This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

The Hidden Taxes In Obama's Budget

Tyler Durden's picture





 

While headlines yesterday crowed and complained of the small rise in the budget and the focus on taxing the wealthy - which admittedly given the peak polarization in political parties is unlikely to actually move into legislation anytime soon - JPMorgan's Michael Cembalest finds perhaps the most controversial part of the proposal hidden deep in the report. While the JPM CIO notes the CBO baseline and alternative scenarios, it is the difference between the $293bn benefit (CBO estimate from last year) and the Administration's new estimate of $584bn that caught his eye as buried on Page 73 of the Green Book were three new taxes on existing tax-efficient 'benefits'. Tax the mass-affluent (>$250k) seems indeed the new motto of this presidency.

 

JPMorgan - Eye On The Market:

The President’s Budget: An Unhappy Valentine’s Day card for high income taxpayers

Summary

The President’s budget was released yesterday. Due to the political impasse between the parties, it seems unlikely to result in tax legislation this year. But as a reflection of the priorities of the Administration, and as a reflection of its stance in any future budget negotiations, it is an interesting document. The proposal aims to raise revenue from upper income taxpayers by any means necessary. [Note: upper income begins at around $200k in adjusted gross income]. The proposal would, according to Administration projections, stabilize the Federal debt close to today’s elevated levels. Revenue increases play a large role, specifically the following three proposals. The second one surprised us the most.

  • reset tax rates on ordinary income, dividends and capital gains for upper income taxpayers back to 2001 levels
  • for upper income taxpayers, include a portion of municipal bond income, pre-tax employee contributions to defined contributed plans, and pre-tax employee and employer health insurance payments as taxable income
  • limit non-charitable itemized deductions such as state/local taxes and mortgage interest for upper income taxpayers

 

Background

The following chart outlines some basic budget scenarios. The CBO baseline assumes that 3 tough decisions are taken: Bush tax cuts all sunset back to 2001 levels, the AMT is no longer indexed to inflation, and Medicare reimbursements to doctors are cut. The CBO also provided an Alternative Case, assuming no action is taken at all to reduce deficits. Our Realistic case is an estimate of what would happen if Congress sticks to what it agreed in the Budget Control Act and nothing more. Lastly, the purple diamond is the President’s proposal, as estimated by the Office of Management and Budget.

The President’s budget proposal would get around halfway to closing the yawning gap between CBO Alternative Case and the CBO Baseline. There are elements of the Buffett rule here, but the budget does not contain a minimum tax rate on adjusted gross income on those with AGI over $1 million. Instead, many of the clauses apply specifically to those with AGI over $250k (the numbers shown in parentheses are OMB estimates of revenue raised over ten years).

  • Ordinary income rates back to 2001 levels ($442 bn)
  • Dividends taxed at ordinary income rates ($206 bn)
  • Long term capital gains taxed at 20% ($36 bn)
  • Restoration of limits on itemized deductions and exemptions ($165 bn)

In addition, the proposal raises another $584 bn by, among other things, limiting the tax value of itemized deductions (such as state and local income taxes and mortgage interest) to 28%. While this in theory applies to all taxpayers, in practice it will only affect taxpayers with statutory tax rates above 28%, which means people with AGI over $217k.

The most controversial part of the proposal (at least in our view) was buried on page 73 of the Green Book, which is the Treasury’s “General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2013 Revenue Proposals”. We were wondering why the Administration estimated the benefit of the above proposal at $584 bn, when the CBO estimated it at $293 bn just last year.

The answer: this proposal includes a new category of taxable income, which would include your municipal bond income, your contributions to 401k plans and other similar vehicles, and your entire health insurance premium (regardless of who pays it). The approach appears to apply a tax rate to these items equal to the difference between your top statutory tax rate and 28%. For example, a taxpayer subject to a top statutory rate of 35% would pay a 7% tax on this income.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 02/15/2012 - 14:50 | Link to Comment EscapeKey
EscapeKey's picture

Ah don't worry, no need to cry for them - the elite will be exempt in one way or another.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 14:53 | Link to Comment economics1996
economics1996's picture

More smoke for the masses.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 14:59 | Link to Comment wretch
wretch's picture

Mass effluent.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:08 | Link to Comment wanklord
wanklord's picture

WWIII is just around the corner...get ready for the upcoming false flag attacks (either in continental United States or the Strait of Hormuz) that will justify military action against the Islamic Republic of Iran...cash out all of your investments now, because as soon as the first bullet is fired in the Persian Gulf, they will become worthless financial instruments...the writing is on the wall.

February 14, 2012 2:21 PM

US, Europe look at fast but risky penalty on Iran

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501706_162-57377650/us-europe-look-at-fast-b...

WASHINGTON — The United States and Europe are considering unprecedented punishment against Iran that could immediately cripple the country's financial lifeline. But it's an extreme option in the banking world that would come with its own costs. The Obama administration wants Iran evicted from SWIFT, an independent financial clearinghouse that is crucial to the country's overseas oil sales. That would leapfrog the current slow-pressure campaign of sanctions aimed at persuading Iran to drop what the U.S. and its allies contend is a drive toward developing and building nuclear weapons. It also perhaps would buy time for the U.S. to persuade Israel not to launch a pre-emptive military strike on Iran this spring. The last-resort financial effort suggests the U.S. and Europe are grasping for ways to show immediate results because economic sanctions have so far failed to force Iran back to nuclear talks But such a penalty could send oil prices soaring when many of the world's economies are still frail. It also could hurt ordinary Iranians and undercut the reputation of SWIFT, a banking hub used by virtually every nation and corporation around the world. The organization's full name is the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications. Meanwhile, violence is increasing. Explosions in Bangkok on Tuesday — Israel's defense minister labeled them an "attempted terrorist attack" — came the day after Israel accused Iran of trying to kill its diplomats in India and Georgia. Those attacks followed the recent killings of Iranian scientists. In the financial world, the United States can't order SWIFT to kick Iran out. But it has leverage in that it can punish the Brussels-based organization's board of directors. Talks are focused now on having Europe make the first move. Short of total expulsion, Washington and representatives of several European nations are in talks over ways to restrict Iran's use of the banking consortium to collect oil profits. European action on SWIFT could come quickly. Representatives from SWIFT were scheduled to meet with European Union officials this week, a U.S. official familiar with the talks said. The official said the meeting was expected to result in the EU ordering SWIFT to expel at least some of its sanctioned banks, though it was unclear whether the order would extend to Iran's Central Bank. The Obama administration is divided over whether the possible gain is worth the risk in trying to threaten SWIFT into kicking out a member country, in part because of concern that it would set back the global financial recovery. Iran remains a global financial player despite years of banking sanctions, and blocking it from using the respected transfer system would be a black mark like no other. More than 40 Iranian banks and institutions use SWIFT to process financial transactions, and losing access to that flow of international funds could badly damage the Islamic republic's economy. It would also probably hurt average Iranians more than the welter of existing banking sanctions already in place since prices for household goods would rise while the value of Iranian currency would drop. Lawyers for SWIFT are holding meetings in Washington. People familiar with the talks say a compromise is possible in which SWIFT would voluntarily bar or restrict Iranian transfers. But if SWIFT fails to act on its own, the U.S. expects Europe to require it to terminate services for Iranian banks, another Obama administration official said. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. David Cohen, the Treasury Department's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, delivered that message to European Union officials in Brussels earlier this month, said the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly and thus spoke only on the condition of anonymity. Mark Dubowitz, a sanctions expert advising the White House on Iran, said the Obama administration is having detailed discussions on the merits and consequences of forcing SWIFT to block Iranian transactions. Some in the administration also prefer to give time for new sanctions on Iran's Central Bank, officially enforced starting just this month, to take hold before layering on a round of even more draconian penalties. SWIFT was involved in a separate controversy when it was revealed in 2006 that it had skirted the EU's strict privacy laws after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by transferring millions of pieces of personal information from its U.S. offices to American authorities as part of the US Terrorist Finance Tracking Program. "It is an essential cog in the wheel, if not the wheel itself, in international financial transactions and trade," said David Aufhauser, former general counsel at the Treasury Department who worked with SWIFT to set up that information transfer. SWIFT handles cross-border payments for more than 10,000 financial institutions and corporations in 210 countries. It lets users exchange financial information securely and reliably, thereby lowering costs and reducing risk. It operates on trust and neutrality — SWIFT accepts nearly all comers and does not judge the merits of the transactions passing through its secure message system. Its managers generally brush off investigators and enforcement agencies, telling them to take up suspected wrongdoing directly with nations or corporations. Established in 1973, the essential but little-known hub is overseen by major central banks, including the U.S. Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank. Lawyers familiar with SWIFT's operations said it could bar processing actions with any Iranian party or third parties representing Iran, though that would open the consortium to complaints of favoritism or political influence. It could permit the processing but quarantine Iranian transactions, or require warnings to those doing business with Iran. Penalties on Iran short of expulsion could allow SWIFT to preserve a greater appearance of neutrality but make business partners think twice, lawyers said. Proponents of blocking Iran from SWIFT say the financial network's own bylaws require that its services not be used to facilitate illegal activities and allow it to prohibit users that are subject to sanctions. While the U.S. and Europe debate options, some American lawmakers are trying to increase pressure on SWIFT. The Senate Banking Committee passed a measure earlier this month directing the White House to press SWIFT to block Iranian entities. A tougher House bill would compel the administration to sanction SWIFT unless it stopped providing services to Iran. The pending legislation has caught the attention of officials at SWIFT. The financial network's general counsel and other advisers requested a meeting with congressional lawmakers and staff next week, Senate aides said. Officials close to the White House say the Obama administration is comfortable with the less restrictive language in the Senate Banking Committee measure, but has concerns that more-binding legislation would leave the U.S. less flexibility in dealing with Iran. SWIFT did not respond to requests for comment. In a brief statement posted on its website, the consortium said it is committed to fighting misuse of the financial system to finance terrorism and has cooperated with enforcement agencies in the U.S. and Europe. Without addressing the specifics of a full expulsion or more limited block on Iranian transactions, SWIFT's statement urged caution. "SWIFT remains committed to maintaining its role as a neutral global financial communications network" while complying with sanctions laws, the statement said. Associated Press writer Slobodan Lekic in Brussels contributed to this report. © 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:10 | Link to Comment barliman
barliman's picture

Red arrow for being a thread hijacking troll

barliman

P.S.  This is his 100+ offense

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:18 | Link to Comment Ancona
Ancona's picture

Who is this Wanklord douchebag, and why is he spamming threads all over the boards with his sillyass bullshit?

Someone needs to give him the boot.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:46 | Link to Comment Michael
Michael's picture

Obama's new health care rules boil down to;

Two wolfs and a sheep sitting around a camp fire deciding what's for dinner and the sheep is completely unarmed.

The puppet masters are trying to destroy the concept of the republic.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 17:27 | Link to Comment FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

They already knew what was for dinner.  The fight is over who gets the chops and who gets the neck bones.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 23:35 | Link to Comment Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Looks like time to cut government spending...

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:10 | Link to Comment Joe Davola
Joe Davola's picture

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

 

If you're going to ignore their copyright, at least copy their paragraph formatting.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:59 | Link to Comment jtg
jtg's picture

Everything you say is true, except that Iran is heading toward acquiring nuclear weapons. That, in combination with their explicit statements that all Jews must be exterminated shoud give you pause. Iranian authorities have recently published the Islamic legal justification for the mass murder of Jews. Doesn't this remind you of Hitler's Mein Kampf, which is very popular in Muslim dominated countries. We were warned then, are again we are being warned. Are we going to wait for another genocide? 1.5M Armenians in WW1, 6M Jew in WW2. Are we going to let this happen again?

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 17:03 | Link to Comment barliman
barliman's picture

 

Phweeett!!!!

Red flag for encouraging the troll!

Any response to the troll, including disagreeing with him, only encourages the troll.

barliman

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:31 | Link to Comment smlbizman
smlbizman's picture

completly off topic , i apologize...but #5 bail out the banks just beat #4  midnight silver in the 5th at aqueduct...by a nose... majestic hope in third...

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:09 | Link to Comment Havana White
Havana White's picture

What'd the tri pay?

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:25 | Link to Comment smlbizman
smlbizman's picture

$2 tri 141.50...

$2 exacta 34.50..

#5 12.00 5.10 3.80

#4           3.50 2.80

#7                   3.80

also rans: good karma,winaholic, and bridge to nowhere...

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:28 | Link to Comment seek
seek's picture

It's won't matter to the real elite (top 0.1 or .01%). The vast majority of 1%'ers are actually small businessmen such as myself with all of their income being earned, not capital gains. We've been getting fucked quite well by the current tax code, but the health insurance tax is a gigantic "fuck you" to us. Romney and Corzine won't even notice this.

It pisses me off to no end that my actual paid tax rate (fed + state taxes paid / income) is about 36-38%, I'll get none of the benefits I've paid in to (you know means testing will be the next big thing in SSI, assuming the government makes it until I retire, which is doubtful) while the fraudulent-by-fixed-votes republican front runner is paying 15% tax and accidentally omits $3M swiss accounts like it's pocket change.

 

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:16 | Link to Comment Raging Debate
Raging Debate's picture

Same boat Seek. Here is one for you, I was just shaken down for $621 fine from the IRS for form 941. One of five things did wrong it claimed. Hell, I even made sure my bookeeper filed taxes electronically to avoid such penalties. Made no difference.

I had called a couple weeks after to contest the fine. I was on hold for half hour and the line disconnected. I planned on calling this week but lo and behold! I got certified mail demanding payment immediately or property seizure. How many other small businesses were shaken down like this? Let's say 12 million small businesses x $621 = $7,452,000,000 . Cool, I got to help buy the tailwing of an F22 as we bomb the crap out of Iran. Just what I always wanted to spend my tax dollars on (Sarcasm off).

