Seeking Alpha

MARKET CURRENTS
real-time news and commentary for investors

  • Wednesday, August 11, 2010, 5:20 PM Obama’s plan to let lapse the Bush-era tax cuts for upper-income Americans would have little effect on those taxpayers, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. The 3.8M filers who fall in the $200K-$500K income range would pay an average of $532 extra, the study says.
Track new comments on this story

This news story has 42 comments:

  • So it would raise $2.5B which wouldn't make a dent in the deficit. But at least we'd feel good about soaking the rich.
    11 Aug 2010, 05:34 PM Reply Like
  • If I read it right and I re read it to make sure, it would raise 2B on those taxpayers between 250K and 500K. Taxpayers between 500K and 1M would pay 6B more and those making greater than 1M would add 30B more. It all nicely adds up to a 38B tax increase. Personally I think the tax break on 250K+ should expire. Now the big dogs can find ways to invest their money to avoid paying the big tax bill.
    11 Aug 2010, 05:56 PM Reply Like
  • True little impact on that segment but a beneficial impact on the Treasury and nation.
    11 Aug 2010, 05:35 PM Reply Like
  • How many jobs will they cut that will cost the treasury....????
    There is no free lunch....Galt knows
    11 Aug 2010, 05:40 PM Reply Like
  • Having a "beneficial impact on the Treasury" is not sufficient moral grounds for the government to take the personal property of its citizens.
    11 Aug 2010, 05:43 PM Reply Like
  • spoze you can always go to an island and build your own highways and libraries and stuff and support your own army and navy. will the nation of chabig be contributing troops to the afghan conflict? geeez, show some responsibility for living in this country and quit whining. its easy to criticize. sure lots of things are wrong. but improve it! if you have all the right answers, run for office. maybe your mother will vote for you. I sure wont.
    11 Aug 2010, 06:03 PM Reply Like
  • Attaboy dfbell. I'm on your side. I've got two thumbs but they'll only let me use one.
    11 Aug 2010, 08:15 PM Reply Like
  • So you don't mind if we just go ahead and raise your taxes on the basis that government can better spend your money than you can? Of course we need the things you mentioned. But "because the government needs it" is not a good reason to disadvantage some to benefit some others. That's wealth redistribution.
    11 Aug 2010, 10:19 PM Reply Like
  • No, we should allow the Bush tax cuts to expire because all that stuff costs money. we spent money we didnt have. we have a trillion dollar war debt. we have bridges and roads crumbling. we have kids dying of hunger. we have a crappy school system.

    yo do know that when the tax cuts were passed, we had an annual surplus then and the stated intention was to discontinue them if we went into a deficit. One year later, Dick Cheney said "deficits dont matter" and that was that.

    we need money.

    we never should have given the rich the tax break to start with. it never trickled down. it did nothing for the economy. nothing except out us closer to bankruptcy.

    enjoy your freedom and the absolute best military money can buy, and pay your taxes.
    12 Aug 2010, 06:15 AM Reply Like
  • More money for the parasites.
    11 Aug 2010, 06:04 PM Reply Like
  • Hmmm. I've done some research myself and have found that almost no one would miss $1 from their overall wealth. Thus, I decree everyone send me $1 and I will do my best to use it to stimulate the economy by buying cool stuff for me. Please send your dollar to...
    11 Aug 2010, 06:13 PM Reply Like
  • OK, here is my buck. <grin>
    I'm counting on you to stimulate the economy!
    Please start with buying Madden 11.
    11 Aug 2010, 06:19 PM Reply Like
  • This is not true - funny math. What about realizing a $20k long term capital gain in say a corporate bond fund in a taxable account? 15% rate (2010) vs. 20%? (2011) = extra $1000 to Uncle Sam...

    11 Aug 2010, 06:20 PM Reply Like
  • and $16k instead of $17k for the citizen
    11 Aug 2010, 06:25 PM Reply Like
  • I can not support ANY tax increase without a major plan to cut spending, reform govt. pensions, eliminate many govt agencies,secure the border,immigration enforcement, etc.. Congress is addicted to spending - they know nothing else. Those extra billions in tax dollars are the same - its just a matter of ownership. Whose decision is best, when it comes to spending that money ??? The person capable of earning it or the govt ??
    11 Aug 2010, 06:22 PM Reply Like
  • Bing bing bing ... we have a winner!!! you managed to cover all of the Luntz talking points. Excellent meme. Boehner would be so proud.

    So you think you have already paid your share for the $1,000,000,000,000 iraq/afghanistan adventure over the last 9 years or so??? oh wait, that was all done off-budget while the last president decided to cut taxes for the rich.

