Lots of Tax Hikes Coming in 2011
Tax increases will hit businesses and individuals, and don’t think for a minute that only the wealthy will feel the pain.
By Joan Pryde, Senior Tax Editor, the Kiplinger letters
April 24, 2009
Advertisement
Think taxes are too high now? Just wait: Congress is all but certain to raise them a couple of years from now. Tax increases will hit both businesses and individuals -- and not just singles making more than $200,000 a year and married couples over $250,000 a year. They’ll be the first to get pinched, but not the last. There’s just not enough revenue that can be drawn from the wealthy without crippling the economy, so in time, middle incomers will feel a bigger bite, too.
Higher taxes will be part of a major overhaul designed to simplify the tax code, though it won’t do more than tinker around the edges. The legislation will have cuts as well as hikes, though more of the latter. Putting everything in a catchall piece of legislation dilutes opposition to any one unpopular provision. Figure on tax increases taking effect in 2011, assuming the economy is growing steadily. At that point, reducing the deficit will be the top priority. The debt is simply unsustainable over the long term.
Here’s what’s rising to the top of the list of probable hikes for individuals:
- Boosts in top marginal rates from 33% and 35% to 36% and 39.6%. No change in the other marginal rates seems likely.
- A higher rate on capital gains and dividends, but only for those in the top brackets. They will probably be hit with a 20% rate, though it could go a little higher.
- Caps on itemized deductions for top earners. Obama’s push to limit the value of deductions at 28% ran into a wall of opposition from charitable groups, but he’s not giving up. Some way of curtailing the tax break still seems likely by 2011.
- No repeal of estate taxes, but count on an exemption of at least $3.5 million, and it could be set as high as $5 million if the Senate prevails. Estate tax legislation will include spousal transfers, making the exemption $7 million or more for couples. The estate tax rate will be capped at 45%, the same as it is now.
- More easings for the alternative minimum tax, but no repeal.
Businesses can expect a mixed bag of hikes and cuts, but with a higher total tax bill. Among the changes:
- Higher SECA taxes for owners of S firms and partnerships by blocking them in the future from skirting payroll taxes by taking their compensation as dividends instead of salary.
- New restrictions on worker classification to make it easier for the IRS to crack down on firms that treat workers as contractors who are really employees.
- And elimination of some tax breaks for big corporations, including the deduction for domestic production, accelerated depreciation and incentives for foreign income and oil production.
But there may be a silver lining, at least for big corporations: Congress will consider lowering the 35% top corporate tax rate by several percentage points.
Longer term, tax hikes will go even further and hit more people and businesses. The only other option is deep cuts in spending, including Social Security, Medicare and defense, and the public won’t buy that. As a result, anyone making more than $100,000 a year will be at risk for higher taxes. The most likely option is to raise the cap on income subject to payroll taxes. It now stands at $106,800.
The increases will make many unhappy. They already see the burden as high, a point made clearly at those “tea parties” on April 15. Lumping together income, excise, payroll and other taxes, the average rate paid today is 21¢ on every dollar of income, according to a recent Congressional Budget Office analysis of data from 2006, the most recent year for which data are available. That’s the same as in 1982, after the Reagan tax cuts, and 2¢ less than at its peak under Clinton. For the top 20% of taxpayers, the average rate is higher: 26¢. That compares with 24¢ in 1982.
For weekly updates on topics to improve your business decisionmaking, click here.
Reader Comments (96)
Posted by: GoGlobalWarming at 04/27/2009 11:42:30 AM
Thank you for being honest. When the Obama supporters were chanting "Yes We Can!" the corollary to that statement was and is "If We Raise Your Taxes". All of the goodies that the politicians are promising come with a price tag. If we use deficit spending to pay for these things now then we will pay later - guaranteed. Anyone who really thought Obama would make only the rich pay for the spending increases was delusional. This is how governments have sold tax increases throughout history; they say only the rich will pay and then later we learn that the poor and especially the middle class pay too.
Posted by: Bob at 04/27/2009 11:55:52 AM
"average rate paid today is 21¢ on every dollar of income, according to a recent Congressional Budget Office" SOMETHING is being left out here. Are they counting permits and fees along with State and local taxes as well? In my State if you have an average house and an average income you are paying about 8% in property taxes, 3% income tax, 7% State sales tax, and .25-3% city taxes. Then throw in the gas taxes, utility taxes,plus the vehicle license and dozens of other fees. All of which are supposed to go up next year. NOW ADD on the Federal taxes. Several years ago I roughed out that I was already paying nearly 50% of my total income in taxes. While there are deductions and exemptions on income taxes, the average person has to spend most of their income just to pay for living expenses. Plus I spend another 20% on my health insurance which only covers 80% of my claims after I pay the first two thousand dollars. I'd like to know where Obama and his liberal friends think the extra money will come from without further destroying our standard of living. If you say that European rates are higher, at least they are getting something back for their money and not all the wasted pork and earmarks that we have. The Congressional Budget Office needs to find some new accountants who can ADD.
Posted by: Wes Savant at 04/27/2009 12:15:44 PM
Your not mentioning that Regan raised taxes twice and George W. Bush is the only President in History to cut taxes during wartime. America does one of two things, raise taxes or Borrow from China. Your article is misleading at best about taxes through this administration.
Posted by: Bill P. at 04/27/2009 01:06:52 PM
We need more tea parties. Hey Big Brother...Stop Spending. Simple Economics 101. Don't spend more than you make. Our households must manage our own money or the bank takes our assets away. We don't ask our boss for more money every time we get ourselves in deeper debt.
Posted by: Rodger Malcolm Mitch at 04/27/2009 01:34:27 PM
You say, "The debt is simply unsustainable over the long term." I will give $1,000 to your favorite charity if you can supply proof the federal debt is unsustainable over the long term. In fact, the statement while widely believed is totally wrong -- not only wrong, but harmful. However, I am willing to learn. To receive the $1,000, send your proof to: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell www.rodgermitchell.com
Posted by: Mark at 04/27/2009 01:43:42 PM
I agree with Bob. Everyone keeps talking about federal taxes but the taxes that keep going up inexorably are state and local taxes. I pay more to them than I do the feds and they keep going up every year.
Posted by: Pat Sonnek at 04/27/2009 02:39:25 PM
Higher taxes for those making over a quarter million dollars. Higher capital gains tax rates for those same people. Top earners getting less deductions. And multi-millionaires having to pay more in estate taxes. As someone who is living on less than $40,000 a year, I say its about time the rich paid their fair share of taxes, rather than continuing to place the burden on the working and middle classes.
Posted by: Mac Thornton at 04/27/2009 02:46:14 PM
Bob is absolutely right. The cost of government at all levels, federal, state, and local is way higher than an average of 21% of our income. How can I save to start my own business when government is picking my back pocket?