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:17 | Link to Comment Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

I am in the same boat. Early 40's, wife and I make over $250k. Can't deduct healthcare already. Can't participate in cafeteria plan. My kid won't get a dime from the gubbamint to go to college, I'll have to pay for it all, or else let her become a debt slave.  All of those things already equate to a tax INCREASE on me because if I don't get the benefit from the gubbamint and someone else does, thats the same thing as a tax increase.  Its such a joke.

As for Social Security and Medicare, I wholeheartedly support the tax holiday.  I'd rather keep that money in my pocket now, because I will never see a dime of it by the time I retire.  Or, I'll get my check but it will buy about one loaf of bread a month.  These ponzi's are going to crash and burn someday soon.  Why should the people on it now, who take out WAY WAY more than they put into it by the way, get their money and I don't?  F em.

And this $250K number they throw around as being in the top 1%, I say bullshit.  There are way more people making that kind of money than they are telling us.  Its another bullshit statistic brought to you by the BLBS.  No one making that is living like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet.  What a load of shit.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:30 | Link to Comment DaddabhaJataka
DaddabhaJataka's picture

Maybe your child should work their way through college.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:40 | Link to Comment Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

My kid started working and SAVING money at age 14.  She won't be able to "work" her way thru college.  You think the kids going to college now really work their way thru?  They get all kinds of aid from the gubbamint that my kid won't get because my wife and I actually work for a living.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:53 | Link to Comment seek
seek's picture

Given where tuition is, this isn't a realisitc of an option anymore outside of community college.

My stepdaughter had aspirations of an Ivy League school, but I showed her the financial implications of such, and settled on community college for the first couple years before transfering into a state university -- and even that will require quite a bit of financial help from me. Thanks to the same crap that went on in mortgages happening in college financing, that system is just as screwed up as housing is.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 17:08 | Link to Comment GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

I'm curious. What does a young person study in college that will result in employment these days? My son already is out of college, having switched from computer science (a great profession when I started in it in 1970) to accounting, he's doing OK. Not all of his friends did so well.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 17:29 | Link to Comment seek
seek's picture

I honestly have no idea. I've done some mentoring and this environment is incredibly hostile to anyone smart and ambitious.

I think agricultural sciences may be a good one, one young woman I talked with was actually recruited into that by the grocery chain she worked for, and it made sense to me, but I have doubts about the pay. I've also heard indirectly that petroleum engineers are in very high demand and had a couple reports of $80K salaries fresh out of mining college with a BS degree. I think this one probably will have a long future, considering that exploration will need to increase as supply drops off, and the oil companies will be going after a lot more small fields which will in turn require many more engineers. The demand seems to be there.

I'm pointing my step daughter at basic business management with an emphasis on the financial side (with profit margins tightening, the nuts-and-bolts of business will become much more important in my opinion.) She doesn't seem that interested, and it may not have a high paying job waiting at the end, but I think it would offer the most employment options for her with a reasonable starting salary -- I'm more concerned about employment than wages for her.

Alternative energy (specifically solar) might be a career path in the southwest, but I can already see signs of a corporate takeover of the business, and it seems once big companies are involved the opportunities decline rapidly.

I'm sure post-collapse a lot of opportunites will open up, though. With a massive shift to locally-oriented business, many chances to make a comfortable living (but perhaps not getting rich) will reappear.

 

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 18:17 | Link to Comment tamboo
tamboo's picture

you cant go wrong as a resettlement specialist.

 

Get a Job! Internment/Resettlement Specialist, US Army

 

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 17:46 | Link to Comment Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

Might as well save the tuition and become a gubbamint sponsored turd counter or ditch digger or ditch filler inner.  They will pay you a living wage.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 18:15 | Link to Comment I did it by Occident
I did it by Occident's picture

I think the modern equivalent is all those lawyers/accountants and others that are paid handsomely to comply with the taxcode (and us lay people having to pay them) and other regulatory nonsense that is "not value added."  Basically the equivalent taking the best and brightest our country has and using them in the fields digging up holes and filling them up again.  Imagine if there were a flat tax and no need for army of bureaucrats and other "compliance officers".  If just a fraction of those had become doctors, scientists or engineers we'd be way better off. 

Thu, 02/16/2012 - 02:56 | Link to Comment Quantum Nucleonics
Quantum Nucleonics's picture

That's really no longer possible in the traditional sense.  Government guaranteed student loans have caused college tuition to soar.  Colleges get cash from the government, with which they fund ever expanding and useless majors.  Colleges and universities are completely protected from the laws of supply and demand by government loan guarantees and subsidies.  In a real market, the failure of the army of liberal arts majors to find gainful employment would feed back to the schools.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 17:05 | Link to Comment GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

I suspect that there are many readerw who would love to be in your income bracket despite the drawbacks you mention. I do agree that taxes are way too high, at all levels, but your comment about those of us collecting SS irks me.

You ask "Why should the people on it now, who take out WAY WAY more than they put into it by the way, get their money and I don't?"

I just started collecting after being forced to pay into it for 40 years. It will take at least 10 years for me to break even, and that doesn't include my employers' portions. If I had been able to keep the money myself and invest it, I'd be set for life (ignoring the possibility of hyperinflation) and would have the remainder as part of my estate. So while I agree that Social Security is a horrible system and wish it had never existed, I feel slighted when you suggest I'm getting something I didn't put in. Medicare is in a totally different category as far as I'm concerned.

I congratulate you and your wife on making that much (unless you're a lawyer or politician), and I realize that where one lives has a lot to do with how well one can live on that amount. Still, I suggest being more circumspect in your generalities. All we can do is register our complaints in the voting booth or with our feet.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 18:52 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

What you're seeing is the remorse of the petit-bourgeosie.

Folks thought they would be able to work their way to becoming rich, but it just doesn't really work like that.  A high salary just makes you the best-paid of the working class. 

It's obvious why there's so much anger at Obama for claiming $250,000/year makes you rich.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 23:53 | Link to Comment xela2200
xela2200's picture

In with a few years of inflation, there will be an increasing percentage in that bracket until it becomes 100%. It is just a sneaky way to introduce a tax on people. Period.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 21:10 | Link to Comment PrinceDraxx
PrinceDraxx's picture

The problem is not the rich who will not pay anything more. The problem is the rest of us, who in 2, 5 or 10 years from now will also be included in the happy band of folks who are having to pay those new taxes due to inflation or outright lowering of the level of inclusion. If you think it won't happen, open up a history book and look at how few were going to have to pay income taxes when it started back in 1913.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 14:58 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

"your entire health insurance premium"  Another way to "lower health cost" for the common folk.  What a joke 

since "the elite" don't go to jail anymore, I doubt they care if they violate tax law. That said, making 250 does not get you the Goldman exception /access now does it. 

