Taxes too high? You ain't seen nothing yet

[Zoom-boing]

Which tax increases do the current administration and Congress intend to enact? There are more than a dozen, all of which would negatively affect our economy.

One has already been signed into law by President Obama: an increase in the tax on tobacco, to $1.01 a pack of cigarettes from 39 cents, and to as much as 40 cents a cigar from a nickel--increases of 159% and 700%, respectively. This is expected to bring in $8 billion a year. Next up is a possible increase in alcohol, beer and wine taxes, raising about another $6 billion annually, and perhaps another $5 billion a year on sugary drinks will be enacted.

Then come a series of substantial tax increases that are on the Washington agenda that, if enacted, will create real problems for our country's economy.

First, allowing the expiration of the previous Bush administration tax cuts at the end of 2010. These reductions increased government tax receipts by $785 billion (just as the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts increased tax revenues) and gave us eight million new jobs over a 52-month period. The cuts go away if Congress does nothing, raising tax rates on the top earners will to 39.6% from 35%, and on the next-highest bracket to 36% from 33%. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that 55% of these tax increases will come from small-business income.

Next comes Rep. Charles Rangel's additional tax increases, a part of the House health-care bill. The House Ways and Means chairman calls for a 1% surtax on couples with more than $350,000 in income, 1.5% on incomes more than $500,000, and 5.4% on incomes more than $1 million. The extra tax would kick in at lower levels for unmarried taxpayers. And if promised health-care cost savings don't materialize, the surtaxes would automatically double.

The House health-care bill contains several tax increases that would hit couples earning under $250,000 a year, contrary to President Obama's promises: $8.2 billion of tax increases for people using health savings accounts or other tax-free savings to purchase over-the-counter drugs; a "Comparative Effectiveness Research Tax" of $2 billion on all private and "public option" insurance, plus up to 8% paid by employers--mostly small businesses--that don't offer health insurance. There is even a proposed tax on individuals who do not have health insurance.

Then come some other tax increases the administration has favored:

• An increased tax on American companies doing business in other countries.

• Raising or abolishing the wage cap on Social Security taxes, which would effectively convert Social Security into a welfare program.

• Reducing the tax benefit for itemized deductions like charitable contributions, which would reduce philanthropy.

And then there's the Waxman-Markey "cap and trade" bill that has passed the House and will be taken up in the Senate this fall. It would give the government total control of the production, prices, availability and use of energy and add a global energy tax to imported goods--serious American protectionism. It would shrink America's economy by $400 billion each year and cause the loss of some 2.5 million jobs. For a household of four it would cost an average of about $3,000 a year. By 2035 the total family annual increased cost would be $4,600 for power, food, supplies, gasoline and transportation.

All told, the administration and Congress are pushing massive tax increases. Without a specific proposal we don't know how much taxes would go up if the Social Security ceiling is raised, but add the others up and we see up to $200 billion--and it could well be much more--in annual tax increases on businesses, individuals and the overall economy, which is already in recession.

The Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger observes that "to an independent voter or moderate Democrat, President Everyman is starting to look like a salesman for the superstate." These many proposed tax increases reinforce the point. They not only would be economically damaging, but chart a very scary course for our country.

The High Cost of Liberalism - WSJ.com

 

[Xenophon]

Obama has been doing the spend part first, the tax part is next.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Obama has been doing the spend part first, the tax part is next.

No doubt.

 

[Truthmatters]

What do you think our current economy would be without any stimulus?

What do you think our current economy would look like without the cost of the Iraq war?

 

[Zoom-boing]

What do you think our current economy would be without any stimulus?

What do you think our current economy would look like without the cost of the Iraq war?

Richer.

 

[Care4all]

i have no idea how they can say the bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 raised tax revenues? we had 2.0 trillion in tax revenues collected in 2000 and in 2008 we collected about the same in revenue....but after the bush tax cuts, in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, we collected billions LESS in tax revenues, then FINALLY in 2005 we were back up to collecting the same tax revenues as we did in the yr 2000?

