|
reagan economist favors tax increase
martin feldstein, chairman of reagan's council of economic advisors,
says we need to raise taxes: http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/07/news...n_bin&hpt=Sbin In May, conservative economist Martin Feldstein, who was President Reagan's top economic adviser and now sits on Obama's recovery advisory board, wrote in a Wall Street Journal commentary that while he favors temporarily extending the cuts for everyone, the country can't afford to make them permanent. |
reagan economist favors tax increase
bpuharic wrote:
martin feldstein, chairman of reagan's council of economic advisors, says we need to raise taxes: http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/07/news...n_bin&hpt=Sbin In May, conservative economist Martin Feldstein, who was President Reagan's top economic adviser and now sits on Obama's recovery advisory board, wrote in a Wall Street Journal commentary that while he favors temporarily extending the cuts for everyone, the country can't afford to make them permanent. Why not? Exxon paid no US taxes. Our Taxes are needed to fuel their development and to pay for their gambling sprees and bailouts. Can you see this bunch in Switzerland or some other efuge laughing their asses off and rolling in our tax money. |
reagan economist favors tax increase
"lil abner" wrote in message ... bpuharic wrote: martin feldstein, chairman of reagan's council of economic advisors, says we need to raise taxes: http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/07/news...n_bin&hpt=Sbin In May, conservative economist Martin Feldstein, who was President Reagan's top economic adviser and now sits on Obama's recovery advisory board, wrote in a Wall Street Journal commentary that while he favors temporarily extending the cuts for everyone, the country can't afford to make them permanent. Why not? Exxon paid no US taxes. Our Taxes are needed to fuel their development and to pay for their gambling sprees and bailouts. Can you see this bunch in Switzerland or some other efuge laughing their asses off and rolling in our tax money. Fine. End the oil industry subsidies. I bet you're not in favor of that. |
reagan economist favors tax increase
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... martin feldstein, chairman of reagan's council of economic advisors, says we need to raise taxes: http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/07/news...n_bin&hpt=Sbin another take: http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/110005/how-the-expiring-bush-tax-cuts-affect-you?mod=taxes-advice_strategy |
reagan economist favors tax increase
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 21:48:35 -0400, "Charles C."
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . martin feldstein, chairman of reagan's council of economic advisors, says we need to raise taxes: http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/07/news...n_bin&hpt=Sbin another take: http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/110005/how-the-expiring-bush-tax-cuts-affect-you?mod=taxes-advice_strategy minimal effect on most taxpayers |
reagan economist favors tax increase
wrote in message ... On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 21:55:05 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 21:48:35 -0400, "Charles C." wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message ... martin feldstein, chairman of reagan's council of economic advisors, says we need to raise taxes: http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/07/news...n_bin&hpt=Sbin another take: http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/110005/how-the-expiring-bush-tax-cuts-affect-you?mod=taxes-advice_strategy minimal effect on most taxpayers Only an across the board 4-5% tax hike. It is more if you are married and a lot more if you actually have investments. The predictions are that it will cause a pretty big sell off of stocks in 4q10. That will be tough on your 401k. If this little rally holds and we get 10500, I would migrate your 401k into the "safe" fund (government paper) until this all shakes out. I really believe the big money people are going to run these stocks up to get profits out at the lower rates. Don't be holding the bag when they start cashing in. Completely untrue. |
reagan economist favors tax increase
wrote in message ... On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 22:56:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Only an across the board 4-5% tax hike. It is more if you are married and a lot more if you actually have investments. The predictions are that it will cause a pretty big sell off of stocks in 4q10. That will be tough on your 401k. If this little rally holds and we get 10500, I would migrate your 401k into the "safe" fund (government paper) until this all shakes out. I really believe the big money people are going to run these stocks up to get profits out at the lower rates. Don't be holding the bag when they start cashing in. Completely untrue. Which part? 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% will be replaced by five new brackets with the higher rates of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%. sure sounds like a 4-5% increase to me when you add the 30% reduction to the married couple's standard deduction and the increases in capital gains and dividends, If you don't think today is a temporary rally or that stocks won't see a big sell off right before the taxes go up on the gains, we will just see won't we? I know where I am betting my money. I bet stocks will be a bargain in 1q11 and I bet the big money people rig themselves a rally in 4q10 but it will be a short one. Obama won't mind, because even at the lower CG rate, the government will still get a tax windfall in 2010 and in 2011 they have the tax hike. I do think the government needs the money but I am not sure it helps the recession that just does not seem to be going away. I think the current administration is going to do some re-thinking on allowing all the Bush tax cuts to expire. Minimal or not, it still affects all taxpayers, big and small. With mid-term elections looming, an across the board tax hike is not going to sit well with voters once people realize it's not just an increase on the wealthy only ... as hyped and promised. CC |
