, Mr. Norquist won't allow this.

So how is this President Obamas fault again? It's nothing to do with him.

I'm assuming we're talking about the fiscal cliff here. As I recall, this was a doomsday scenario, agreed to by both Republicans and Democrats, that if the two parties couldn't get their shít together in congress to reach agreement, the measures would automatically be enacted.

And so to Grover Norquist. Obviously the key thing here is compromise. Some cuts, some tax rises. Many Republican politicians have signed Norquist's pledge to never, ever, ever raise a single cent in extra taxes even if the Golden Gate Bridge is falling into the water and the troops are boiling shoe leather for soup.

If one side has already said it's not going to compromise under any circumstances, how can there be an agreement and the fiscal cliff avoided?

MadYaker

Why are the republicans in congress so opposed to tax increases of any sort? Surely that is totally irrational, you can't run a country without collecting taxes.

Brian?

MadYaker wrote: »

Why are the republicans in congress so opposed to tax increases of any sort? Surely that is totally irrational, you can't run a country without collecting taxes.

They signed a pledge drafted by Grover Norquist to not raise taxes under any circumstances. If any individual members break ranks and do the responsible thing and agree a deal, they won't have a penny from him or his backers for their re elections campaigns.

Amerika, why won't you answer me? How is any of this Obama's fault? It's stone walling by the GOP that is causing the problem!

Amerika

MadYaker wrote: »

Why are the republicans in congress so opposed to tax increases of any sort? Surely that is totally irrational, you can't run a country without collecting taxes.

Republicans and Conservatives don’t mind paying taxes, but they have a real problem with how our government spends it, and with increasing taxes to cover the negligent way government spends money it doesn't have. And yes, GW Bush was also guilty of it, but no were near the irresponsible nature of what B Obama has done in the last 4 years.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

MadYaker wrote: »

Why are the republicans in congress so opposed to tax increases of any sort? Surely that is totally irrational, you can't run a country without collecting taxes.

Republicans and Conservatives don’t mind paying taxes, but they have a real problem with how our government spends it, and with increasing taxes to cover the negligent way government spends money it doesn't have. And yes, GW Bush was also guilty of it, but no were near the irresponsible nature of what B Obama has done in the last 4 years.

Again, how is Obama responsible for the inability of congress to reach a deal on tax reform?

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

Again, how is Obama responsible for the inability of congress to reach a deal on tax reform?

Perhaps the "educator" should educate himself to see how President's like Reagan, Clinton, and the Bushs' got things done with Congress controlled by the other side.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

Amerika, why won't you answer me? How is any of this Obama's fault? It's stone walling by the GOP that is causing the problem!

I do answer most of your questions, not always directly... but in some of my posts that tackle numerous questions put to me. You just don't like what I have to say.

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

Republicans and Conservatives don’t mind paying taxes, but they have a real problem with how our government spends it, and with increasing taxes to cover the negligent way government spends money it doesn't have. And yes, GW Bush was also guilty of it, but no were near the irresponsible nature of what B Obama has done in the last 4 years.

But... but... most of the money goes to the three things that Republicans vow to uphold and even increase! Medicare, social security and military spending. Please outline in detail how the Republican party will dramatically cut these items of expenditure in order to reduce the deficit. If you cannot, please state a valid reason why taxes shouldn't be increased as a result (The only path open to a fiscally responsible conservative who doesn't want to mortgage his childrens future away)

You'll get special credit for admitting that every Republican politician in living memory has lied to the electorate about their fiscal conservative credentials. I mean, outright lies.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

Perhaps the "educator" should educate himself to see how President's like Reagan, Clinton, and the Bushs' got things done with Congress controlled by the other side.

Perhaps you'd do well to remember that each one of those had houses that would work with them.

This one doesn't.

Glad I could set you straight.

20Cent

So Romney has released his 2011 tax returns. 14.1%! Life is good for the 1%.

http://www.thejournal.ie/mitt-romney-tax-returns-605185-Sep2012/

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

Again, how is Obama responsible for the inability of congress to reach a deal on tax reform?

Perhaps the "educator" should educate himself to see how President's like Reagan, Clinton, and the Bushs' got things done with Congress controlled by the other side.

Apples and oranges. None of the above had to deal with a congress that made it their no.1 priority to stop them being re elected.

None of them had to deal with a congress that point blank refuses to raise any tax in times of a massive deficit.

Worst of all, none of them had to deal with the poisonous Grover Norquists pledge.

So I say again, how is this Obamas fault. The GOP point blank refuses to engage.

