Already Looking forward to 2011!!!

[Boghie]

The evil BusHitler's great tax giveaway to the corpulant wealthy of Nazi America is about to sunset...

On this very day next year the pathetic slugs that stole so much over the past decade will be taxed using the same rates as they were during the Clinton administration. Here is a comparison for folks filing as Married Filing Jointly:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7yw5euhvsP4/Sz595tp3PuI/AAAAAAAAAAk/ClNWTKoTlHA/s400/TaxAdjChart.bmp

Just lookup this years taxable income right here. I know you are starting to mess with your taxes - I am. Just take a round guess and use this chart to give you an idea of the joy to come. I know this looks like everybody is getting jobbed, but that just ain't so. Those rich bastards (and their families) making a hundred G's will get whacked for $3,464 more per year. So what if you get knocked up for an additional $2,560 a year. You can handle it. It's just $215 less take home pay for the month. What's that - gas, electricity, food, maybe entertainment. Just cut the fat and enjoy the schadenfreude.

This example of social justice is inflation adjusted (uses 2009 dollars), uses a 2009 tax schedule, and uses a 2000 inflation adjusted tax schedule to demonstrate this power to the people moment.


And, lookie here everybody.

The Moronic BushMcHitlerChimp sunsetted his tax giveaway just after folks vote in November 2010. Just after the vote. It won't hit them for almost another two months. Nobody will be talking about it before it happens. And, nobody will be adjusting their taxable income till after it hits em. Nobody will know a thing! :p

What a waste of air!!

What an idiot!!!

Chimp!!!

:nuts:

[Show-me]

Boghie,

I wish you would not hold back, it makes it hard to understand were you are coming from. :nuts:

[Jackbnimble]

Did you notice the percentage increase will be about the same for taxable income of 10,000 as it is for 100,000? 194/1000 =19.4% vs. 3464/17375=19.9%?

The $194 will hurt the family at $10,000 more than the $3,464 will hurt the 100k family.
Talk about regressive. Hope and change.

[FAB1]

Did you notice the percentage increase will be about the same for taxable income of 10,000 as it is for 100,000? 194/1000 =19.4% vs. 3464/17375=19.9%?

The $194 will hurt the family at $10,000 more than the $3,464 will hurt the 100k family.
Talk about regressive. Hope and change.

+1 - wish I had the 100 grand income and bigger taxes - sheesh :rolleyes:

[Silverbird]

Ok...this is because those tax breaks under the former Administration are going away in 2011??? So why are you blaming Obama, the Congress under the Bush Admin wrote it that way so they could play Creative Accounting - and that creative accounting even needed the wars off budget. If Congress does what is supposed to happen if we were going to be financially responsible based on the assumptions of the time, the tax breaks should go away.

But, you are assuming it's going to be Groundhog Day in 2011 and no one is going to notice. I don't think that's going to be the case - everyone knows what's coming. Someone's gonna squawk about such a big hit, because even though the breaks were phased in, the end of them wasn't. So if you are a conspiracy theorist, here is your conspiracy - it was meant to mess up the next President.

To me it was just a big accounting trick and we are going to be kicked with it and that was how it was designed. The 2011 budget will be another shocker because someone is going to make sure at least some of those tax breaks continue into 2011 - otherwise Congress better just get ready to retire.

[grandma]

So why is not the President and the Congress fixing these hang-over things from previous - was that not what their electors expected as part of `the change?'

[Frixxxx]

.....To me it was just a big accounting trick and we are going to be kicked with it and that was how it was designed. The 2011 budget will be another shocker because someone is going to make sure at least some of those tax breaks continue into 2011 - otherwise Congress better just get ready to retire.

Accounting Trick = Bad Accounting Practice

As long as lawmakers can make laws on accounting, there will always be tricks. The problem with our government is that the checks and balances of a three divisioned architecture still doesn't have a proper audit function. The supreme court should not allow any accounting laws be validated FROM the house and senate. That IS the fox watching the hen house.

Accounting laws should be reduced to credits and debits. Take out deferments, writeoffs, deductions. I know you're thinking flat tax, but what is wrong with that?

10% - of 10,000
10% - of 100,000
10% - of 1,000,000

The U.S. citizen determines their altitude. Then they know the tax level facing them.

I don't get it! I see it as Black & White!

[Steadygain]

Ok...this is because those tax breaks under the former Administration are going away in 2011??? So why are you blaming Obama, the Congress under the Bush Admin wrote it that way so they could play Creative Accounting.

Well -- your message deserves a hug and a kiss :cheesy::worried:

During the second Bush Term I honestly tried to keep up with the Debt and many of the 'hidden' Financial Things going on. For those who went out of their way to keep up - the information was there.

Over and Over -- the Creative Accounting was addressed and there was absolutely no way anyone could avoid seeing that the 'next' administration would have to deal with it.

I'm not saying Obama doesn't have his faults -- but the overwhelming expectations and all the more the greviences constantly lodged against him way more reflect the ongoing damage from the previous years than what Obama himself is even slightly respondsible for.

Anyway --- thank you !!

[Silverbird]

Actually, if the change is to move to responsible accounting, that means let the tax breaks expire - because that's how the accounts record it should be done. I get the feeling that's not what people *think* change should be, but there is a difference between astronomy and astrology, if you know what I mean.:toung:

Change does not mean more creative accounting. Instead, we get to see how much we *really* are in the hole.

However, for those of you who don't want the "Change" back to pre-Bush to happen, fear not, certain people in Congress do not want to be lynched (in a figurative way) and instead we will just kick the defict up again. And one can hope, with the push toward showing the real numbers, they won't put an artificial end date on the breaks and we can see the real glory fun of what this does if if goes on forever. But I am not hopeful there won't be another "endit" date just so the numbers don't go bezerk 10+ years from now.

[Boghie]

SilverBird, Steady,

FY2007:

Revenue: $2,567,671
Expenditures: $2,730,505
Deficit: $161,527
FY2008:

Revenue: $2,523,642
Expenditures: $2,978,440 (+9.08%)
Deficit: $454,798
FY2009:

Revenue: $2,104,613
Expenditures: $3,521,734 (+18.24%)
Deficit: $1,417,121
As of FY2009 I don't think you can directly correlate the revenue drop to either President Bush or President Obama. It was a market cycle. Also, some of the government spending can be attributed to an economic theory (Keynesianism) – so that is somewhat expected and maybe necessary. As of the FY2009 midterm review (January 2009) – the last spending controlled by President Bush - the budgeted FY2009 expenditure was $3,133,2003. That would have resulted in a growth of Federal expenditures by +10.51%.

But, the actual expenditure growth in FY2009 was over 18%??? That is spending bloat.

Also, note that the final pre-Great Recession year deficit (FY2007) was $161 Billion. Given something other than the ‘Great Recession’ we would have gone to surplus in FY2008. That implies that if we reign in spending and keep the tax code unchanged we will be in surplus almost as soon as the recession ends. Additionally, that surplus will grow dramatically each year spending is held in check.

On the other hand, if Liberals keep threatening tax and regulation changes, folks and businesses will continue to adjust to those threats. Here is a simple example: If taxes on dividends revert to the pre-2003 level (income tax rate vs. capital gains tax rate) than investors will NOT want dividends and companies will NOT distribute dividends. Dividends are distributed with corporate after-tax profits. Thus, corporations will move numbers around and not show as much in taxable profits. That will reduce Federal revenue. It will also entice investors and businesses to seek ways of increasing stock price. Can we say ENRON and Global Crossing accounting gimmicks?

Everyone, the Administration included, claims the recession is over. FY2010 should be a normal recovery year. The stock market leads main street. The stock market corrected from a stupid crash and leveled off at -28%. My guess is that the economy will adjust similarly over the next few months. Now, it is President Obama and the Liberal Congress that define the framework of our economy. If neither the market nor the economy as a whole grow at a sustainable rate (see other recoveries) than one can presume that framework changes are having a detrimental effect. If the growth is statistically more vibrant than one can presume that framework changes are having a beneficial effect. We can look at Federal tax revenue as a proxy. The revenue growth from FY2003 (September 2002 – September 2003) to FY2004 was 5.44%. That was pre-Bush tax code modification – but folks were beginning to expect change and adjust to projected change. The revenue growth from FY2004 to FY2005 was 14.63%. The revenue growth so far from FY2009 to FY2010 has been -13.15%. That does not bode well. Folks (you and me and businesses) are moving numbers around in an effort to adjust to the new framework.