reagan economist favors tax increase
|
reagan economist favors tax increase
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 21:55:05 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 21:48:35 -0400, "Charles C." wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message ... martin feldstein, chairman of reagan's council of economic advisors, says we need to raise taxes: http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/07/news...n_bin&hpt=Sbin another take: http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/110005/how-the-expiring-bush-tax-cuts-affect-you?mod=taxes-advice_strategy minimal effect on most taxpayers Only an across the board 4-5% tax hike. It is more if you are married and a lot more if you actually have investments. The predictions are that it will cause a pretty big sell off of stocks in 4q10. That will be tough on your 401k. If this little rally holds and we get 10500, I would migrate your 401k into the "safe" fund (government paper) until this all shakes out. I really believe the big money people are going to run these stocks up to get profits out at the lower rates. Don't be holding the bag when they start cashing in. Completely untrue. The tax part is right on. The Wall Street crap is random speculation. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbe....cfm?DocID=535 But numbers can play tricks. If your tax rate goes from 10% to 15% is that a 5% hike? Or a 50% hike? Jim - Reformed flim-flam man. I'm a preacher now. God Bless America and rec.boats. |
reagan economist favors tax increase
On 07/07/2010 7:48 PM, Charles C. wrote:
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... martin feldstein, chairman of reagan's council of economic advisors, says we need to raise taxes: http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/07/news...n_bin&hpt=Sbin another take: http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/110005/how-the-expiring-bush-tax-cuts-affect-you?mod=taxes-advice_strategy Higher taxes is highly likely if you look at the congress financial forcast for 2011. Unless congress has government take a long needed diet pill. -- Governemnt debt is tax servitude for the middle class. |
reagan economist favors tax increase
|
reagan economist favors tax increase
On 7/8/10 10:34 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
In , says... If you don't think today is a temporary rally or that stocks won't see a big sell off right before the taxes go up on the gains, we will just see won't we? I know where I am betting my money. I bet stocks will be a bargain in 1q11 and I bet the big money people rig themselves a rally in 4q10 but it will be a short one. Obama won't mind, because even at the lower CG rate, the government will still get a tax windfall in 2010 and in 2011 they have the tax hike. I do think the government needs the money but I am not sure it helps the recession that just does not seem to be going away. Forgive me but what the hell is this "4q11" an "1q" etc? Sheesh. 4q11 Fourth quarter of 2011 1q11 First quarter of 2011 Get a brain. Somewhere. |
reagan economist favors tax increase
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 10:34:13 -0400, I am Tosk
wrote: In article , says... If you don't think today is a temporary rally or that stocks won't see a big sell off right before the taxes go up on the gains, we will just see won't we? I know where I am betting my money. I bet stocks will be a bargain in 1q11 and I bet the big money people rig themselves a rally in 4q10 but it will be a short one. Obama won't mind, because even at the lower CG rate, the government will still get a tax windfall in 2010 and in 2011 they have the tax hike. I do think the government needs the money but I am not sure it helps the recession that just does not seem to be going away. Forgive me but what the hell is this "4q11" an "1q" etc? Fourth Quarter, 2011, first quarter, etc. -- John H All decisions are the result of binary thinking. |
reagan economist favors tax increase
wrote in message ... On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 22:56:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Only an across the board 4-5% tax hike. It is more if you are married and a lot more if you actually have investments. The predictions are that it will cause a pretty big sell off of stocks in 4q10. That will be tough on your 401k. If this little rally holds and we get 10500, I would migrate your 401k into the "safe" fund (government paper) until this all shakes out. I really believe the big money people are going to run these stocks up to get profits out at the lower rates. Don't be holding the bag when they start cashing in. Completely untrue. Which part? 