Manach

20Cent wrote: »

So Romney has released his 2011 tax returns. 14.1%! Life is good for the 1%.

http://www.thejournal.ie/mitt-romney-tax-returns-605185-Sep2012/

Not only that, but as he "donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011", just goes to prove how out of touch and plutocratic he is :rolleyes:

Denerick

Manach wrote: »

Not only that, but as he "donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011", just goes to prove how out of touch and plutocratic he is :rolleyes:

Pay your bloody taxes, then give to charity. The American tax system is rigged. Charity is always better provided by the state, private charity creates un-necessary distortions and ends up redistributing money to various pet causes rather than contributing to the central causes of poverty. I believe Romney gives most of his money to an epilepsy charity and to the Mormon church. Good for him. But since most American cities have huge homeless problems, growing inequality and growing poverty, I think plutocrats should at least pay the same percentage of their income in taxation as middle class people do. I know, shocking. I mean, I'd love it if I could forgo taxes for ten years and then build a community center out in Mayo or somewhere and have it named after myself. We all would. Unfortunately the burden of the welfare state often falls on ordinary people, while the plutocrats like to delude themselves that their charitable giving actually makes a real difference to what makes life an abject misery for so many people.

20Cent

Manach wrote: »

Not only that, but as he "donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011", just goes to prove how out of touch and plutocratic he is :rolleyes:

He's obligated by his cult religion to pay them lots of money. Its already a very wealthy cult religion.

Seaneh

Amerika wrote: »

Republicans and Conservatives don’t mind paying taxes, but they have a real problem with how our government spends it, and with increasing taxes to cover the negligent way government spends money it doesn't have. And yes, GW Bush was also guilty of it, but no were near the irresponsible nature of what B Obama has done in the last 4 years.

Your country is in debt because of two bull**** wars and years of fisical retardation from successive rebublican controlled houeses. Increases in military and state spending and constant tax cuts.

What the hell did they expect to happen?

****ing idicoy.

joseph brand

Seaneh wrote: »

Your country is in debt because of two bull**** wars and years of fisical retardation from successive rebublican controlled houeses. Increases in military and state spending and constant tax cuts.

What the hell did they expect to happen?

****ing idicoy.

They knew what would happen. They just didn't care. Plenty of people have made a fortune, (e.g. military contractors) while the 'ordinary Joe' lost his home. The plutocrats haven't even noticed, or felt the effects of the recession. Although, these must be great times for someone with a few million in the bank. Property and land are available at rock bottom prices. Rich get richer. Need money to make money.

As long as politicians in the US (Congress), are wealthy and out of touch with the people they represent, can we really expect them to give a rats? They just want to get paid.

Check out this arrogant, dead-eyed, sociopath, John Boehner.

At a press conference Friday morning, a reporter asked Boehner whether Republicans were "eventually going to have to raise taxes in some way" if the president wins in November.

"No," replied Boehner. "Raising taxes, according to Ernst and Young, would threaten our economy with a loss of 700,000 jobs. Now why would I ever be for something like that? I'm not."

Boehner's stand-firm stance is not shared by all of his caucus. According to the Washington Post, "senior Republicans in the House and the Senate" admit that if the president is reelected, he will have leverage to push for allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on income above $250,000.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a senior member of the budget committee, admitted that if Obama does prevail in November, taxes are likely to increase for wealthy families.

Absolute horsesh1t and he knows it. Bare-faced lies.

Congress has an approval rating of about 10%, according to a Gallup Poll from August this year. I wonder if Obstructionism has anything to do with it?

joseph brand

Not to go OT, but if you want a laugh, here's Boehner crying on 60 Minutes.

Some of the words Cenk uses to describe the interview are 'cream puff' and 'incredulous'.

On Sunday night in a lengthy "60 Minutes" interview, the Speaker-designate broke down twice, talking about his rise from humble beginnings as a janitor and again in talking about his hope for children.

"Family -- kids -- I can't go to a school anymore. I used to go to a lot of schools. And you see all these little kids running around. Can't talk about it," he stammered.

The flood gates opened after this.

Is this his way of winning the mammy vote?

Amerika

In 2011, the Romneys paid $1,935,708 in taxes on $13,696,951 in mostly investment income, donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011. Now adding the donations to charity (which the Left wants the government to take control of charitable distributions) with taxes paid, that equates to 43% of Income.

Lets compare to Barack Obama's 2001 federal taxes. Adjusted gross income of $1,728,096, and he paid $453,770 in total federal tax. And he donated $245,075 to 36 different charities. Adding those two together it represents 40% of income.

In addition, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (the world's largest professional services firm and the largest of the "Big Four" accountancy firms measured by 2011 revenues) issued a notarized letter attesting to Romney’s tax rates from 1990-2009. Some highlights:

• In each year during the entire 20-year period, the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes.
  
• Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%.
  
• Over the entire 20-year period, the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate was 13.66%.
  
• Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income.
  