Posted by: Alex at 04/27/2009 03:30:32 PM
It seems my original thoughts about the future were true. We need a whole restructure of the tax code ,such as fair tax. We cannot sustain our current levels of debt, but we should investigate. As it seems that either political party will drive the U.S. into a wrong economic direction. As for these tea parties,it may had some wake up not the one i would like,but it is sad that people do not remember the real history of the Boston Tea Party. As Europeans developed a taste for tea in the 17th century, rival companies were formed to import the product from the East Indies. In England, Parliament gave the East India Company a monopoly on the importation of tea in 1698. When tea became popular in the British colonies, Parliament sought to eliminate foreign competition by passing an act in 1721 that required colonists to import their tea only from Great Britain. The East India Company did not export tea to the colonies; by law, the company was required to sell its tea wholesale at auctions in England. British firms bought this tea and exported it to the colonies, where they resold it to merchants in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston. Until 1767, the East India Company paid an ad valorem tax of about 25% on tea that it imported into Great Britain. Parliament laid additional taxes on tea sold for consumption in Britain. These high taxes, combined with the fact that tea imported into Holland was not taxed by the Dutch government, meant that Britons and British Americans could buy smuggled Dutch tea at much cheaper prices. The biggest market for illicit tea was England—by the 1760s the East India Company was losing £400,000 per year to smugglers in Great Britain[8]—but Dutch tea was also smuggled into British America in significant quantities. In order to help the East India Company compete with smuggled Dutch tea, in 1767 Parliament passed the Indemnity Act, which lowered the tax on tea consumed in Great Britain, and gave the East India Company a refund of the 25% duty on tea that was re-exported to the colonies. To help offset this loss of government revenue, Parliament also passed the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767, which levied new taxes, including one on tea, in the colonies. Instead of solving the smuggling problem, however, the Townshend duties renewed a controversy about Parliament's right to tax the colonies. Maybe instead these Tea Parties should be pushing new ideas, and/or scrap the name. Maybe a new movement should start real change
Posted by: Bad reporting at 04/27/2009 04:00:15 PM
You start out with "Tax increases will hit businesses and individuals, and don’t think for a minute that only the wealthy will feel the pain." then rattle off the statistics that backup the claim that ONLY the wealthy will be hit until this; "Longer term, tax hikes will go even further and hit more people and businesses. The only other option is deep cuts in spending, including Social Security, Medicare and defense, and the public won’t buy that. As a result, anyone making more than $100,000 a year will be at risk for higher taxes. The most likely option is to raise the cap on income subject to payroll taxes. It now stands at $106,800." Is this just your opinion. You are citing the militia and Ron Paul fringe as evidence that people are unhappy without any evidence to back it up besides your own opinion. When you juxtapose that with your Feb 18th article extolling all the juicy tax breaks the administration is pushing through I have to ask; Is this article born of poor journalism or just an outright bias?
Posted by: SteveW at 04/27/2009 04:14:29 PM
So, the doomsday prediction is that taxes will be about as high as they were under Reagan? Boy, we never recovered from that, did we. The taxes we're going to have to pay in the near future are the taxes we should have been paying for the war. I don't see that the Republicans whose contributors got fat off underequipped and exhausted troops have anything to complain about. As for the teabaggers, Obama can and has repeatedly drawn more to one speech than they drew nationwide; they're flea flatulence in a hurricane. This spending is necessary so that our kids will have a future, mortgaged or not, and yes, it has to be paid for sooner or later. If y'all hadn't been so greedy, all these bubbles wouldn't have happened.
Posted by: greenlady at 04/27/2009 05:59:17 PM
To Savant: It's not about which president raises or lowers taxes, it's about the out-of-control spending by Obama, Bush and our legislators for the past several years. In other words, they are all guilty of sticking their hands into our pocketbooks unnecessarily. The point really is that our government is overstepping its proper bounds through programs that cannot be sustained. This president, in less than 100 days, has already expanded our national debt more than all previous presidents combined. I don't belive your comparison of his actions to those of Bush or Reagan is sufficient justification for such irresponsible decisions.
Posted by: GoGlobalWarming at 04/27/2009 07:04:47 PM
To Pat Sonnek: The rich, or more accurately put, the high-income folks, already pay more than their fair share of taxes. We have a “progressive” tax system in the U.S. The more you earn the higher percent of taxes you pay. The top 1% of income earners pay 40% of the taxes and the top 5% pay 60% of all federal taxes. If you are making less than $40K then you probably don't pay ANY federal tax. It is likely you have benefited from tax credits and had reverse taxes - where the government pays you. The next time you meet a rich person you should thank them for subsidizing your share of the federal government. It is not only the "rich" who pay capital gains/dividend taxes either. It is only the smart people, rich or poor, who pay these taxes. There is no income requirement to open a brokerage account – only the discipline to save and invest one’s money. This can be done on as little as $25/month.
Posted by: East Coaster at 04/27/2009 08:00:10 PM
Why do our politicians tag tax increases to income since there is a wide variance across our country on standard of living. You can live like a king on $99K in Omaha, but be lower middle class in New York or Los Angeles.
Posted by: Robert at 04/27/2009 11:43:30 PM
BHO railed against spending and deficits, then spends more in a single month than was spent in Iraq, Afghanistan and Katrina COMBINED. "Necessary for our kids to have a future"? Total garbage. Spending of this magnitude is never necessary. The economy will recover without even a fraction of this foolishness. BHO is clearly in over his head, now that he runs an auto company, an insurance company, and is a banker in his spare time. And Stevie - bubbles have occurred since the beginning of time and are part of a market economy, so please, go back to the couch and watch BSNBC.
Posted by: Marion at 04/28/2009 12:00:21 AM
Defense. Who do you think defends Europe - The United States of America. So Europe and most of the rest of the world live happily with social benefits with us picking up the tab.
Posted by: john galt at 04/28/2009 07:34:37 AM
Certainly, this article will receive criticism from people who fall in the group of the more than 50% of tax filers who currently pay ZERO income tax... tax the productive! sure, they'll keep tolerating it.
Posted by: Gtrman at 04/28/2009 09:03:17 AM
Maybe we wouldn't mind paying an extra 2-3% but point is, at the current rate of spending it can't stop there. Are you aware that tax rates were once less than 20% in England? And today the tax rate on someone earning 1 Million Pounds exceeds 75%? How would you like to earn a Million and keep only about $210,000. Yes, you might say you can live on it but would you like it? No. And that's why rich English families move to the States - to keep more of what they make. At the rate we currently spend, the tax hikes will never end.
Posted by: Mike at 04/28/2009 09:32:47 AM
Bad Reporting & Steve W: Bias? It's clear to see where you are coming from. Why don't you take a remedial course in finance? Greenlady got it right, it's the irresponsible fiscal policies of BOTH parties and the tea parties, the flea flatulence as you call it, may just be the beginning. Take off your blinders and be objective, if you can.
Posted by: RickA at 04/28/2009 10:44:54 AM
SteveW-You missed the point, which is that tax rates will go up in the near-term (~2011) and when combined with limitations on itemized deductions, many people will be unhappy because that spells TAX INCREASES over and above an increase in the tax rates! And don’t forget that those 2011 rates will be insufficient to fund Obama’s spending spree in the longer-term so expect the tax rates to go up even higher. And by the way, your statement suggests that Obama’s crowd provides greater flatulence than the teabaggers.
