Here Comes The Taxes!!!

[Big Black Dog]

According to Neil Cavuto of Fox News a National Sales Tax is going to be coming along in the very near future. I don't have much info on it because it was just a small segment of information on The Cavuto Show just before he signed off today. Isn't this a fine kettle of fish????? Got to love those Democrats and their wonderful ideas! This isn't a tax to replace the current Federal Income Taxes such as was discussed in the past. This is in addition to our present taxes!

 

[WillowTree]

According to Neil Cavuto of Fox News a National Sales Tax is going to be coming along in the very near future. I don't have much info on it because it was just a small segment of information on The Cavuto Show just before he signed off today. Isn't this a fine kettle of fish????? Got to love those Democrats and their wonderful ideas! This isn't a tax to replace the current Federal Income Taxes such as was discussed in the past. This is in addition to our present taxes!

not to worry,, dear leader promised 95% of us do not have to worry about a tax increase.. you just have to "believe" in "hope" and "change"

 

[DavidS]

Good gosh - you mean someone from FoxNews is "reporting" that Obama will raise taxes?? Nooooooo!

 

[oreo]

According to Neil Cavuto of Fox News a National Sales Tax is going to be coming along in the very near future. I don't have much info on it because it was just a small segment of information on The Cavuto Show just before he signed off today. Isn't this a fine kettle of fish????? Got to love those Democrats and their wonderful ideas! This isn't a tax to replace the current Federal Income Taxes such as was discussed in the past. This is in addition to our present taxes!

not to worry,, dear leader promised 95% of us do not have to worry about a tax increase.. you just have to "believe" in "hope" and "change"

he.he.-- that is the "bait & switch" routine that is always played out by the democrat party. Actually what our "dear" leader promised was a no "income tax hike". He never really stated that he wasn't going to raise other taxes--he.he.he.--or should I say make new taxes with new policies.

Not only is the "national sales tax" may be coming to a store near you--

but employee health benefits that they get paid for by their employer will be taxed as "income."

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

There are links all over the place about this.

This won't be a tax on the middle class, because they will have free healthcare.

Follow the bouncing ball, drones...

 

[Annie]

The problems are going to multiply, that writing is already on the wall:

Sovereign Woes - Megan McArdle

Sovereign Woes

27 May 2009 10:44 am
...

But I do want to point to two articles that point to a growing problem that the Obama administration has failed to address in any serious way: the exploding deficits, and the resulting need to borrow heavily. USA Today points out that tax revenues are plummeting at the same time as spending is exploding:

IRS tax revenue falls along with taxpayers' income - USATODAY.com

IRS tax revenue falls along with taxpayers' income
By John Waggoner, USA TODAY

Federal tax revenue plunged $138 billion, or 34%, in April vs. a year ago — the biggest April drop since 1981, a study released Tuesday by the American Institute for Economic Research says.

When the economy slumps, so does tax revenue, and this recession has been no different, says Kerry Lynch, senior fellow at the AIER and author of the study. "It illustrates how severe the recession has been."

For example, 6 million people lost jobs in the 12 months ended in April — and that means far fewer dollars from income taxes. Income tax revenue dropped 44% from a year ago.

"These are staggering numbers," Lynch says.

Big revenue losses mean that the U.S. budget deficit may be larger than predicted this year and in future years.

"It's one of the drivers of the ongoing expansion of the federal budget deficit," says John Lonski, chief economist for Moody's Investors Service. The Congressional Budget Office projects a $1.7 trillion budget deficit for fiscal year 2009.

The other deficit driver is government spending, which, the AIER's report says, is the main culprit for the federal budget deficit.

The White House thinks that tax revenue will increase in 2011, thanks in part to the stimulus package, says the report from AIER, an independent economic research institute. But it warns, "Even if that does happen, the administration also projects that government spending will be so much higher each year that large deficits will continue, and the national debt held by the public will double over the next 10 years."

The government may have a hard time trimming spending to reduce the deficit when the recession ends. The 77 million Baby Boomers— those born in 1946 through 1964 — will start tapping their federal retirement benefits soon, which means increased government outlays for Social Security and Medicare.

"It will be doubly difficult for federal government to reduce expenditures and narrow the deficit as rapidly as they did following previous recessions," Lonski says. At the end of the last major recession, in 1981, Boomers were in their 30s. Their incomes were expanding, as was their appetite for goods and services.

The Boomers now are in their 50s and 60s and unlikely to keep increasing incomes for long, which means that revenue from income taxes could flatten in the next few years. Also, Lonski says, they are more likely to save for retirement than spend — and consumer spending is a big driver of the economy.

"The American consumer led us out of previous recessions with some semblance of gusto," Lonski says. "They're too old to do it now."

Meanwhile, in the FT, John Taylor warns that our national credit rating is in danger:

A government debt burden of that [100 per cent] level, if sustained, would in Standard & Poor's view be incompatible with a triple A rating," as the risk rating agency stated last week.

