Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
 

Change you can believe in.

[B][U]Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011[/U][/B]

February 26, 2009 12:00 PM

President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

1) On people making more than $250,000.

$338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire
$179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction
$118 billion - capital gains tax hike

Total: $636 billion/10 years

2) Businesses:

$17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes
$24 billion - tax carried-interest as income
$5 billion - codify "economic substance doctrine"
$61 billion - repeal LIFO
$210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform
$4 billion - information reporting for rental payments
$5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
$3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs
$62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants
$49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
$13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies
$1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers
$882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit

Total: $353 billion/10 years

SOURCE: [URL="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obamas-budget-a.html"]Political Punch: Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011[/URL]

Re: Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
 

Did I miss something or were his intentions not clear during the campaign? Is this not the change people voted for?


I like, I like very much! Very very nice!

Re: Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
 

isn't this exactly what he said he would do?

Re: Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
 

Politics at its best. First they give a trillion dollars to their friends through the stimulus package and then they take a trillion dollars from their enemies through a tax increase. Elections do have consequences.

Of course your summary doesn't even contemplate the cap and trade system he wants which will bankrupt entire sectors of the economy.

Re: Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
 

Apparently the folks who understand the finance of this country don't like it, the Dow is down from about 9000 on Jan. 6th to below 7300 now. What's changed? Obama has come forward with his proposals for U.S. fiscal policy. Because a majority of Americans bought into Obamamania doesn't mean it's good for the economy.

and yes saden, if the economy turns around due to Obama's policies, I will give credit, however it has never happened historically.

Re: Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
 

[quote=dmek25;530342]isn't this exactly what he said he would do?[/quote]
Class warfare usually works when the class being catered to (low-middle income) outnumbers the class being punished (the "evil" rich). Unfortunately while this wins elections, it puts the country further behind the eight-ball. Government spending on social programs and liberal pet-projects never stimulates the economy it only hurts and either extends a recession/depression or increases the debt for future generations.

Most of the folks making over $ 250K are either small business owners, doctors/lawyers, or business professionals. The effect of increasing taxes on them will cause an increase in the cost of their goods/services which will effect everyone, especially the low-middle income folks. A dinner out that used to be $ 40 that increases to $ 44, a home reapir that increases from $ 1,000 to $1,100, etc. hurts a family making $ 80K a lot more than a family making $ 180K.

Also the middle income folks who are saving in their 401Ks and IRAs own stock in the energy companies and other "evil" corporations. Increase taxes on these corporations and profits/dividends shrink, hurting everyone who owns the stock.

EDIT: More good news [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/26/raw-data-budget-totals/"]Estimated Budget Totals for 2008-2010 Show Government Public Debt Rise 63 Percent - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com[/URL]

Can someone tell me why any of this is good policy?

Re: Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
 

I'm not a fan of tax hikes in any form because of the economic toll it can take. But I have to credit him for at least waiting to initiate the hikes until 2011.

By then most economists forecast the recession will be over and we'll be on the rebound. If he put the tax increases in place immediately it would thrust us into a horrendous depression. He's willing to acknowledge the consequences of tax hikes and he's clearly taking it into consideration. Kudos for that.

Re: Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
 

Raise the capital gains tax? More good news for the stock market!

I don't want to hear any Obama supporters complain about their 401k accounts from here on out if this actually happens.

I thought the idea was to [I]stimulate[/I] the economy?

Re: Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;530344]Apparently the folks who understand the finance of this country don't like it, the Dow is down from about 9000 on Jan. 6th to below 7300 now. What's changed? Obama has come forward with his proposals for U.S. fiscal policy. Because a majority of Americans bought into Obamamania doesn't mean it's good for the economy.

and yes saden, if the economy turns around due to Obama's policies, I will give credit, however it has never happened historically.[/quote]

Don't take that road, you'll end up on [URL="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/25/drudge-dow-obama/"]Sad and Pathetic Road[/URL] which is totally not a cool place for an upstanding gentlemen such as yourself. Time will tell but it seems to me your side [URL="http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/usa_historical_debt_as_a_of_gdp_from_1929_w2_1.jpg"]doesn't know how to play[/URL] at all at the moment. Until then, watch and learn.