Posted by: BDS at 04/28/2009 12:59:39 PM
NO, this is NOT about the Republicans! Don't even try to shift responsibility for this out of control spending to the Republicans! You made the bed now sleep in the filthy thing! Not one, and I repeat, not one Republican voted for for the stimulus package. Obama and the ugly hoardes of Democrats have no absolutely no regard for the opinion of the Republicans so please, get your head out of the sand and stop trying to place any culpibility for this horrendous fiasco on the Republicans! That is completely moronic. I mean gess! You Obama supporters must know this is dreadfully wrong because if it were right you'd be claiming all the credit so why do you continue to support this Socialist? Did you not take American history when you were in grade school? Are you so blind that you can't even see what's going on here? Wake up people! The American dream is fading away and all you Democrats are applauding it. You should be ashamed!
Posted by: un-biased at 04/28/2009 03:03:59 PM
all the taxes you mention will apply to those who earn more than $250,000. So where is the unannounced tax hikes in that? there are none that you announce If you earn more than $200,000 just suck it in!
Posted by: DHP at 04/28/2009 05:30:01 PM
It is a given that accelerated depreciation gives corporations an incentive to increase capital investment, if it is eliminated do we end up back in a recession? I think so...
Posted by: DebC at 04/29/2009 09:59:13 AM
so much for that "HOPE AND CHANGE" Obama promised!!! We got the change but not the kind most folks had in mind and so much for the hope! We'll be hoping by 2011 that we elected a different president!!
Posted by: Vastrightwing at 04/29/2009 12:46:27 PM
Don't forget deflating our currency by simply printing more of it to increase spending. Eliminate the Federal Reserve System.
Posted by: Bryce at 04/29/2009 01:27:30 PM
I'm sorry, but what is wrong with these: * Higher SECA taxes for owners of S firms and partnerships by blocking them in the future from skirting payroll taxes by taking their compensation as dividends instead of salary. * New restrictions on worker classification to make it easier for the IRS to crack down on firms that treat workers as contractors who are really employees. * And elimination of some tax breaks for big corporations, including the deduction for domestic production, accelerated depreciation and incentives for foreign income and oil production. #2 is particularly a common problem that needed to be stopped a while ago. It had 0% benefit for the workers who where pushed into 1099's with no change in their work or work-life patterns to accompany the "contractor" status. It's been the action of low-life employers for a while.
Posted by: John Galt at 04/29/2009 01:57:05 PM
It definitely is a change. It just depends upon who is defining the definition to be defined... Any way you look at it, small business owners are going to be crushed. So will the average middle class person. Just remember, if the middle class decided to stop paying taxes, the system would collapse. We don't have enough jails to hold 100 million + people.
Posted by: Leksi Wit at 04/29/2009 02:14:35 PM
"Longer term, tax hikes will go even further and hit more people and businesses. The only other option is deep cuts in spending, including Social Security, Medicare and defense, and the public won’t buy that. As a result, anyone making more than $100,000 a year will be at risk for higher taxes. The most likely option is to raise the cap on income subject to payroll taxes. It now stands at $106,800." - Where in the article is this claim substantiated? "The increases will make many unhappy." - The nonexistent increase? Quite frankly, I am very PLEASED with the tax hikes on the wealthy (singles earning more than $200,000 annually and couples more than $250,000 annum). The wealthy didn't make their money in a vacuum. They got rich off of the middle-class and to some extent, poor. Time to pay it back and suck it up as the first poster wrote.
Posted by: Modern Demagogue at 04/29/2009 06:06:09 PM
You make the following statement: "There’s just not enough revenue that can be drawn from the wealthy without crippling the economy, so in time, middle incomers will feel a bigger bite, too" without offering any proof, evidence, or substantiation. The unspoken argument you rely on is that taxing the wealthy hurts the economy. Show me one firm piece of evidence backing this up, and I will believe you. Reducing spending within an economy, hurts the economy, but there is no causal or credible link between taxing the wealthy significantly, and a reduction in spending. Sure, the rich spend less, and invest less, but then the government spends more and invests more, and so does the middle class. We need a return to higher marginal tax rates for the truly wealthy. The idea that $200,000 or $250,000 is considered wealthy is absurd. We need tax brackets at half a million, 1 million, 2 million and higher, reaching 70-80% for the top earners in the nation. Many would decry this as unfair, or socialist, but it is neither. It is efficient capitalism with the government acting as an independent agent within the system to promote stability and equality. The very wealthy are only very wealthy because the poor contribute their labor and productivity, and do not rise up against them and kill them. It is in no one's interest to have an unstable or anarchic civilization, but when one has such gross discrepancies in compensation, people begin to ask why they cannot have what others have, and an economic system becomes unsustainable. The only reason we have not seen indications of this instability earlier, is that because of the vast amount of easy credit available in the early 2000's, people were able to have what they wanted, and did not see the true span of the economic inequality. As people's true destitution and debt slavery becomes apparent, social unrest will increase. We will need a stable capitalist force to rectify this and calm our civilization lest we rip ourselves limb from limb. Call my a socialist, a liberal, whatever you may, but I am none of these. I am a patriot who would like to see his country continue to exist...
Posted by: mrs at 04/30/2009 12:50:17 AM
Please don't confuse wealth with income. As for evidence that increasing tax rates "hurts the econom"y, I can tell you that our medical practice will reduce its hours and lay off at least two employees if these higher taxes are implemented. The opportunity cost of continuing to work full time becomes prohibitive.
Posted by: Tom R at 04/30/2009 02:34:26 PM
The biggest increase is not mentioned, What happens when the Bush Tax cuts expire? Im a middle income worker and those rate cuts put $50 dollars a week in my pocket.
Posted by: Bob Hickey at 04/30/2009 02:47:33 PM
This idea that the rich some how owe middle class people some of their earnings is prepostorous. That the rich only became rich off the sweat of others without paying for those services in totally incorrect. WE all have the ability to elevate ourselves to what some would consider "Rich" by doing the rights things in our lives. Asking one group to give of their assets to another with out working for it is not the American way. Taking responsability for your actions or in-action is the American way. For those Americans that want something for nothing, for those that feel they "Deserve It" are wrong. You only "Deserve It" if you have earned it first or you paid for it. I'm a Middle Class American who wants people to become "Rich" and stay that way. I believe in fair taxes for everyone no matter what your economic station in life is. Everyone needs to pay their own way in life so stop looking at the "Rich" to pay your way.
Posted by: Elizabeth at 04/30/2009 02:47:52 PM
Margaret Thatcher said it best: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. " If people are all for that "Paying Taxes is Patriotic" crap, than let's all pay the same rate with no deductions ... now that's FAIR!!! 10% for everyone!!! We wouldn't want to deny anyone their Patriotic Duty.