I believe the risk posed by this debt is systemic and could do more damage to the economy than the recent financial crisis. To understand the size of the risk, take a look at the numbers that Standard and Poor's considers. The deficit in 2019 is expected by the CBO to be $1,200bn (€859bn, £754bn). Income tax revenues are expected to be about $2,000bn that year, so a permanent 60 per cent across-the-board tax increase would be required to balance the budget. Clearly this will not and should not happen. So how else can debt service payments be brought down as a share of GDP?

Inflation will do it. But how much? To bring the debt-to-GDP ratio down to the same level as at the end of 2008 would take a doubling of prices. That 100 per cent increase would make nominal GDP twice as high and thus cut the debt-to-GDP ratio in half, back to 41 from 82 per cent. A 100 per cent increase in the price level means about 10 per cent inflation for 10 years. But it would not be that smooth - probably more like the great inflation of the late 1960s and 1970s with boom followed by bust and recession every three or four years, and a successively higher inflation rate after each recession.

The fact that the Federal Reserve is now buying longer-term Treasuries in an effort to keep Treasury yields low adds credibility to this scary story, because it suggests that the debt will be monetised. That the Fed may have a difficult task reducing its own ballooning balance sheet to prevent inflation increases the risks considerably. And 100 per cent inflation would, of course, mean a 100 per cent depreciation of the dollar. Americans would have to pay $2.80 for a euro; the Japanese could buy a dollar for Y50; and gold would be $2,000 per ounce. This is not a forecast, because policy can change; rather it is an indication of how much systemic risk the government is now creating.​

Short term yields firmed up this week on better consumer confidence data, but short-term yields shouldn't be what we worry about. Eventually the treasury has to roll that debt or pay it off, and if interest rates spike, that can prove catastrophic--just ask Argentina. The five year, seven year, and especially the thirty year auctions will tell us much more.

If the longer-yield debt again registers weak demand, the administration is going to have to address this problem. Up until now, most of the debate over the administration's spending plans has focused on the political problem: will the American public accept higher spending? But the problem isn't the spending; it's how to pay for it. If the spending were attached to tax hikes, this would cut into its popularity (though I don't know by how much). That's one of the reasons that administrations like to fund their new spending with borrowing. But you can't long do this on a scale that freaks out the bond markets--just ask Argentina. And these days, the bond markets are easily freaked.

 

[Care4all]

Well, coming out of the Bush administrations overspending to the tune of $6 trillion added to our debt, and Obama continuing that trend with this crisis.... I don't see how any of us can not see that taxes will have to go up, to help pay for what we have borrowed and spent....

I don't like the idea of adding a tax or raising a tax here and there, cigarettes, sales tax, liquor taxes gas taxes etc....I'd rather see it be in one place, for all people, like in our income tax structure....not hidden in ones purchases.

 

[Annie]

Well, coming out of the Bush administrations overspending to the tune of $6 trillion added to our debt, and Obama continuing that trend with this crisis.... I don't see how any of us can not see that taxes will have to go up, to help pay for what we have borrowed and spent....

I don't like the idea of adding a tax or raising a tax here and there, cigarettes, sales tax, liquor taxes gas taxes etc....I'd rather see it be in one place, for all people, like in our income tax structure....not hidden in ones purchases.

Care, there are not going to be enough tax hikes to pay for what is going on. What the above says about the Boomers is right on.

 

[DiamondDave]

Care

Ever think enough is enough and the SPENDING is what should be addressed, not additional taxation?

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Care

Ever think enough is enough and the SPENDING is what should be addressed, not additional taxation?

That's what I don't get with these drones. They bash the Bush era spending and cry about the debt, but then want to put the pedal to the metal on spending, anyway. They want their free healthcare even if it means driving the country over a cliff.

 

[Care4all]

tax increases and huge spending cuts, and a good economy will be necessary, or we as a country will go belly up...

that's all I know on the subject...from all that i have read.

the bailouts were wrong, and the health care proposals will strap us in the future even moreso, if revision or reform of the medical care industry isn't looked at and changed....even if the proposals were not instituted that the administration has...medicare will bankrupt us.

we are in dire straights here, and it is not pretty...imho.

 

[wimpy77]

the day i listen to cavuatos fat ass is the day i bare children. this is a guy who 3 years ago freaked out because he was scared someone was gonna take his big mac.

 

[Big Black Dog]

wimpy77 - I guess Cavuto was an "ok" guy when he worked for CNBC and not Fox... I might get a bit upset myself if somebody was going to take my Big Mac!

 

[Old Rocks]

Let's see. In the last eight years we have seen massive spending increases, and no taxes increased to cover the additional spending. Now we have a major depression on the horizon if we do not get our economy going.

