OT-45% tax rate on dividends in 2011
azotic
repeal tax indexing for inflation, meaning that as their earnings rise over
a lifetime these youngsters can look forward to paying higher rates even if
their income gains aren't real.
This is a sneaky way for politicians to pry more money out of workers every
year without having to legislate tax increases. The negative effects of
failing to index compound over time, yielding a revenue windfall for
government as the years go on. The House tax surcharge is estimated to raise
$460.5 billion over 10 years, but only $30.9 billion in 2011, rising to
$68.4 billion in 2019, according to the Joint Tax Committee.
And by the way, this surcharge has also been sneakily written to apply to
modified adjusted gross income, which means it applies to both capital gains
and dividends that are taxed at lower rates. So the capital gains tax rate
that is now 15% would increase in 2011 to 25.4% with the surcharge and
repeal of the Bush tax rates. The tax rate on dividends would rise to 45%
from 15% (5.4% plus the pre-Bush rate of 39.6%).
The return of the inflation tax demonstrates once again the stealth
radicalism that animates ObamaCare. In the case of inflation indexing,
Democrats would repeal a 30-year bipartisan consensus that it is unfair to
tax unreal gains in income, thus hitting millions of middle-class Americans
over time with tax rates advertised as only hitting "the rich." Oh, and the
House vote on this exercise in dishonest government will come as early as
Saturday.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703932904574511794170939688.html
Best Regards
Tom.
Buerste
Richard J Kinch
> ... a 30-year bipartisan consensus that it is unfair to
> tax unreal gains in income ...
Consensus? How do you explain the continuing AMT? We are all
"millionaires" now.
TinLizziedl
And here's a comment from the article that I felt was appropriate to
include, since you posted only a portion of the full article:
James Samans replied
"Hmm. Let's see... assuming 3% inflation and a 5% pay increase per year,
meaning a real increase of 2%... yes, the average twentysomething now
making $50,000 per year will hit the $500,000 non-indexed cap in 127
years.
I guess the middle class should start sweating now."
_____________
There will be hundreds, if not thousands, of tax loopholes forged into
any final document.
No matter how many times you scream about it, the fact remains that the
Democrats do not have enough votes to force this through BOTH chambers.
--
Tin Lizzie
"Elephant: A mouse built to government specifications."-Lazarus Long
dca...@krl.org
>
> And here's a comment from the article that I felt was appropriate to
> include, since you posted only a portion of the full article:
>
> James Samans replied
>
> "Hmm. Let's see... assuming 3% inflation and a 5% pay increase per year,
> meaning a real increase of 2%... yes, the average twentysomething now
> making $50,000 per year will hit the $500,000 non-indexed cap in 127
> years.
>
> I guess the middle class should start sweating now."
> _____________
>
> Tin Lizzie
> "Elephant: A mouse built to government specifications."-Lazarus Long
I do not understand how James Samans calculated. When I do the math
it is only 48 years assuming a 5% pay raise every year. And if you
assume that inflation is running 5% and a real wage increase of 2% ,
then I calculate it as 34 years. So the 20 something is likely to
feel the effects well before he is eligible for Social Security.
Dan
Ignoramus8745
when tax rates were much higher than they are now.
A combination of low tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.
i
Bill McKee
"Ignoramus8745" <ignora...@NOSPAM.8745.invalid> wrote in message
news:YM2dnfojoLkonmvX...@giganews.com...
Actually they were not much higher overall. Lots of deductions went away,
so the effective tax rate is much higher at the same percentage. You use to
be able to deduct all interest, Credit card, mortgage, auto loans, sales
tax. etc.
azotic
the income of seniors who planned their retirement around investing in
stocks
that pay dividends significantly lowering thier standard of living. And we
have individuals that if they need to cash out thier investments will have
to
pay an outragous capitol gains tax.