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% will be replaced by five new brackets with the higher rates of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%. sure sounds like a 4-5% increase to me when you add the 30% reduction to the married couple's standard deduction and the increases in capital gains and dividends, If you don't think today is a temporary rally or that stocks won't see a big sell off right before the taxes go up on the gains, we will just see won't we? I know where I am betting my money. I bet stocks will be a bargain in 1q11 and I bet the big money people rig themselves a rally in 4q10 but it will be a short one. Obama won't mind, because even at the lower CG rate, the government will still get a tax windfall in 2010 and in 2011 they have the tax hike. I do think the government needs the money but I am not sure it helps the recession that just does not seem to be going away. There is no evidence that the huge tax cut for the wealthy did anything for the economy. It should never have been put in place in the first place. If you're concerned about the deficit, then we should cut the military (Ron Paul and Barney Frank have cosponsored legislation to that effect). I don't hear anyone talking about ending oil company subsidies (to the tune of $45B annually). That would actually not be a good idea right now, but we should do it at some point. Talk about gov't being too involved in the economy. |
reagan economist favors tax increase
"Charles C." wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 22:56:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Only an across the board 4-5% tax hike. It is more if you are married and a lot more if you actually have investments. The predictions are that it will cause a pretty big sell off of stocks in 4q10. That will be tough on your 401k. If this little rally holds and we get 10500, I would migrate your 401k into the "safe" fund (government paper) until this all shakes out. I really believe the big money people are going to run these stocks up to get profits out at the lower rates. Don't be holding the bag when they start cashing in. Completely untrue. Which part? 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% will be replaced by five new brackets with the higher rates of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%. sure sounds like a 4-5% increase to me when you add the 30% reduction to the married couple's standard deduction and the increases in capital gains and dividends, If you don't think today is a temporary rally or that stocks won't see a big sell off right before the taxes go up on the gains, we will just see won't we? I know where I am betting my money. I bet stocks will be a bargain in 1q11 and I bet the big money people rig themselves a rally in 4q10 but it will be a short one. Obama won't mind, because even at the lower CG rate, the government will still get a tax windfall in 2010 and in 2011 they have the tax hike. I do think the government needs the money but I am not sure it helps the recession that just does not seem to be going away. I think the current administration is going to do some re-thinking on allowing all the Bush tax cuts to expire. Minimal or not, it still affects all taxpayers, big and small. With mid-term elections looming, an across the board tax hike is not going to sit well with voters once people realize it's not just an increase on the wealthy only ... as hyped and promised. CC You're probably right, but the tax cut needs to go away at some point. It doesn't do anything for the over all economy. |
reagan economist favors tax increase
"Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 21:55:05 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 21:48:35 -0400, "Charles C." wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message ... martin feldstein, chairman of reagan's council of economic advisors, says we need to raise taxes: http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/07/news...n_bin&hpt=Sbin another take: http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/110005/how-the-expiring-bush-tax-cuts-affect-you?mod=taxes-advice_strategy minimal effect on most taxpayers Only an across the board 4-5% tax hike. It is more if you are married and a lot more if you actually have investments. The predictions are that it will cause a pretty big sell off of stocks in 4q10. That will be tough on your 401k. If this little rally holds and we get 10500, I would migrate your 401k into the "safe" fund (government paper) until this all shakes out. I really believe the big money people are going to run these stocks up to get profits out at the lower rates. Don't be holding the bag when they start cashing in. Completely untrue. The tax part is right on. The Wall Street crap is random speculation. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbe....cfm?DocID=535 But numbers can play tricks. If your tax rate goes from 10% to 15% is that a 5% hike? Or a 50% hike? Jim - Reformed flim-flam man. I'm a preacher now. God Bless America and rec.boats. It's kind of like the flat tax idea... it sounds ok until you realize that someone making $10M is not going to suffer as much as someone making $30K when both have the same tax rate. |
reagan economist favors tax increase
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 07/07/2010 7:48 PM, Charles C. wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message ... martin feldstein, chairman of reagan's council of economic advisors, says we need to raise taxes: http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/07/news...n_bin&hpt=Sbin another take: http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/110005/how-the-expiring-bush-tax-cuts-affect-you?mod=taxes-advice_strategy Higher taxes is highly likely if you look at the congress financial forcast for 2011. Unless congress has government take a long needed diet pill. -- Governemnt debt is tax servitude for the middle class. Suggestion... stop taking the "stupid" pill. |
reagan economist favors tax increase