Posted by: Ray at 04/30/2009 02:48:22 PM
This article really tries to make it seem like the tax base of "middle class" America will be drastically altered, which is some way has small truth to it, the reality is that the bulk of the folks who read this will find they are not part of that scary tax group. Unless you are to assume that the bulk of Americans make over 200,000.00 a year and have all those assets and businesses to be taxed. Real small business, which is the bulk of the business which makes this nation move do not when it all shakes down cross the threshold that many of these taxes are directed at, but it sure sounds good in print and keeps the "actually rich" preventing what should have "trickled down" from doing so... without the working class, your consumer goods would just sit on a shelf and you would be profitless....
Posted by: Helen at 04/30/2009 02:49:09 PM
Someone asked for proof that over taxing the "wealthy" is harmful to the economy. I counter with this question: Who is more likely to employ you, a poor person with nothing or a "wealthy" person with a small business? Incidentally, wealth is a relative term. Most small business owners and they are the back bone of this economy, are considered to be wealthy and derided because they are. Next time you're unemployed, ask Joe the panhandler down the street for a job.
Posted by: Jonathan at 04/30/2009 02:54:17 PM
Very misleading headline. Since you are predicting tax increases it should read "Lot of Tax Hike May come in 2011." As a middle income taxpayer I read and re-read the article looking where my taxes will increase. The only increases you predict are for top income brackets, mostly restoring things to pre-George W. Bush levels when we had a surplus and the economy was strong. Let's try not to panic.
Posted by: Mike at 04/30/2009 02:58:17 PM
"They already see the burden as high, a point made clearly at those “tea parties” on April 15." If so, they were protesting the current (Bush) tax rates, since their rates have not (yet) gone up under Obama. More likely, they were protesting how their taxes had been used (bailouts, etc), and what they expect future taxes to be used for. Although I'm sure they weren't happy with the amount of taxes they currently pay (who is?).
Posted by: Don Weaver at 04/30/2009 03:05:32 PM
Hello...any tax increases are repressive to an economy. Small businesses used to do 94% of the hiring in the United states before the Obama depression began in January 2009. Owners of small businesses have to declare any profits of the business as personal income which puts them in the 70% tax bracket. They are "punished" for being productive. They lay off people and this is what happens when socialism is replaced by capitalism. We better figure out how to either get hired by a government owned firm such as Gm Motors , Citibank, etc. or ask our grandparents how to survive an endless depression and sky high inflation. Good luck!
Posted by: Ray at 04/30/2009 03:06:54 PM
Had the Reagan "trickle down" actually been allowed to do so, had not the businesses just skimmed off the top and left the workers with less benefits and lousy pay, their might have been the smooth working well financed economy promised by the GOP under Reagan, BUT, greed and lack of concern ofr those who didn't hang at the country club created this mess, all the "trickle" was absorbed rather than passed to the middle class... so pf course things failed. all the good intention of Reagans plan got derailed by the greedy folks who lacked the "moral and social justice" Reagan hoped we as Americans had, but he forgot , money always ruins fairness when it comes to giving it up to thosde who need it more than you want it.
Posted by: Patrick Kelly at 04/30/2009 03:14:57 PM
I notice that the lower income people are boosting the tax increase. They are always in favor of having other people (middle and upper class) pay their way! Who do they think has been paying for all this government? They sure aren't!
Posted by: Dave at 04/30/2009 03:17:04 PM
As many have noted, this article provides no real evidence of the alleged tax increases on any individuals other than those that already are targetted for higher taxes -- the same people who Obama has always said were going to face higher taxes. Furthermore, we have to remember that the current administration is only restoring the tax rates back to the pre-Bush tax rates. It was the Bush Administration that made the ridiculous pairing of increasing spending while lowering taxes on the highest income earners. The Bush tax policy never made sense, wasted the surplus (remember that?), and is the reason why we are having to go back and pay more because we had to run up deficits to pay for the Bush budgets.
Posted by: MidClass at 04/30/2009 03:26:24 PM
Modern Dermagogue said: "It is efficient capitalism with the government acting as an independent agent within the system to promote stability and equality. The very wealthy are only very wealthy because the poor contribute their labor and productivity, and do not rise up against them and kill them. It is in no one's interest to have an unstable or anarchic civilization, but when one has such gross discrepancies in compensation, people begin to ask why they cannot have what others have, and an economic system becomes unsustainable." Demagogue: (Meriam Webster)1 : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power Then it follows FDR should have had us out of the dpression by 1935 and Jimmy Carter's term as president would have been an unqualified success. It took Reagan to fix it. With tax reductions.
Posted by: Eric Parkinson at 04/30/2009 04:06:02 PM
This is all conjecture, fiction and fear-mongering baloney. None of these so called "tax increases" are planned. I'm disappointed that Kiplinger would allow their journalistic credibility to be assaulted by such misinformation!
Posted by: Kris Bowsman at 04/30/2009 04:06:07 PM
Perhaps what some people forget is that poor people did not necessarily make rich people. In order for a small business owner to hire other people, they put in a lot of effort to earn enough money to do this. As a former business owner, who employed other people, it took several years of hard work to get to that point. More taxes, and less opportunity to accumulate wealth to expand means less hiring. And if you trust the government to do a better job of distributing your money wisely, take a look at the politicians and the pork in the budgets. Personally, I would rather distribute my money to others by hiring them, than by giving it to the government.
Posted by: Scot at 04/30/2009 04:08:05 PM
This is totally unsubstatiated speculation. What are your sources? Are there any bills in the hopper with these provisions? NO!
Posted by: F Greene at 04/30/2009 04:11:46 PM
Small business owners will not be crushed. Why? Many, many, many have their own cash set of books and anyone who knows business knows that. AOL has some nerve using this article to define "middle class". In 2006, the median – or "middle" – income for a family of four was $70,354. Half of all four-person families made more; half made less. Get real.
Posted by: jorjoshjoe at 04/30/2009 04:23:53 PM
How's that Hope and Change working out for you?
Posted by: chad1025 at 04/30/2009 04:34:03 PM
You call 70-80% taxation for the top earners fair? That's called punishment for success. Top earners most often become top earners because of an idea that the middle class and poor buy into. They provide a good or service that makes life easier, and take a risk on said idea that could either create jobs for those of us that don't have the idea or the ambition to go for his/her dream, or cost them their livelyhoods. By punishing success, you encourage people to live off the system, and the american dream turns into a free ride for everyone that isn't stupid enough to work for what they have. 4 things can solve all of our problems: 1. Abolishing the federal income tax and implementing the Fair Tax plan(www.fairtax.org). This way you only pay a tax on money spent on things not meant as a business expense; 2. Term limits for members of both the House and Senate; and 3. Allowing the free market to go through its natural cycles without government interference. Capitalism didn't fail, the corrupt and overbearing polititians in government fail all of us and pointed the finger at capitalism in a very intricate power grabbing play.
Posted by: StudioCite at 04/30/2009 04:34:30 PM
the article claims vaguely that people other than the stated high income earners will get hit - then you list tax changes, NONE of which hit true middle income earners...then you go on to claim, again vaguely, that those middle income groups WILL get hit in the future but you provide no specifics, precisely because its specualtion only. Thats pretty convoluted logic and poorly presented and frankly misleading reporting. To top it off, after sounding alarm bells with your byline, the upshot is the average rate paid is the same as under reagan after his "tax cuts". theres just so much here its hard to pin down a real point to your article. basck to journalism class.