So, maybe a tax increase, in order to cover both the flagrant fiscal idiocies of the prior administration and the attempts of the present administration to head off a complete economic debacle, the Second Great Republican Depression, will be neccessary.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Let's see. In the last eight years we have seen massive spending increases, and no taxes increased to cover the additional spending. Now we have a major depression on the horizon if we do not get our economy going.

So, maybe a tax increase, in order to cover both the flagrant fiscal idiocies of the prior administration and the attempts of the present administration to head off a complete economic debacle, the Second Great Republican Depression, will be neccessary.

How are you going to pay for the flagrant fiscal idocies of the current administration? Those of the prior administration will cause a depression, but those of the current one will not?

 

[Big Black Dog]

Old Rocks - Like you, I think we should give all of our money to the gang up in DC. They will send us back what they don't need. You seem to be forgetting that just since Obama has been in the White House he has spent more money then all of the other Presidents in American history combined. I'm not a great big Bush supporter and I'm not in any way ragging you because you didn't like the last Administration but if you think this Obama guy is really on your side, you've got some troubles my friend!

 

[Old Rocks]

Let's see. In the last eight years we have seen massive spending increases, and no taxes increased to cover the additional spending. Now we have a major depression on the horizon if we do not get our economy going.

So, maybe a tax increase, in order to cover both the flagrant fiscal idiocies of the prior administration and the attempts of the present administration to head off a complete economic debacle, the Second Great Republican Depression, will be neccessary.

How are you going to pay for the flagrant fiscal idocies of the current administration? Those of the prior administration will cause a depression, but those of the current one will not?

Perhaps spending money to upgrade our infrastructure will have a better effect than spending money to degrade other peoples infrastructure.

Within six months of Bush's first term, I was stating that he was going to cause a major disaster in foriegn and domestic fields. Now you state the same of Obama. Many stated the same about Clinton at the beginning of his two terms. I think President Obama will have a good deal more success than Bush, but less than Clinton.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Let's see. In the last eight years we have seen massive spending increases, and no taxes increased to cover the additional spending. Now we have a major depression on the horizon if we do not get our economy going.

So, maybe a tax increase, in order to cover both the flagrant fiscal idiocies of the prior administration and the attempts of the present administration to head off a complete economic debacle, the Second Great Republican Depression, will be neccessary.

How are you going to pay for the flagrant fiscal idocies of the current administration? Those of the prior administration will cause a depression, but those of the current one will not?

Perhaps spending money to upgrade our infrastructure will have a better effect than spending money to degrade other peoples infrastructure.

Within six months of Bush's first term, I was stating that he was going to cause a major disaster in foriegn and domestic fields. Now you state the same of Obama. Many stated the same about Clinton at the beginning of his two terms. I think President Obama will have a good deal more success than Bush, but less than Clinton.

That's nice.

How will infrastructure pay for the flagrant fiscal idiocies of the present adminstration? Can you tax infrastructure? How does it generate revenue for the Treasury?

 

[jreeves]

Let's see. In the last eight years we have seen massive spending increases, and no taxes increased to cover the additional spending. Now we have a major depression on the horizon if we do not get our economy going.

So, maybe a tax increase, in order to cover both the flagrant fiscal idiocies of the prior administration and the attempts of the present administration to head off a complete economic debacle, the Second Great Republican Depression, will be neccessary.

Hmm..its funny very little money from the stimulus has yet to be distributed but this....


Economic growth will rebound in the second half of 2009 - May. 27, 2009
The panel of 45 economists said it expects economic growth will rebound in the second half of 2009. However, the group still expects to see a decline in second-quarter economic activity.

"The good news is that the NABE panel expects economic growth to turn positive in the second half of this year, with the pace of job losses narrowing sharply over the remainder of this year and employment turning up in early 2010," said NABE president Chris Varvares in a written statement.

Almost three out of four survey respondents expect the recession will end by the third quarter of 2009, the report said.

Of course you said there is a great depression on the horizon so you must be right....

 

[oreo]

Let's see. In the last eight years we have seen massive spending increases, and no taxes increased to cover the additional spending. Now we have a major depression on the horizon if we do not get our economy going.

So, maybe a tax increase, in order to cover both the flagrant fiscal idiocies of the prior administration and the attempts of the present administration to head off a complete economic debacle, the Second Great Republican Depression, will be neccessary.

How are you going to pay for the flagrant fiscal idocies of the current administration? Those of the prior administration will cause a depression, but those of the current one will not?

Perhaps spending money to upgrade our infrastructure will have a better effect than spending money to degrade other peoples infrastructure.

Within six months of Bush's first term, I was stating that he was going to cause a major disaster in foriegn and domestic fields. Now you state the same of Obama. Many stated the same about Clinton at the beginning of his two terms. I think President Obama will have a good deal more success than Bush, but less than Clinton.

Big government spending results in big government TAXES. No one is going to escape them.

Government is very good at taking money--then spending more--to only take more by continually raising taxes. This is what happened in California.

"The problem with socialism is-- eventually government runs out of other peoples money to spend"--Margaret Thatcher.