24 Months Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History

Of course you're right. Let me help you out here:

To a Democrat, not raising taxes is the same as cutting taxes. See also: Cutting the rate of increases in spending is the same as reducing spending; and...cutting taxes is the same as giving someone money.

Simple solution, but one which no mainstream politician (except the Ron Paul/libertarian contingent) dares to even discuss: Dump the black hole/millstone/noose that is strangling the nation, the Federal Reserve. The annual interest paid by the US treasury to the "Fed" is approximately that which is raised in personal income taxes. In the periods where the US has resisted a Federal Reserve style central bank, the people have prospered to a greater extent than periods in which a central bank has had the power to regulate the economy. The Fed is so far above and beyond the law that they are not even subject to an audit... the perfect recipe for crime and corruption beyond one's wildest imaginings.

Bush's tax cuts, Bush's tax hikes. It's that simple. Bush signed the cuts with a sunset clause. He could have vetoed it if he really wanted them permanent and would settle for nothing less.

It's quite clever how you wish to spin this.

Yep. Pretty much. Since the creation of the Fed, the US dollar's value has dropped about 95%. This is basically stealth taxation and theft from the common man.

Spin nothing. A Republican congress put a Republican bill in front of a Republican president with a fucking sunset clause in it. This has NOTHING to do with Obama.

Sure it does. Obama is President now. The people currently in power are the only ones empowered to take action right now and that does not include George W. Bush. I get that it's fashionable right now to deflect blame for anything bad that happens to Bush and give credit for anything good that happens to Obama but if they had let the tax rates increase that would have had everything to do with Obama.

On the death tax.

And this wouldn't have happened had that Republican congress and Republican president not set the stage for a 2010 idiotic showdown.

[QUOTE=john galt;1770466]Obama called the deal "real money that's going to make a real difference in people's lives."

As opposed to the phony money created by the failed "stimulus". Thank you Mr. President, you finally got something right.





Of course this is incorrect. Marginal tax rates on January 1 will be the same as today. Same for capital gains and the child tax credit. There are no "lower rates" except for a 2% reduction in SS tax borne by employees subject to it.

Also, the death tax rises from the grave where it ought to have stayed for good.

In a reversal of his earlier stance opposing the legislation, Little Timmy Geithner reappears to comment:Why do people constantly bitch about what the Democrats achieve nothing is perfect for you. A lot can happen in 2 years maybe we will die who knows except GOD. So take it one step at a time and we will see what happens in 2012.At least both sides compromised this time and the people who are on unemployment will not have to worry when will their next dollar come from. Life is to short which is true.





Problem is, it's all temporary. 24 months from January 1, we're screwed. Again.[/QUOTE Please see my response to you.

On the Fed.

I guess this press conference was just a mass delusion.


This was explained. Either you missed it or are choosing to ignore it. Reconciliation had to be used to pass the tax cuts because Democrats wouldn't vote for them and Republicans didn't have 60 votes. It would take 60 votes to make them permanent.

So who to blame for not giving 60 votes. Democrats.
Reconciliation has the Byrd rule which limits bills passed with it to ten years.
So who to blame for that rule and what party did he belong to? Byrd, a Democrat.
Who had four years of Congressional control and two years of Congressional control and the presidency in which to deal with this? Democrats.
Who choose to hold it off until this lame duck session? Democrats.
Who even now is STILL voting against it? Democrats.

That said. Obama is the president and has been for two years.

Those are OBAMA's wars now. His campaign promised timelines for closing Guantanimo and for pulling out of Iraq have passed. Its been 25 months since he took office. He doubled down on Afghanistan.
The Patriot Act, FISA and TSA. They are Obama's laws and agencies carrying those actions out now. He and his Congress didn't repeal or modify them. Instead Grandma is being molested to keep America safe!
PAYGO was promised in 2006 by Democrats. Instead we went from $250 billion a year deficits which they promised to eliminate, to $400 billion a year deficits while Bush was in office. Under Obama they have trillion dollar a year deficits.

Obama ran under the mantra of change. He's been more of the same and doubled down on what was wrong.

Obama's wars.
Obama's agencies molesting Grandma and the grandkids.
Obama's trillion dollar yearly deficits.
Obama's pay offs to Wall St.
Obama's Gulf Oil Spill.
Obama's energy prices that have doubled.
Obama's economy.
Obama's unemployment rate and record long term unemployment.

Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama.

Democrats, Democrats, Democrats, Democrats.

Own it. Own it. Own it.

You can't run from it. It is reality. Don't break from it.

And...it gets more interesting than that...I don't have a link handy, but my understanding is that the Patriot Act was actually conceived during the Clinton administration.

Tax deduction for mortgage interest could be on the chopping block

This will certainly be an interesting one. Long range this is probably a good idea. In fact I'd argue for the elimination of all deductions but with a corresponding lowering of tax rates. This won't happen of course. But what's especially pleasing is to see this article lay bare the impact that government intervention has in the market economy:




Here's a great quote:


Isn't interesting (and telling) how the money not received by the government as a result of a tax reducing deduction is referred to as "government money" that is being "spent on housing?" It's not really government money of course. It's the money of the people who've earned it. But this very mindset infects our political/governmental realm today and reveals the rather frightening way that many people think. Your money is the government's money...when they "allow" you to keep it, that it considered spending (from them to you). This is called slavery.

This absolutely should be addressed. There is a real problem though and that reality that as noted, eliminating it needs to occur with a lowering of tax rates which likely won't occur because all the various levels of government are already broke.

The other point will be to see who the increases get passed on to with regard to the tax increases. Like most naive leftists, the folks who propose it will try to claim they are hurting the rich and of course helping the poor because the rich would never take any action to protect their interests and have no financial knowledge or concerns, hence why they are rich. (Yes that is sarcasm)

If the deductions were eliminated, I can imagine most rents going up between $75-200 per unit.

The deeper question should be though, why tax income? Earning income is an activity we all desire so why discourage it? We really need to investigate mechanisms that stop hurting positive activity within our own economy.

We need to give up on free trade. You want to do business with the largest economy in the world, and you are outside of it, then pay that toll. Tariffs would stop against currency manipulation. It would stop the benefits from shipping jobs overseas. If you look at our tax structure, the taxes we now often pay internally used to be paid externally. That should change.

Agreed. This will be a back tax tax hike and it will be fully endorsed by Obama and the Democrats making it yet another broken promise. But politics aside and my general preference for lower taxes this might still be an overall move in the right direction.



You certainly correct. The tax increases always trickle down. This is the left/liberal/Democrat/progressive form of "trickle down" economics...only it is trickle down poverty.



Absolutely! Taxing income is probably the worst thing the tax code currently does. But is does have the benefit of treating everyone like slaves, invading their privacy and pitting different income groups against one another. So there's that.



Here we disagree. Free trade is a tremendous benefit to this country (and any other country that engages in it.) The currency games are a red herring.

Are Rising Imports a Boon or Bane to the Economy?:




Made on Earth: How Global Economic Integration Renders Trade Policy Obsolete (abstract for longer PDF white paper):



China -- It's Money: