Tax breaks for top 1% stimulates economy??? Pffffft.

And you know what, we don't terribly mind paying more. We have been paying more for 15 years now, but how much more is the question. We help people out who need a hand but she is working twice as hard to make just as much as she did 10 years ago. People think doctor and they think "Rich". That is just not true anymore. Rich to me is someone who has everything paid for and enough money in the bank to pay for it all over again. I think a lot of people confuse upper middle class with super wealthy. There is a very BIG difference between the 2. There will always be someone worse off than you and me and the next guy. I think human nature is to want to keep what you have and take more from the next guy up the ladder. We just can't afford to keep giving more, somethings gotta give.

 

I would gladly pay more taxes if it would help a less fortunate child have healthcare or to pay down our debt. Instead many feel that they too much in taxes already, many probably don't even pay federal income tax. My tax is my fee to live in the greatest country in the world. And I paid alot of income tax last year but I feel that I have been fortunate to be where I am, and I want my kids to feel like they live in the greatest country in the world when they get to be my age, not feel like they are living in a third world country.

 

Whoa!! Lack of regulation!! Have you read the Sarbanes-Oaxley regulatory guidelines?? All 20,000 pages?? Medicaid regulations and reimbursement guidleines? Doctors don't even bother. They just take the loss!

How about the Dept. of Energy? It was created in 1977 to foster less dependency on foreign oil. It costs taxpayers (2010 budget) 24.8 billion dollars this year. We import 70% of our oil. What does the DOE do but create regulatory rules for the energy sector. Which to abide by increases energy costs to the end consumer. I'm all for clean air and less dependency on oil but holy shit do we really need all that!

 

I am familiar with SOX, I work in the financial field. Also used to work at a CPA firm. It was put in place because of Enron, they screwed many out of billions. If that act would have been put in place before hand, it might not have happened. DOE, I work very close to Sandia National Labs, they do more than just create rules, they develop many of the most cutting edge technologies you will probably only see if you have a top secret clearance and even that you see everyday that you don't even know that were developed there. To regulate is to have some control, another way to look at it, is not to regulate means to have almost no control. I would take some control any day.

 

Fixed..............If the rules are the same for everybody then no one has a legit bitch about what anyone else has to do. PERIOD!

 

The DOE does not create that technology. The private sector company creates it through their R&D dept. Enron and WorldComm was a disaster, yes. Run by crooked execs that were cooking the books. The same guys who probably while in school as children were taught they had to be accountable to nobody but themselves. Driven by a lack of integrity and decent moral principles.

To say if it had been in place beforehand it wouldn't have happened is not logical to me. Hindsight is always 20/20. If my kid gets hurt in school gym is it right to ban PE throughout the schoolyear for all kids? Corp A fucks up so everybody pays. Oil well blows in deepwater so no more oil from the gulf.

We will differ all day on our viewpoints. I don't want to trade liberty for additional security.

 

can i get some clarification as to wether this tax will effect businesses revenues, or individuals? i'm under the impression that this is an income tax, meaning individual earnings...am i correct?

 

As I understand:

The top rate will raise from 35 to 39.6 percent
Expiration of 2001 and 2003 tax relief act
Lowest bracket increases from 10 to 15 percent
The 28 percent jumps to 31 percent
child tax credit is cut in half
The Death tax returns
Capital gains increases to 20 percent from 15 percent
AMT will not be indexed so the growth of those filing goes from 4 million to 28.5 million

Small businesses can no longer depreciate purchases. Currently they can depreciate up to $250k of equipment purchases. It gets cut to $25k.


Oh yeah!! When you get your W2's this year guess what.... A new box.
Your employer is now required to report the "value" of your health benefits that he/she/company pays for. So the benefit is now counted as earned income and taxed accordingly.

See you got a raise and didn't even know it!

 

This is what I've heard...