My money is on the bet that the President Obama/Congress economic framework (projected and actual) will result in a miserable Federal revenue growth rate This stuff is easy to predict. Fish in a barrel.

This bet can be claimed 2010/10/13 when the FY2010 Monthly Treasury Statement is posted. For those who are looking here is the future link (http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0910.pdf):p

Any takers!!!

[KevinD]

Page Not Found

[Boghie]

Page Not Found

KevinD,

That page will not be found till the second Thursday of October 2010. :D

Kindof talking smack... Very subtle though, eh...

The main site is: Monthly Treasury Statement (http://fms.treas.gov/mts/)

The super top secret is to notice the URL of a specific MTS monthly report. The final portion of the URL is a date in the format of mtsMMYY.pdf. For example, the most recent MTS report is for November 2009. Thus, the URL is:

http://fms.treas.gov/mts/mts1109.pdf.

If you want to grab a crystal ball and see the September 2010 report (http://fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0910.pdf.)it will be at:

http://fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0910.pdf.

and, will be posted by the second Wednesday of the month.

This Wednesday we will get the honor of viewing the December 2008 report (http://fms.treas.gov/mts/mts1209.pdf.).

[Silverbird]

Do those calculations include the two wars before 2009? They were off-budget before 2009, last I checked. Also, the bailout started in Dec 2008, so that's going to be in 2009 too.

But regardless, numbers show that these tax cuts were accompanied by a deficit, and yes, it's a LOT bigger now, but even when they were started they helped create a deficit in the federal budget.

Again, I say, fear not. Unless Congress wants to get lynched, these tax breaks will be re-instated, and the new calculations of further deficits will be breathtaking.

[Boghie]

Do those calculations include the two wars before 2009? They were off-budget before 2009, last I checked. Also, the bailout started in Dec 2008, so that's going to be in 2009 too.

But regardless, numbers show that these tax cuts were accompanied by a deficit, and yes, it's a LOT bigger now, but even when they were started they helped create a deficit in the federal budget.

Again, I say, fear not. Unless Congress wants to get lynched, these tax breaks will be re-instated, and the new calculations of further deficits will be breathtaking.


SilverBird,

The 'Monthly Treasury Statement' is not a 'budget' - it is a record of actual expenditures. So, yes, the war effort is included. The war effort costs about $100 Billion/year. Thus, the 'stimulus' bill consumed about eight years of war spending in a week.

The TARP bailout is included in FY2009. As is President Obama's 'stimulus'. Did you note that much of the TARP has already been paid back within the fiscal year it was expensed? President Obama is not responsible for all the FY2009 deficit - the economy and President Bush had a role. However, President Obama borrowed $789 Billion for the 'stimulus' and used TARP payback money to fund other efforts (GM, Chrysler, etc.). That is not Bush spending. Please note the spending pattern this FY (FY2010). You will get another month this Wednesday/Thursday. My guess is that the pattern will continue. Not good.

Did you note that the FY2007 deficit was $160 Billion. That is rounding error? It would have been overcome had FY2008 been a normal year.

I don't want tax cuts. I want the current structure with no threat of changing it dramatically. It worked in the recent past, it will work again.

[Boghie]

But, you are assuming it's going to be Groundhog Day in 2011 and no one is going to notice. I don't think that's going to be the case - everyone knows what's coming. Someone's gonna squawk about such a big hit, because even though the breaks were phased in, the end of them wasn't. So if you are a conspiracy theorist, here is your conspiracy - it was meant to mess up the next President.

Silverbird, It is now May 2nd - and not a peep from Congress or the Administration about adjusting the automatic reversion of the tax code to FY2000. I'm starting to wonder if they will even inflation adjust the brackets:worried:.

Normally, changes to the tax code occur in January/February.

Now, let us project Federal Government Revenue and Expenditures:

FY2007:

Revenue: $2,567,671
Expenditures: $2,730,505
Deficit: $161,527
FY2008:

Revenue: $2,523,642
Expenditures: $2,978,440 (+9.08%)
Deficit: $454,798
FY2009:

Revenue: $2,104,613
Expenditures: $3,521,734 (+18.24%)
Deficit: $1,417,121

And, now lets us look at the MTS 'Post Great Recession' FY2010 Projection (http://fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0310.pdf):

Revenue: $2,165,119 (+2.87%)
Expenditures: $3,720,701 (+5.65%)
Deficit: $1,555,582

Given that there has been very little inflation (probably deflation) since FY2007 let us look at President Obama's firt 'Great Recession' budget as ratios with FY2007:

Revenue: $2,165,119 (-18.59% under FY2007)
Expenditures: $3,720,701 (+36.26% over FY2007)
Deficit: $1,555,582

That is some serious cost cutting:nuts:

Had the gubmint committed to Pre-Great Recession inflation adjusted expenditures in a Post-Great Recession time frame the numbers would have looked like this:

Revenue: $2,165,119 (-18.59% under FY2007)
Expenditures: $2,866,001(+4.96% over FY2007)
Deficit: $701,882 (+34.53% over FY2007

Bad, but going in the right direction...
The deficit would shrink as the economy improves...

Why are government expenditures still bloated AFTER the Keynesian expenditures of FY2009?

And, lets watch projected revenue 'adjust' as corporations move profits to other lines on the balance sheet!!! Remember, come January 2011 we investors no longer desire dividends - thus, corporations will not be forced to show the taxable profits from which dividends are paid. That will certainly be good for main street!!!

Ah, the schadenfreude:)

[Silverbird]

It will be absolute political suicide to put in big giant tax cuts by re-implementing the Bush era tax cuts with the govt in so much debt
It will also be political suicide to let everything lapse

Inflation? Unfortunately not much inflation to use that for an adjustment

The problem is unemployment, and I'm expecting deflation, which makes inflation look like a nice guy.

[alevin]

SB, unemployment and deflation are the elephants in the room. And yes, deflation is a whole lot scarier.

Minor field report here-2-day annual Quilt Show here over the weekend, draws people from 1/3 to 2/3 of the state. Attendance on Saturday was equal to total 2-day attendence last year this time. Attendance on Sunday sizeable and bonus over last year's attendance. Venders were much happier this year, but prices on some things were measurably lower than they have been with some items, including some extremely pricey equipment.

One vender said she was entirely travelling shop, no home-base shop. Interesting, first time for that one.

[Boghie]

SilverBird,

I am far more concerned about deflation as well. And, I think we would have been in a deflation death spiral without TARP. Even more important was the stuff the FED did.

My comment on inflation adjustment to the tax brackets was a bit of a joke. They are currently allowing the brackets to return to CY2000. It would be less than funny if they did not inflation adjust the brackets from CY2000. But the gubmint needs lots more money since we are spending far more (inflation adjusted) than ever before (maybe excepting WWII and the Civil War):


FY2010 Expenditures: $3,720,701 (in current dollars)
FY2007 Expenditures: $2,866,001 (in current dollars)
Thus, we are spending $854,700 (+29.82%) (in current dollars) more this year than we did in FY2007.

Why?

The 'Great Recession' is over?

What are we getting for the 29.82% increase in spending (inflation adjusted)?

[James48843]

FY2010 Expenditures: $3,720,701 (in current dollars)
FY2007 Expenditures: $2,866,001 (in current dollars)Thus, we are spending $854,700 (+29.82%) (in current dollars) more this year than we did in FY2007.

Why?

The 'Great Recession' is over?

What are we getting for the 29.82% increase in spending (inflation adjusted)?

To prime the pump.

