Taxes Under Obama Hit Lowest Level Since 1950

[GoneBezerk]

Liberals like typical scumbags take credit for what Bush did with the "Bush tax cuts" and the "Bush oil permits," both of which kept taxes lower and domestic oil production steady.

Meanwhile Obamination plans on letting the Bush tax cuts expire on 1 Jan 13 and he has not given "new" domestic oil drilling permits off shore and on most public land which counter to his bullshit claims to "him" improving oil production for the average American.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Federal, state and local taxes -- including income, property, sales and other taxes -- consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.


"The idea that taxes are high right now is pretty much nuts," says Michael Ettlinger, head of economic policy at the liberal Center for American Progress.

That conclusion echoed a similar finding from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities last month. CBPP found


Middle-income Americans are now paying federal taxes at or near historically low levels, according to the latest available data. That's true whether it comes to their federal income taxes or their total federal taxes.

Tea Parties Rage as Taxes Hit Lowest Level Since 1950 | Crooks and Liars

Unless one counts these:


Comprehensive List of Obama Tax Hikes
Which one of these tax hikes will destroy the most jobs?
Sign up for our email list to stay up-to-date on the looming tax fights in Congress!
Since taking office, President Barack Obama has signed into law twenty-one new or higher taxes:
1. A 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco: On February 4, 2009, just sixteen days into his Administration, Obama signed into law a 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco, a hike of 61 cents per pack. The median income of smokers is just over $36,000 per year.
2. Obamacare Individual Mandate Excise Tax (takes effect in Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following
1 Adult 2 Adults 3+ Adults
2014 1% AGI/$95 1% AGI/$190 1% AGI/$285
2015 2% AGI/$325 2% AGI/$650 2% AGI/$975
2016 + 2.5% AGI/$695 2.5% AGI/$1390 2.5% AGI/$2085

Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS). Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337
3. Obamacare Employer Mandate Tax (takes effect Jan. 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346
Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years
4. Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income (Tax hike of $123 billion/takes effect Jan. 2013): Creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income: Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93
Capital Gains Dividends Other*
2011-2012 15% 15% 35%
2013+ (current law) 23.8% 43.4% 43.4%
2013+ (Obama budget) 23.8% 23.8% 43.4%

*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.
5. Obamacare Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Tax hike of $32 bil/takes effect Jan. 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956
6. Obamacare Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Tax hike of $86.8 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Current law and changes:
First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee
Current Law 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
Obamacare Tax Hike 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed 1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed

Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation Act; Page: 2000-2003; 87-93
7. Obamacare Medicine Cabinet Tax (Tax hike of $5 bil/took effect Jan. 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959
8. Obamacare HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Tax hike of $1.4 bil/took effect Jan. 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959
9. Obamacare Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” (Tax hike of $13 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389
10. Obamacare Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Tax hike of $20 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986
11. Obamacare "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Tax hike of $15.2 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995
12. Obamacare Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Tax hike of $2.7 billion/took effect July 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399
13. Obamacare elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Tax hike of $4.5 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994
14. Obamacare Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Tax hike of $0.4 bil/took effect Jan. 1 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004
15. Obamacare Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Min$/took effect immediately): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971
16. Obamacare Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Tax hike of $22.2 bil/took effect Jan. 2011): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980
17. Obamacare Tax on Health Insurers (Tax hike of $60.1 bil/takes effect Jan. 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. Phases in gradually until 2018. Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993
18. Obamacare $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Tax hike of $0.6 bil/takes effect Jan 2013). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000
19. Obamacare Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 ($min/takes effect Jan. 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957
20. Obamacare “Black liquor” tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion/took effect immediately). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105
21. Obamacare Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Tax hike of $4.5 billion/took effect immediately). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113
Americans for Tax Reform : Comprehensive List of Obama Tax Hikes

 

[JakeStarkey]

Allowing the tax cuts expire along with a 9:1 budget cut per dollar will eliminate the problem in six years.

GoneBezerk is correct about the Obama administration reaping the benefits of the Bush oil policy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This is why we have a deficit.

We need to raise taxes.

deficit's are created by over spending. You can raise taxes all you want but when you spend more than what you take in it will create a deficit

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigrebnc, yes, you are right.

We have to cut the budget, and the experts seem to agree that a 9:1 dollar relationship of cuts to revenue increase will relieve the problem.

This is why we have a deficit.

We need to raise taxes.

deficit's are created by over spending. You can raise taxes all you want but when you spend more than what you take in it will create a deficit

 

[PoliticalChic]

bigrebnc, yes, you are right.

We have to cut the budget, and the experts seem to agree that a 9:1 dollar relationship of cuts to revenue increase will relieve the problem.

This is why we have a deficit.

We need to raise taxes.

deficit's are created by over spending. You can raise taxes all you want but when you spend more than what you take in it will create a deficit

Would those cuts in spending be along the same lines that the Congress promised President Reagan?