Re: Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;530344]Apparently the folks who understand the finance of this country don't like it, the Dow is down from about 9000 on Jan. 6th to below 7300 now. What's changed? Obama has come forward with his proposals for U.S. fiscal policy. Because a majority of Americans bought into Obamamania doesn't mean it's good for the economy.

and yes saden, if the economy turns around due to Obama's policies, I will give credit, however it has never happened historically.[/quote]


Obama has a win win situation no matter what he does pretty much. Most say the economy will start to come back in the next year so any increase in jobs or anything Obama wins. He took office at almost rock bottom (well I guess it could get worse) so anything he does if the economy starts to come back he will point to them even if his policies did not help one bit. Thats how the game works and unless he really screws things up he sould be guaranteed 8 years in office. I know its early to say that but I believe in our market and while it has taken a hit it will survive. I just don't see how he can loose. So then we will see even more social programs in his second term and I think thats when we have major issues. There are just to many people who have their hands stuck out and not enough people paying into the system.

Re: Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
 

[QUOTE=saden1;530394]Don't take that road, you'll end up on [URL="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/25/drudge-dow-obama/"]Sad and Pathetic Road[/URL] which is totally not a cool place for an upstanding gentlemen such as yourself. Time will tell but it seems to me your side [URL="http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/usa_historical_debt_as_a_of_gdp_from_1929_w2_1.jpg"]doesn't know how to play[/URL] at all at the moment. Until then, watch and learn.[/QUOTE]you know what would be interesting, is the same graph as your "doesnt know how to play" except shade it according to the House of Reps control. Seems to me like the Dems had a heavy hand with Reagan when he kept asking for a line item veto, and that the Republicans had control for a large part of Clintons Presidency.

But I forgot it is the PRESIDENT who initiates all spending bills under the Constitution [/sarcasm]

Re: Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;530350]Class warfare usually works when the class being catered to (low-middle income) outnumbers the class being punished (the "evil" rich). Unfortunately while this wins elections, it puts the country further behind the eight-ball. Government spending on social programs and liberal pet-projects never stimulates the economy it only hurts and either extends a recession/depression or increases the debt for future generations.

Most of the folks making over $ 250K are either small business owners, doctors/lawyers, or business professionals. The effect of increasing taxes on them will cause an increase in the cost of their goods/services which will effect everyone, especially the low-middle income folks. A dinner out that used to be $ 40 that increases to $ 44, a home reapir that increases from $ 1,000 to $1,100, etc. hurts a family making $ 80K a lot more than a family making $ 180K.

Also the middle income folks who are saving in their 401Ks and IRAs own stock in the energy companies and other "evil" corporations. Increase taxes on these corporations and profits/dividends shrink, hurting everyone who owns the stock.

EDIT: More good news [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/26/raw-data-budget-totals/"]Estimated Budget Totals for 2008-2010 Show Government Public Debt Rise 63 Percent - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com[/URL]

Can someone tell me why any of this is good policy?[/quote]

Your using Fox as a source don't you know they are bias. You need to use good sources like PBR, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, to get unbias reporting.

Re: Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
 

[quote=saden1;530394]Don't take that road, you'll end up on [URL="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/25/drudge-dow-obama/"]Sad and Pathetic Road[/URL] which is totally not a cool place for an upstanding gentlemen such as yourself. Time will tell but it seems to me your side [URL="http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/usa_historical_debt_as_a_of_gdp_from_1929_w2_1.jpg"]doesn't know how to play[/URL] at all at the moment. Until then, watch and learn.[/quote]
My friend, you are much better than this. Should I link to the cross-over dribble on YouTube for you.:)

I'm by no means on the same road as Drudge. Nor am I unaware of the graph you linked to. We both know the President has limited control over the economy, but a President with his party controlling both houses of Congress can do much good....or harm. Many believe the expansion of the social programs FDR put forth in the 30s caused the depression to last longer. The expansion of these programs is draining the federal budget now. The expansion of government oversight / social programs in the mid-60s, many believe caused the economic issues in the 70s, and Carter certainly didn't help. It appears we are repeating past mistakes. I don't care who takes the credit, I'll happily give it to Obama if he does the things needed to get our federal budget balanced and our deficit reduced, but his current plan is not a blueprint for success.

EDIT: and for the record, Bush did a crappy job with the budget. He was definitely no fiscal conservative.

Re: Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
 

[quote=firstdown;530403]Your using Fox as a source don't you know they are bias. You need to use good sources like PBR, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, to get unbias reporting.[/quote]
What was I thinking, next thing you know I'll post a WSJ link :silly:

Re: Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;530407]My friend, you are much better than this. Should I link to the cross-over dribble on YouTube for you.

I'm by no means on the same road as Drudge. Nor am I unaware of the graph you linked to. We both know the President has limited control over the economy, but a President with his party controlling both houses of Congress can do much good....or harm. Many believe the expansion of the social programs FDR put forth in the 30s caused the depression to last longer. The expansion of these programs is draining the federal budget now. The expansion of government oversight / social programs in the mid-60s, many believe caused the economic issues in the 70s, and Carter certainly didn't help. It appears we are repeating past mistakes. I don't care who takes the credit, I'll happily give it to Obama if he does the things needed to get our federal budget balanced and our deficit reduced, but his current plan is not a blueprint for success.