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:19:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: You're probably right, but the tax cut needs to go away at some point. It doesn't do anything for the over all economy. yep. wall street has trashed this economy so severely that tax increases are inevitable |
reagan economist favors tax increase
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:19:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: You're probably right, but the tax cut needs to go away at some point. It doesn't do anything for the over all economy. yep. wall street has trashed this economy so severely that tax increases are inevitable They need to start with those of us who can afford it... |
reagan economist favors tax increase
wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:18:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 22:56:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Only an across the board 4-5% tax hike. It is more if you are married and a lot more if you actually have investments. The predictions are that it will cause a pretty big sell off of stocks in 4q10. That will be tough on your 401k. If this little rally holds and we get 10500, I would migrate your 401k into the "safe" fund (government paper) until this all shakes out. I really believe the big money people are going to run these stocks up to get profits out at the lower rates. Don't be holding the bag when they start cashing in. Completely untrue. Which part? 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% will be replaced by five new brackets with the higher rates of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%. sure sounds like a 4-5% increase to me when you add the 30% reduction to the married couple's standard deduction and the increases in capital gains and dividends, If you don't think today is a temporary rally or that stocks won't see a big sell off right before the taxes go up on the gains, we will just see won't we? I know where I am betting my money. I bet stocks will be a bargain in 1q11 and I bet the big money people rig themselves a rally in 4q10 but it will be a short one. Obama won't mind, because even at the lower CG rate, the government will still get a tax windfall in 2010 and in 2011 they have the tax hike. I do think the government needs the money but I am not sure it helps the recession that just does not seem to be going away. There is no evidence that the huge tax cut for the wealthy did anything for the economy. It should never have been put in place in the first place. If you're concerned about the deficit, then we should cut the military (Ron Paul and Barney Frank have cosponsored legislation to that effect). I don't hear anyone talking about ending oil company subsidies (to the tune of $45B annually). That would actually not be a good idea right now, but we should do it at some point. Talk about gov't being too involved in the economy. No argument on any on that but that is not what I said and what you said was "completely untrue". Bear in mind the whole tax table will go up, including dropping the 10% bracket entirely. That bracket loss only means $404 for Bill Gates, just like the extra $404 for Lupe the maid. She will miss the $404 a lot more. That continues up the scales, whacking everyone along the way, until you finally get to the 1% who will pay some of their income in the 39% bracket. There is no "across the board" tax increase. Not sure how you're adding things up, but comparing what Gates pays vs. what a maid would pay isn't a valid comparison. |
reagan economist favors tax increase
wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 14:28:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Which part? 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% will be replaced by five new brackets with the higher rates of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%. sure sounds like a 4-5% increase to me when you add the 30% reduction to the married couple's standard deduction and the increases in capital gains and dividends, If you don't think today is a temporary rally or that stocks won't see a big sell off right before the taxes go up on the gains, we will just see won't we? I know where I am betting my money. I bet stocks will be a bargain in 1q11 and I bet the big money people rig themselves a rally in 4q10 but it will be a short one. Obama won't mind, because even at the lower CG rate, the government will still get a tax windfall in 2010 and in 2011 they have the tax hike. I do think the government needs the money but I am not sure it helps the recession that just does not seem to be going away. There is no evidence that the huge tax cut for the wealthy did anything for the economy. It should never have been put in place in the first place. If you're concerned about the deficit, then we should cut the military (Ron Paul and Barney Frank have cosponsored legislation to that effect). I don't hear anyone talking about ending oil company subsidies (to the tune of $45B annually). That would actually not be a good idea right now, but we should do it at some point. Talk about gov't being too involved in the economy. No argument on any on that but that is not what I said and what you said was "completely untrue". Bear in mind the whole tax table will go up, including dropping the 10% bracket entirely. That bracket loss only means $404 for Bill Gates, just like the extra $404 for Lupe the maid. She will miss the $404 a lot more. That continues up the scales, whacking everyone along the way, until you finally get to the 1% who will pay some of their income in the 39% bracket. There is no "across the board" tax increase. Not sure how you're adding things up, but comparing what Gates pays vs. what a maid would pay isn't a valid comparison. Did you actually look at the article or understand what the rollback entails. Taking away the 10% bracket and ratcheting up the other brackets is certainly "across the board". The people at the bottom will feel the pain more than the people at the top. Firstly, the tax shouldn't have been implemented to begin with. Secondly, you compared Gates to a maid, which is not a valid comparison. The lower half always "feels the pain" more than the top half. |