 

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 14:59 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Yeah, because as we all know, if you want more of something, you tax it.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:10 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

nice and yes, since small businesses are doing so well, hiring people left and right and handing out generous health care, this will help. Stupidity and corruption is such a chicken and egg thing when it comes to our elected 

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:51 | Link to Comment Dermasolarapate...
Dermasolarapaterraphatrima's picture

My health insurance premium shot up 38% due to Obamacare so this budget/law/tax or whatever the heck it is should be fun.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 14:56 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Do your job well, accumulate physical assets of real value along the way and sleep at night.  All paper promises are made to be broken.  Taxes only work when you can collect them and we are all becoming greek at an exponential rate.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 14:57 | Link to Comment Corn1945
Corn1945's picture

I'm going with the brown line on the chart.

I suspect the tax battle at the end of 2012 goes something like this:

Obama: Extend the tax cuts for everyone except trillionaires!!!! (i.e. people making $200K)

Republics: No. Everyone gets their tax cuts extended or no one does.

Obama: Errr....Ok.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 14:58 | Link to Comment hwwesq3
hwwesq3's picture


The following is a schedule showing the Federalmarginal income tax rateimposed on each level oftaxable incomeof a single (unmarried) individual under the 1954 Code:

Income level Tax rate 2008 PPC Adjusted Income [2] up to $2,000.00 20% up to $37,500.00 $2,000.01 - $4,000.00 22% $37,500 - 75,000 $4,000.01 - $6,000.00 26% $75,000 - 112,500 $6,000.01 - $8,000.00 30% $112,500 - 150,000 $8,000.01 - $10,000.00 34% $150,000 - 187,500 $10,000.01 - $12,000.00 38% $187,500 - 225,000 $12,000.01 - $14,000.00 43% $225,000 - 262,500 $14,000.01 - $16,000.00 47% $262,500 - 300,000 $16,000.01 - $18,000.00 50% $300,000 - 337,500 $18,000.01 - $20,000.00 53% $337,500 - 375,000 $20,000.01 - $22,000.00 56% $375,000 - 412,500 $22,000.01 - $26,000.00 59% $412,500 - 487,500 $26,000.01 - $32,000.00 62% $487,500 - 600,000 $32,000.01 - $38,000.00 65% $600,000 - 712,500 $38,000.01 - $44,000.00 69% $712,500 - 825,000 $44,000.01 - $50,000.00 72% $825,000 - 937,500 $50,000.01 - $60,000.00 75% $937,500 - 1,125,000 $60,000.01 - $70,000.00 78% $1,125,000 - 1,312,500 $70,000.01 - $80,000.00 81% $1,312,500 - 1,500,000 $80,000.01 - $90,000.00 84% $1,500,000 - $1,687,500 $90,000.01 - $100,000.00 87% $1,687,500 - $1,875,000 $100,000.01 - $150,000.00 89% $1,875,000 - $2,812,500 $150,000.01 - $ 200,000.00 90% $2,812,500 - $3,750,000 $200,000.01 or more 91% $3,750,000 or more


  • Source: Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Pub.L. 83-591, 68A Stat. 5, enacted August 16, 1954 (modified from text of the statute).

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:31 | Link to Comment Spacemoose
Spacemoose's picture

do you know what deductions were allowed in 1950 that are not allowed today?  the reason i ask is that i was giddy with anticipation when the reagan tax cuts were enacted only to find, to my severe disappointment, that my tax liability was pretty much the same.  the right hand giveth and the left hand taketh away.    

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:28 | Link to Comment Cpl Hicks
Cpl Hicks's picture

Are you giddy at the thought of four more years of Obama? Or not?

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 17:13 | Link to Comment GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

Gagging, not giddy. Ditto for Romney, Newt, Santorum.

We really need an option on ballots that says "leave the position/office empty", and apply it at all levels.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:31 | Link to Comment seek
seek's picture

It should be noted these are rates, but they don't capture how many income exemptions there were. The effective tax rates were much lower than the marginal rates in the 50s. Today the spread between effective and actual is much smaller for earned income.

In spite of all the changes over the past 50 years, there's very little variation in income tax revenue/GDP. Laffer was right.

 

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:25 | Link to Comment Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

This is why the only solution is to throw this bloated behemouth tax code out and implement a FLAT TAX.  The current code is nothing more than a conduit for both parties to fluff their own constituents and try to buy more.  Where are the so called conservatives and tea partiers on this?  Its so obvious a tax overhaul is the only solution.  Instead we waste our time on things like McCain-Fiengold to take money out of politics. 

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:53 | Link to Comment Raging Debate
Raging Debate's picture

Agree Beam Me Up. I spent $60k on tax compliance last year, near 15% GROSS revenue. The current tax code indeed is a method of favoring constituents and punishing non constituents.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 18:27 | Link to Comment I did it by Occident
I did it by Occident's picture

I also agree, compliance in an of itself is a "tax" and thus an opportunity cost in the long run.  To think all that wasted talent of millions of people being used up in the process when they could be doing other more productive things.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 17:36 | Link to Comment Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

Throw out all taxes except a VAT.  End all property taxes.  They are evil.  They destroy the entire concept of private property.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 19:01 | Link to Comment xela2200
xela2200's picture

100% ++

Might not be the most fair, but it encourages savings and investing. Afterall, what tax is truly fair?

I agree on the property taxes. Place a lien on the property maybe, but nobody should be able to take it away from the owner.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 17:45 | Link to Comment GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

The only way we'll get rid of the current income tax system, short of a violent revolution, would be to have Iran set off an electro-magnetic pulse weapon and fry all the computers in the country. If Timmy can't even get his taxes right with Turbo Tax, imagine what it would be like if the IRS and all the taxpayers had to rely on paper and pencils, and maybe an abacus or mechanical adding machine.

That would be about the only positive benefit of EMP. I'm too addicted to ZH to want to forego my computers, internet connection, etc.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 17:06 | Link to Comment masterinchancery
masterinchancery's picture

Many working people back then paid hardly any federal taxes and no state taxes.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:33 | Link to Comment Central Bankster
Central Bankster's picture

1954 =$35 gold, today= $1725 = 50:1.

$2000 in 1954 is $100k today. Rates are much higher on the middle class than ever, and lower than ever on the lower class.

I do not mean to imply support for taxation, only to destroy your pathetic intellectual dishonesty.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 17:25 | Link to Comment GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

The official price of gold did not change going into the late 1960s. I thought that a salary of $9000/yr would be pretty decent when I graduated from college in 1969. I don't think it was nearly equivalent to $450K using your 50x multiplier, so I guess I reject your simplistic attempt to equate 1954 and 2012. As an aside, I was soon making slightly over $100/month in the USAF. 1968 was not a good year to graduate from college if one was male.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 19:51 | Link to Comment Central Bankster
Central Bankster's picture

They were already monetizing by that point, which eventually led to the need to depeg gold from the dollar.  So money truly wasn't worth the quote and that is why they needed to depeg from the gold standard (you know gold?  REAL money)   How much was a movie ticket in 1950s?  $.25- .50; today $8.00 = 16-32 times price inflation.  gas $.27 in 1954 to $3.50 again that is 16:1.  Now here is the real kicker, if it wasn;t for inflation, would the prices of these goods have actually gone DOWN?  One would say yes in terms of real money (gold).  So yes I think it is safe to say this generation lives in relative poverty in terms of income compared to the one you experienced just based on this information.  Sure we have technology, but we live in a depression in terms of relative purchasing power income:goods.  In addition we have run away taxation on our already limited real incomes.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 14:58 | Link to Comment InconvenientCou...
InconvenientCounterParty's picture

The idea of some "fair" level of taxation is a fallacy. The only level that is fair is 0% for all.