Posted by: biggs at 04/30/2009 05:00:47 PM
Leksi Wit has no wit. The small business owners made money but putting capital at risk to start a new business. They only made money if they provided a product or service that customers wanted (if not they went out of business). In the process they likely employed others which provided a living for them. To suggest they took something from others is ridiculous. This class warfare nonsense is un-American. Wake up. There is no reason to punish those that help make America the great country it is.
Posted by: Lakeview at 04/30/2009 05:02:46 PM
....speculative... Pictures showing stressed out people due to tax hikes that "might" happen. I agree taxing the wealthy will not slow down the economy. Republicans always confuse small business owners with the truly wealthy. Most small business owners fall under the $200/250K levels.
Posted by: m. saperstein at 04/30/2009 05:09:51 PM
If Kiplinger is so great in predicting things like future tax hikes, how come they couldn't predict the financial meltdown of 2008? Kiplinger does not sit with a crystal ball and a lot can happen between now and 2011 that would effect taxes. It seems Kiplinger has a private agenda, which is to discredit the Democratic Congress. In sum I reject their forecasts.
Posted by: Carmine Masucci at 04/30/2009 05:13:12 PM
We all forget that if we want a functioning government, we must all pay our fair share for it. However, we did forget that elitism died with the French Revolution on July 14, 1789. God help and bless America.
Posted by: Bob Gries at 04/30/2009 05:40:33 PM
I suppose that you think healthcare is "free" and that single-payer option services should not be paid for by taxes as they are in the rest of the world .... you should enjoy so-called "healthcare" companies taking 20% off the top for denying your physician's request to treat you. Get a life, Kiplinger people!
Posted by: CEL at 04/30/2009 05:59:23 PM
I am so tired of the government believing that a couple earning $250K is "rich". Maybe if you live in Kansas, but not when you live in a metropolitan area where the cost of living is HIGH. My husband and I make over $220K and we live VERY MODESTLY. We do not have big bank accounts, we both go to work every day, we only drive Hondas, we have only one child, and we live in a very small, 50 year old, 3 bdr house in an average neighborhood - no family room nor master bath and an old kitchen. We do not take annual vacations. We are struggling just like everyone else because of federal and state taxes, real estate taxes, and the cost of living in general IN A TRI-STATE AREA. It is ridiculous for the government to assume everyone earning over $250K across the country is rich and can afford more tax increases. My husband and I worked very hard to put ourselves through college (which we thought we were supposed to do????) and now others want to punish us for it. WE WORKED HARD FOR IT AND STILL DO. It was not handed to us. If you are a minority or from a poor family you have a better chance of getting into college WITH FREE TUITION. What happened to working hard and being allowed to enjoy the fruit of one's labor? It has become the story of the three little pigs...2 were lazy, didn't want to work, and so they lost their homes and move into the house of 3rd pig who worked hard. I thought the moral of story was to work hard...not feel sorry for yourself and live off of someone else's hard work. This country is sending the wrong message to our children and it is just a matter of time before this country goes under.
Posted by: North at 04/30/2009 06:02:34 PM
So the people making the most money will pay more in taxes. Businesses will not be able to use some tax dodges to avoid paying their fair share to the government. And U.S. citizens, except for the top 20%, will pay the same as in 1982 under Reagan. Will someone tell me why these Tea Party Republicans are complaining? If they're Christians, Jews or Muslims (and I've never met a Republican who wasn't one of those), don't their holy books expressly tell them that the rich should help the poor? Obama's doing just what he said he would. Quit yer whinin'!
Posted by: Bart G at 04/30/2009 06:18:28 PM
Is the author predicting these taxes for the year 2011 payable in 2012, or is it for the year 2010 payable in 2011? I am pretty sure he means the taxes payable in 2012, but can anyone reassure me? Thanks
Posted by: sue at 04/30/2009 06:20:26 PM
I'm a little late to the conversation, and would still like to add some ideas. I agree that the tax hikes will be coming, whether the author substantiates it or not. It's a road the government has been on for decades, and I am not convinced it's just to cover the deficit. That's a convienient argument. In reality, the more money the government controls, the more influential it is in the economy and the more change it can impose through programs and such. If you think about it as just a big corporation or organization, it's primary objective is to sustain itself and grow. I suggest that that growth has become misguided. Rather than simply sustaining infrastructures for the people to conduct their lives and business it has immeshed itself in defining how those lives and businesses must be run. I don't think that was the original intention. If I recall, we are guaranteed the right to pursue happiness, not attain it. So that means we have the priviledge and responsibility to create and define our lives as each of us is able. And what each of us is paid is the vessel or means, within the economy to do that. The current political rhetoric that has been building for over 30 years, contradicts that idea, in this way. Rather than support the concept that an individual owns their pay first, it has been trumpeting the message that the government deserves a piece first, via tax, and the worker gets the leftovers. This effectively reduces the individuals ability to create wealth, secure a home, and influence their community through the programs they support. Eventually more people are dependent on subsidies and programs rather than themselves and their own creativity and intiative. I know the term socialism has been used excessively, and am wondering if people understand what it means? It is a system where the individual's achievements and goals are subserviant to government's priorities for the populace. Creating anymosity in those who have not achieved wealth toward those who have is necessary to bring socialism alive. Why does someone making 40,000/yr believe that someone making 250,000/yr is less deserving of keeping their money? How do you know if they haven't really earned it? All of us should get the full benefit of our work to create our lives, and keep government to a minimum. They don't define who we are, we define who they are.
Posted by: David Ordos at 04/30/2009 06:25:13 PM
Talk about false advertising! Our HGH income is $125K and I don't see anything here that affects us. Middle class increases indeed. Who wrote this, W or Cheney?
Posted by: 2Bits at 04/30/2009 06:30:48 PM
Thanks, Bad reporting. The title and opening paragraph paints an ominous picture of tax hikes for everybody. But as I read on, it was clear that someone in the 28% or lower remains unaffected. I will grant that there could be some pressure to raise more taxes in the future to address the deficit, but even that depends on revenues.