I think this is informative too.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/business/comparing-the-tax-plans/

 

So not true..
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...tax-forms-hr-3590-health-insurance-pay-taxes/

Brackets will change in the top. 10 - 15 is not true. If you are single making greater than $200k or married greater than $250k, your taxes will go up ~4%.

 

ok. so these tax cuts have been in effect since 2001 and 2003? if the revocation of these breaks will hinder growth, what the hell has been going on in the past ten years of lowered taxes? current state of the economy is the fruit of these tax "breaks"? there have been some that have benefited substantialy...CEO's (understood by me as business owners) in particular. while labor/production wages have been nearly stagnent, CEO income has increased nearly 300%. i think this shows where the tax savings is being accumulated.

also, where is the line on small vs. big business? anything not publicly traded is considered "small"?

 

Taken directly from H.R. 3590 CRS Summaries

"Title IX: Revenue Provisions - Subtitle A: Revenue Offset Provisions - (Sec. 9001, as modified by section 10901) Amends the Internal Revenue Code to impose an excise tax of 40% of the excess benefit from certain high cost employer-sponsored health coverage. Deems any amount which exceeds payment of $8,500 for an employee self-only coverage plan and $23,000 for employees with other than self-only coverage (family plans) as an excess benefit. Increases such amounts for certain retirees and employees who are engaged in high-risk professions (e.g., law enforcement officers, emergency medical first responders, or longshore workers). Imposes a penalty on employers and coverage providers for failure to calculate the proper amount of an excess benefit.
(Sec. 9002) Requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer-sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employee's gross income (excluding the value of contributions to flexible spending arrangements)."

So which is it?? Why include it on our W2 forms if it means nothing to the IRS??

 

Yup, these tax breaks for the rich have created some sick and out of control growth. (Sarcasm)

Not sure when small business becomes a big business, maybe it's the way it's coded for the IRS. LLC, INC? If you have some time you might want to read this about corporate taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States

 

Yes, that is the "Cadillac Tax"

Which is also noted here. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...tax-forms-hr-3590-health-insurance-pay-taxes/

 

Well I don't know about you but that doesn't seem to be a crazy amount to pay for a family of 4 or 5 on insurance per anum. If you are self employed and pay for insurance for yourself and dependents it will greatly exceed that amount per year for decent insurance. Hardly a Cadillac. Perhaps a used Cimarron.

 

admitedly, i am way out of my league on tax law.

i'm just a "normal" US citizen making median wages in a fairly unprosperous region of the country with an unemployment rate hovering around 15%. what i am trying to grasp is why would someone that CAN pay more taxes without adversly effecting their standard of living and help out the society that offered them the opportunity to become wealthy would choose/want not to? i would rather be rich and live in a healthy society, than wealthy and live in a deteriorating society. for the record, i would gladly pay the extra 3% if i had the opportuninty...but it will take more than ten years of my life to earn the $250,000 that would qualify me for the return to 2001 rates.

 

Taken from http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=4153
"Notably, the pair found that increases in tax rates on wages and entrepreneurial income (for example, income from a sole proprietorship or partnership) reduce the number of startups and hasten the number of entrepreneurs who give up their businesses, while tax cuts have the opposite effect, that is, they spur more entrepreneurship."

"The study estimated that every one percentage point cut in tax rates generates 1.5 percentage points more in entrepreneurial activity and reduces by nearly 4 percentage points the likelihood that those who are already engaged in a start-up will exit the field. Tax increases decrease entrepreneurial activity by like margins."

"According to Mitra, since most startups fund their businesses initially out of their savings and those of their families and friends, not from capital provided by professional investors, personal income-tax rates matter so much more to them than venture capital initiatives."

 

Amen brother!

 

LOL i'm sorry...i just had this funny picture in my mind of paris hilton doing her taxes after a rate cut and deciding to open several steel mills and rollerbearing factories across the nation. again sorry, but the above statement to me sounds ludicrous.

 

Class warfare - unsub'd Good luck