Rule of law went out the window sometime between 1850-1900.

Halftime? Half of what? Greed is an exponential function.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:15 | Link to Comment traderjoe
traderjoe's picture

If the US Treasury printed debt-free money - like United States Notes, the longest running currency in our nation's history - NO taxes would be needed. Taxes, like the Federal Reserve Note, are a fraud against the people. It's no coincidence that the Income Tax and the Federal Reserve were started in the same year. 

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 18:38 | Link to Comment I did it by Occident
I did it by Occident's picture

maybe they need to make a log-log chart of greed vs. envy vs. govt.  Greed nor envy by itself is not a problem, when paired with laziness, then it gets to be problematic.  Basically the stem of the problem is folks stop earning money and start "protecting wealth."  Basically they want to create barriers to competition (through K-street govt-corporate collusion) to capture cash-flow streams forever.  But real capitalism doesn't work like that.  Even if you are greedy, you would still have to work for it.  And even then you couldn't rest on your laurels for very long, 'cause the competition would come along and take your market share.  Same thing with envy.  Folks not willing to work but supplicating to the government for their "fair share" that wasn't even earned or it was taken from the earners.  The good side of envy paired with hard work is that the upstarts would use that envy as motivation to attain their own piece of the pie.   

But I agree that rule of law is toast for a long time now. 

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 14:58 | Link to Comment jm
jm's picture

What's the alternative?  Tax the poor into oblivion?

You have to improvement revenues and there are only so much spending cuts those in office will undertake.  Start cutting off-budget entitlements and a politician dies.  And then there are the interest payments that are set to explode.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:01 | Link to Comment Corn1945
Corn1945's picture

Entitlements will be cut in real or nominal terms.

Bernanke isn't stupid. He knows SS, Medicare, and Medicaid won't be cut by the politicians so he will cut them with inflation and false inflation statistics.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:02 | Link to Comment jm
jm's picture

Somebody has to deal with the situation so that others can sit back and complain about it.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:05 | Link to Comment Corn1945
Corn1945's picture

Not really. 99% of the population has no idea what inflation is or how it affects them.

You can accept a nominal cut or a real cut. Either way you are going to take the hit.

You wanted to believe these fairy tail entitlements would be there for you, now you pay the piper.

Welcome to reality.

And don't give me the "I paid into it!" line of bullshit because we all know now that people receiving 3x more than they pay into Medicare ain't paying enough.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:08 | Link to Comment jm
jm's picture

You're preaching the choir, dude.

 

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:14 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

if only all the choirs would Chirstmas Carol door to door

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 17:29 | Link to Comment GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

The ACLU would probably get some court to issue a restraing order.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:27 | Link to Comment Rama V
Rama V's picture

Everybody here at my job knows damn well what inflation does to income.  Your 99% "don't-know" number is based on what - your special societal insight? 

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 17:53 | Link to Comment Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

Most fat assed amerikans dont know squat about inflation other than they can't buy as many french fries as they could before.  Might not be 99% but its sure as hell 50%.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:30 | Link to Comment jm
jm's picture

It's shocking how stating the obvious collects so many thumbs down.  Some real dummies fililng up the seats here now. 

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:39 | Link to Comment Gromit
Gromit's picture

Think of it as a badge of honor...at least they're reading your posts!

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:18 | Link to Comment traderjoe
traderjoe's picture

No, you've missed an obvious solution - default on the odious debt, issue United States Notes (debt-free scrip printed by the Treasury) and completely scrap the Tax Code. Taxes are not required for revenue, except in our private debt-issued currency model. 

It seems you have bought into the banker's paradigm, hook, line, and sinker. 

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:53 | Link to Comment jm
jm's picture

The United defaulting on its debt posited as a solution.  What a pathetic reflection on how much we've deluded ourselves and how low we've let ourselves descend. 

Paying your bills isn't a banker's pardigm.  It is simply reasonable, rational thinking to pay what you owe.  Far superior to to the deadbeat nation you endorse.

 

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 18:00 | Link to Comment Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

Heres the deal.  I've always payed my bills.  On time every time.  Student loans, payed.  Car loans, payed.  Credit card paid in full every month.  If I can't pay it when the bill comes, then I dont buy whatever it is I think I want.  I wait until I've saved for it.  Mortgage payment payed every month even though my house is worth half.  I've even paid extra principle to keep close to the surface of the water.  I didnt choose strategic default and sure as hell could have.

But you and your big government/more goverment people have created a debt/taxpayer load that is unsustainable even for me.  At the end of the day, the government isn't going to want what I have paid in taxes over the years, it is going to want what I have saved over the years as well.  Eventually it will want everything, yours, mine, everyones.

The solution is smaller government.  Period.  The so called poor in this country who have 2 cars, and A/C and top of the line Directv can do with less, and start making some smarter decisions.  I see people who live paycheck to paycheck and they talk about watching HBO last night.  They drive a nicer car than I do, and I can afford to own a new one but choose not to because its a bad financial decision. 

The social safety net is nothing more than a hammock.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 18:21 | Link to Comment jm
jm's picture

I pay my bills too.  So does pretty much everybody else in the United States.  Many of the miscreants that post here are the deluded fringe. 

But you and I are the indirect beneficiary of decades of government debt largesse.  You have relatives that take Medicare reimbursements ir SSI-- thus you don't have to chip in as much on their bills or their living expenses.  Your contribution is as much as every other taxpayer.  These are is just two of a huge number of examples of everyone indirectly benefitting from decades of debt accumulation.  Hopefully you are not too stupid or deluded to realize this.

But guess what.  Bond yields rise a couple of hundred basis points and the number one expense you will have to pay for is interest on the debt. It doesn't matter if the government starts spending only in line with revenue.  The bill will be due anyway. 

It doesn't matter if it is your fair share or if it is right or if it is unicorn piss running down your head.  You will pay for this one way or another.  Or you can leave.

Now sure, it is not fair that the (more) responsible have to pay for the (relatively) irresponsible.  But it doesn't matter.  More people need to get their heads out of their butts for a moment and look at how the world really works instead of complaining about how unfair it is when the government raises taxes.  Surely you have sufficient IQ to realize this.

Everybody went along with the game.  Now you will pay up according to your ability to do so.  Or you leave.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 18:36 | Link to Comment Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

But you and I are the indirect beneficiary of decades of government debt largesse.

