Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011

President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

1) On people making more than $250,000.

$338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire
$179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction
$118 billion - capital gains tax hike

Total: $636 billion/10 years

2) Businesses:

$17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes
$24 billion - tax carried-interest as income
$5 billion - codify "economic substance doctrine"
$61 billion - repeal LIFO
$210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform
$4 billion - information reporting for rental payments
$5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
$3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs
$62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants
$49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
$13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies
$1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers
$882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit

Total: $353 billion/10 years

How is a tax cut expiring a new tax?

The capital gains tax is going up to 20%. woooo. IMO, capitals gains taxes should be MUCH higher, and income taxes should be lower. Why should money that isn't actually earned by work be taxed less than money that you physically work for?

I'm glad he's getting rid of some of the tax breaks oil companies and corporations get. yea! They don't need tax breaks. They make tens of billions of dollars every quarter. Why should they get tax breaks?

I REEEEALLY liked what he said yesterday about ending waste in government contracts. I have been bitching about that for years. So YEA! Did anyone else catch it? You can read it here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/12988730/P...s-March-4-2009

"...Obama's announcement appeared designed to counter Republican arguments that spending rather than efficiency guided his budget priorities. The president plans to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term, and he said yesterday that the results of the contracting review would save an estimated $40 billion a year. McCain and Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich) will be managing contracting reform legislation, Obama said, and William J. Lynn III, a former Raytheon lobbyist who is now deputy defense secretary, will be responsible for procurement reform.

Some government monitoring groups said Obama's decision to highlight contracting excess is nearly as important as the substance of the review itself. Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan watchdog group, said that "by giving this speech, President Obama has highlighted the culture of corruption in contracting in Washington and is embracing the necessary changes to fix it." ..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030401690.html

Wasn't it already taxed when it was income?

Not the gains.

Nope. Money made off of other money. Maybe the first money invested was taxed, but like HM said, not the profits. This is another way wealthy people get away with paying less taxes than everyone else, since those at the top end up investing most of their money. And, when they lose money, they get a big fat writeoff.

Also, the entire notion of "already taxed" is silly. Your income is "already taxed" by the Feds when you pay state or local income tax. Your money is "already taxed" by income tax when you use it to buy goods and services and pay sales tax. The money that stores use to pay their employees was "already taxed" by sales tax on the product that the stores sold. Money is fungible; money that has been "already taxed" is exactly the same as money that hasn't. When you use that money in another way, it is subject to the taxes on that use.

I never thought about it that way, but it makes sense.

Well said HM - I hadn't looked at it that way.

Yes, you should definitely place higher taxes on the fruits of a positive behavior. That'll teach people to save and invest more.

I find it strange that the people who most often support raising capital gains taxes are the least likely to understand how a capital gain is realized in the first place. It seems the usual reaction is 'someone has money making money??? let's take some from those rich bastards!'

I think capital gains tax is a rort. If someone owns one investment property and then sells it, they have to give half of the profit to the government, and the government taxes the shit out of you in the first place anyway.

I don't think it should exist.

Or "Let's penalize people for investing in Malaysian sweatshops".

Split it between stateside investments (lower capital gains) and overseas investments (higher capital gains). Anything in a grey area to be considered overseas.

Why would that be a good thing?

Good frigging God that says it all......:headshake

I still say money you actually work for should be taxed a lot less than money earned from investments.

I say it isn't going to matter. Both sides are spending so fast, you can just save $100 for use as bumwad.

Congress wants to spend on itself in new bill

Maybe Obama gets it, maybe not. But its crystal clear to me that congress is on autopilot and its just business as usual for them. There is no crisis, no catastrophe. Its just another day in paradise, livin the high life and spending other peoples money.

Yea, remember about that pass through for their pork, this is one of them.

40% or so of the pork is for the GOP.

You seem like a smart guy, Merc...so why do you run around believing half of the lies?

What does that change?

I believe it shook them out of their boots when Bernanke and Paulsen said do nothing and the entire economy will collapse. Congress' problem has more to do with direction. They could respond quickly to the crisis but could not agree on a direction. Very little history exists for how to fix an economy like this. Almost all facts come from overseas meaning most Americans (and Congressmen) do not appreciate the value of those lessons. Even the definition of 'systemic risk' is arbitrary - maybe nothing more than wild speculation. Can anyone really say AIG in bankruptcy would destroy the economy? Congress has no direction because no one really *knows* what (at their level) works.

Worse is an apparent lack of appreciation for a major problem. Accounting (the spread sheets) are still to often a pack of lies. There appears to be no interest in restoring domestic accounting standards to something that more resembles honesty. No, that would not fix the economy. But the elimination of Enron accounting is essential for our log term economic stability. That one objective should be obvious. As of yet, no sign that Congress wants to touch it.

Why would they? The way they are now is making ALL OF THEM rich as shit? There is no incentive for them to actually do what they were elected to do. Well there is sorta, but its not enough to beat the legal scam they got going now.

Nothing. You missed the second half of my post, apparently.

I don't think you saw it. I don't think you CAN see it.

What is making ALL members of Congress rich as shit?

Pleas explain "the scam they got going now."

Hell, I have a greater net worth than many members of Congress and I'm no millionaire.

well, there are plenty of rich people in Congress, but most of them had money before they were elected.

scam = extremely sweet deal. ie retirement after serving only one term. Pay grade that puts them in the top, what, 2 percentile. Lobbyists (like you - just kidding!)at their virtual beck and call. Those long hours. Automatic pay raises.