EDIT: and for the record, Bush did a crappy job with the budget. He was definitely no fiscal conservative.[/quote]

I can't quantify "many believe" into facts and figures. I am afraid you'll have to do better than "many believe," specially if that many include Buster, firstdown, and the usual cohorts.

When you say expansion what do you mean? We're not a static nation, [URL="http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/popclockest.txt"]our population has increased[/URL] 400% since 1900 and 225% since 1940. The fact that national debt relative to the GDP was heading south aught to tell you we were heading in the right direction. The only time we seem to have issues is when we go to war and put all that money on the credit card.

Government spending during an economic downturn is a good thing but only if the money is spent wisely. Sure, there's plenty of government mismanagement that goes on but to use this to justify cutting back government spending and programs right now absurd. I want us to reign in the fraud/waste/abuses unlike many I can't subscribe to "look -- right there, it's bad, get rid of it" philosophy. You have to have a good alternative and I'm not convinced a spending freeze would be a good thing right now. That goes for a tax increase before the economy recovers too.

Re: Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
 

[quote=saden1;530511]I can't quantify "many believe" into facts and figures. I am afraid you'll have to do better than "many believe," specially if that many include Buster, firstdown, and the usual cohorts.[/quote]I wasn't referring to Buster, firstdown, and the usual cohorts, but I'm pretty sure they are included in the "many" :)
I was actually referring to folks like these:

[URL="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx"][COLOR=#670100]FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom[/COLOR][/URL]

[URL="http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/10/news/economy/yang_newdeal.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009021106"][COLOR=#670100]The truth about stimulus and the Depression - Feb. 11, 2009[/COLOR][/URL]

and also FDR's own Treasury Secretary Henry Mrogenthau, On May 9, 1939, with unemployment at 20%, speaking to the House Ways and Means Committee Congress, Morgenthau said "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong...somebody else can have my job. I want to see the country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promise....I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started....and an enourmous debt to boot!"

from wiki article on Social Security:
[SIZE=2][I]Economic concerns[/I][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]One reason for the proposed changes in 1939 was a growing concern over the impact that the reserves created by the 1935 act were having on the economy. The [/SIZE][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937"][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff]Recession of 1937[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=2] was blamed on the government, tied to the abrupt decrease in government spending and the $2 billion that had been collected in Social Security taxes.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)#cite_note-32"][COLOR=#0000ff][33][/COLOR][/URL][/SIZE]

[quote]When you say expansion what do you mean? We're not a static nation, [URL="http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/popclockest.txt"]our population has increased[/URL] 400% since 1900 and 225% since 1940. The fact that national debt relative to the GDP was heading south aught to tell you we were heading in the right direction. The only time we seem to have issues is when we go to war and put all that money on the credit card.[/quote]
By expansion I mean; Expansion of Social Security benefits over the years, addition of Medicare under Johnson's "Great Society". These programs are not static and just grow due to population, additional beenfits have been added that have gotten us to this point:




from wiki: By 2017, the government is expected to have borrowed nearly $4.3 trillion against the Social Security Trust fund.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_(United_States)#cite_note-socialsecurity.gov-3"][COLOR=#0000ff][4][/COLOR][/URL] By 2041, the Social Security Fund is expected to be officially exhausted, as payments in excess of receipts draw it down to zero.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_(United_States)#cite_note-autogenerated1-4"][COLOR=#0000ff][5][/COLOR][/URL] There are certain key implications to understand under current law, if no reforms are implemented:[LIST][*]Payroll taxes will only cover 78% of the scheduled payout amounts after 2041. This declines to 75% by 2082.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_(United_States)#cite_note-5"][COLOR=#0000ff][6][/COLOR][/URL] Without changes to the law, Social Security would have no legal authority to draw other government funds to cover the shortfall and payments would decline without a large tax increase.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_(United_States)#cite_note-kinsley2-1"][COLOR=#0000ff][2][/COLOR][/URL][*]Between 2017 and 2041, redemption of the trust fund balance to pay retirees will draw $4.3 [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion"][COLOR=#0000ff]trillion[/COLOR][/URL] in government funds from sources other than payroll taxes. This is a funding challenge for the government overall, not just Social Security.[*]The value of unfunded obligations under Social Security during FY 2007 was approximately $6.8 trillion. In other words, this amount would have to be set aside today such that the principal and interest would cover the shortfall over the next 75 years.[/LIST]from wiki: By dollars paid, the U.S. Social Security program is the largest government program in the world and the single greatest expenditure in the federal budget, with 20.9% for social security and 20.4% for Medicare/Medicaid.