Yes, you and I and every other fat ass who is on the dole.  The difference is, I am not on the dole and they are.  They sqandered their largesse, and want me to pay for it.  I didnt squander mine.

Its just like the 3 Little Pigs.  The two who built their houses out of straw and sticks so they could have a nice new car and Platinum package TV and an Iphone they can't afford suddenly want to live in my house.  No, make that they want to take my house and kick me out of it.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 18:48 | Link to Comment jm
jm's picture

I'm not disagreeing with the basis and legit nature of your rant.  My point is that ranting is irrelevant to the situation, and not even useful to engage in anyway.  I accept that much of my effin' money is going down the tubes to some bum.  It is the price I pay for living here. 

It doesn't matter if all welfare went away tomorrow.  You have interest to pay on past debt that will not go away.  When bonds yeilds rise... it may be decades from now, but when they do... it will no country for old men, if you pardon my allusion.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 21:49 | Link to Comment PrinceDraxx
PrinceDraxx's picture

Only reason you are "paying the price to live here" is because someone else isn't. The government is well-provided for by the constitution. Taking money away from people who earn it is nothing but robbery. If you think it isn't robbery, don't pay the IRS and watch them come and get every thing you have worked for and if you object, they will either put you in jail or shoot yur dumb ass. They rob the law-abiding citizens and give the money to (for the most part) to people who are too lazy to lift a finger or get off their asses and earn a living. Just my 2 cents worth. I yield the stump.

 

VOTE RON PAUL 2012

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 18:37 | Link to Comment traderjoe
traderjoe's picture

There never should have been a debt/bill in the first place. Please do some reading on the Federal Reserve, its creation, debt-money vs. sovereign currency, etc. 

Your argument that everyone has benefited from debt-largesse and therefore everyone should pay up (or leave) doesn't hold water. You are caught in a paradigm - one of debt-slavery taught to you by the money masters. That's your choice, but please don't implicate it onto me. 

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 19:44 | Link to Comment jm
jm's picture

+1 for psychobabble.  Pay what you owe and everything takes care of itself.

dzai jen

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 14:58 | Link to Comment BliptoP3
BliptoP3's picture

No elected government official tax?

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:00 | Link to Comment Count de Money
Count de Money's picture

So Obama wants to kill off the muni bond market? The states will love that one. And what will happen before cap gain rates rise? A market crash. Just what Dr. Barack ordered.

The mistake here is believing that this budget is actually serious. It's not. It's a campaign slogan.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:18 | Link to Comment sdmjake
sdmjake's picture

You're right Count...and we're the piss boy.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 17:47 | Link to Comment GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

And all those big, tall guys in the NBA would be really upset too.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 19:27 | Link to Comment xela2200
xela2200's picture

There is a big disconnect between the Federal Government and the States. The Federal Government is just running amok. A few states are already reveling. Utah even wants to start issuing its own money. Other states don't want to enforce stupid pot laws.

I do have to say that some states and municipalities have been practicing austerity while the Federal Government goes on borrowing and printing.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:00 | Link to Comment barliman
barliman's picture

 

How amusing!!!

Is there anyone dumb enough to believe that thesee new taxes would only apply to those earning more than $ 250k/year?

This is for anyone who pays taxes - if you pay taxes you will also be taxed on your 401(k) [pre-seizure] contributions and your medical insurance.

Otherwise there won't be near enough REVENUE for the 50% that don't pay taxes.

barliman

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:09 | Link to Comment goodrich4bk
goodrich4bk's picture

Which 50% don't pay taxes?  Give me a citation (hint: you won't be able to find one)

I didn't pay federal income tax last year because my business was slow.  I still paid the following taxes:

$8,370 self-employment payroll taxes

$11,500 property taxes

$1,600 state franchise taxes

$420 state sales taxes

$810 gasoline taxes

$70 telecom taxes

$220 capital gains taxes

 

So, again, give me a citation for your obvious lie that 50% of Americans don't pay taxes.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:12 | Link to Comment Corn1945
Corn1945's picture

The statistic is: almost 50% of the population pays no Federal Income taxes or receives a refund (i.e. takes money from someone else).

That is verified true. There is no way to worm around it.

Those people need to start paying their "fair share" because 0% isn't fair.

We can't have a functioning political system with so many being a net beneficiary of government theft.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:16 | Link to Comment crawldaddy
crawldaddy's picture

again, there are plenty of other taxes paid by these people other than federal.

 

You want to talk about fair.  You want to know whats not fair, 400 americans makes as much as 160 MILLION combined.

 

These 400 make their cash due to their coziness  and giveaways from various governments.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:23 | Link to Comment Corn1945
Corn1945's picture

Obama isn't talking about raising taxes on only those 400.

He is going to raise taxes on the 250k+ crowd which isn't even a lot in parts of the country.

We'll talk when the target group is the thieves on Wall Street. Until then, you can go fuck yourself and your taxes hikes.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:19 | Link to Comment Havana White
Havana White's picture

"$250K isn't even a lot..."  Yeah, okay, Mitt.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 17:05 | Link to Comment Real Estate Geek
Real Estate Geek's picture

Maybe $250K is a king's ransom in Hicksville, or whatever podunk town you live in, but it doesn't go far at all in NYC or SF.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:36 | Link to Comment DaddabhaJataka
DaddabhaJataka's picture

If $250k is too much for you to pay taxes on where you live, then move somewhere else, foul mouthed cur.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 17:08 | Link to Comment Real Estate Geek
Real Estate Geek's picture

The rest of us pay those taxes too, which takes us right back to his point.  Half pay no federal taxes, and they're the biggest of all the taxes you listed.

And WTF do the top 400 have to do with the fact that 50% pay no fed taxes?

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:19 | Link to Comment barliman
barliman's picture

 

Corn1945,

How should those who get a refund from paying no taxes be counted?

Mathematically and financially, leaving them out skews the percentages to look lower than the 50% number.

barliman

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:37 | Link to Comment FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:52 | Link to Comment Tom Servo
Tom Servo's picture

if you put a razor blade in the turnip...

 

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:52 | Link to Comment Tom Servo
Tom Servo's picture

.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:38 | Link to Comment tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

0% income tax rates are the beginning of fair.

The act of providing all your financial information to a central state is unfair regardless of rate. It is something a slave would do.

My fair share is what I would volunteer. I would volunteer nothing if I were free.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:41 | Link to Comment Tortuga
Tortuga's picture

What about the EIC, it's not a refund but a grant. There is a new category (or it's one i haven't noticed before); for us low income folks with no deductible children; of $484.00, based on incomes (much higher than I thought practical) such that us two retired empty nesters qualify. Amazing.No, we entered 0 on that credit line. We have as much integrity as the fellow that found that herd of gold coins in the vacant house and reported it, we don't take what doesn't belong to us. GBA and RICO all banksters and their hore politicians; impeach the entire current DOJ and 7k lawyers at the bottom of the ocean is a good start. Go Hilary, you were born for the World bank job.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:47 | Link to Comment snblitz
snblitz's picture

Just look up the Earned Income Tax Credit at the IRS site.  In addition to paying little or no Federal Income Tax, the EITC offsets the "burdens" of other taxes such as SS.