Posted by: Larry at 04/30/2009 06:41:04 PM
too too bad for America that we believed the lies of Obama and the Dems-did we really believe his lies about taxes--did we really believe he could blame Bush for the mess Barney Frank made-and after blaming Bush for the deficit, the great one triples it--did we really believe he could do that without raising taxes--and the messiah says hell fix the economy and jobs--how do you do that and raise taxes too-you dont--please wake up
Posted by: Gere at 04/30/2009 06:57:37 PM
Ok, I am a single, 52 year old, white male, currently unemployed. In ten months last year I managed to earn $77,000, but I was working 50+ hours a week, in an out of town job site, far away from friends and family to do so. Now I am not bitching about what I have to do to make a living, but, I am starting to get very concerned that I as a single taxpayer will sooner or later get marginalized and popped into the highest tax bracket, deemed as someone who can afford it buy those who make less and have never had to live away from the home to earn it. I already feel as though I am taxed in the highest brackest and I have never made a six figure income ever. In fact I averaged about $32,000 a year over my 33 year plus working career. I am very worried that any SS benefits that I may be already owned are now being spent on short term goals for this present generation, who it seems has no problems with spending money and incurring debts that future generations will be forced to repay whether they benefit from them or not. This is so un-American in my minds eye that is stinks to high heaven. The only real solution to this problem that makes any sense at all is to tighten our collective belts, take the hit like a man, and pay for our own excesses on our own. That the current administrations solution to anything is throwing good money after bad says a whole lot about his Parties strategyic thinking. Its short sighted and very detrimental to folks long after he has left the political scene after his single term in office. The simpletons that elected this egghead are killng the goose that laid the golden egg with their me, me , me, gimme, gimme, attitudes. Our traditional capitalist system with its moderate tax structure and limitless possibilities open to those willing to work hard is being undermined. We hsve excelled as a country becuase we utilized the Protestant work ethic which put the onus on the individual for his or her own success in life. We are being pushed into adopting the collective mentality promoted by socialism and in a minor fashion communism, were the pie is split evenly regardless of effort expended or the contributions exerted by those recieving the benefits. It is a failed proposition that has failed in every country it has been instituted. We do so today at our peril. God help us if this guy gets his way with a rubber stamping Congress at his disposal. Arlen Spectors traitorous treachery has almost ensured this result. He is a disgrace
Posted by: ALIEN at 04/30/2009 07:15:28 PM
It looks to me, like just another coservative republican propaganda. No substantiation, no sources, no anything to base these statements upon. Yes, ARRA requires a lot of money. But does anybody, except the President and his team know, where they will get money for that from? There are PLENTY of sources without tax increases. Therefore stop scaring people with your conservative hoax! American people (at least: most of them) are smarter, than that!
Posted by: John Scott at 04/30/2009 07:39:36 PM
Where’s the evidence that middle- and lower-class taxpayers will have their taxes hiked? The hikes the article pinpoints for individuals impact only “top earners”, those in “top brackets” and those with multi-million dollar estates. The hikes the article pinpoints for businesses (which include preventing them from “skirting payroll taxes” and “treating workers as contractors who are really employees”) seem like fair – and probably long overdue -- closure of loopholes. Beyond that, the article makes unsubstantiated claims that taxes may rise in the future (and even then, only on those with six-figure incomes) partly because the public “won’t buy” cuts to entitlements and defense, even though both have been trimmed before. Sounds like teabag-fueled paranoia to me.
Posted by: greenhornet at 04/30/2009 07:48:34 PM
Did anyone really believe BHO when he announced during his campaign, "95% of you will get a tax cut."? His "training" under Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers focused on how to destroy this country and our system of capitalism and usher in Marxist socialism. BHO is a socialist who is hell-bent on destroying this country! Who determined which companies to bail out and which to ignore? And, why? Why didn't we let the free market decide which companies survived or not? As to taxes, more than 50% of Americans pay no income taxes at all! It would amaze you, I'm sure, to learn that not quite 10% of tax payers pay close to 70% of the taxes. I'd say the rich pay more than their "fair share" (whatever "fair share" is supposed to mean!). If everyone making over $200K per year paid 100% of the amount over $200K, there still would not be enough money to balance the budget. The liberals are good at starting "class env"y. The rich did not make their money on the backs of the poor or middle-class. They made their money by working hard, by investing in businesses, or real estate. In a capitalist society, everyone has the opportunity to become rich. You are limited only by your abilities and your drive! Not so, in a socialistic or communist economy!
Posted by: Just Wondering at 04/30/2009 07:49:51 PM
You left something out "Modern Dem" (short for Demoagogue, not Democrat). The poor will not rise up against a system that provides them with everything they need, without having to work for it, and that seems to be the plan of the current administration, not to mention that it guarantees their continued success at the pols. Just wondering what you think, and enjoyed reading your very thoughtful post.
Posted by: mike at 04/30/2009 07:53:32 PM
I just dont understand why people have such and issue with other people making money. heres how it works, joe blow has an idea for a wiggit factory, hes the president, manager, and worker. he works real hard to make these wiggets and also to sell them, in fact hes so good he has to hire a worker to make them so he can manage and run the company, next thing you know business is doing so good the worker needs help, so joe blow hires another worker, now he doesnt have time to manage the workers and run the company so now he needs a manager to oversee production so he can run the company and so on and so forth. now you have people working and people supporting the economy. I have no problem with people making money, i also have not problem with people sitting on there front porch all day doing nothing. however we all have choices to make in life and if i choose to bust my butt and make a better life for me and my family thats my choice as an american. and if you choose to sit around doing nothing that's your choice.
Posted by: Not A Fan at 04/30/2009 07:57:57 PM
"Modern Demagogue" is still reeling from the effects of the Obama Koolaid he has been guzzling apparently in large quantities. If you consider the Wall Street Journal a credible source, here is a fact: even if EVERY person who earned over $250,000 from the 2006 tax year were taxed at 100% (stop and think about that) it STILL wouldn't generate enough revenue to cover the massive spending Obama/Reid/Pelosi are ramming down our throats! So, Modern Demagogue, you need to put down the Koolaid, and realize that you can't keep milking "the rich" to pay the bill. The facts are there, if you'll only have the courage to realize it.
Posted by: Crash at 04/30/2009 07:58:39 PM
Everyone seems to be focusing on squeezing more money out of the population instead of cutting pork and government waste. We survived and thrived for over a century without an income tax and only needed to create one when the government ran amoke with spending and waste. The folks screaming tax the rich would cry foul if they won the lottery and had 70% of it taken away by government taxation. Taxation doesn't stop at the top, but is a cancer that eats through to the heart of the population once the smell of money hits lawmakers.
Posted by: LJ at 04/30/2009 08:02:38 PM
Modern Demagogue... If you think for one minute that crushing small business is not going to hurt you - talk to me again when you are unemployed, or don't get a raise. Also when these businesses get hit who do you think is going to pay higher prices? And the actual taxes you pay every April 15th is not the only taxes we will all get nailed with. Cap & Trade is going to force our power costs through the roof - just to name one. Get you head out of the sand these tax hikes are going to affect all of us if you think not just wait. There is simply not enough of the majical rich people to pay for all the spending Washington is doing so who do you think is going to pay for all of this stuff?
Posted by: mike at 04/30/2009 08:06:00 PM
who do you think is gonna pay for all the spending that going on. im sure congress has scientist working on a money tree but until then you, i and every other citizen can expect more taxes. thats commom sense.