    Hmmmm, wonder how WE will pay for this tab .....
    11 Aug 2010, 06:31 PM Reply Like
  • The scheme of "tax someone else to pay for my wants" is failing as one should have expected it would when you have >50% benefiting from government largesse and forcing the bill on to the minority. It's time for a return to morality and seeing to it that freeloading comes with a well-deserved stigma.
    11 Aug 2010, 07:26 PM Reply Like
  • Yeah, what's with all those middle and lower class freeloaders who have seen no real wage increase over the past 10 year. While the rich have accumulated 90% of the money.

    The rich are benefiting from the perverted economic system we have. Good thing they are doing their part by all volunteering to fight the wars.

    No everyone quit your whining, get up tomorrow and go to your mcdonalds job or down to the recruiting office. And quit disturbing the rich who are letting some of their ever-growing capital make the economy better for you.

    Quit pissing on my leg and calling it trickle down.
    11 Aug 2010, 07:37 PM Reply Like
  • "Yeah, what's with all those middle and lower class freeloaders who have seen no real wage increase over the past 10 year."

    The US has one of the most progressive tax regimes in the world and your answer to what this has wrought is more of the same? This isn't about the middle or lower classes - they won't benefit by this heist. This is about you and your cronies selling snakeoil to keep the ponzi scheme of bloated government payrolls, overpaid civil "servants", and obscene public pension systems going as long as you can.

    Oregon authorities have already come out and said that the portion of this $28B "stimulus" allocated to Oregon is going to shore up the vastly under-funded and obscenely generous PERS (public employee retirement system). The lies of the democrats and Obama were just that - LIES. This is not going to help children or keep teach layoffs from occurring (which always hit the most recently hired with the least union weight and thus expendable).
    12 Aug 2010, 11:32 AM Reply Like
  • Yeah, lets roll those taxes back up to Clinton level. You remember that time? When we were having surpluses (that's the opposite of deficits, in case you never saw that word) and the Treasury was seriously considering no more 30 year bonds???

    Clinton era job creation = 22.5 million
    Bush job creation = 3 million

    Aaaaa the good old days.

    Nope wouldnt want to go back to that repressive time. We need some more Bush tax cuts?
    12 Aug 2010, 04:09 PM Reply Like
  • You're given to simple cause and effect analysis. The multiple factors involved had little to do with the tax rates. Rather the surpluses were in spite of the tax rate increases, due to very high productivity and GDP growth as the greatest tech boom in history occurred. This was discussed at length in the linked thread. See Morg's comment of Aug 9, 12pm, and mine below his.
    13 Aug 2010, 01:20 AM Reply Like
  • Link referred to is here:
    seekingalpha.com/news/...
    13 Aug 2010, 01:28 AM Reply Like
  • dfbell is Bear Baits new best friend.
    11 Aug 2010, 08:17 PM Reply Like
  • If the govt. were forced to live within its means and limited to constitutional power, you wouldnt have these huge off buget expenses or the power to be the world police.
    11 Aug 2010, 08:23 PM Reply Like
  • where were you last decade?
    12 Aug 2010, 08:28 AM Reply Like
  • IF it happens, I smell all sorts of tax code revisions specially written for "campaign donor friends"....

    Thus, it will be a burden on everyone else - repeating FDR's large mistake of raising taxes; this administration is beginning to look like a bad season of repeats from almost 80 years ago; had television been consumer operational back then.
    11 Aug 2010, 07:43 PM Reply Like
  • More bonus points for Luntz memo!
    12 Aug 2010, 04:10 PM Reply Like
  • Flat Tax and be done with it....
    11 Aug 2010, 07:53 PM Reply Like
  • BULLSHIT...
    11 Aug 2010, 09:38 PM Reply Like
  • Weren't we just told that it would be those same rich people who would be paying for the Obamacare ? I guess they can just pay for everything. After all, they're rich-- they can afford it.

    This has very little to do with reducing the debt or putting the country on firmer financial footing. It is all about class warfare in America.

    Even the advocates admit it will only "hurt" the rich to the tune of $38 billion (They won't feel a thing).

    This is from the WSJ:

    "The U.S. government spent itself deeper into the red last month, paying nearly $20 billion in interest on debt and an additional $9.8 billion to help unemployed Americans.

    Federal spending eclipsed revenue for the 22nd straight time, the Treasury Department said Wednesday. The $165.04 billion deficit, while a bit smaller than the $169.5 billion shortfall expected by economists polled by Dow Jones Newswires, was the second highest for the month on record. The highest was $180.68 billion in July 2009."
    online.wsj.com/article...


    So the leftists want to take money from a small % of Americans (because they don't fight the wars, or get their hands greasy working at McDonalds), yet it will be wasted in less than 1 month. Not spent wisely or to the benefit of the rest of the country-- wasted.

    It is foolish to raise taxes on anybody before the government stops the out-of-control spending. It takes the money out of the economy-- it does not come back in except as a much, much smaller %, if ever, due to a wasteful government. Not sure why some are unable to learn from a very, very long history of government waste.

    Any new tax revenue will be absolutely be wasted by this government. If you think that is not true, just wait until next week. Or the week after that. Or pick a week at random-- you could even use last week.