In FDR's wildest dreams I'm sure he didn't envision the program spiraling so wildly out of control.

[quote]Government spending during an economic downturn is a good thing but only if the money is spent wisely. Sure, there's plenty of government mismanagement that goes on but to use this to justify cutting back government spending and programs right now absurd. I want us to reign in the fraud/waste/abuses unlike many I can't subscribe to "look -- right there, it's bad, get rid of it" philosophy. You have to have a good alternative and I'm not convinced a spending freeze would be a good thing right now. That goes for a tax increase before the economy recovers too.[/quote]Here's where we're about 80% in agreement (as it usually seems). We just take different paths to get there. The government should be spending on infrastructure, fixing roads, modernizing the electric grid, building/authorizing new nuclear plants, encouraging development in renewable/alternative fuels, encouraging oil/natural gas exploration and development within our own borders offshore, etc. Where the line needs to be drawn is on expanded/new social programs (prescription drug benefit was completely wrong, Universal Health Care, etc.) or enacting new government regulations (extreme environmental controls, Employee Free Choice Act). Change the benefit structure or full retirement age for SS, grandfather in those retiring within 10 yrs., but over that increase the full benefit retirment age. Stop the bailouts, let the automakers hit a Chapter 11 reorganization to deal with all the legacy costs and bloated union contracts that are killing them. Get the toxic mortgage assets under one roof and stop bailing out the banks too. The free market will sort itself out. Finally revamp the tax system, FairTax.org deserves a solid look. But there will need to be some sort of increases, either in the SS/Medicare contributions and in Fed Witholding, but those increases need to be going to programs mentioned above or directly against retiring the national debt, IMHO.

Re: Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
 

nuclear and private SS (no ind/gov borrowing against, 5%+ yearly ROI) would be huge cost savers

and i wouldn't be against a japanese type medicare system (where you have a small % to pay of your own bills to put the onus and cost control on the user for non preventive care, and then you could tag on a higher % if the condition was preventable - ie lung cancer due to smoking for someone born after date X to encourage users to decrease national medical spending individually - super simplified, but as a summary) as long as it was implemented correctly.

then there's tax and tort reform, farm subsidies (props for obama trying to open that, the dems are going to block it though).

we'll just have to see how it works out though.

Re: Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
 

[quote=saden1;530511]I can't quantify "many believe" into facts and figures. I am afraid you'll have to do better than "many believe," specially if that many include Buster, firstdown, and the usual cohorts.

When you say expansion what do you mean? We're not a static nation, [URL="http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/popclockest.txt"]our population has increased[/URL] 400% since 1900 and 225% since 1940. The fact that national debt relative to the GDP was heading south aught to tell you we were heading in the right direction. The only time we seem to have issues is when we go to war and put all that money on the credit card.

Government spending during an economic downturn is a good thing but only if the money is spent wisely. Sure, there's plenty of government mismanagement that goes on but to use this to justify cutting back government spending and programs right now absurd. I want us to reign in the fraud/waste/abuses unlike many I can't subscribe to "look -- right there, it's bad, get rid of it" philosophy. You have to have a good alternative and I'm not convinced a spending freeze would be a good thing right now. That goes for a tax increase before the economy recovers too.[/quote]
So if you feel paying higher taxes is a good thing do you send your refund back each year or is it only a good thing for other people?

Re: Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
 

Don't be stupid, just because I don't mind paying taxes it doesn't mean I am willing to pay more than my fair share.

Jim Calhoun keeping it real:
[yt]xokthY5zuPU[/yt]

Re: Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
 

[quote=saden1;531346]Don't be stupid, just because I don't mind paying taxes it doesn't mean I am willing to pay more than my fair share.

Jim Calhoun keeping it real:
[yt]xokthY5zuPU[/yt][/quote]
So the people making over $250,000 which pay most of the federal taxes already don't pay their fair share?

Re: Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
 

[quote=firstdown;531413]So the people making over $250,000 which pay most of the federal taxes already don't pay their fair share?[/quote]

Don't confuse two things...I pay my taxes, I'm not giving back money I am owed by the government. Period. If the government wants to raise my taxes that's a different story and if they do I won't whine about it though it may factor into how I vote if I find it excessive.

As for whether those making 250K are paying their fair share, I'm not going down that road...we beat that horse to death. :bdh:

Re: Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
 

Figured I would just piggyback off of this one since it's budget (Veterans Affairs) related. I would totally be upset if this suggestion was given any consideration...

[URL="http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/03/vets.health.care/"]Vets object to billing private insurance for service injuries.[/URL]