During the Great Depression, Hoover raised taxes to balance the budget, and it killed the economy as it struggled to recover. The lesson learned, supposedly, was to inject cash to try to prime the pump. FDR did that, or at least tried to do that until some of his programs got axed by the Supreme Court. It was another few years before they found ways to pump more money into the economy and get it going again, and it was the massive spending by the government as World War II got underway that really knocked the unemployment rate down and got the economy going again.

We aren't going to have a repeat of the mistakes of the early 1930's- that's why we need to pump some money into the economy. My only issue is I wish we had some things going to prime the pump that would be much more visible, and get people working.

Of course- hiring 70,000 people along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, and using BP's money instead of taxpayer money- that sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Too bad it takes a disaster to hire that many folks. I heard that number being floated today as a possible number that BP will end up hiring. So far they've hired over 2,000, and are lining up 700 shrimp boats and small vessels to deploy oil booms. I guess that will make up for some of that loss of shrimping, eh?

[burrocrat]

...that's why we need to pump some money into the economy...

hey zues de freakin crisco, how much money we gotta pump into this thing? where did the last 700 billion go?


...are lining up 700 shrimp boats...

well, they got pineapple shrimp, shrimp and potatoes, shrimp sandwiches...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLkNPjbaPTk

[Frixxxx]

Of course- hiring 70,000 people along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, and using BP's money instead of taxpayer money- that sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Too bad it takes a disaster to hire that many folks. I heard that number being floated today as a possible number that BP will end up hiring. So far they've hired over 2,000, and are lining up 700 shrimp boats and small vessels to deploy oil booms. I guess that will make up for some of that loss of shrimping, eh?
Also sounds like an excuse to go to war?:suspicious: Wait, were already there....IRAN?

[tsptalk]

You have to wonder what this is going to do to stocks over the 2nd half of the year...


Six Months to Go (http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171#)


- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
- The 25% bracket rises to 28%
- The 28% bracket rises to 31%
- The 33% bracket rises to 36%
- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

Read more: http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171##ixzz0sXtHYopD

[Bullitt]

This will devastate the market. No incentive anymore to 'invest for the long run' with lower LT tax rates. Good news is, the next bull market will probably begin the day a newly elected official announces a return to handsome tax incentives for long term shareholders.

[Boghie]

To All,

I should have re-read my own thread in May or June. Everyone knows the market looks six to nine months out. What do we investors see:p

Expect a blip in corporate income tax as they prepare to pay out the last of the Bush era dividends. After this blip many investors will demand that companies ‘pay’ them in capital gains. Capital gains taxes are going up – but not as fast as dividend taxes. Expect companies to ‘unexpectedly’ project reduced earnings as they move numbers around on the balance sheet. I have <sarcasm>absolutely no idea</sarcasm> what that will do to the market. Which company will employ ENRON accounting techniques first – I mean, of course, after the Federal Government.

Just a side note: The corpulent wealthy are already paying into the ObamaCare ‘lock box’. I can’t find that line item on the MTS. By chance, have the ObamaCare taxes on the war criminal wealthy accidentally been placed in the Social Security ‘lock box’. Things can’t get better…


Silverbird,

It is July 2, 2010 and still no Congressional action adjusting the coming tax code to limit the rate increases only on the unearned gains of the corpulent wealthy!!!

Get ready for the Marriage Penalty:)

Oh no, Mr. Bill

[grandma]

Get ready for the Marriage Penalty:)


I find it difficult to believe that this administration would actually remove an important plank in the GL drive toward marriage!
...unless this particular item is one of those with multiple exceptions ???:suspicious:

[PessOptimist]

Please explain the GL reference. I"m pretty stupid. Does it matter who or what you are married to? I am not going to read back many pages to figure out what you are talking about.

[Boghie]

I don't know what GL is???

The Bush tax code changes removed the compressed tax brackets for folks 'married, filing jointly'. Basically, till the Bush tax code changes took hold married couples did not get the equivalent of two deductions and the tax brackets were not double that of singles - they were 1.5 that of singles. If both partners worked than the effective tax rate of a married couple was much higher than that of two singles.

An example...

A poor gubmint slug marries a lovely lady in October 2001. When you look at their tax as singles they are good to go since they have been withholding Federal taxes as single and 1 withholding. However, marriage treated these poor sods rather shabbily in the last year of the marriage penalty. They end up charging up more than $3K on a credit card to pay The Man. The standard deduction was smaller and the tax brackets were compressed (leaving these poor sods with more earnings taxed at a higher level).

Another example…

The bucolic ‘Peoples Republic of Kalefornea’ never got rid of the marriage penalty. Obviously, the marriage penalty only affects the greedy corpulent rich ba$st@rds. But, why does the above happily married middle class couple have to add extra money to their Kalefornea state income tax withholdings. It must be a mystery.

I seem to have lived the dream.

[grandma]

Please explain the GL reference. I'm pretty stupid. Does it matter who or what you are married to? I am not going to read back many pages to figure out what you are talking about.
My apologies, PO, you definitely aren't stupid, and reading past posts wouldn't help. It is my error.:embarrest:
Either my typing was going faster than my mind, or my `short-cut' thinking inadvertently left off the rest - it was supposed to read `GLBT.' The GLAA (gay lesbian activist alliance) is among those who have been working hard to get their couples recognized as married, so as to: be treated equally as heterosexual couples. And now that will not be a plank in their platform.
However, with all the exceptions we hear about being written into various laws, is it not possible that the GLAA will be able to get an exception written into this tax code so as to continue preferential treatment?

[Boghie]

My apologies, PO, you definitely aren't stupid, and reading past posts wouldn't help. It is my error.:embarrest:
Either my typing was going faster than my mind, or my `short-cut' thinking inadvertently left off the rest - it was supposed to read `GLBT.' The GLAA (gay lesbian activist alliance) is among those who have been working hard to get their couples recognized as married, so as to: be treated equally as heterosexual couples. And now that will not be a plank in their platform.
However, with all the exceptions we hear about being written into various laws, is it not possible that the GLAA will be able to get an exception written into this tax code so as to continue preferential treatment?

Grandma,

There are two end-games as I see it:

Congress and the President will adjust the upcoming re-establishment of the Clinton Era tax brackets to not affect those in the current 10%/15%/25%/28% brackets - ie., the Middle Class (those making less than $210,000 married, filling jointly). The Marriage Penalty is not integral to this, but might be resolved at the same time. And, the higher taxes on dividends, capital gains, and inheritance are all desired by this Administration and this Congress regardless of the income tax rates.
Congress will not be able to find the votes to restrict the revenue stream of their dreams – since the majority cannot cut any meaningful spending (which has increased by over 25% since May 2007 and is now ‘baked into’ the spending cake as ongoing expenses). The majority in Congress will claim that increased taxes are pain we all must endure to finance all the necessary 25% spending growth accrued over the past 3 years. Will the President veto such a bill? The minority will yell and scream, but get nothing through. It will be even worse if the majority becomes a lame duck majority.


Actually, since our current crop of Congressional ‘Profiles in Courage!’ cannot even provide President Obama a budget my guess is that confusion will reign supreme. The current majority will be split. There will be a clamor for spending cuts that they cannot (and many desire not) bring to fruition since elephant in the living room is salary and pension and entitlement expenses. There will be a clamor for benefit extension they cannot refuse since they cannot be seen as throwing grandma from the train. Some will not be able to vote to limit the tax increases only to the extremely rich corpulent capitalist bankers because revenue projections will show just how small the deficit differential will be!!! If they do so than the minority party will have hard numbers to work with for the November election. So, my guess is that our ‘Profiles in Courage!’ will do nothing. And by doing nothing you will get everything.

The refrain will be: We all did well under the Clinton Tax Code!!!
My response is: I hope none of you need that extra hundred (couple hundred) in take home pay. We don't have mortgages!!!:o

On marriage. My guess is that gay couples and straight couples will soon avoid marriage like a plague!!!

[grandma]

Grandma,
On marriage. My guess is that gay couples and straight couples will soon avoid marriage like a plague!!!