 

[Richard-H]

Deficit spending is a tax, albeit deferred.

Then Bush was taxing us at an astronomical rate!

And all those GOP fools thought that he cut taxes!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Deficit spending is a tax, albeit deferred.

Yep.

The Current ReaganBush Debt is:​

$15,049,505,267,588.20 ​

ReaganBushDebt.org

How much is Obama's doing? Sniper Fire, do you know?
No, of course, you don't.
You won't read this because it doesn't fit your screwed up agenda, but here it is anyway.
http://www.reaganbushdebt.org/CalculationDetails.aspx

BTW, this is one of the GObP conventions lies. Apparently, rw's are just too dumb to educate themselves and would rather believe the LIES from their masters.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I gather they follow the Bowles-Simpson thinking.

bigrebnc, yes, you are right.

We have to cut the budget, and the experts seem to agree that a 9:1 dollar relationship of cuts to revenue increase will relieve the problem.

deficit's are created by over spending. You can raise taxes all you want but when you spend more than what you take in it will create a deficit

Would those cuts in spending be along the same lines that the Congress promised President Reagan?

 

[Richard-H]

This is why we have a deficit.

We need to raise taxes.

deficit's are created by over spending. You can raise taxes all you want but when you spend more than what you take in it will create a deficit

It's also true that:

Deficits are created by under taxing. You cut spending all you want, but when you tax less than what you spend it will create a deficit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Deficit spending is a tax, albeit deferred.

The Current ReaganBush Debt is
$15,049,505,267,588.20

^^^
This is a lie.

 

[ilia25]

Deficit spending is a tax, albeit deferred.

Some people have brains, but your head is filled with bumper stickers.

 

[Too Tall]

Well said. I feel for a short time all Americans were united together after the 911 terrorist attack, I actully liked Bush going into groud zero ~~~~ well we know what happened after thAt Bush used the american people to go into a war and we were cheering until we saw he was going into the place opposite of where bin laden was...What a idiot Yep the Righties really love their big Military spending..

The war in Iraq, and the need to go to war in Iraq, was happily supported by any number of prominent Democrats, including at least three that you voted for (if you were old enoughj, anyway).

What do you mean " at least three that you voted for"? 147 Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq Resolution.

147 out of 535. I'm not impressed.

 

[ilia25]

Not every penny Obama chose to spend. That is pure ignorance.

As all spending is volutary, it is the absolutetruth.
As such, all deficits are voluntary.
The Obama -chose- to spend the money, and thus, chose to run the deficits.

And so did Bush, and so do Romney and Ryan.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not every penny Obama chose to spend. That is pure ignorance.

As all spending is volutary, it is the absolutetruth.
As such, all deficits are voluntary.
The Obama -chose- to spend the money, and thus, chose to run the deficits.

And so did Bush

I'll take this red herring as your acceptance of the fact that The Obama -chose- to run those deficits.

 

[freedombecki]

Tea Parties Rage as Taxes Hit Lowest Level Since 1950 | Crooks and Liars

That's not all...

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?

Forbes

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama: Most Fiscally Conservative President in Modern History

the Atlantic

"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."
The Rabbi

Here's an excellent take down of this silly claim, from the comments section.....

&#8220;Federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in almost 60 years,&#8221; Obama said at a campaign rally Thursday in Des Moines, Iowa.

The problem with that rosy claim is that the Wall Street bailout is part of the calculation. The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before Obama took office, making Obama&#8217;s 2010 results look smaller in comparison. And as almost $150 billion of the bailout was paid back during Obama&#8217;s watch, the analysis counted them as government spending cuts.

It also assumes Obama had less of a role setting the budget for 2009 than he really did.

Obama rests his claim on an analysis by MarketWatch, a financial information and news service owned by Dow Jones & Co. The analysis simply looks at the year-to-year topline spending number for the government but doesn&#8217;t account for distortions baked into the figures by the Wall Street bailout and government takeover of the mortgage lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The MarketWatch study finds spending growth of only 1.4 percent over 2010-2013, or annual increases averaging 0.4 percent over that period. Those are stunningly low figures considering that Obama rammed through Congress an $831 billion stimulus measure in early 2009 and presided over significant increases in annual spending by domestic agencies at the same time the cost of benefit programs like Social Security, Medicare and the Medicaid were ticking steadily higher.

A fairer calculation would give Obama much of the responsibility for an almost 10 percent budget boost in 2009, then a 13 percent increase over 2010-2013, or average annual growth of spending of just more than 3 percent over that period.

So, how does the administration arrive at its claim?

First, there&#8217;s the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the official name for the Wall Street bailout. First, companies got a net $151 billion from TARP in 2009, making 2010 spending look smaller. Then, because banks and Wall Street firms repaid a net $110 billion in TARP funds in 2010, Obama is claiming credit for cutting spending by that much.