It will be intresting in 2012 when those people get a huge tax bill for
making all the right decisions in thier youth, i suspect many will remember
that check they wrote on april 15th in november.
One would think the dems would have waited until 2013 for these new rates
to go into effect to prevent another clean sweep that happened in 2008
and retain the structure they now enjoy. Perhaps they are to drunk with
power
to look down the road 2 years.
Best Regards
Tom.
Hawke
During the Eisenhower administration the country boomed. The tax rate on
the ultra rich was 90% and they still did well. Conservatives make a big
deal about Kennedy putting in tax cuts. Yeah, he did. But he lowered the
rate on the richest from 90% all the way down to 70%. The rich did well
then too. Slapping high income taxes on the rich has never hurt them.
It's only fair for people making a billion a year to pay most of it in
taxes. That's the price you have to pay for living here and getting
rich. If they don't like it they can move to another country. Now where
did I hear that?
Hawke
Gunner Asch
Blink blink...so we simply tax everyone at say...75% of their gross
income and pay off the deficet really quickly..right?
"IMHO, some people here give Jeff far more attention than he deserves,
but obviously craves. The most appropriate response, and perhaps the
cruelest, IMO, is to simply killfile and ignore him. An alternative, if
you must, would be to post the same standard reply to his every post,
listing the manifold reasons why he ought to be ignored. Just my $0.02
worth."
Bill McKee
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hd537k$taa$1...@aioe.org...
And how many actually paid 90% or even 70%?
Eregon
news:HIidncfbmuFDtGvX...@earthlink.com:
None, because of the then-extant collection of "deductions" (ie. gummint-
approved ways to spend/make money) that "encouraged" the few in those tax
brackets to invest in specific types of securities (Municipal Bonds, for
example) and to pay their Tax Attorneys and Accountants well.
Many, in fact, never paid anything at all in Income Taxes. <G>
azotic
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:hd8cf5lrpqri3uo48...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:33:09 -0600, Ignoramus8745
> <ignora...@NOSPAM.8745.invalid> wrote:
>
>>As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very well
>>when tax rates were much higher than they are now.
>>
>>A combination of low tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.
>>
>>i
>
> Blink blink...so we simply tax everyone at say...75% of their gross
> income and pay off the deficet really quickly..right?
Nope democrats enact a global tax on financial transactions over $900k, say
a flat of 90% tax on all proffit with no deductions, all payments go
dirrectley
to the the irs which deducts the tax owed and the taxpayer recieves a check
for the balance.
Only then will warren buffet and others like him pay thier fair share.
The deficit will be gone in a few years. <G>
Best Regards
Tom.
Ed Huntress
"Eregon" <Era...@Saphira.org> wrote in message
news:Xns9CBCCF9E...@74.209.131.10...
It was a good time for the cattle business, though. Half the cows in Texas
probably were owned by Wall Street investors. 'Git along, little dividend...
--
Ed Huntress
Michael A. Terrell
Gunner Asch wrote:
>
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:33:09 -0600, Ignoramus8745
> <ignora...@NOSPAM.8745.invalid> wrote:
>
> >As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very well
> >when tax rates were much higher than they are now.
> >
> >A combination of low tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.
> >
> >i
>
> Blink blink...so we simply tax everyone at say...75% of their gross
> income and pay off the deficet really quickly..right?
Don't forget the 110% income tax on all naturalized citizens.
--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
Ignoramus8745
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:33:09 -0600, Ignoramus8745
><ignora...@NOSPAM.8745.invalid> wrote:
>
>>As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very well
>>when tax rates were much higher than they are now.
>>
>>A combination of low tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.
>>
>>i
>
> Blink blink...so we simply tax everyone at say...75% of their gross
> income and pay off the deficet really quickly..right?
You can take any good idea and carry it to the point of absurdity.
i
pyotr filipivich
or about Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:42:05 -0800 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:33:09 -0600, Ignoramus8745
><ignora...@NOSPAM.8745.invalid> wrote:
>
>>As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very well
>>when tax rates were much higher than they are now.