It doesn't seem like it was `that long ago' that the single `oldsters' were moving away from their home states, away from close family so as to live the married life without benefit of marriage licenses, ceremonies, & embarrassing their kids & grandkids, because one or both would lose a survival check they were receiving as a benefit from their deceased spouse. There wouldn't be enough income to live on, pay medicines, etc., as a legally married couple.
That appears to be going to get `unfixed.'
So ? ...no more unhappiness with fellows who don't marry the mother of their children, who come & go to the home, so that the `wife' can collect a check for each of the kids growing up without the male influence or as a stalwart role model....?

[alevin]

Well, Grandma, that may be the case for those already inclined not to marry for some reason (the reason's are not all bad-some dads were just an accident in the first place and not worth marrying-there's one like that in my extended family-and no state support was ever requested either in that case), but

OTH, there will be those who are maritally inclined -and who want or have children already. if there is one wage-earner in the couple with viable income and benefits, and couple couldn't afford 3d party childcare even if the other spouse is working (due to insufficient income), it is starting to make sense for the second spouse to stay home to provide the otherwise unaffordable childcare. So no marriage penalty there.

That's true with my nephew and his wife-to-be (they're just waiting for family to get there, to have the ceremony, but they've already decided together he is the stay-at-home parent).

[Boghie]

Grandma, Alevin,

Its not an 'inclination to marry' thing. If both members of a couple are earning income as of January 2011 than the 'marriage penalty' will inflict a 20% increase in actual tax payments. The marriage penalty is not the only part of the increase. The general income rate increase also plays a role.

My example in the initial post of this thread is a real life example.

Some beautiful couples will ask: Why get married if it means paying Uncle Sam another 15% - 20%. Think back to the era of Clinton. Didn't we all know couples who made this call.

[Boghie]

Wow, this thread got popular.

Does that mean we are all a bit concerned about 2011? Nah, of course not. We'll just bump into that palm tree when we get to it - sometime around the first pay period of 2011. Yuk, yuk.:p

Anyway, to get folks back on topic (not really a social thread - the numbers speak for themselves) here is what the tax code changes mean to you:

http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/picture.php?albumid=29&pictureid=311

I used an inflation adjusted tax bracket from 2000 to estimate the 2011 tax brackets in 2009 dollars.

It is amazing that there is so much uncertainty left with less than six months till implementation. Will there be a marriage penalty? If so, will it be limited to the highest tiers? Will the poorest earners really get a 50% increase in their tax rate? Will the corporate tax rates increase (note: under Bush corporate tax revenue dramatically increased)? What will happen to inheritance? What about dividends and capital gains? Do the child credits revert? Renter’s credit? All of those questions – if left unanswered – will make my chart’s numbers worse. My chart assumed full standard deductions and didn’t take into account dividends and capital gains. It didn’t take into affect the new taxes for ObamaCare (some already in place).

As they say, your first 2011 pay period take home pay could be dramatically worse.

Get out of debt, and get more cash flow.

Enjoy.

[crws]

that's easy-
just need to make less... say 29950:laugh:



Wow, this thread got popular.

Does that mean we are all a bit concerned about 2011? Nah, of course not. We'll just bump into that palm tree when we get to it - sometime around the first pay period of 2011. Yuk, yuk.:p

Anyway, to get folks back on topic (not really a social thread - the numbers speak for themselves) here is what the tax code changes mean to you:

http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/picture.php?albumid=29&pictureid=311

I used an inflation adjusted tax bracket from 2000 to estimate the 2011 tax brackets in 2009 dollars.

It is amazing that there is so much uncertainty left with less than six months till implementation. Will there be a marriage penalty? If so, will it be limited to the highest tiers? Will the poorest earners really get a 50% increase in their tax rate? Will the corporate tax rates increase (note: under Bush corporate tax revenue dramatically increased)? What will happen to inheritance? What about dividends and capital gains? Do the child credits revert? Renter’s credit? All of those questions – if left unanswered – will make my chart’s numbers worse. My chart assumed full standard deductions and didn’t take into account dividends and capital gains. It didn’t take into affect the new taxes for ObamaCare (some already in place).

As they say, your first 2011 pay period take home pay could be dramatically worse.

Get out of debt, and get more cash flow.

Enjoy.

[alevin]

OK, Boghie, back on topic. Last year (08 taxes) I had to write a check to IRS for the first time ever-thanks to having paid off my house early in the year, needing to rebuild emergency cash stash and save for new roof (those were priority over stashing the former mort payments into TSP).

this year (09 taxes) I had to pay a much smaller extra check due to putting more into TSP late in the year (after finishing saving up for new roof and Roth).

So now for 2010, I figured out how much extra to make sure I put into TSP to at least not have to pay more than is being withheld, and still have enough spare change to fully fund a Roth for 2010.

Any tax increase this next year will be countered by another bump into my TSP to offset. Will still get the Roth done too, just have to tighten the belt down harder on the household budget.

[Boghie]

OK, Boghie, back on topic. Last year (08 taxes) I had to write a check to IRS for the first time ever-thanks to having paid off my house early in the year, needing to rebuild emergency cash stash and save for new roof (those were priority over stashing the former mort payments into TSP).

this year (09 taxes) I had to pay a much smaller extra check due to putting more into TSP late in the year (after finishing saving up for new roof and Roth).

So now for 2010, I figured out how much extra to make sure I put into TSP to at least not have to pay more than is being withheld, and still have enough spare change to fully fund a Roth for 2010.

Any tax increase this next year will be countered by another bump into my TSP to offset. Will still get the Roth done too, just have to tighten the belt down harder on the household budget.

Alevin,

The tax code hasn't really changed for 2010 earnings.

Its the money you make in 2011. Also, if they don't fix the marriage penalty figuring our your tax will be a pain.

I like the way you do things!!!

[Boghie]

Just a Thought...

Say we Gubmint Types only get the Cost of Living increase for calendar year 2011. Maybe we are at a Step 10. Whatever...

So, this years mighty salary raise will be about 1%!!!!

What happens if your taxes go up 3%!!!

Tough to figure out...

:)

[Birchtree]

I got a friendly notice from my friends at the IRS last week saying that I hadn't paid my tax. Good thing I could down load the paid check - sent it to them to verify the error was not mine. They must have given credit to another account.

[crws]

I got a friendly notice from my friends at the IRS last week saying that I hadn't paid my tax. Good thing I could down load the paid check - sent it to them to verify the error was not mine. They must have given credit to another account.

Any of your neighbors driving a new Lexus? or 2?
-Hey, btw, thanks for contributing to the security of my retirement. :D

[Boghie]

Re(1): '2011 INCOME TAX CALCULATOR' (http://www.mytaxburden.org/), The Tax Foundation

What will the Obama tax treatment cost you?

Here is the first decent tax calculator I have found... (http://www.mytaxburden.org/)

Be a bit careful. The wages fields are for taxable income - not gross. I hope:worried:

Given that I entered taxable income into the wages field I will only pay an additional $100 / pay period (~$215/month) into the Federal Government Maw...

It is now July 24, 2010 and Congress still has not adjusted the impending tax code to limit the pain on those of us making something less than Big Money... Maybe big money will be having a salary:nuts:

[alevin]

Current state liabilities-per capita. told you my state goes bankrupt next year.

http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/state_debt/index.html

[Boghie]

Alevin,

I don't know your home state, but anything 'inland northwest' is a piker compared to my Kalefornea.

I'll take your per capita debt and raise it 2K:toung:

I think I should be proud rather than embarrassed. We Kalefornean's might be able to vote for more spending in November!!!



Current state liabilities-per capita. told you my state goes bankrupt next year.

http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/state_debt/index.html

[Boghie]

Tom,

I think you have your answer.

However, I think the Tri-Pointed hat folks (Tea Party Movement) are adjusting the equation. The market will adjust to a new Congress clipping the wings of this administration.



You have to wonder what this is going to do to stocks over the 2nd half of the year...