Posted by: Richard at 04/30/2009 08:09:47 PM
At first I thought the Kiplinger article was going to show that ordinary working Americans would see their taxes go up. After reading it, however, it became clear that this is right out of the Karl Rove/RNC propaganda playbook. Yes, we all knew the top rate would go up because Barack Obama said so months ago, even before he became president. It is a rollback of the $1.35 trillion tax cut Bush handed out to the richest 1% of the population. The estate tax is another joke played on ordinary working Americans. Big deal, if you are bequeathed $5 million as an individual and $7 million as a couple you pay an estate tax. Ordinary Americans? Hardly! The capital gains tax is another bit of legerdemain promoted by Kiplinger as a tax on ordinary Americans. Most working people can't shelter their incomes like the fat cats can. The old capital gains was 35% before Bush lowered it to 15%. This allowed the fat cats to shift ordinary income which is taxed at a higher rate, to the lower 15%. Big deal, the rate goes up 5% which is still 15% less than the earlier 35%. Kiplinger wants to shove this piece of demagoguery off by framing it around the false claim that the taxes will go up for ordinary workers. They won't go up unless you call "ordinary" making $250,000 per year. In any case, the multi, multi millionaires always have and always will, find a way to avoid and evade paying taxes with hundreds of shelters unavailable to ordinary working Americans. The Kiplinger screed is nothing but GOP propaganda, the same deceit and subterfuge that created the financial collapse under 8 years of Bush.
Posted by: spedmull at 04/30/2009 08:19:30 PM
I have said for years, middle class and small business's should stop paying taxes!!! Debtor's prison I thought had been abolished? My ancestor's came from a debtor's prison in England to work it the tobacca fields of NC(Im white) I haven't been paid any restitution. This country has gone to hell in a handbasket and I blame me and the rest of the complacent middle class that let the leftwing liberals take over this country?? God Bless America and Lets stop paying taxes??
Posted by: Annie T at 04/30/2009 08:33:11 PM
I am so tired of working my rear off to be a financial success only to have it sucked away to support people who do not contribute a dime..I.E. welfare people.When are we going to catch a break, and be able to enjoy what we work so hard for? and if SS is going to run out then stop taking all that money out of my check, and let me save it myself. Now I know why my grandfather was always so grouchy..
Posted by: BJB at 04/30/2009 08:42:18 PM
There was no mention of ending deferral for corporations, while the corporate tax rate may be lower, companies that shift income overseas, may now have to pay a tax on earnings that were considered permanently re-invested. The Wall Street Journal discussed this last week, and got it mostly correct.
Posted by: FedUp at 04/30/2009 10:16:57 PM
Bryce: Tax S Corps higher? Apparently you do not realize the vast majority of S Corps are SMALL business owners. Tax them more and the people they employee (and pay) will LOSE their jobs! Bad Reporting: It's called basic math. i.e. 2+2=4 it does not, and will not, equal 40! Therefore, if you look at the numbers, it is mathematically impossible for Obama to implement all of his "plans" without increasing taxes on those making less than $200k. In all reality, for him to pull this off, it is more likely that we will see increases in taxes on those making only $70k+. And as East Coaster pointed out, depending upon WHERE you live in this country, someone in CA or NY making $99k per year will be hit hard with an increase in taxes. Leksi Wit: While $200k was a lot to make 10 years ago... it's not now! "The wealthy didn't make their money in a vacuum. They got rich off of the middle-class and to some extent, poor. Time to pay it back and suck it up..." Ummm... how many hours per day/week do YOU work? Most people who are "wealth"y got that way because their jobs require more than 40 hours of work per week... it's more like 80 hours! (And because they have SAVED and tried to INVEST in their future.) So HOW does that equate to getting rich off of the poor and middle-class?????? Please, do tell! Because your logic isn't logical... it's rationalization! GoGlobalWarming: Here, here!!!!!
Posted by: nonna at 05/01/2009 02:53:20 AM
Count your blessings, Bob! Do not even think about moving to California.
Posted by: jack m at 05/01/2009 07:14:35 AM
You say the impending tax increases will affect the middle class yet each one of the listed increases affects the high income payers just as Obama promised. Headlines like you are putting out are not only inaccurate but incite anger in those among us who want to believe the worst. You do us all a disservice.
Posted by: Cliff Hancuff at 05/01/2009 09:19:56 AM
... I remain befuddled how Kiplinger editors allowed such shoddy journalism to slip through their vetting process ....
Posted by: ROBERT REINERT, CPA at 05/01/2009 10:09:59 AM
How do we start a revelution against congress without violence? Can we stop them from messing with S corporations? I have a practive the specializes in small business start-ups and we cater to S corporations if the SECA taxes change for S corporations these business will have to close. This is truely a path to socialization for the US. If we continue down this path there will bound to be a violent revolution. We have to make government more effiicient and reduce the government work force so the rest of us can bretah. Tell if you can what you reccomend I do first to stop this attach on small business ?
Posted by: Rich B at 05/01/2009 10:42:33 AM
Jack M...You need to read History from 1920 on imposed taxs by our Congress and Presidents from the past. They need to start teaching American History in schools then maybe you would know.
Posted by: John at 05/01/2009 12:21:21 PM
I do not see the problem in tax hikes and increases, afterall the government is doing us a service in providing us national security, healthcare, retirement stability through S.S., and eduction to name a few. Oh wait, I forgot that aside from national security, only the bottom feeders get to benefit from services that are "free." It makes sense to reward those that have worked hard in life with higher taxes, and let those who choose to do little or nothing remain "taken care of." Afterall, we are becomming a society in which people what to be provided for by Uncle Sam...has the American ambition that were built on been destroyed?
Posted by: Dick Birkenbuel at 05/01/2009 08:48:32 PM
Concerning the post by Robert Reinert, CPA. I could not agree more with your comment. I own a concrete construction company incorporated as an S Corporation. In 2008 my wife and I took home a little over 200K. Yet because our business was very profitable, we paid 656,174.00 in income tax for 2008. We are taxed on those profits yet we must maintain as the IRS states "Basis in the Corporation". Simply stated, most of our profits must stay in the corporation in order to maintain basis. Our profits are always in the loop for payroll, estimating, office overhead and 450K plus we pay for insurance to stay in business. Our business is 18 years old. We currently employ 115 carpenters, laborers, ironworkers, cement masons and operating engineers. I hav had as 300 people working. A journeyman carpenter makes $35.50 on his check in Seattle. There is also an $11.27 benefit package. Couple that with federal FUTA, SUTA, Social Security, Medicade, Washington State unemployment compensation and labor and industries for injured workers and you end up with a total cost of $52.51 per working hour. Do the math for a 15 minute coffee break mandated by law. Multiply that by 115. It will work out at $13.13 per manhour times 5 days a week and 52 weeks per year. The total for coffee breaks for our company is $78,517.40 per year for non production. Try making money with that kind of labor costs in an agressive economy. I can agree with Robert that my wife and I will close down our business. That will put more people out of work. It will reduce the revenue that both the state and federal government will receive. Since we are already taxed at 300%, I can guarantee that if our taxes are raised a dime, we will have to make the tough decision. At 60, I will simply call it good and retire.
Posted by: Jan at 05/02/2009 08:06:49 AM
You know the only people who are crying socialism are the people who have been living high off the hog. There have only been two classes in the past few years the rich and the poor. We have no middle class like we used to. I should know I used to be considered middle class. Everything has gone up but wages except for management. If you think you have it so bad try living off my income for awhile.
