3 Dec

Middle Class Tax Increases Coming….’By Rule Change’

                                       

Drudge has it up:

viagra vs cialise-full wp-image-86785″ />

Only the rich right?

the IRS offered an example of a taxpayer filing as a single individual who makes $180,000 in wage income plus $90,000 from investment income. The individual’s modified adjusted gross income is $270,000. The 3.8 percent tax applies to the $70,000, and the individual would pay $2,660 in surtaxes, the IRS said.

Yup, under 200k….sure sounds like only the rich folk.

And this is only the beginning.

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Economy, Health Care, Nanny Government, Obamanomics, Politics, Socialism, Socialized Health Care, Taxes. Bookmark the permalink. Monday, December 3rd, 2012 at 7:43 pm
| 697 views

40 Responses to Middle Class Tax Increases Coming….’By Rule Change’

  1. 1389AD says: 1

    Tax the job creators – the doctors and dentists and lawyers and accountants who hire office help, the pizzeria owners who hire cooks and delivery drivers, the landscapers who hire people to maintain shrubs and lawns, and so on and so forth … and they decide to sell off their assets, lay everybody off, and take early retirement – possibly overseas where they don’t have to watch the US go down the toilet.

    At the other end of the economic scale – where I have been stuck for quite a long time, thanks to the obamunism – we have underemployment. Responsible, skilled older workers find that their productive years are over and that the US is no longer the land of opportunity. Yes, there are jobs…but all the jobs are part-time with no benefits and no chance for advancement – no matter how good a worker you are, and how much you would have to contribute if we had any economic freedom at all.

    We are proceeding with our plans to emigrate.

    ReplyReply
  2. Smorgasbord says: 2

    This is a good time to be retired and not worry about the INCOME TAX. I have plenty of other things to worry about, thanks to obama.

    ReplyReply
  3. johngalt says: 3

    One question;

    Since Congress-critters are exempt from Obamacare, does this tax apply to them or not?

    I could easily see the Obamacare law being written to specifically exclude the bloodsuckers in DC, making all of their investment income exempt from this ‘surtax’.

    ReplyReply
  4. Smorgasbord says: 4

    @johngalt: #3
    The politicians have their own “all expenses paid” top of the line medical care, and pension system. The sad fact is that they get all of this after being in congress a very short time. I don’t know how long. They could be in their 30s when they get in office, then, if they loose their next election, they get the medical care and the pension from then on for the rest of their life.

    A long time ago I read an article that said that for every 3% increase in inflation, they get a 4% raise. Leave it to the politicians to come up with a way to make money when the cost of living goes up.

    ReplyReply
  5. retire05 says: 5

    The IRS used an example of a single person earning $180,000 plus $90,000 in investment income showing that the surcharge tax would be applied to all over $200,000, or tax of 3.8%on $70,000. Once again, it shows how the federal government now punishes those who are married.

    Add in an additional $79,500 income (before exemptions) from a spouse, and the married couple will pay that 3.8% on the entire $90,000 in investment income for an increase in their taxes of $3,420. Also, using the married example of spouse #1 with $180,000 in income, spouse #2 with $79,500 in income and $90,000 in investment income, shoves both of them into the highest tax bracket.

    If this married couple were to divorce, at least on paper, they would save almost $7,000 a year in federal income taxes. Spouse #1 would remain in the 33% bracket, but spouse #2 would fall to the 25% bracket and the 3.8% on $90,000. investment income would be reduced by $20,000.

    Currently, couples where one is still working (and at the top of their pay scale) and one is drawing Social Security, often divorce in order to not have the Social Security payments included in AGI joint income, reducing the amount of federal income taxes they have to pay.

    ReplyReply
  6. Helene says: 6

    The other day I had a repair man come to the house. He owns a small business. After the election he was confronted by several Obama supporters gleeful over the free stuff given by Obama. He explained, to deaf ears, that the stuff was not free, but paid for by him and other workers. They simply could not comprehend that someone else was paying for the phones, etc.

    I also spoke to a physical therapist, starting a solo practice. He explained why no one wants to accept Medicare and Medicare any more. It’s simple. The therapist submits a bill for services. It gets paid by medicare or medicade then several months later, the therapist gets a bill from Medicare or Medicare demanding that he return part of the payment to the government. Who wants that headache?

    In addition, since the services are considered to be free, he has a lot of no shows for appointments. Try feeding a family on non-productive time.

    And Obama wants more of the same.

    Yes, entitlements need to be reined in. Let’s start with the free phones, that we pay for with user fees. The free Internet should go next.

    Yes, Obama won because he bribed voters with free stuff.

    ReplyReply
  7. Liberal1 (Objectivity) says: 7

    @Helene: And the ‘free-stuff’ that Romney bribed his supporters with—like tax give-aways—they don’t count, I suppose.

    ReplyReply
  8. Aqua says: 8

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity):
    Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is not giving them anything.

    ReplyReply
  9. retire05 says: 9

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity):

    Be specific. What do you consider a tax “giveaway?”

    ReplyReply
  10. retire05 says: 10

    @Aqua:

    You need to remember that Lib1 is a Marxist. No earnings are the property of the earner as all labor (income) belongs to the state and it all depends on how much the state wants to let you keep.