Six Months to Go (http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171#)


- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
- The 25% bracket rises to 28%
- The 28% bracket rises to 31%
- The 33% bracket rises to 36%
- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

Read more: http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171##ixzz0sXtHYopD

[Boghie]

Silverbird,

It is now September 1, 2010 (on the East Coast:nuts:) and still no Congressional action limiting the tax rate increases to only the unearned gains of the corpulent wealthy!!!

Get ready for the Marriage Penalty, yea:p

I really, REALLY want to be WRONG.

It will hurt the little people...

[Silverbird]

You're right, no action before it's too late for changes for 2010 taxes is looking more and more likely.

[Boghie]

Hey folks,

It looks like we will get a massive 1% cost of living salary increase. That is probably valid since our economy is stagnant or deflating. There is no inflation - YET. But, when it does rear its ugly head (and it looks like the market is projecting just that for next year) you will get the joy of dealing with it for almost a year before you get another cost of living adjustment.

And, it is becoming more and more apparent that the bozos in Congress and this Administration will take flight in a giant migration of Black Swans. This Congress will not get their act together (the massive Democratic majorities cannot agree on who the corpulent wealthy are - who cares about the Republicans) in time to make the necessary changes to save the take home pay of the sub-super-rich populace. This President has yet to push for the necessary changes to save you from paying your fair share. He, and they, want your money. They need your money. But, you are probably already figuring out ways to shield it from them – aren’t you…:p

So, we will get change in November. However, that change cannot do anything till at best February.

Thus, enjoy your 1% cost of living pay increase.

And, your 3%+ increase in income tax.
And, the return of the marriage penalty.
And, the 13% increase in capital gains tax.
And, the massive increase in dividend taxes.
And, the corporate tax avoidance gaming concurrent with balance sheet adjustments that will continue to take place as a result of taxing coupon clipping oldsters more on their dividend checks.

This will be a Lesson Learned folks.

[Birchtree]

You forgot the 4.8% hidden medicare tax on dividends. And yes inflation will eventually take another toll - and that's why I'll stick with equities and ride out the storm.

[Boghie]

Hey folks,

I forgot to mention...

Those of you who greedily deduct the interest on your student loan will be in for quite a surprise.

Better get it paid off quick.

You will only get to deduct it for five years once the Evil Ones tax code changes for the corpulent few expire:p. The Unnamed One changed the tax code to allow you to write off the interest for the duration of the loan. How stupid was that!!!

So, lets say you graduated in 2005.

As of 2011/01/01 you will no longer get the deduction.

[Boghie]

You forgot the 4.8% hidden medicare tax on dividends. And yes inflation will eventually take another toll - and that's why I'll stick with equities and ride out the storm.

I will be moving more into equities as the political solution becomes more apparent.

Regardless, equities are generally better than 2% yield bonds in periods of inflation - eh:p

[Birchtree]

And to think a lot of students fell for the hype and voted for this clown - serves them right.

[Boghie]

This will be a lesson learned for lots of folks.

And the 'Economic Black Swan' is not the only flock out there. We have the Mid-East Peace Chaos Process. We have Iran. And, we have Europe getting sanity.

Can President Carter take over :cheesy:

[Birchtree]

I hope 2011 is the year yellowback Jimmy finally drops dead or at least does so before I do. It will be a time for glorious celebration and may I metaphorically micturate on his grave.

[Birchtree]

Folks, I apologize for my rant. The true flowers of my generation were the only ones that didn't run to Canada. The homosexual didn't qualify to serve his country and thus was safe from induction. When Carter offered the draft dodgers amnesty 52,000 of my countrymen rolled over in their graves. That's when I became a born again conservative.

[Boghie]

Folks, I apologize for my rant. The true flowers of my generation were the only ones that didn't run to Canada. The homosexual didn't qualify to serve his country and thus was safe from induction. When Carter offered the draft dodgers amnesty 52,000 of my countrymen rolled over in their graves. That's when I became a born again conservative.

That rant caught me wrong... Carter I is known as a fool… That is good enough for me!!!

Anyway, I stopped donning Birkenstocks and Burlap Sacks when a promotion and largish pay raise resulted in a smaller take home check.

You see, I got my pay raise (with all the miserable duties associated with managing people) literally the same pay period that President Clinton implemented his tax increase. I was already spending the money – yuk, yuk.

What that experience taught me was that the corpulent wealthy pigs in the trough included me.

And I was driving a five year old Ford Probe and living in an apartment.

See the wealth, hear the clink, smell the caviar.

Now, folks, its your turn!!!

:p

[Boghie]

Re(1): 'On Economy, Democrats Face a Lack of Unity and Time' (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/04/us/politics/04dems.html?_r=1&hp), NYT, Jackie Calmes
Re(2): '2010 Election - Battle for the House' (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/house/2010_elections_house_map.html), RealClearPolitics

Hope (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/04/us/politics/04dems.html?_r=1&hp) and Change (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/house/2010_elections_house_map.html):p


As an aside, why does the media constantly whine about conservative Republicans not supporting liberal Democrat policies.

Any tax code adjustments start in the House. Any desired change to the tax code can be passed without ANY Republican support in the House - whether they be liberal, moderate, or conservative Republicans. Maybe the liberal Democrats and the media should take a hint.
Only one liberalish Republican vote is needed in the Senate to pass a change in the tax code. Is the Democratic Party leadership admitting that their desired adjustments are not mainstream enough to entice Olympia Snow?
And, finally, watching the pretzels being made regarding the Evil One's tax code is getting fun. Why are those who campaigned against Satan Incarnate suddenly trying to figure out a face saving way to continue his policies - albeit temporarily? I, as a fiscal conservative, have NO desire to enact temporary extensions to the current tax code. I want it permanent.

Nice poison pill President Bush, nice poison pill:)

Oh, the schadenfreude
Timed just months after the election.
With Financial Advisors ranting daily on the radio

[Silverbird]

In the sense that the Evil one said that they end this year? :toung: This is how they were supposed to work, yes?

[Birchtree]

Can anyone imagine how handsome my dumbo eggplant would be if he were to grow out his hair into a full blown mulatto afro style. Now that would be change I could live with.

[Boghie]

In the sense that the Evil one said that they end this year? :toung: This is how they were supposed to work, yes?

Actually, yes Silverbird - that is just how this little poison pill was supposed to work:p.

The sunset was forced on President Bush because he did not have the votes to make his tax code changes permanent without it - remember that rock ribbed conservatives like John McCain didn't support Bush's policies. The dating of the sunset is absolutely funny. Why date it seven years into the future. Why, ha ha ha...

Because Karl Rove KNEW we would be having this debate. He didn't know who would be in power. He didn't know the state of the economy. But, he did know we would be having this debate just months before the election.

And, why shouldn't we be having this discussion.

It is time for the debate.

Bring it on:)

[Birchtree]

Does anyone have any idea how much it costs the government to bring an illegitimate child into the world? Never mind the welfare support for the next 21 years. It's really abominable when you really think about it. A 72% illegitimate rate among the minority at risk population - it's shameful. And the eggplant administration ignores the issue because it buys votes.

[Boghie]

Ha (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/opinion/07orszag.html?_r=2&ref=opinion),

ha (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/07/orszag-extend-all-bush-tax-cuts-two-years/),


ha (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/democrats-fleeing-obamacare)...

So, Peter Orszag - one month and seven days separated from the Obama Administration - writes an OpEd in the New York Times presenting a case for extending the Bush tax code another two years...

His Reasoning (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/opinion/07orszag.html?_r=2&ref=opinion):


Higher taxes now would crimp consumer spending, further depressing the already inadequate demand for what firms are capable of producing at full tilt.

Now, that sounds familiar. And, since the corpulent rich spend like pigs in the trough (and they really don't have to) I contend that we want them to spend like drunk Liberals three years from now!!! Orszag doesn't, my opinion. Why entice them to stop:p

But, of course we can continue running up massive debt:


And since financial markets don’t seem at the moment to view the budget deficit as a problem — take a look at the remarkably low 10-year Treasury bond yield — there is little reason not to extend the tax cuts temporarily.