reagan economist favors tax increase
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 14:28:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Which part? 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% will be replaced by five new brackets with the higher rates of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%. sure sounds like a 4-5% increase to me when you add the 30% reduction to the married couple's standard deduction and the increases in capital gains and dividends, If you don't think today is a temporary rally or that stocks won't see a big sell off right before the taxes go up on the gains, we will just see won't we? I know where I am betting my money. I bet stocks will be a bargain in 1q11 and I bet the big money people rig themselves a rally in 4q10 but it will be a short one. Obama won't mind, because even at the lower CG rate, the government will still get a tax windfall in 2010 and in 2011 they have the tax hike. I do think the government needs the money but I am not sure it helps the recession that just does not seem to be going away. There is no evidence that the huge tax cut for the wealthy did anything for the economy. It should never have been put in place in the first place. If you're concerned about the deficit, then we should cut the military (Ron Paul and Barney Frank have cosponsored legislation to that effect). I don't hear anyone talking about ending oil company subsidies (to the tune of $45B annually). That would actually not be a good idea right now, but we should do it at some point. Talk about gov't being too involved in the economy. No argument on any on that but that is not what I said and what you said was "completely untrue". Bear in mind the whole tax table will go up, including dropping the 10% bracket entirely. That bracket loss only means $404 for Bill Gates, just like the extra $404 for Lupe the maid. She will miss the $404 a lot more. That continues up the scales, whacking everyone along the way, until you finally get to the 1% who will pay some of their income in the 39% bracket. There is no "across the board" tax increase. Not sure how you're adding things up, but comparing what Gates pays vs. what a maid would pay isn't a valid comparison. Did you actually look at the article or understand what the rollback entails. Taking away the 10% bracket and ratcheting up the other brackets is certainly "across the board". The people at the bottom will feel the pain more than the people at the top. Firstly, the tax shouldn't have been implemented to begin with. Secondly, you compared Gates to a maid, which is not a valid comparison. The lower half always "feels the pain" more than the top half. You are a slippery one. Have you ever run for office? Maid or Gates, raising all the rates, including the lowest tax rate (from 10 percent to 15 percent) is, indeed, an "across the board" tax increase. CC |
reagan economist favors tax increase
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:19:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: You're probably right, but the tax cut needs to go away at some point. It doesn't do anything for the over all economy. yep. wall street has trashed this economy so severely that tax increases are inevitable They need to start with those of us who can afford it... That's the point. That's what was promised. That's not what is going to happen. CC |
reagan economist favors tax increase
"Charles C." wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:19:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: You're probably right, but the tax cut needs to go away at some point. It doesn't do anything for the over all economy. yep. wall street has trashed this economy so severely that tax increases are inevitable They need to start with those of us who can afford it... That's the point. That's what was promised. That's not what is going to happen. CC It's too early to tell what's going to actually happen... such is politics. |
reagan economist favors tax increase
"Charles C." wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 14:28:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Which part? 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% will be replaced by five new brackets with the higher rates of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%. sure sounds like a 4-5% increase to me when you add the 30% reduction to the married couple's standard deduction and the increases in capital gains and dividends, If you don't think today is a temporary rally or that stocks won't see a big sell off right before the taxes go up on the gains, we will just see won't we? I know where I am betting my money. I bet stocks will be a bargain in 1q11 and I bet the big money people rig themselves a rally in 4q10 but it will be a short one. Obama won't mind, because even at the lower CG rate, the government will still get a tax windfall in 2010 and in 2011 they have the tax hike. I do think the government needs the money but I am not sure it helps the recession that just does not seem to be going away. There is no evidence that the huge tax cut for the wealthy did anything for the economy. It should never have been put in place in the first place. If you're concerned about the deficit, then we should