    But here is te
    12 Aug 2010, 03:28 AM Reply Like
  • just in the last two days Obama spent 27 billion on the unions..and 3 billion on housing bailouts.....he cares not about cutting expenses...its all about paying off his buddies and Socialism....that 3 billion temporary housing break will turn into long term government financed housing....costing billions more..welcome to the newest thrid world country
    12 Aug 2010, 07:36 AM Reply Like
  • I am damn proud that the money is being spent on police, firemen, nurses and teachers. What kind of a country are we that we can spend $1trillion and thousands of lives in the mideast adventure, but we dont think we can spend money on police, firemen, nurses and teachers?
    12 Aug 2010, 04:13 PM Reply Like
  • We ALL are proud to support "worthy" govt functions with tax dollars. Its the "unworthy" functions that raise ire. The less, central govt does, the less their need of power of deciding who and what is worthy.
    Look at the 100s of billions of dollars thrown at education. I have 2 in private school, because the public schools(Ga) are sooo bad. The more we spend, the worse it gets. Govt unions are ripping us off. I dont have a pension, why should I be forced to pay someone elses.
    Why are we still funding PBS,the arts.etc.........
    Give the "worthy" govt functions back to the states.
    A little competition among the states, would be a good thing.
    12 Aug 2010, 06:49 PM Reply Like
  • One thing that those selling this "eat the rich" snakeoil fail to mention when proposing personal income tax increases is that the wealthy don't report their income via the personal income tax statement, so as Buffett repeats ad nauseam he doesn't pay much in personal income taxes. It's not the rates, it's that he knows how to keep his income off the personal income tax statement, as the wealthy know and have the means to do. Raising the personal income tax rates is ALWAYS a means to attack those attempting to ascend through their hard work in the middle and upper-middle classes.
    12 Aug 2010, 11:40 AM Reply Like
  • Yup, they dont declare it as income. That's why the CBO estimates that the tax reductions have decreased the tax revenue almost $500,000,000,000. If they are sheltering their income, they are either really bad at it or they have tons more than anyone can imagine.

    Either way, time for the rich to quit whining and pay a bit extra to save the country. Or maybe they are not interested in that?

    Who do you expect to help pay down the debt? The people with 90% of the money or the people with 10% of the money?
    12 Aug 2010, 04:16 PM Reply Like
  • Given the way the government has worked over the past 40-50 years, I expect the 98% of the people with 10% of the money to pay it off as the other 2% with 90% of the money use a portion of their money to buy that privilege. That is how it works in a corporatist, mercantilist state. History, if not observation of the workings of the tax code over the last 50 years should teach you that.
    12 Aug 2010, 09:32 PM Reply Like
  • This is why the likes of Soros and Buffett are such supporters of Obama and the democrats, and raising tax rates that they have no intention of paying. It's the middle and upper-middle classes that they are going after.
    13 Aug 2010, 01:27 AM Reply Like
  • You're right df, which is why raising rates won't punish these evil folks. As I said, they don't report income through their personal income tax statement, which your comment indicates you don't understand yet. There's a book "Endless Money" which has a good section explaining this and why raising tax rates is snakeoil and not really targetting those that you demonize. It instead targets those you claim to be helping.
    13 Aug 2010, 12:19 AM Reply Like
  • Yup, higher rates dont generate dont hurt the rich. (I've read the book)
    Soooo, if it doesnt hurt them, we may as well do it.
    13 Aug 2010, 08:24 AM Reply Like
  • So you've read the book? Who does it hurt then? We've got to hurt somebody. Remember the script is divide-and-conquer and the tax codes are meant to punish those we demonize. It would be bad if we had low tax rates and prosperity - we can't balkanize the US if we let that happen. Please, as Rahm said, don't let this opportunity go to waste.
    13 Aug 2010, 10:55 AM Reply Like
  • If I recall correctly, that was part of the 1960's thinking which took the UK's rates up to 90% at the top - and subsequently witnessed a massive dearth of capital as it all went elsewhere.

    The US situation, under that thinking, then, is the classic catch-22. If you tax the really rich your receipts fall and your capital flees while the inflows to campaign funds drop; but if you just tax the rest of the population, as it has been, your receipts drop as employment drops. So, you increase taxes on the larger plurality of the population and your likelihood of returning to office drops.

    As I noted, somewhere, part of the solution is eliminating whole non-performing sections of the government such as Education and Energy, but that is about as likely as taxing the really rich in this government. Do I remember a proposal for a flat tax, somewhere in the dim and distant past?
    13 Aug 2010, 11:52 AM Reply Like
  • The ruling class maintain a manipulative tax code so it can be used to punish or reward - it gives them power and influence - not to mention, a breeding ground for corruption. The "Fair Tax", a consumption tax would replace all taxes. One tax - period.
    13 Aug 2010, 03:05 PM Reply Like
Other date
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)