The combination of TARP lending in one year and much of that money being paid back in the next makes Obama&#8217;s spending record for 2010 look $261 billion thriftier than it really was. Only by that measure does Obama &#8220;cut&#8221; spending by 1.8 percent in 2010 as the analysis claims.

The federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also makes Obama&#8217;s record on spending look better than it was. The government spent $96 billion on the Fannie-Freddie takeovers in 2009 but only $40 billion on them in 2010. By the administration&#8217;s reckoning, the $56 billion difference was a spending cut by Obama.

Taken together, TARP and the takeover of Fannie and Freddie combine to give Obama an undeserved $317 billion swing in the 2010 figures and the resulting 1.8 percent cut from 2009. A fairer reading is an almost 8 percent increase.

Those two bailouts account for $72 billion more in cuts in 2011. Obama supported the bailouts.

There&#8217;s also the question of how to treat the 2009 fiscal year, which actually began Oct. 1, 2008, almost four months before Obama took office. Typically, the remaining eight months get counted as part of the prior president&#8217;s spending since the incoming president usually doesn&#8217;t change it much until the following October. The MarketWatch analysis assigned 2009 to former President George W. Bush, though it gave Obama responsibility that year for a $140 billion chunk of the 2009 stimulus bill.

But Obama&#8217;s role in 2009 spending was much bigger than that. For starters, he signed nine spending bills funding every Cabinet agency except Defense, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security. While the numbers don&#8217;t jibe exactly, Obama bears the chief responsibility for an 11 percent, $59 billion increase in non-defense spending in 2009. Then there&#8217;s a 9 percent, $109 billion increase in combined defense and non-defense appropriated outlays in 2010, a year for which Obama is wholly responsible.

As other critics have noted, including former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the MarketWatch analysis also incorporates CBO&#8217;s annual baseline as its estimate for fiscal years 2012 and 2013. That gives Obama credit for three events unlikely to occur:

&#8211;$65 billion in 2013 from automatic, across-the-board spending cuts slated to take effect next January.

&#8211;Cuts in Medicare payments to physicians.

&#8211;The expiration of refundable tax cuts that are &#8220;scored&#8221; as spending in federal ledgers.

Lawmakers are unlikely to allow the automatic cuts to take full effect, but it&#8217;s at best a guessing game as to what will really happen in 2013. A better measure is Obama&#8217;s request for 2013.

&#8220;You can only make him look good by ignoring the early years and adopting the hope and not the reality of the years in his budget,&#8221; said Holtz-Eakin, a GOP economist and president of the American Action Forum, a free market think tank.

So how does Obama measure up?

If one assumes that TARP and the takeover of Fannie and Freddie by the government as one-time budgetary anomalies and remove them from calculations &#8212; an approach taken by Holtz-Eakin &#8212; you get the following picture:

&#8211;A 9.7 percent increase in 2009, much of which is attributable to Obama.

&#8211;A 7.8 percent increase in 2010, followed by slower spending growth over 2011-13. Much of the slower growth reflects the influence of Republicans retaking control of the House and their budget and debt deal last summer with Obama. All told, government spending now appears to be growing at an annual rate of roughly 3 percent over the 2010-2013 period, rather than the 0.4 percent claimed by Obama and the MarketWatch analysis.

It sounds to me like Obama doesn't want to take any responsibility for his egregious overspending administration.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I gather they follow the Bowles-Simpson thinking.

bigrebnc, yes, you are right.

We have to cut the budget, and the experts seem to agree that a 9:1 dollar relationship of cuts to revenue increase will relieve the problem.

Would those cuts in spending be along the same lines that the Congress promised President Reagan?

1. Reagan subsequently made such a deal, in which for each $1 in higher taxes Congress promised $3 in spending cuts; Reagan delivered the tax hike, but Congress reneged, actually increasing spending.
Human Events - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. George Santayana (1863-1952) said: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"


That is what happens when one 'gathers.'

In Liberals, feeling often passes for knowing.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

This is why we have a deficit.

We need to raise taxes.

deficit's are created by over spending. You can raise taxes all you want but when you spend more than what you take in it will create a deficit

Oh, I better write that down.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This is why we have a deficit.

We need to raise taxes.

deficit's are created by over spending. You can raise taxes all you want but when you spend more than what you take in it will create a deficit

Oh, I better write that down.

Yes why don't you, it seem you have to be constantly remind of that fact. So raising taxes want stop the deficit?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This is why we have a deficit.

We need to raise taxes.

deficit's are created by over spending. You can raise taxes all you want but when you spend more than what you take in it will create a deficit

It's also true that:

Deficits are created by under taxing. You cut spending all you want, but when you tax less than what you spend it will create a deficit.

Created by spending more than you take in.