>>
>>A combination of low tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.
>
>income and pay off the deficet really quickly..right?
You'll note that Buffet took advantage of the tax laws to move
most of his fortune into a foundation, which is being administered by
the Gates.
It is not slavery, we're just having your salary put in escrow,
and then the government will provide you with what you need.
tschus
pyotr
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
Gunner Asch
Yes..YOU certainly can.
Gunner
Buerste
What do you think "rich" people do with their wealth? And, define "rich".
Hawke
That is one thing that has not changed. There is a group of very rich
people who have it set up so they pay no income taxes at all. Many
corporations pay none either. Too bad normal people can't find ways to
do that. Ah, yes, another perk of being in the upper class.
Hawke
Hawke
Rich people either spend or invest their wealth. Most of what they spend
is simply wasting money on things they don't need or have any use for.
For example, Jennifer Anniston spent 250K on a nursery for her adopted
baby. Why a baby would need that kind of money spent on it makes no
sense to me but when you have millions of dollars more than you need you
tend to throw it away on useless things like that.
Nowadays rich is defined as someone who has assets worth around two and
a half million dollars. It's not income but assets or net worth that
count. That's just the starting point. But the maldistribution of wealth
is such that 1% of the population is worth more than 95% of everybody
else, and one tenth of one percent has most of that one percent. We
already have wealth redistribution. The problem is that it went from the
middle class to the top 5%. But for some reason that is okay with many
of you. If you're middle class that should make you mad.
Hawke
Buerste
Why did that nursery cost $250k? Where did that money go?
Bill McKee
Corporations do not pay taxes. They pay a business expense and pass that
expense along to those who buy their product. Just like electricity and
sewer costs.
dca...@krl.org
>
> Why did that nursery cost $250k? Where did that money go?
It probably ended up in the pockets of the workmen that did the
remodeling and in the pockets of the shops that sold the material
used.
Hawke would have preferred the money stayed invested, rather than
being spent.
Dan
Buerste
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:96bcd04d-7211-426e...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
Dan
********************************************
He no get that!
Hawke
>>> What do you think "rich" people do with their wealth? And, define
>>> "rich".
>>
>> Rich people either spend or invest their wealth. Most of what they spend
>> is simply wasting money on things they don't need or have any use for. For
>> example, Jennifer Anniston spent 250K on a nursery for her adopted baby.
>> Why a baby would need that kind of money spent on it makes no sense to me
>> but when you have millions of dollars more than you need you tend to throw
>> it away on useless things like that.
>>
>> Nowadays rich is defined as someone who has assets worth around two and a
>> half million dollars. It's not income but assets or net worth that count.
>> That's just the starting point. But the maldistribution of wealth is such
>> that 1% of the population is worth more than 95% of everybody else, and
>> one tenth of one percent has most of that one percent. We already have
>> wealth redistribution. The problem is that it went from the middle class
>> to the top 5%. But for some reason that is okay with many of you. If
>> you're middle class that should make you mad.
>>
>> Hawke
>
> Why did that nursery cost $250k? Where did that money go?
It was spent lavishly on everything in the world a queen would have
wanted for her little prince. Like when Heather Locklear spent 10,000 on
a bassinet for her kid. They just throw money away because they have so
much. Just like when rich people lose tons of money gambling. They can
do it because they have so much. That's my point. When people get too
much, for whatever reason, they lose perspective of the value of things.
Our society has allowed the wealth of the country to be consolidated
into too few hands. Some say these people "earned" it. But I say nobody
should earn vast amounts of money no matter what they do to get it. If
pay is that far out of line super high taxes should be imposed on it to
reduce the inequity of it. I liked the old days when most of the wealth
of this country was held by the middle class. It was a better country.