Perks that most people couldn't even dream of.

In fact, members of the House become DO NOT become vested in the retirement system after one term. I think its five years or three terms. Thats not so different from many private employee retirement plans.

The so called "scam" with speaking engagements, lland/stock deals, etc was addressed in the Democrats ethics reform in 07...and very few members of Congress get book deals.

Yes, they make a good salary....so what? Many also support two homes...one in their district and one in DC.

That doesnt equal "rich as shit" (unless you have a very low standard for shit)

What is their average net worth?

Median net worth of members of Congress is about $500-$600k

Many have negative net worth......the bottom 25:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/over...ilter=C&sort=A

OK...I thought you were mad because of the pay raise, which comes from wages paid by us, the taxpayers.

If others choose to perk some of them, what does that have to do with the pay raise you are against?

I was referring to this chart

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/wealth_summary_img.php

I'm not mad at the pay raise - I don't like that its automatic though. I would like them to openly vote for it, like everything else.

I think Congress should get a constant multiple of the Federal minimum wage.

Average is not as meaningful as median.

Average the top (Harmon's $397 million) and the bottom (Hastings -$5 million) and you still have an "average" of nearly $200 million....so what? how meaningful is that?

I have a problem with them getting raises every year when they aren't willing to address raising the minimum wage every year and giving the lowest earners a REAL living wage.

I dunno, Anyone here have 1/200th of that? Post next.

Personally, I don't think anyone should be allowed to have over a billion dollars in personal wealth. Really. Who needs that much money?

Hey, when you make a claim that ALL members of Congress are getting "rich as shit", I'm just trying to understand how these bottom 25 in net worth ($0 or less) are getting rich:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/over...ilter=C&sort=A

IMO, its no better than your equally bold statement that virtually ALL economists dont share Obama's economic growth projections.

The facts dont support your generalizations.

WTF? allowed? Do you not have even the slightest idea what made this country successful?

Yes, I do. Do YOU?

Why do you think we don't grant titles of nobility in this country? Why do you think it's written into the constitution that patents and copyrights should be for a limited amount of time?

Those are totally unrelated to the issue of limiting how much of a person's earnings they have the right to keep. If I earn $100 I have to pay taxes and the rest is mine. If I earn $100,000,000,000 I should pay taxes and then... not get to keep the rest of it?

FWIW - Anyone here believe that Joe Biden is worth only $215,997. There is no way on earth that is possible.

Also, Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla) 2005, 2006, 2007 $-2,115,006
What are the odds of this man having the EXACT same net worth 3 years in a row?
I also noticed that in 2007, 20 of the bottom 25 were D's and 14 of the top 25 were D's. Not sure what that means, but it makes me question this data.

Net worth figures are easy to mess with. One person could give five different figures without lying. It all depends on the assets and expenses included or excluded.

The point is, those things were written into the Constitution because the FFs didn't want to create a country of peasants and nobility, or one where the nobility had all the money and power, and where they could run roughshod over the people. So we don't have titles of nobility, but one could argue that we have nobility just the same. We have created the same inequality that existed in Europe that the FFs were hoping to avoid.

They wrote the thing about patents and copyrights to create innovation and progress. They wanted people to invent things for the good of society, not for the good of the self. Greed and corruption were the things they were fighting. You know, it was a revolution. They were fighting the establishment.

I understand that, but to end up with the EXACT same amount 3 years in a row - to the penny? smell that? somethings fishy.

Something stinks and it ain't the litterbox. :D

God help me. It's late and I'm delerious.

Bullshit. They were fighting to keep the government from taking what they earned for themselves. The idea that they fought the tax policies of the King because they wanted people to NOT keep the fruits of their labor is a little bizarre don't you think?
Yes, the establishment who was taking their money, without giving them a say in the matter. That is quite a bit different than fighting the establishment so the government could decide how much money a person or family was allowed to create and keep.

Classic, I see what you are saying and it very well could be fishy, but it also might be perfectly legal. Neither of us knows. Let me put it this way. My company's income has been all over the place in the last few years, but my personal income for my taxes has been the exact same down to the penny - because that is the magic number I need to pay only the the smallest possible amount of taxes I can legally do. The rest is all just money games. Which is why I'm a huge fan of the flat tax, but that is for a different thread.

Good grief. The Constitution was written AFTER we won independence.

:headsmack:

You got me there. and they were separated by a few years too, so they must be completely unrelated, right?

10 years. The first plan, which let the states handle pretty much everything, didn't work out.

Many of the same men who fought for independence were involved in the constitutional congress. Are you suggesting that ten years and a false start means the struggle and the final chosen form of government are unrelated?

No, not at all. Those 10 years were ample time to prove the old was wasn't going to work and they had to come up with a whole new system.

The Bill of Rights, which is paramount to our system, was written to bring the people mistrustful of a central government on board.

Copyrights weren't 95 years long in their version.

From Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution: To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Seems pretty clear to me.

Maybe these links will help put in perspective exactly what that clause means.

A Brief History of the Patent Law of the United States
http://www.ladas.com/Patents/USPatentHistory.html

Copyright Term, Retrospective Extension, and the Copyright Law of 1790
in Historical Context
http://www.dklevine.com/archive/copyright1790.pdf

Ooooo great a discussion of what the Constitution means. :D