A benign bond market, however, is a luxury we won’t enjoy forever if we fail to tackle our long-term fiscal problem. What’s more, losing the confidence of the bond market could prove painful, since it is widely known that our fiscal trajectory is unsustainable and market sentiment may therefore shift quickly and unpredictably. In any case, as the economy recovers, the dominant problem will move from depressed demand to excessive budget deficits.

Thus, he recommends an immediate cancelation of the Bush tax code two years hence.

Mr. Orszag, here is another solution (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/07/orszag-extend-all-bush-tax-cuts-two-years/):


At this point, it would be helpful to recall how much spending Democrats have added to the annual federal budget since taking control of Congress: over a trillion dollars. The final budget from the Republican-controlled Congress, FY2007, spent $2.77 trillion and had a deficit of just under $200 billion, even with the war included. The last budget from Democrats came in at over $3.8 trillion, with a $1.3 trillion deficit. That’s a 38% increase in just three years.

Are we to believe that Congress can’t find $400 billion in annual spending to trim out of the massive expansion committed by Democrats?

Remember, folks, we are talking only about the structural growth in spending authorized by this Administration and this Congress over the past two years.

[Boghie]

As unexpected (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703384204575509793142421332.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection) as the weekly/monthly jobless rate numbers during the Summer of Recovery:p

Yes, CongressCritter Pelosi and Senator Reid have delayed action on the tax code till 'after the election'.

Just a bit too charged for them, eh.

And those nasty Republicans - outvoted in the House by by 75 Democrats - stop everything. Just everything. And, obviously, it is simply impossible to poach a single valiant, rock ribbed conservative from the likes of Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins or Scott Brown. The LibTard ideas must be mainstream.

Enjoy the schadenfreude

Don't hold your breath in the Lame LibTard Session.

[Silverbird]

Ok want to go more into debt and look like you aren't doing anything? Just renew the tax cuts. Maybe the other countries will finally wise up and stop buying our bonds. No, they don't really care about us freezing our Government pay and employment, debt still goes up.

Oh, look at what that does to the Deficit! Let's play let's pretend, and do it for a couple years, let's see, how about until 2014 for a November Surpise for the next midterm House election?

Ok, want to actually be financially responsible? Rather late, you are supposed to give tax breaks when things are bad. Do what the legislation said, the tax breaks sunset. Bye! And you all get voted out of office in 2012.

Ok, what about only the rich getting their taxes back up? Well, looks better than cutting all taxes and being totally irresponsible but that still adds to the deficit.

At least we aren't as badly off in debt as Japan. They are beyond 200% but no one really cares.
:toung:

[Boghie]

Fiscal Responsability (http://boghieonyoursix.blogspot.com/2010/09/hes-going-to-do-it.html)

Another reason to look forward to 2011...

This Congress and this Administration will have stimulated the deficit (http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0810.pdf) in 22 months by more than the previous occupant did in 96 months.

Imagine what he could have done if the nation was still in recession (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68J2JJ20100920)!!!

[Frixxxx]

Looks like a few constituents don't want higher taxes on the democrat's side either!

Voting on Bush Tax Cuts Divides Democrats Before Election Day
By James Rowley - Sep 29, 2010 12:20 PM PT

Democrats worried about defending congressional majorities and divided over extending income-tax cuts are delaying a vote on the issue until after Election Day. Party strategists warn they are missing an opportunity to define themselves against Republicans.

more (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-29/voting-on-bush-tax-cuts-divides-democrats-in-congress-before-election-day.html)

[Boghie]

The problem, Frixxxx, is...

That it is now too late to adjust the tax code.

All of us will feel the pain for at least some period of time.

That is the best we can hope for - a little less take home pay in January.

But, if President Obama 'pocket vetoes' a bill to extend or make permanent the Bush tax code than we will feel the change for years. :p


Looks like a few constituents don't want higher taxes on the democrat's side either!

Voting on Bush Tax Cuts Divides Democrats Before Election Day
By James Rowley - Sep 29, 2010 12:20 PM PT

Democrats worried about defending congressional majorities and divided over extending income-tax cuts are delaying a vote on the issue until after Election Day. Party strategists warn they are missing an opportunity to define themselves against Republicans.

more (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-29/voting-on-bush-tax-cuts-divides-democrats-in-congress-before-election-day.html)

[Boghie]

Ouch...


One of the problems (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100706056.html?sub=AR) is that if Treasury based the withholding tables on current law, under which the Bush tax cuts would expire, millions of low- and middle-income taxpayers would see significant tax increases.

For example, a family with two children and income of $40,000 could see the amount withheld rise by as much as $165 monthly, according to calculations by Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center.

To be honest, however, I bet this number includes a reduction in the child tax credit and student loan interest deduction that would be mandated if we fell back to the Clinton era tax code.

This Administration and these CongressCritters can't even figure out that employers need tax withholding schedules before January 1, 2011. Can there be more proof that this bunch of morons is economically ignorant. Pelosi and Reid could have shoved Obama's tax code adjustments through over a year ago. They could even now. They would just have to accept that there is a bit less money to spend. Can't do that, now can we.

This is going to hurt - and it will hurt a lot.

Hey folks, welcome to being rich:p

[Boghie]

The 'Ultra-Rich Married Couple' making $80K in taxable income will see their take home pay reduced by $220 (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-27/tax-debate-delay-has-employees-in-u-s-preparing-for-smaller-take-home-pay.html).

Personally, I think this is probably incorrect.

Hopefully:sick:


I mean, losing $440/month would be rather devestating wouldn't it.

For us that means losing a mere $200 per pay period.

I never knew I was in the Top 2%.


Then again, $440 a month is just gas and food. I think I can cut those out of my budget:p

[Birchtree]

Man wake up - just stop paying your mortgage and see how much more spending power you'll have. You can afford to eat out without coupons and get all the premium channels. Just be irresponsible - if you don't make you auto payment however the repo man will visit. But no one will throw you out of your house - just tell'em you support Obama.

[Steadygain]

I never knew I was in the Top 2%.:p

Yeah, I know what you mean. I guess in the biggest way it's a very sad reflection on the population at large.

The truth of the matter is -- you're talking about us 'average' folks that have been working for years and made quite a few jumps over the years.

In all sincerity - the REAL Top 2% - would easily have $10,000 for every dollar we have. The distance between them and 'us' would be like the Grand Canyon -- or the worldest highest building :D:D - but I'm happy for them -- I mean they are totally in a class of their own.


Well anyway -- then the devision between 'us' and say 50% - 75% would be like a flight of stairs or 2.

[Boghie]

Re(1): 'Deal or punt decision on Bush tax cuts is Obama's' (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Deal-or-punt-decision-on-Bush-apf-2791272538.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=), Associated Press, Andrew Taylor

Are you ready!!!


If the tax cuts were allowed to expire indefinitely (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Deal-or-punt-decision-on-Bush-apf-2791272538.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=), a typical family of four with a household income of $50,000 a year would face $2,900 more in taxes in 2011, according to Deloitte Tax LLP, a tax consulting firm. The same family making $100,000 a year would see its taxes rise by $4,500.

So, the category of wealthy kleptocrats include families of four making $50K.

Nice, very nice:)



And,


Making all the tax cuts permanent (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Deal-or-punt-decision-on-Bush-apf-2791272538.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=) would add about $3.9 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. Obama's plan to make the wealthy pay more would reduce that added debt by about $700 billion.

The impoverished 95% of taxpayers that President Obama wants to exclude from his tax increase will result in a deficit increase of just $3.2 Trillion over the next ten years. That is a cost of $320 Billion per year. The corpulant 5% will 'cost' us $70 Billion a year - and they own or invest in the businesses that employ us.

Is it just coincidence that the market really started tanking when 'Decision 2008' became a contest between two economic idiots - McCain and Obama?