Hawke
azotic
> It was spent lavishly on everything in the world a queen would have wanted
> for her little prince. Like when Heather Locklear spent 10,000 on a
> bassinet for her kid. They just throw money away because they have so
> much. Just like when rich people lose tons of money gambling. They can do
> it because they have so much. That's my point. When people get too much,
> for whatever reason, they lose perspective of the value of things. Our
> society has allowed the wealth of the country to be consolidated into too
> few hands. Some say these people "earned" it. But I say nobody should earn
> vast amounts of money no matter what they do to get it. If pay is that far
> out of line super high taxes should be imposed on it to reduce the
> inequity of it. I liked the old days when most of the wealth of this
> country was held by the middle class. It was a better country.
>
> Hawke
I agree lets start with government employees.
President....... $400k
Senator....... $174k
Congressman $165k.
They have no prospective lets tax them at 80%.
Best Regards
Tom.
Ignoramus12778
> What do you think "rich" people do with their wealth? And, define "rich".
>
All people can do three things with their money.
1) Spend it on consumption items.
2) Invest money in expectation of having more money in the future.
3) Donate to charities.
The rich, as well as poor and middle class people, do items 1-3 in
varying proportions, depending on their inclinations.
i
Buerste
"Bill McKee" <bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:tuqdnbvmUcdfMGrX...@earthlink.com...
Hawk no get that.
Buerste
> B
>>>> What do you think "rich" people do with their wealth? And, define
>>>> "rich".
>>>
>>> Rich people either spend or invest their wealth. Most of what they spend
>>> is simply wasting money on things they don't need or have any use for.
>>> For example, Jennifer Anniston spent 250K on a nursery for her adopted
>>> baby. Why a baby would need that kind of money spent on it makes no
>>> sense to me but when you have millions of dollars more than you need you
>>> tend to throw it away on useless things like that.
>>>
>>> Nowadays rich is defined as someone who has assets worth around two and
>>> a half million dollars. It's not income but assets or net worth that
>>> count. That's just the starting point. But the maldistribution of wealth
>>> is such that 1% of the population is worth more than 95% of everybody
>>> else, and one tenth of one percent has most of that one percent. We
>>> already have wealth redistribution. The problem is that it went from the
>>> middle class to the top 5%. But for some reason that is okay with many
>>> of you. If you're middle class that should make you mad.
>>>
>>> Hawke
>>
>> Why did that nursery cost $250k? Where did that money go?
>
> It was spent lavishly on everything in the world a queen would have wanted
> for her little prince.
> Hawke
You refuse to answer the question. Where did the money go? Answer the
question!
Buerste
"Ignoramus12778" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.12778.invalid> wrote in message
news:auadnU8g5_TaIGXX...@giganews.com...
Ignoramus12778
I do not understand the point of this question, as the money goes in
all direction. For example, it may be invested in "emerging markets".
i
Buerste
"Ignoramus12778" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.12778.invalid> wrote in message
OK, unless money in a shoebox under a bed, it is being put to work. It's
loaned to people that buy goods and services or it directly buys goods and
services. All goods reverted back to raw materials that are either grown or
dug-up and then have "value" added to them. So, in essence ALL money goes
to pay somebody to do something. If a guy makes $20k/yr., ALL that money
goes to pay people. If a guy makes $20b/yr., ALL that money goes to pay
people for something, even money given to charities. Read-up on "Fiat"
money...FASCINATING! The system is designed to destroy the value of the
money in a shoebox, it HAS to be put to work. OBTW, printing money is not a
good thing.
Eregon
@newsfe12.iad:
> You refuse to answer the question. Where did the money go? Answer the
> question!
He can't answer the question because the DNC doesn't have it on their
website. <grin>
Gunner Asch
And their brain download computer was snagged in an Acorn raid....
Ignoramus9270
> OK, unless money in a shoebox under a bed, it is being put to work.