So on the one hand people point and say but see they pay SS, but with a hand behind their back the government quietly refunds them this same money and more.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:14 | Link to Comment barliman
barliman's picture

 

Hmmmm ...

No ... but feel free to post all the citations you like disproving my statement

barliman

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:32 | Link to Comment Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

Lets hear about all your deductions too.  You are counting the self-employment payroll taxes as taxes?  You had income, of course you are going to pay those.   You'll be the first one in line with your hand out to get your SSI back.  You are paying twice as much in as everyone else and you won't get any of it back, unless you are about to retire soon.  I wouldn't be arguing for a tax increase on the wealthy if thats what you are doing.  All higher taxes are going to do is create an even BIGGER government.  Not one cent of it will go toward any sort of fiscal sanity.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:58 | Link to Comment barliman
barliman's picture

 

Ahhhh, the red flaggers ....

Whether you take exception to line 2 - "... only apply to those earning more than $ 250k/year?"

or line 3 - " ... if you pay taxes you will also be taxed on your 401(k) [pre-seizure] contributions and your medical insurance."

or the truly INFLAMMATORY line 4 - " ... there won't be near enough REVENUE for the 50% that don't pay taxes."

Toddle off and do some research (Wikipedia and Huffington Post articles do not count as research) on previous "soak the rich" tax efforts (I'll give you a freebie - the Alternative Minimum Tax or AMT) have ended up 'accidentally' having far wider effect than 'originally intended' ['items' are droll sardonicisms used to describe what was planned all along].

With respect to the 50% calcultion - add into the count all those people whose income directly or indirectly comes from taxes. This is far more than the total number of federal, state and city employees - it includes anyone whose paycheck is indirectly subsidized by working full time on any federal, state or city 'project'/grant.

Decades ago, I counted myself among them - I worked for years on DOE projects. No one understood when I wouldn't join in on bitching about taxes; my answer "Every dime of my salary is coming from the DOE. If I didn't have these projects to work on, I would probably be unemployed, looking for work and not paying any taxes."

barliman

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:02 | Link to Comment OutLookingIn
OutLookingIn's picture

And just how did this JPM mogul find this little gem buryed within Obammy's new tax plan?

Because it was most probably written by JPM and sent to Obammy for ratification and his required signature.

Nothing happens between Wall street and Washington by accident.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:03 | Link to Comment goodrich4bk
goodrich4bk's picture

I frankly have no problem with any of these ideas as long as they are supplemented by real spending cuts in defense, too (notice that needed cuts to Medicare are already part of his budget). Tax increases on those who most benefited from the past 20 year supply side experiment are only a common sense response when the promised "jobs" fail to materialize, exploding deficits threaten to enslave my children to pay for tax cuts they never received, and none of the benefits their parents enjoyed (free or cheap college education, the lowest tax rates in 65 years, state and private defined benefit pensions, and rising real incomes) will ever be theirs.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:07 | Link to Comment Corn1945
Corn1945's picture

People receive 3x more benefits from Medicare than they pay in. The cuts aren't even close to being enough.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:18 | Link to Comment crawldaddy
crawldaddy's picture

complete hogwash, Stop making shit up.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:49 | Link to Comment FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

It may be "common knowledge", but it's easy to prove that "common knowledge" is hogwash.

The People did not receive 3X benefits.  The massively overpriced health care services industry, the financial services industry and the bribe-taking politicians received these benefits.  American health care is massively more expensive than much better health care in other first world countries where the average income is higher than Americans receive.

A good example is cancer treatment that I received last month in Germany (not a low income country by any measure).  The total cost, which I had to pay because Medicare doesn't pay for foreign health care services, was only about the amount I would have paid as my copay under Medicare.

Medicare is a giant wealth transfer program, but it's not transferring the wealth to the people receiving the health care.  It's transferring the wealth to the political, financial, insurance and health care "services" industries.  The people get fucked.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:39 | Link to Comment duo
duo's picture

it's more like 10x for recent retirees

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:08 | Link to Comment dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

Here's an opinion piece by Chuck Green who writes "Greener Pastures" for the
Denver Post Aurora Sentinel...one of the more liberal papers in the country.
Additionally, Mr. Green is a lifelong Democrat...so this is rather a
stunning piece...

Obama is victim of Bush's failed promises!

Barack Obama is setting a record-setting number of records during his first
term in office:

Largest budget ever. Largest deficit ever. Largest number of broken promises
ever.

Most self-serving speeches ever. Largest number of agenda-setting failures
ever. Fastest dive in popularity ever!

Wow! Talk about change.

Just over two years ago, fresh from his inauguration celebrations, President
Obama was flying high. After one of the nation's most inspiring political
campaigns, the election of America 's first black president had captured the
hopes and dreams of millions. To his devout followers, it was inconceivable
that a year later his administration would be gripped in self-imposed
crisis.

Of course, they don't see it as self-imposed. It's all George Bush's fault !

George Bush, who doesn't have a vote in congress and who no longer occupies

The White House, is to blame for it all.

He broke Obama's promise, to put all bills on the White House web site for
five days before signing them.

He broke Obama's promise, to have the congressional health care negotiations
broadcast live on C-SPAN.

He broke Obama's promise, to end earmarks.

He broke Obama's promise, to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent.

He broke Obama's promise, to close the detention center at Guantanamo in the
first year.

He broke Obama's promise, to make peace with direct, no precondition talks
with America's most hate-filled enemies during his first year in office,
ushering in a new era of global cooperation.

He broke Obama's promise, to end the hiring of former lobbyists into high
White House jobs.

He broke Obama's promise, to end no-compete contracts with the government.

He broke Obama's promise, to disclose the names of all attendees at closed

White House meetings.

He broke Obama's promise, for a new era of bipartisan cooperation in all
matters.

He broke Obama's promise, to have chosen a home church to attend Sunday
services with his family by Easter.

Yes, it's all George Bush's fault! President Obama is nothing more than a
puppet in the never-ending failed Bush administration.

If only George Bush wasn't still in charge, all of President Obama's
problems would be solved. His promises would have been kept, the economy
would be back on track, Iran would have stopped its work on developing a
nuclear bomb and would be negotiating a peace treaty with Israel . North
Korea would have ended its tyrannical regime, and integrity would have been
restored to the federal government.

Oh, and did I mention what it would be like, if the Democrats, under the
leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, didn't have the heavy yoke of
George Bush around their necks? There would be no ear marks, no closed-door
drafting of bills, no increase in deficit spending, no special-interest
influence (unions), no vote buying ( Nebraska, Louisiana ).

If only George Bush wasn't still in charge, we'd have real change by now.

All the broken promises, all the failed legislation and delay (health care
reform, immigration reform) is not President Obama's fault or the fault of
the Democrat-controlled Congress. It's all George Bush's fault !