cut the military (Ron Paul and Barney Frank have cosponsored legislation to that effect). I don't hear anyone talking about ending oil company subsidies (to the tune of $45B annually). That would actually not be a good idea right now, but we should do it at some point. Talk about gov't being too involved in the economy. No argument on any on that but that is not what I said and what you said was "completely untrue". Bear in mind the whole tax table will go up, including dropping the 10% bracket entirely. That bracket loss only means $404 for Bill Gates, just like the extra $404 for Lupe the maid. She will miss the $404 a lot more. That continues up the scales, whacking everyone along the way, until you finally get to the 1% who will pay some of their income in the 39% bracket. There is no "across the board" tax increase. Not sure how you're adding things up, but comparing what Gates pays vs. what a maid would pay isn't a valid comparison. Did you actually look at the article or understand what the rollback entails. Taking away the 10% bracket and ratcheting up the other brackets is certainly "across the board". The people at the bottom will feel the pain more than the people at the top. Firstly, the tax shouldn't have been implemented to begin with. Secondly, you compared Gates to a maid, which is not a valid comparison. The lower half always "feels the pain" more than the top half. You are a slippery one. Have you ever run for office? Maid or Gates, raising all the rates, including the lowest tax rate (from 10 percent to 15 percent) is, indeed, an "across the board" tax increase. CC Lawyer = slippery Yes and no... I was just reading this, which I think spells out the alternatives and the real problem long term. http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/ne...e--646402.html |
reagan economist favors tax increase
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Charles C." wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 14:28:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Which part? 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% will be replaced by five new brackets with the higher rates of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%. sure sounds like a 4-5% increase to me when you add the 30% reduction to the married couple's standard deduction and the increases in capital gains and dividends, If you don't think today is a temporary rally or that stocks won't see a big sell off right before the taxes go up on the gains, we will just see won't we? I know where I am betting my money. I bet stocks will be a bargain in 1q11 and I bet the big money people rig themselves a rally in 4q10 but it will be a short one. Obama won't mind, because even at the lower CG rate, the government will still get a tax windfall in 2010 and in 2011 they have the tax hike. I do think the government needs the money but I am not sure it helps the recession that just does not seem to be going away. There is no evidence that the huge tax cut for the wealthy did anything for the economy. It should never have been put in place in the first place. If you're concerned about the deficit, then we should cut the military (Ron Paul and Barney Frank have cosponsored legislation to that effect). I don't hear anyone talking about ending oil company subsidies (to the tune of $45B annually). That would actually not be a good idea right now, but we should do it at some point. Talk about gov't being too involved in the economy. No argument on any on that but that is not what I said and what you said was "completely untrue". Bear in mind the whole tax table will go up, including dropping the 10% bracket entirely. That bracket loss only means $404 for Bill Gates, just like the extra $404 for Lupe the maid. She will miss the $404 a lot more. That continues up the scales, whacking everyone along the way, until you finally get to the 1% who will pay some of their income in the 39% bracket. There is no "across the board" tax increase. Not sure how you're adding things up, but comparing what Gates pays vs. what a maid would pay isn't a valid comparison. Did you actually look at the article or understand what the rollback entails. Taking away the 10% bracket and ratcheting up the other brackets is certainly "across the board". The people at the bottom will feel the pain more than the people at the top. Firstly, the tax shouldn't have been implemented to begin with. Secondly, you compared Gates to a maid, which is not a valid comparison. The lower half always "feels the pain" more than the top half. You are a slippery one. Have you ever run for office? Maid or Gates, raising all the rates, including the lowest tax rate (from 10 percent to 15 percent) is, indeed, an "across the board" tax increase. CC Lawyer = slippery Yes and no... I was just reading this, which I think spells out the alternatives and the real problem long term. http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/ne...e--646402.html The last sentence says it all: "It will not be solved until they bring spending under control.'' CC |
reagan economist favors tax increase
|
reagan economist favors tax increase
On 08/07/2010 12:22 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 07/07/2010 7:48 PM, Charles C. wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message ... martin feldstein, chairman of reagan's council of economic advisors, says we need to raise taxes: http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/07/news...n_bin&hpt=Sbin another take: http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/110005/how-the-expiring-bush-tax-cuts-affect-you?mod=taxes-advice_strategy Higher taxes is highly likely if you look at the congress financial forcast for 2011. Unless congress has government take a long needed diet pill. -- Governemnt debt is tax servitude for the middle class. Suggestion... stop taking the "stupid" pill. Skank Polly want a cracker? -- Governemnt debt is tax servitude for the middle class. |