 

[Care4all]

2009's budget spending, which started october 1, 2008 and ends sept 30th of this year will be attributed to president bush, not president obama, at least on the books, it will go under the Bush presidency.....the $1.5 trillion dollar deficit will be attributed to president bush, though obama certainly affected it!

 

[VaYank5150]

One has already been signed into law by President Obama: an increase in the tax on tobacco, to $1.01 a pack of cigarettes from 39 cents, and to as much as 40 cents a cigar from a nickel--increases of 159% and 700%, respectively. This is expected to bring in $8 billion a year. Next up is a possible increase in alcohol, beer and wine taxes, raising about another $6 billion annually, and perhaps another $5 billion a year on sugary drinks will be enacted.

Please explain SPECIFICALLY, how these "choice" taxes negatively impact our economy?

 

[VaYank5150]

Then come a series of substantial tax increases that are on the Washington agenda that, if enacted, will create real problems for our country's economy.

I cannot wait until they raise the taxes on fast food! Then you non-smoking Nazis will know how it feels to be targeted!

 

[Zoom-boing]

One has already been signed into law by President Obama: an increase in the tax on tobacco, to $1.01 a pack of cigarettes from 39 cents, and to as much as 40 cents a cigar from a nickel--increases of 159% and 700%, respectively. This is expected to bring in $8 billion a year. Next up is a possible increase in alcohol, beer and wine taxes, raising about another $6 billion annually, and perhaps another $5 billion a year on sugary drinks will be enacted.

Please explain SPECIFICALLY, how these "choice" taxes negatively impact our economy?

Well, the tax on smokes makes it more expensive to smoke so many smokers will quit. Ooo, savings on health care, yeah! One problem -- they are using the tax increase from smokes to provide for SCHIP. Oh, and they also allotted $75million in the stimuless package for . . . . wait for it . . . smoking cessation programs!

Smoking cessation programs and higher taxes on smokes = less smokers
Less smokers = less tax received
Less tax received = where the hell are they going to get the SCHIP money from?
Where the hell are they going to get SCHIP money from = tax something else

See the pattern?

Government, redefining stupidity daily.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Then come a series of substantial tax increases that are on the Washington agenda that, if enacted, will create real problems for our country's economy.

I cannot wait until they raise the taxes on fast food! Then you non-smoking Nazis will know how it feels to be targeted!

So if you don't smoke that means you must eat fast food?

Don't worry about how it feels to be targeted; Barry and his crew have a laundry list of taxes they have in mind. Soon we'll all know how it feels.

 

[VaYank5150]

So if you don't smoke that means you must eat fast food?

Did I say that? Please cut and paste where I did as I do not recall. Hell, I smoke AND eat fast food.

Don't worry about how it feels to be targeted; Barry and his crew have a laundry list of taxes they have in mind. Soon we'll all know how it feels.

Fortunately, I don't make anywhere near $350K, so I won't be on that radar screen!

 

[Sinatra]

One has already been signed into law by President Obama: an increase in the tax on tobacco, to $1.01 a pack of cigarettes from 39 cents, and to as much as 40 cents a cigar from a nickel--increases of 159% and 700%, respectively. This is expected to bring in $8 billion a year. Next up is a possible increase in alcohol, beer and wine taxes, raising about another $6 billion annually, and perhaps another $5 billion a year on sugary drinks will be enacted.

Please explain SPECIFICALLY, how these "choice" taxes negatively impact our economy?

Well, the tax on smokes makes it more expensive to smoke so many smokers will quit. Ooo, savings on health care, yeah! One problem -- they are using the tax increase from smokes to provide for SCHIP. Oh, and they also allotted $75million in the stimuless package for . . . . wait for it . . . smoking cessation programs!

Smoking cessation programs and higher taxes on smokes = less smokers
Less smokers = less tax received
Less tax received = where the hell are they going to get the SCHIP money from?
Where the hell are they going to get SCHIP money from = tax something else

See the pattern?

Government, redefining stupidity daily.

I explained this scenario to one of my many liberal former colleagues and they did not believe it. I pulled up the information for them and they sat there dumfounded that the government could do something so asinine.

They still maintain Obama will "fix America" though...