Right about now I want folks to feel the pain of what the Libs desire. A couple of weeks living the Clinton era tax dream would do many of us good:)

Feel the schadenfreude:p

[Boghie]

The ‘Summer of Wreckovery In Review’…

My January 10, 2010 post: (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showpost.php?p=250246&postcount=10)
Everyone, the Administration included, claims the recession is over. FY2010 should be a normal recovery year. The stock market leads main street. The stock market corrected from a stupid crash and leveled off at -28%. My guess is that the economy will adjust similarly over the next few months. Now, it is President Obama and the Liberal Congress that define the framework of our economy. If neither the market nor the economy as a whole grow at a sustainable rate (see other recoveries) than one can presume that framework changes are having a detrimental effect. If the growth is statistically more vibrant than one can presume that framework changes are having a beneficial effect. We can look at Federal tax revenue as a proxy. The revenue growth from FY2003 (September 2002 – September 2003) to FY2004 was 5.44%. That was pre-Bush tax code modification – but folks were beginning to expect change and adjust to projected change. The revenue growth from FY2004 to FY2005 was 14.63%. The revenue growth so far from FY2009 to FY2010 has been -13.15%. That does not bode well. Folks (you and me and businesses) are moving numbers around in an effort to adjust to the new framework.

My money is on the bet that the President Obama/Congress economic framework (projected and actual) will result in a miserable Federal revenue growth rate This stuff is easy to predict. Fish in a barrel.So, scoreboard for the two recoveries:

The Evil One’s Recovery:
Revenue Growth

FY2003: -3.98% (Bush Tax Code passed May 23, 2003 - Libs, don't look at an S&P500 chart)
FY2004: +5.44%
FY2005: +14.63%
The One’s Wrecovery:
Revenue Growth

FY2009: -19.91% (Stimulus, but no extension of Bush Tax Code)
FY2010: +2.73% (ObamaCare and Tea Party Activism - Libs, don't look at an S&P500 chart)
And, let us not forget the shriking GDP growth...

Now, that is some Wreckovery. Why don’t we raise some taxes? That will do it!!!

The market is still discounted by 25% from the market high. But, it will adjust on clipping 'The Black Swan's' wings;)

[burrocrat]

preach it brother, amen.

[Boghie]

So sad...
All that hope and change...
Then, a bunch of fat cats (you and I) show up...
And, want something completely different - like no tax increases...

From 'The Huffington Post' (“President Barack Obama’s top adviser suggested to The Huffington Post late Wednesday that the administration is ready to accept an across-the-board continuation of steep Bush-era tax cuts, including those for the wealthiest taxpayers.”):


“President Barack Obama’s top adviser suggested to The Huffington Post late Wednesday that the administration is ready to accept an across-the-board continuation of steep Bush-era tax cuts, including those for the wealthiest taxpayers.”
And, Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit):


Can We Start Calling Them the Obama Tax Cuts Now? (http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/109652/)

Of course we can’t call them that. The Bush tax cuts were an irresponsible giveaway to the very wealthy. The Obama tax cuts will be an essential tool to save the middle class. In fact, note this: “That appears to be the only way, said David Axelrod, that middle-class taxpayers can keep their tax cuts, given the legislative and political realities facing Obama in the aftermath of last week’s electoral defeat.” I don’t think we’d ever been told before that Bush gave any tax cuts to the middle class. I thought they all went to fat guys in three-piece suits who lit cigars with hundred-dollar bills.
So much snark.

But, we progressives still have hope that we can fight against the millions of bitter clingers who don't want to fund the 21% structural increase in Federal spending that took place over the past 18 months. So many good things that couple Trill went for. How can we possibly survive without that additional Trill of annual spending? It is used for the EPA and Agriculture - damn it!!!

Hope. Our Liberal Caucus can argue and vent for a couple of months and prove to the middle class just how mind numb they really were in throwing us out. They will never miss that $200 bucks in take home pay. At least they won't if they moved to within walking distance of their evil corporate office workspace cubical. Just couple pay periods of delay and the tea party voters will be yelling in town halls to rescind the Evil One's tax code for the corpulent fat cats.

[Boghie]

Silverbird found a $30 a pay period 'Making Work Pay' (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?p=290905#post290905) one time tax rebate that is expiring December 31, 2010.

It was a 'One Time Tax Rebate' that was part of the Stimulus.

Kinda like the Bush 'One Time Tax Rebates'

Neither Stimulated.

Yuk, yuk.

:p


But, to demand the $30 and give up $220 (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-27/tax-debate-delay-has-employees-in-u-s-preparing-for-smaller-take-home-pay.html)?

By my math, that leaves us -$190 in take home pay!!!

Personally, if I had the choice, I think I want the 'Bush Tax Cuts to Corpulent Fat Cats' giveaway. That way we little kitties can continue to enjoy that $190 a pay period. I will be magnanimous here and offer that $30 a month to the debt god.

[Boghie]

The effect of tax increases on tax revenue. (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/26/taxing-your-way-to-the-poor-house/)

Let us just say, for every dollar of projected income from a tax increase actually expect about 12 cents of actual revenue.

It happened in Kalefornea too. In fact, a friend of mine - who is a tax collector (yuk, yuk) - informed me that revenue decreased when we jacked stoggie taxes by 1/3. And, it happened this past fiscal year in Kalefornie when they jacked up income tax rates. Revenue actually dropped - and unemployment increased.

I guess I am surprised at the known unexpected outcome - happens every time:p

[Boghie]

Back again folks...

We have two full paychecks left. Then we get our pay cut!!! Yea...

Maybe we can use this thread to see how simulative the tax increase will be for our economy. I mean, we are just heading back to the glorious Clinton era tax code.

So, how will you spend your tax increase.

Go shopping or something.

Schadenfreude.



Here is how I'm planning to spend my take home pay cut.

I am going to have to save a hundred from each of the remaining full paychecks to help me pay my mortgage!!! Then I get to cut back on my debt payments (cr@ppy credit cards - yuk) and extend the debt free timeline. Those are two things that will definitely support the struggling economy:p. I will be thinking pleasant thoughts all Christmas!!!

[jimijr]

The answer is...retire! Earn less, pay less, and SS is hardly taxed at all. Anyway, that's my plan.

[alevin]

Well, the good news I learned today is that my home property is no longer included in a mapped FEMA floodzone. flood insurance was already optional since not located in 100year floodplain, but now not even located in a 500-year floodplain, just on the exact edge of the 500.

Of course there are still 100 and 500 yr floodplains would have to drive through to evacuate the neighborhood but that's another story entirely. I just paid another years flood insurance last month, but next year I think I'll tuck it away into my Roth account instead.

[Boghie]

Well, the good news I learned today is that my home property is no longer included in a mapped FEMA floodzone. flood insurance was already optional since not located in 100year floodplain, but now not even located in a 500-year floodplain, just on the exact edge of the 500.

Of course there are still 100 and 500 yr floodplains would have to drive through to evacuate the neighborhood but that's another story entirely. I just paid another years flood insurance last month, but next year I think I'll tuck it away into my Roth account instead.

Alevin,
I've got a better idea...

You could use your take home pay cut to fund your Roth and leave your insurance in place.

That way you could sleep comfortably - since we all know what happens the second your insurance lapses - and easily fund your retirement.

Thank you Democrats for prioritizing a take home pay cut.

Never better.

[alevin]

Boghie, my plan for the cut in takehome is to start finally contributing catchup contributions for the first time and cut back on the $ amount of essential home improvements I hoped to do next year-I usually plan for a certain $amount and a specific related capital item each year.

this year it was to be carpet-been living with 30 year old carpet inherited from previous owners-pretty yucky but not crucial expenditure like the roof was last year. Maybe I'll get 2 bedrooms done and leave the rest for another year. adapt adapt adapt. the less debt, the more choices, keep going, you'll get there.

[Boghie]

I work for the USMC.
This Friday will be my last full paycheck for an indeterminate time.

The next paycheck will be affected by the LibTards (our fine President and his Congress) believing that the Clinton tax code was a marvelous piece of art. They had two years to implement a viable solution to the reversion to that eras tax code - but there were Climate bills, Healthcare bills, and Porkulus bills to pass. They could have passed a tax code bill with a 90% income tax on everyone making over $50 bucks if they wanted to. But, they did nothing.

And, your faith in government is going to be shaken - not stirred.