Take for example the attempt of Eric Holder, the president's attorney
general, to hold terrorists' trials in New York City . Or his decision to
try the Christmas Day underpants bomber as a civilian.

Two disastrous decisions.

Certainly those were bad judgments based on poor advice from George Bush!

Need more proof?

You might recall when Scott Brown won the election to the U.S. Senate from
Massachusetts, capturing "The Ted Kennedy Seat", President Obama said,
Brown's victory was the result of the same voter anger that propelled Obama
into office in 2008. People were still angry about George Bush and the
policies of the past 10 years. And they wanted change.

Yes, according to the president, the voter rebellion in Massachusetts, was
George Bush's fault.

Therefore, in retaliation, they elected a Republican to the Ted Kennedy
seat, ending a half-century of domination by Democrats. It is all George
Bush's fault !

Will the failed administration of George Bush ever end, and the time for
hope and change ever arrive ???

Will President Obama ever accept responsibility for something / anything?

(Chuck Green is a veteran Colorado journalist and former editor-in-chief of
The Denver Post.)

It's Bush's Fault!

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:32 | Link to Comment barliman
barliman's picture

 

Good post!

If the MSM was not just the propaganda arm of the Obama administration, they could drop the markets 10% any day of the week by reporting how horrifically Obama's base has crumbled since 2008.

There are a lot of disaffected liberals who now view  Obama as Dubya II. They are not expected to turn out in anywhere near the numbers they did in 2008. One of them recently said to me, "If the Republicans are smart enough to nominate Romney, at least I'll be able to vote this year."  (No, this is not an endorsement of Romney on my part.)

There are a lot of moderate/conservative Democrats who view Obama as an incompetent, corrupt liar. They are not going to be voting for him.

Please spare us your political pitch, Ron Paul supporters. Congressman Paul may be right about the Federal Reserve but the bulk of the rest of his policy falls between being clownish to a national suicide pact.

barliman

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:57 | Link to Comment FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

"It's Bush's Fault!"

I agree, except it is not only Bush's fault.

It's also Wilson's, Hoover's, FDR's, Truman's, LBJ's, Nixon's, Ford's, Carter's, Reagan's, GHW Bush's, and Obama's fault.

They're all worthless, tyrant, thieving scumbags.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:37 | Link to Comment DaddabhaJataka
DaddabhaJataka's picture

Your post is only one foot too long.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 17:54 | Link to Comment GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

I concur: it's Bush's fault.

If he'd really been a conservative he would have kept the Republican majorities in the House and Senate in line. There would have been no Democratic takeover of the House and Senate in 2006. Obama, even if he won, would have been contending with a Republican Congress, not a veto-proof Democratic one in 2009.

Why don't we just blame it all on George Washington? If he'd just had the decency to become king we wouldn't be having these problems. Or...

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 19:03 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Nothing is one person's fault, but as for Dubya: he could've vetoed the Medicare-D expansion, at least.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:08 | Link to Comment Wolferl
Wolferl's picture

USA. USA. USA. (Read QE3.QE3.QE3)

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:27 | Link to Comment wavegenius
wavegenius's picture

The world's 5 best and 5 worst elliotticians

 

http://www.wavegenius.com/2012/02/09/my-list-of-the-top-5-elliotticians-...

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:29 | Link to Comment mktsrmanipulated
mktsrmanipulated's picture

there goes the rumor mill eur popped 40pips in few mins

 

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:32 | Link to Comment ArkansasAngie
ArkansasAngie's picture

I'm just glad that the government will run out of money before the election.

Tax and spend vs. No tax and spend ... geez

How about we put some banksters in jail and take all their money as ill gotten gains.  Start with Warren B.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:53 | Link to Comment Guns N Metals
Guns N Metals's picture

Is it just me or has the highest held office in the land become nothing more than a puppet stage for the International Banking Cartel and Zionist Israel?!

And we just keep "electing" a new puppet every 8 years...

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:39 | Link to Comment DaddabhaJataka
DaddabhaJataka's picture

Obama panders to Israel much less than previous executives.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:51 | Link to Comment Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

That may be so, but what he saves by not pandering to Israel, he uses that much and more to pander to everyone else.  He should be dubbed President Panderer.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:57 | Link to Comment riphowardkatz
riphowardkatz's picture

Can someone more astute on politics give me the low down on how this plays out? Does this budget pass? Do the tax hikes actually get implemented or is this just a divide and conquer ploy that they know will not happen?

 

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:00 | Link to Comment Dumpster Fire
Dumpster Fire's picture

DC never passes any budget...least of all this one.  As was said earlier, it's an infomercial for the election season.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:58 | Link to Comment AC_Doctor
AC_Doctor's picture

The Brown Clown sinks his teeth into the 51% of actual taxpayers to support those who will not work.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:03 | Link to Comment krispkritter
krispkritter's picture

Taxes? We don't need no steenking taxes! We just preent the monee! Right Bernankee!? 

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:06 | Link to Comment chistletoe
chistletoe's picture

What is truly ugly about this proposal

is the same issue which was truly ugly about the "alternative minimum tax" ....

 

It is triggered at a fixed dollar amount, without even any pretend indexing to the CPI or any other inflation measure ...

 

thus, after a few years, (when $250,000 becomes the minimum wage ....) the new taxes will apply to everyone ....

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:08 | Link to Comment haskelslocal
haskelslocal's picture

Calling the taxes in this budget "hidden" is like a 4 year thinking that the Easter bunny has "hidden" eggs in the backyard for the traditonal egg hunt. Daddy didn't try very hard to hide your chocolate little boys.

Hey look it's a Rabbit!

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 19:03 | Link to Comment barliman
barliman's picture

 

Analogous to real life, the eggs weren't hidden very well because they were meant to be found. Having mowed an Easter egg or two in May that were not found in April, you make sure the kids (or you) can find them in the future.

These "Easter eggs" are for Obama's base to find ... which probably implies they were too well hidden. Expect many other "gifts" from Obambi to his base in an effort to get them to the polls n November.

Green flag 'cause I'm not sure why someone red flagged you.

barliman

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:16 | Link to Comment Miss Expectations
Miss Expectations's picture

Just what will the tax treatment be on MF Global's $1.2 Billion in unearned income?  Don't they generally catch crooks because they didn't pay taxes on their ill-gotten gains?

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 22:16 | Link to Comment PrinceDraxx
PrinceDraxx's picture

It isn't income for the thieves who got it, ME. They actually lost all that money first but had insurance to make it up, so they ended up with about 1 billion more than they lost but it was insurance money so they probably won't get taxed on it because it was making up their bad bet that they lost on. Ya know, I think I should be a defense attorney for some of them guys. hahahah

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 17:29 | Link to Comment Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

The taxation of the upper middle class to the exclusion of the lower classes and the rich is right out of the 1970s playbook.

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 18:41 | Link to Comment TomTraubert
TomTraubert's picture

BOHICA...

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!