 

[VaYank5150]

Smoking cessation programs and higher taxes on smokes = less smokers
Less smokers = less tax received
Less tax received = where the hell are they going to get the SCHIP money from?
Where the hell are they going to get SCHIP money from = tax something else

As a smoker, this is one thing I have never understood. Your example and logic are sound. Add to this, that even in my home state of Virginia, they are banning all smoking in ANY public place, such as a restaurant with a bar starting December 1st. So, I agree that the government appears to be shooting themselves in the foot on this one!

 

[Zoom-boing]

Did I say that? Please cut and paste where I did as I do not recall. Hell, I smoke AND eat fast food.

I didn't say you said that; I asked if that's what it means.

 

[VaYank5150]

I didn't say you said that; I asked if that's what it means.

Not at all. I am just looking forward to all of the pissed off non-smokers who DO eat fast food when the government finally targets them with higher taxes on their vice.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Smoking cessation programs and higher taxes on smokes = less smokers
Less smokers = less tax received
Less tax received = where the hell are they going to get the SCHIP money from?
Where the hell are they going to get SCHIP money from = tax something else

As a smoker, this is one thing I have never understood. Your example and logic are sound. Add to this, that even in my home state of Virginia, they are banning all smoking in ANY public place, such as a restaurant with a bar starting December 1st. So, I agree that the government appears to be shooting themselves in the foot on this one!

It's like one big circle jerk. How do they come up with this stuff? Then again, the stimuless was passed without being read; I wonder how many more 'circle jerk' things were in it.

They shouldn't be banning anything. It isn't the government's job to tell us what we can or cannot put into our bodies.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

One has already been signed into law by President Obama: an increase in the tax on tobacco, to $1.01 a pack of cigarettes from 39 cents, and to as much as 40 cents a cigar from a nickel--increases of 159% and 700%, respectively. This is expected to bring in $8 billion a year. Next up is a possible increase in alcohol, beer and wine taxes, raising about another $6 billion annually, and perhaps another $5 billion a year on sugary drinks will be enacted.

Please explain SPECIFICALLY, how these "choice" taxes negatively impact our economy?

Well, the tax on smokes makes it more expensive to smoke so many smokers will quit. Ooo, savings on health care, yeah! One problem -- they are using the tax increase from smokes to provide for SCHIP. Oh, and they also allotted $75million in the stimuless package for . . . . wait for it . . . smoking cessation programs!

Smoking cessation programs and higher taxes on smokes = less smokers
Less smokers = less tax received
Less tax received = where the hell are they going to get the SCHIP money from?
Where the hell are they going to get SCHIP money from = tax something else

See the pattern?

Government, redefining stupidity daily.

Dont forget people are seeing Drs to get help and spending big money on drugs to quite smoking driving up health cost.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Smoking cessation programs and higher taxes on smokes = less smokers
Less smokers = less tax received
Less tax received = where the hell are they going to get the SCHIP money from?
Where the hell are they going to get SCHIP money from = tax something else

As a smoker, this is one thing I have never understood. Your example and logic are sound. Add to this, that even in my home state of Virginia, they are banning all smoking in ANY public place, such as a restaurant with a bar starting December 1st. So, I agree that the government appears to be shooting themselves in the foot on this one!

It's like one big circle jerk. How do they come up with this stuff? Then again, the stimuless was passed without being read; I wonder how many more 'circle jerk' things were in it.

They shouldn't be banning anything. It isn't the government's job to tell us what we can or cannot put into our bodies.

It will when they take charge of healthcare.

 

[Zoom-boing]

As a smoker, this is one thing I have never understood. Your example and logic are sound. Add to this, that even in my home state of Virginia, they are banning all smoking in ANY public place, such as a restaurant with a bar starting December 1st. So, I agree that the government appears to be shooting themselves in the foot on this one!

It's like one big circle jerk. How do they come up with this stuff? Then again, the stimuless was passed without being read; I wonder how many more 'circle jerk' things were in it.

They shouldn't be banning anything. It isn't the government's job to tell us what we can or cannot put into our bodies.

It will when they take charge of healthcare.

Oh, you got that right.