The IRS and our CongressCritters have created crappy automation to support a crappy tax code. And, now they need a couple of months to implement the 'new' tax code approved in mid-December. (http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/31/pf/taxes/irs_filing_delay/index.htm?hpt=T2)
Who would have known?

Oh, thats right

I did. (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showpost.php?p=286313&postcount=65)
:o


How are you all going to spend your pay cut?:p

Maybe bounce your mortgage check!!!

[Birchtree]

Will our nonproductive members of the egalitarian entitlement state get their increase.

[Boghie]

Well...

I actually got my first paycheck for 2011 - coming this Friday, but visible on MyPay. I don’t know why this happened. I understood that I get paid one week AFTER I perform my hard labor as a computer geek.

Odd...

My Federal Tax withholdings increased by 8%. That is probably the result of Congress not getting off their schneid and passing the extension of the Evil Ones tax code in a timely manner.

My Social Security tax was reduced by 33% as provided by the additional 'stimulus' provided by the tax code agreement between President Obama and Congress. That was sure a nice feature – but I didn’t ask for it and really don’t need it.

My Kalefornea state tax reduced by 7% as well. My guess is that the tax increases they implemented to stimulate the economy were temporary and fell off the rolls this pay period. Moonbeam Brown and our Assembly/Senate are already grubbing to reinstate the 'temporary' tax increase.

I don’t know why my first two week paycheck is coming after the first week. And, I think there will be higher Federal withholdings when things catch up. But, losing 8% or 9% of ones take home pay is kindof a bummer. However, that will be temporary. When the IRS and DOD catch up with the law I will get all of that back – and more. However, I really don’t need the Social Security stimulus. Oh, well.

[Boghie]

Yes, folks...

I am Borging my own thread. I was 100% correct on the topic and discussion here so why not continue it. My modesty can be amazing:p

Anyway, it kinda feeds into the prophesy thang. So here goes:

This is the private sector in the 1930's:

http://personalbrandingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/depression-era-job-seeker1.jpg



Prediction, the the public secctor in the 2010's:

http://www.footagefarm.com/stockphotos/JPEG/Great%20Depression-5.jpg



Folks, we just passed through the private sector collapsing because of overleverage.

What entity is more overleveraged than the Federal Gubmint.

I say, repent our sins.

The end is near

Uuuggghhh.

:nuts:

[Boghie]

Folks,

Let us apply Dave Ramsey’s Debt Snowball to our national debt – at least that which is undeniable (in Billions):

Debt: $15,000
Assumed Interest (G Fund): 4.26%
Revenue – Current: $2,200
Revenue – FY2007: $2,600

To service the debt and pay it down over 30 years we have to pay: $74/month, $888/year.
Our current policy of paying using the lowest option on the Alt-A billing is: $28/month, $334/year

But folks who did that on their Alt-A home loans are squatting in their foreclosed home awaiting the sheriff.

Assuming we want to pay the debt that leaves: $1,312 to fund the Federal government and entitlements. We might be able to sell the Bond Vigilantes on using the FY2007 number, which leaves us $1,712 Billion left to fund the Gubmint.

Folks, that is all we got.

Nobody in their right mind will fund us spending $3,819 Billion.

My guess is that we will not receive debt funding unless we get down to spending $2,600 Billion with monthly debt payment of about $75 Billion for a while. The first step is to slash spending by $1,200 Billion. Then we all (and I mean 100% of American workers) hike up our trousers and accept a $500 Billion dollar tax hike. And, reduced services.

So, President Obama, you have to accept serious cuts and do the hard thing.
So, Congressman Ryan, seeing the actual cuts you must not reduce tax rates till we overpay our debt.

My guess is that this will keep interest rates down, will result in a growing economy, and a tax base higher than our baseline.

[FAB1]

Yes, folks...

I am Borging my own thread. I was 100% correct on the topic and discussion here so why not continue it. My modesty can be amazing:p

Anyway, it kinda feeds into the prophesy thang. So here goes:

This is the private sector in the 1930's:

http://personalbrandingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/depression-era-job-seeker1.jpg



Prediction, the the public secctor in the 2010's:

http://www.footagefarm.com/stockphotos/JPEG/Great%20Depression-5.jpg



Folks, we just passed through the private sector collapsing because of overleverage.

What entity is more overleveraged than the Federal Gubmint.

I say, repent our sins.

The end is near

Uuuggghhh.

:nuts:

Cant see the other picture - ??

[Boghie]

FAB1,

One picture is of a dude in the 1930s carying the equivalent of a "Work for Food' sign.
The other is a photo showing a union demonstration demanding that WPA layoffs stop.

By the way, the WPA doesn't exist anymore.

[Boghie]

Re(1): 'Burning The Candle At Both Ends: Raising the Debt Ceiling, and Extending QE-2 Indefinitely' (http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2011/04/burning-candle-at-both-ends-raising.html#more), Gonzalo Lira
Re(2): 'What’s Really Worrisome About Treasury Debt: Not Its Rating—Its Interest' (http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2011/04/whats-really-worrisome-about-treasury.html), Gonzalo Lira

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YCeMK-15dCQ/TaXzRhdLEtI/AAAAAAAAAu0/0NlIIDNcv5c/s1600/tumblr_kso06d0hxZ1qzjnmwo1_400.jpg

Anyone out there want to invest in a debt instrument that is being financed purely by new investors. Actually, not just financed by new investors - but actually by another part of the company.

Folks, the FED is buying enormous amounts of our bloated debt.

And, now the interest on the debt is over $420 Billion

The FED has already purchased big chunks.

Nobody wants our cr@ppy debt.


Here is why: (http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2011/04/whats-really-worrisome-about-treasury.html)

My back-of-the-envelope numbers say that each basis point of Federal Reserve interest rate hikes will translate into about a billion dollars a year in additional interest—and that’s being generous.
Another way of thinking about it:

a 'hike of 1.5%? That would add an additional $150 billion in interest payments—just like that.'

Our ignit politicians had better wise up very quickly. If Bernanke decides to defend the dollar and/or smack the pols about a bit we will have to sell another $15 Billion of debt each month. And, Bernanke would not be buying debt.

This deficit (and the enormous debt) is the single greatest challenge to the safety of our jobs. It might be too late.

Yowser.

[James48843]

FAB1,

One picture is of a dude in the 1930s carying the equivalent of a "Work for Food' sign.
The other is a photo showing a union demonstration demanding that WPA layoffs stop.

By the way, the WPA doesn't exist anymore.

You are right. WPA doesn't exist any more.

It stopped in 1943 when war - and the government spending for war, made WPA unnecessary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration

[Boghie]

Nice little warning from a Bond Vigilante (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/warning-to-washington-dont-mess-with-the-debt-ceiling/2011/07/12/gIQA5Q4ADI_story.html)

And, folks, he has two points...
Don't mess with the debt ceiling...
And, don't increase the debt load....

So, we need a bit more that $2 Billion in cuts next year when we are currently expected to run a deficit of $1,500 Billion. Nobody will notice that - even as rounding error. Thus, VP Biden, you were not serious - I hope. We cannot run deficits of a Trillion here and a Trillion there...

Mr. President must cave soon or play the game like an adult and pay the piper. Debt servicing first, Social Security and Medicare next, Constitutionally mandated departments next, and then make decisions about the rest. That is your fallback Mr. President and the Liberal wing of Congress.

Mr. Boehner and we conservatives must accept revenue increases - but only after a demonstrable good faith effort at cutting (actual, not growth) gubmint significantly. If I see $300 Billion in hard cuts I will accept a flat tax on everybody by enough to match that amount. That will be necessary. But, I can't see someone who comes to the table with a 0.13% cut to next years deficit as being serious enough to implement the hundreds of billions in cuts needed to gain my confidence.

The Bond Vigilantes are coming...

[Silverbird]

I didn't think the President could do that. Congress is in charge of the money, and if they can't get the votes, that's in their court.

[Boghie]

I didn't think the President could do that. Congress is in charge of the money, and if they can't get the votes, that's in their court.

Eh...