Posted by: Todd G. LiPira at 05/02/2009 08:23:13 AM
Unfortunately, American ambition has been destroyed for people like me. I tried to succeed in business, only to have the government essentially confiscate everything I managed to save. I worked very long and hard, with no vacations for a decade. I hired people and trained them. I paid accountants and attorneys thousands of dollars to make sure I was in compliance; and yet, the government wanted more. They wanted everything. I give up. Now, I just want to make as little as possible, by myself, and just get by, till I die. And along the way, any government handouts I can get for myself and my family...I'll take. I don't care anymore.
Posted by: Jewrry Dorf EA at 05/02/2009 08:44:24 AM
This would not be 'War' against S Corps. It would be a war against tax cheats who have been taking 'salary' as dividends. The same with the mis-classification of employees. Businesses have been stealing all of the payroll taxes that way. The middle class has been paying the taxes for these cheats.
Posted by: Robert at 05/02/2009 09:53:20 AM
So my wife and I have worked our tails off to get to where we are today in the higher income tax brackets only to have to turn our hard earned income over to the government to pay for others who didn't have the same ambitions we had? We pay more then our fair share of taxes already. Are we simply going to leave our government dictate our lives? What can we do?
Posted by: OldLady at 05/02/2009 01:55:39 PM
Simply put, this whole thing is like Madoff's ponzi scheme: Take from one group to give to another group. Eventually you run out of groups to take from.
Posted by: Brian at 05/02/2009 04:40:25 PM
Did you know that 150,000 government jobs were added in 2008 while literally millions of private jobs were lost? That oought to tell you something: like Socialism here we come.
Posted by: Judy at 05/03/2009 12:17:15 AM
My husband and I have worked our entire lives, followed "the rules", as we were taught by our parents, teachers and clergy. These lessons growing up were; play fair, be honest, work hard, be loyal, go the 'extra mile", do unto others as you would have them do unto you, any job doing is worth doing well, a full days work for a days pay and pay taxes...now in our "Golden Years", I am still working and still playing by "the rules", paying taxes and we are finding out; that it is okay to cheat, lie, steal, do unto others before they do it to you, break all of man's laws and break God's laws, come across borders illegally and you will be given medical help, food, clothing, education and be justly rewarded for ill gotten gains and breaking laws. We were not brought up in this type of mind set. There are a large segment of people in the United States today with the "mentality of entitlement" and our government and its agencies appear to condone this type of thinking and behavior if not encouraging this behavior. Why is it the minority in "m"y country can be of the opinion that they are offended by "m"y belief in God or "m"y rights to pledge allegience to the American Flag and feel that "m"y country should afford a free ride to anyone at anytime, even though they do not believe in what America stands for and they scoff at the principles which my grandfather, father, husband and son went to war for and fought for, which is God and Freedom for all American citizens. Why are these people catered to and held in esteem and their needs, desires and wants are what are important, so as not to upset or infringe on their rights. Excuse me...but why???? We seem to be the "worlds worst people", but "the world" are willing to accept monetary aid, food, medical supplies, military help and educational help, but on "the worlds terms", then "the world" ridicules, hates and scorns Americans and what we stand for...reminds me of "don't bite the hand that feeds you".... America has become the punch line of the rest of the worlds bad jokes. Our government smacks of socialism or fascism...taking from one group and giving to another group, while being told it is for the good of all people. Our fore fathers are surely turning over in their graves. I used to joke that my retirement and wake would all be on the same day...but today it seems it is going to be my reality. Through God's Grace, may America and its hard working people make it through these trying and "taxing" times!
Posted by: terry at 05/03/2009 05:47:48 AM
I dont understand why u have to tax people to death.I have a friend who is an atty. in Las Vegas just got convicted of tax evation or fraud.He has made some mistakes but he always filed on time and paid them something.This man fought for his country when he was younger.(Air Force)then(Army)then became an atty.He has 3 or 4 kids that he pays childsupport.The IRS thought that they should get that money.Idont understand how you give 20.million to banks over and over then for making same mistakes only you are a person who pays some of your taxes(not all)but now you go to JAIL.IT SEEM TO ME THAT THIS GOVERMENT HAS ITS HEAD OR TAIL IN THE WRONG PLACE.i DONT SEE HOW YOU CAN BE EXPECTED TO PAY YOUR BACK TAXES WHEN THE STATE HAS TAKEN AWAY YOUR LIFE.THE WAY YOU MAKE A LIVING IS GONE.BUT IF YOU ARE A BANK THE STATE ,GOVERMENTTHEY WILL JUST HAND IT TO YOU.THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THE MONEY FOR THE STATE,GOVERMENT TO JUST HAND OUT ARE NOW GOING TO JAIL FOR NOT PAYING THEM ENOUGH.THATS SAD.4 KIDS HAVE TO BE WITHOUT THERE DAD BECAUSE HE PAID CHILDSUPPORT INSTEAD OF PAYING HIS TAXES.SOMETHING IS REALLY WRONG.
Posted by: Anita at 05/03/2009 10:03:09 AM
The most peaceful countries in the world are the ones with high taxes and high returns (cradle-to-grave) in the form of universal healthcare, free tuition, social safety nets. If you allow an underclass, that underclass resentment will eventually bite you. A little sharing makes the world a more livable peaceful place. Look at Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden. Why not at least try a model that works for almost everyone and see if the peace of mind is not worth the trade-off. Dollars depreciate, and you could wake up some day and find your dollar worth 20 cents. Social justice pays dividends every day, all year long. We've tried the "money is everything" and "what the poor receive comes out of my pile" route for 200 years. Aren't you tired yet or is your life so good that your conscience has atrophied?
Posted by: Mike at 05/05/2009 11:17:20 AM
Our consciences are very clear - those of us who do well pay their fair share of taxes. But you can only have so many people supporting the rest. As Margaret Thatcher said "Socialism is wonderful until you run out of other people's money." Those great countries in Europe are all dying out - their reproductive rates are below that of self maintenance. Part of the reason is that there is no profit motive - you are taken care of from birth to death - why take any chance or risks - everything you do is taken away. I know I don't want to live in a country like that and I certainly don't want America to become a total welfare state. Why bother working if you can live off the efforts of someone else?
Posted by: knowtax at 05/08/2009 09:44:59 PM
Terry, The IRS prosecutes like 100 people criminally for tax evasion every year. Do you have any idea how bad you have to be to get convicted/prosecuted. I worked for the IRS so I know. To put things in perspective, you have a much better chance of being struck by lighting. They(IRS) only gets the worst of the worst. Try again.
Posted by: barb at 05/10/2009 07:27:10 AM
I think people making comments should be required to post what income category they fall into. The ones who think giving more to others works and will cause us to feel "peace" and a good conscience always seem to be in the category that benefits most from redistribution of MY money. If there's were the money being redistributed all the time, I suspect they'd not feel so generous.
Posted by: CoolMama at 05/14/2009 10:07:27 AM
Anita: you hit the nail on the head. And Kiplingers: I'm astonished that you'd run such a poor piece of journalism.