reagan economist favors tax increase
"Charles C." wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Charles C." wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 14:28:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Which part? 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% will be replaced by five new brackets with the higher rates of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%. sure sounds like a 4-5% increase to me when you add the 30% reduction to the married couple's standard deduction and the increases in capital gains and dividends, If you don't think today is a temporary rally or that stocks won't see a big sell off right before the taxes go up on the gains, we will just see won't we? I know where I am betting my money. I bet stocks will be a bargain in 1q11 and I bet the big money people rig themselves a rally in 4q10 but it will be a short one. Obama won't mind, because even at the lower CG rate, the government will still get a tax windfall in 2010 and in 2011 they have the tax hike. I do think the government needs the money but I am not sure it helps the recession that just does not seem to be going away. There is no evidence that the huge tax cut for the wealthy did anything for the economy. It should never have been put in place in the first place. If you're concerned about the deficit, then we should cut the military (Ron Paul and Barney Frank have cosponsored legislation to that effect). I don't hear anyone talking about ending oil company subsidies (to the tune of $45B annually). That would actually not be a good idea right now, but we should do it at some point. Talk about gov't being too involved in the economy. No argument on any on that but that is not what I said and what you said was "completely untrue". Bear in mind the whole tax table will go up, including dropping the 10% bracket entirely. That bracket loss only means $404 for Bill Gates, just like the extra $404 for Lupe the maid. She will miss the $404 a lot more. That continues up the scales, whacking everyone along the way, until you finally get to the 1% who will pay some of their income in the 39% bracket. There is no "across the board" tax increase. Not sure how you're adding things up, but comparing what Gates pays vs. what a maid would pay isn't a valid comparison. Did you actually look at the article or understand what the rollback entails. Taking away the 10% bracket and ratcheting up the other brackets is certainly "across the board". The people at the bottom will feel the pain more than the people at the top. Firstly, the tax shouldn't have been implemented to begin with. Secondly, you compared Gates to a maid, which is not a valid comparison. The lower half always "feels the pain" more than the top half. You are a slippery one. Have you ever run for office? Maid or Gates, raising all the rates, including the lowest tax rate (from 10 percent to 15 percent) is, indeed, an "across the board" tax increase. CC Lawyer = slippery Yes and no... I was just reading this, which I think spells out the alternatives and the real problem long term. http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/ne...e--646402.html The last sentence says it all: "It will not be solved until they bring spending under control.'' CC Well... it doesn't say it all, but it does say a lot. The thing is that while that's true, there are long-term and short-term solutions. Right now, we can't work on the long-term ones, because of the consequences in the short-term. It's not like people aren't aware of the long-term problem. The question is about timing. |
reagan economist favors tax increase
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 08/07/2010 12:22 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 07/07/2010 7:48 PM, Charles C. wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message ... martin feldstein, chairman of reagan's council of economic advisors, says we need to raise taxes: http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/07/news...n_bin&hpt=Sbin another take: http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/110005/how-the-expiring-bush-tax-cuts-affect-you?mod=taxes-advice_strategy Higher taxes is highly likely if you look at the congress financial forcast for 2011. Unless congress has government take a long needed diet pill. -- Governemnt debt is tax servitude for the middle class. Suggestion... stop taking the "stupid" pill. Skank Polly want a cracker? -- Governemnt debt is tax servitude for the middle class. Ah, I see you can't stop taking the stupid pills. I wonder if that's a closed loop system.... |
reagan economist favors tax increase
wrote in message ... On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 11:19:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The last sentence says it all: "It will not be solved until they bring spending under control.'' CC Well... it doesn't say it all, but it does say a lot. The thing is that while that's true, there are long-term and short-term solutions. Right now, we can't work on the long-term ones, because of the consequences in the short-term. It's not like people aren't aware of the long-term problem. The question is about timing. AKA, let's kick this can down the road and let our kids make the hard choices. It's not really a choice, and it's not clear that there will be a problem down the road. It's possible, but it's not certain. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com