• Over the entire 20-year period, the total federal and state taxes owed plus the total charitable donations deducted represented 38.49% of total AGI.

Well Played!

http://www.mittromney.com/disclosure/letter-from-pwc

Memnoch

Amerika wrote: »

In 2011, the Romneys paid $1,935,708 in taxes on $13,696,951 in mostly investment income, donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011. Now adding the donations to charity (which the Left wants the government to take control of charitable distributions) with taxes paid, that equates to 43% of Income.

Lets compare to Barack Obama's 2001 federal taxes. Adjusted gross income of $1,728,096, and he paid $453,770 in total federal tax. And he donated $245,075 to 36 different charities. Adding those two together it represents 40% of income.

In addition, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (the world's largest professional services firm and the largest of the "Big Four" accountancy firms measured by 2011 revenues) issued a notarized letter attesting to Romney’s tax rates from 1990-2009. Some highlights:

• In each year during the entire 20-year period, the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes.
  
• Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%.
  
• Over the entire 20-year period, the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate was 13.66%.
  
• Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income.
  
• Over the entire 20-year period, the total federal and state taxes owed plus the total charitable donations deducted represented 38.49% of total AGI.

Well Played!

http://www.mittromney.com/disclosure/letter-from-pwc

Complete copout. Why is he not releasing the full actual tax returns? Looks like he really has something to hide.

Of course facts have never mattered to you and swallowing the GOP line wholesale is your modus operandi after all.

Denerick

Hi Amerika. Still waiting on how you, as a responsible fiscal conservative, would cut social security, medicare and military spending in the interests of reducing the budget deficit you lot seem to be anxious about. Thanks.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

In 2011, the Romneys paid $1,935,708 in taxes on $13,696,951 in mostly investment income, donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011. Now adding the donations to charity (which the Left wants the government to take control of charitable distributions) with taxes paid, that equates to 43% of Income.

Lets compare to Barack Obama's 2001 federal taxes. Adjusted gross income of $1,728,096, and he paid $453,770 in total federal tax. And he donated $245,075 to 36 different charities. Adding those two together it represents 40% of income.

In addition, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (the world's largest professional services firm and the largest of the "Big Four" accountancy firms measured by 2011 revenues) issued a notarized letter attesting to Romney’s tax rates from 1990-2009. Some highlights:

• In each year during the entire 20-year period, the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes.
  
• Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%.
  
• Over the entire 20-year period, the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate was 13.66%.
  
• Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income.
  
• Over the entire 20-year period, the total federal and state taxes owed plus the total charitable donations deducted represented 38.49% of total AGI.

Well Played!

http://www.mittromney.com/disclosure/letter-from-pwc

So the year before he ran for president he almost paid his due in your opinion. How noble of him. He gets a golf clap for effort.

It means nothing to me though, I still believe the only reason he hasn't released more tax returns is that in previous years he paid as close to zero as legally possible.

You don't wonder if maybe he upped his charitable donations because he new a run at the presidency was coming? Do you ever think critically about anything Mitt says or does?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I do answer most of your questions, not always directly... but in some of my posts that tackle numerous questions put to me. You just don't like what I have to say.

You're half right, I don't like what you say. Mostly because it's factually inaccurate.

You rarely answer my entire posts though and this thread is a perfect example. The cliff, whatever happens is not a great idea but it's the GOP stone walling that is causing the stand off. You blame President Obama, I want to know why you think this is his fault?

Wasn't Simpson-Bowles a bipartisan commission? Why not engage meaningfully on their recommendations?

I can name any number of things the Obama administration has gotten wrong, but this is not one of them. They haven't even had a chance to do anything wrong.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

In 2011, the Romneys paid $1,935,708 in taxes on $13,696,951 in mostly investment income, donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011. Now adding the donations to charity (which the Left wants the government to take control of charitable distributions) with taxes paid, that equates to 43% of Income.

Lets compare to Barack Obama's 2001 federal taxes. Adjusted gross income of $1,728,096, and he paid $453,770 in total federal tax. And he donated $245,075 to 36 different charities. Adding those two together it represents 40% of income.

In addition, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (the world's largest professional services firm and the largest of the "Big Four" accountancy firms measured by 2011 revenues) issued a notarized letter attesting to Romney’s tax rates from 1990-2009. Some highlights:

• In each year during the entire 20-year period, the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes.
  
• Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%.
  
• Over the entire 20-year period, the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate was 13.66%.
  
• Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income.
  
• Over the entire 20-year period, the total federal and state taxes owed plus the total charitable donations deducted represented 38.49% of total AGI.

Well Played!

http://www.mittromney.com/disclosure/letter-from-pwc

"Well played"? LOL! In the same manner a wet fart in a church service is well played.