Correct. And if one guy is taxed, and the money is given to another
guy, the money is still put to work.
i
Ed Huntress
"Ignoramus9270" <ignora...@NOSPAM.9270.invalid> wrote in message
news:3qKdndvZ85YRAmTX...@giganews.com...
You guys missed all the fun stuff that rich people do -- German cars,
Italian yachts, and Swiss bank accounts.
It does wonders for the economies of...uh...The United Arab Emirates? d8-)
(BTW, Fiat money is very little money; you can get a good price on Fiats.)
--
Ed Huntress
Hawke
>>> Why did that nursery cost $250k? Where did that money go?
>> It was spent lavishly on everything in the world a queen would have wanted
>> for her little prince.
> <snip>
>> Hawke
>
> You refuse to answer the question. Where did the money go? Answer the
> question!
>
>
What do you mean where did the money go? Obviously, it was spent on
setting up a royal nursery. The story was in People magazine and I
didn't read the whole thing, so I can't itemize the exact expenses for
you. Suffice it to say the money was spent lavishly on things that no
baby really needs. In other words, it was thrown away. If you have the
money to waste like that it could have gone to resupply local food banks
that all are hurting for food right now. You see, so many people need
charity nowadays. But NO, Jennifer has to spend hundreds of thousands on
her baby's room. In my book that's wrong. But I guess that comes from my
Christian upbringing.
Hawke
Bill McKee
Tell that to the carpenters and painters and carpet layers that get to feed
their families via having a job. And not having to go to the food bank. Or
would it have better to buy $250k of diamonds in China, etc?
dca...@krl.org
Why not let some enterprising person do something to EARN the money?
That way it would go to someone who is willing to work. Instead of
going to someone that is looking for charity. Yes many people need
charity now, but there are lots of people who need jobs. And that is
what Jennifer did. She spent the money and the money went to people
that were willing to work for it.
It may have been spent on things that you do not believe are needed,
but it still went to people willing to work for money. It was not
thrown away. It was spent. And the people that received it, probably
used it for things like food and paying the electric bill.
In my book working to get money is a good thing. But I guess that
comes from my Judeo-Christian upbringing.
Dan
Buerste
So, the contractors, the people at stores that sold the material, the people
that made the material, the designers and the rest of the people shouldn't
have jobs. Duhh...
Buerste
And, I thought your president Wee-Wee wanted to make jobs, he should have
asked you first.
Hawke
>
> Tell that to the carpenters and painters and carpet layers that get to feed
> their families via having a job. And not having to go to the food bank. Or
> would it have better to buy $250k of diamonds in China, etc?
>
>
I've heard that argument before. It is the same one that royal families
have always given for their wasteful spending ways. I think Saddam said
the same thing as he built palace after palace while letting the people
live like shit. But hey, the workmen who worked on those palaces had
jobs so I guess Saddam was doing the right thing, right? He could have
bought gems in Europe.
Hawke
Larry Jaques
<bue...@wowway.com> scrawled the following:
Damn, I just spit Thai green curry with chicken all over the
monitor... You should warn people about that first.
I splurged on lunch today because a lady tipped me an extra $30 for
trimming her bushes in the light rain. (Minds out of the gutters,
guys. She's 80.)
I'll bet that Parakeet says he gives thousands of his dollars to
charities every year, huh? What's this, though? A Demonrat with a
Christian upbringing? Unheard of!
Those folks who believe in the redistribution of wealth sure hate to
see anyone spend money for anything which isn't on their _own_
particular agenda, don't they? All together now: Awwwww! <chortle>
----------------------------------------------------
Thesaurus: Ancient reptile with excellent vocabulary
====================================================
Bill McKee
You should read what you write before you post, and you may not reinforce
the concept that you are mentally lacking.
Buerste
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:nfcmf59vn1ukil7iv...@4ax.com...
How noble of a task, to redistribute money to the needy...just not libtard
money! They want to redistribute money they steal from others...and keep a
percentage as a "handling fee".