A. He artificially boosted his tax rate so his 13% claim would be true retroactively
B. Directly from the campaign itself:

"The Romneys’ generous charitable donations in 2011 would have significantly reduced their tax obligation for the year. The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the Governor’s statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13% in income taxes in each of the last 10 years.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40952_Friday_News_Dump-_Romneys_2011_Tax_Return

Had he actually claimed everything he had a right to claim, he would only have paid around 9 percent. And he stated that he wouldn't be 'qualified to be POTUS' if he paid more taxes than necessary. So he just disqualified himself.

C. In case it slipped by you, a summary of tax returns in a notarized letter is not releasing tax returns.

Mmmmm.... tastes like..... utter hypocrisy from a plutocrat.

Reindeer

Amerika wrote: »

In 2011, the Romneys paid $1,935,708 in taxes on $13,696,951 in mostly investment income, donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011. Now adding the donations to charity (which the Left wants the government to take control of charitable distributions) with taxes paid, that equates to 43% of Income.

Why did Romney then only legally claim 2.25 million in donations for tax purposes? That's rhetorical, in case the brilliance of those tax documents have blinded you.

In addition, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (the world's largest professional services firm and the largest of the "Big Four" accountancy firms measured by 2011 revenues) issued a notarized letter attesting to Romney’s tax rates from 1990-2009. Some highlights:
[
Well Played!

http://www.mittromney.com/disclosure/letter-from-pwc

It's only well-played if you believe that a letter from a private organization is the same as IRS tax documents. Which of course, they are not. If they were, and the information was similar, let alone identical, Romney would release his tax documents. Which he hasn't, nor will he ever. If they were proof, they would have already seen light.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

You blame President Obama, I want to know why you think this is his fault?

I already provided the answer… Because I believe him to be unqualified at POTUS and doesn’t know how to work with Congress to get things done as Obama’s predecessors had. As I stated, you just don’t like what I have to say.

Wasn't Simpson-Bowles a bipartisan commission? Why not engage meaningfully on their recommendations?

Yes. And I think it is something that with a few tweaks, the Democrats and Republicans could have ironed out an acceptable compromise utilizing it as the basis… enough so in order to get a 60 majority vote on it.

President Barack Obama blew it when he rejected the Simpson-Bowles 2010 deficit-reduction proposal.

Amerika

Reindeer wrote: »

Why did Romney then only legally claim 2.25 million in donations for tax purposes? That's rhetorical, in case the brilliance of those tax documents have blinded you.

Because Romney stated he pays at least 13% in taxes in his campaign speeches. And although he could legally have taken all of the charitable deductions, he didn’t and needlessly paid more than he owed. A man of character!

A politician doing what they promise on the campaign trail… now there’s something new. Perhaps Obama should take a cue from Romney.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I already provided the answer… Because I believe him to be unqualified at POTUS and doesn’t know how to work with Congress to get things done as Obama’s predecessors had. As I stated, you just don’t like what I have to say.

So your answer is that it must be Obamas fault somehow but you can't give me a specific reason. The GOP are refusing to raise a single tax to aid deficit reduction, even though the Dems are agreeing to massive spending cuts and somehow it's all Obamas fault. Terrible reasoning.

At least you're right about one thing, I don't like what you have to say.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

The GOP are refusing to raise a single tax to aid deficit reduction, even though the Dems are agreeing to massive spending cuts and somehow it's all Obamas fault.

RULE 5, eh? (“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.)

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

The GOP are refusing to raise a single tax to aid deficit reduction, even though the Dems are agreeing to massive spending cuts and somehow it's all Obamas fault.

RULE 5, eh? (“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.)

What rule book are we using? The above is hardly ridiculing you, I can honestly say your position this issue has me completely bamboozled.

I am out of this discussion for now, it's pointless.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

What rule book are we using? The above is hardly ridiculing you, I can honestly say your position this issue has me completely bamboozled.

Alinsky.

And if you would have noted the line I quoted, you would have seen my comment was aimed at your GOP embellishments, not the one against me.

- - - - -

Also, let it be noted that some are taking it very serious and afraid of the impending Fiscal Cliff, and willing to do something about it. (Just apparently not anyone with the initials B.O. who considers life on the campaign trail as job #1)

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=6E108E75-78BF-4023-BF23-DAEC8F15C5D7

hooradiation

Amerika wrote: »

Also, let it be noted that some are taking it very serious and afraid of the impending Fiscal Cliff, and willing to do something about it. (Just apparently not anyone with the initials B.O. who considers life on the campaign trail as job #1)

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=6E108E75-78BF-4023-BF23-DAEC8F15C5D7

Well, I suppose if Obama simply stopped campaigning then Romney might have a slight chance, so I can see why you're being so wilfully disingenuous here.