    ReplyReply
  11. Helene says: 11

    Liberal1
    Can you provide a list of items Romney promised?
    Can you provide one personal example of someone telling you that they voted for Romney because of a gift?
    While you’re at it can you provide any links to people publicly stati ng that they voted for Romney because of gifts? As a reminder, before the election, a clip of a lady went viral where she talked about getting free phones from Obama and voting for him because of the phones.
    Wanting for your response.

    ReplyReply
  12. Enchanted says: 12

    previously and I would have to dig up my research the 250K actually boiled down to $42,500. Now does that sound like rich folks to you?

    ReplyReply
  13. Smorgasbord says: 13

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity): #7
    Every time that taxes are reduced, the revenue into the federal treasury increases. Every time that taxes are increased, the revenue into the federal treasury decreases. After the George Bush tax cuts went into effect, the federal revenue increased tremendously. This has been true since taxes were increased. The communist countries found out that they have to let their people have more money to spend, or their economy goes down.

    The only reason I can see that you want taxes increased is if you are one of the takers. If your aren’t, why would you want your taxes to keep rising? How far do you want them to rise? Please give us a number.

    ReplyReply
  14. Smorgasbord says: 14

    @Aqua: #8
    You have to look at it like the liberals do. When Hilliary Clinton was a senator, and pushing for an increase in Social Security payments, she said that the republicans wanted to CUT SS payments, because the republicans didn’t want to increase the payments as much as the democrats. That’s liberal thinking.

    ReplyReply
  15. Smorgasbord says: 15

    @retire05: #5
    Sounds like it could be like years ago where some couples divorced and remarried each year to avoid the increased taxes of a couple compared to two singles.

    ReplyReply
  16. Smorgasbord says: 16

    @Helene: #11
    Plant a tree in your yard. Let me know how tall it is when you get ANY answer.

    ReplyReply
  17. Nathan Blue says: 17

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity): No, they don’t.

    A large majority of Obama voters voted from a place of ignorance. They don’t understand government, business, or history. Instead, they were fed false narratives and promised entitlements, however vague they might be.

    The Romney tax-breaks you speak of are part of the slander campaign Obama waged against the ignorant (you) in hopes you’d always see things as an “us vs. them” dichotomy. They are not gifts, but rather a view that you don’t create jobs by hurting job creators. That’s objective, common sense.

    Anyone who understands what real “liberalism” is understands Obama and Dems are anything but.

    ReplyReply
  18. retire05 says: 18

    @Smorgasbord:

    What no one wants to take about is the marriage penalty in Obama’s tax plan. Remember, his limit is $200,000.00 for a single person, but only $250,000.00 for marrieds. So if a couple, who both of them earn an AGI of $125,000.00, or more, as single filers, they would be under the $200K mark, but as marrieds, would be at the $250K mark. So you tell me, would it be worth it to stay married when you don’t have to be married to jointly own property, you don’t have to be married to give power of attorney that would deal with medical issues, you don’t have to be married to leave your partner everything by creating a will?

    ReplyReply
  19. Randy says: 19

    I considered getting married to a young military officer. If we did get married, we would now be considered rich! She is deployed all over the world on sometimes hardship deployments. We need to run two house holds. Pay two mortgages or rent. Marriage penalty is not even close to describing the situation.

    ReplyReply
  20. Nan G says: 20

    @Smorgasbord: Every time that taxes are reduced, the revenue into the federal treasury increases. Every time that taxes are increased, the revenue into the federal treasury decreases.

    Not EVERY time, Smorg.
    Almost every time, though.
    We need to remember the Laffer Curve has a beginning where a country (or state, county or city) is collecting too little taxes to take care of its basic needs.
    http://thesolidsurfer.typepad.com/the_solid_surfer/2006/02/economics_and_t.html

    Now, what Obama has tried to do is raise the floor of the Laffer Curve so that a country’s ”needs” are actually his wet dream socialist wish-list.
    So, Obama is only playing at the tip-top of the Laffer Curve (where it reaches its apogy.)
    There is thus very little room to play either way in Obama’s cracked view of reality.
    He has stated he thinks there should be a ”safety net,” not only under the ”poor,” but also under the ”middle class!”
    No amount of tax revenue can ”support” the basic needs and wants of this country’s middle class…..it is huge.
    And, truth be told, Obama has no intention of REALLY helping them.
    His hidden intent is to support a gigantic unionized gov’t worker class.
    Remember, if all tax funds used up by our national welfare programs were divided equally and simply given to the ”poor,” each poor household (17 million of them) would receive $60,000 every year!
    http://citizenreviewonline.org/over-60000-in-welfare-spent-per-household-in-poverty-says-report/
    Obama fritters that cash away on gov’t employees in unions instead while the poor stay poor.
    And, if Obama gets an unlimited debt ceiling, he will continue to throw money at his union buddies.

    ReplyReply
  21. retire05 says: 21

    @Nan G:

    Think about this: in my state, a woman with two children who has no job is eligible for:

    public housing (two bedroom, one bath) value $850.00 mo.
    free utilities, value $250.00
    SNAP (food stamps) value $526.00
    TANF (cash payments) $287 (SNAP and TANF are put on the Lone Star card which can buy furniture, including large screen tvs, clothing, or can be used like a debit card for cash withdrawl for cigarettes, booze, drugs)
    free cell phone, value at least $40.00
    totally free medical care insurance through Medicaid

    If you take only the first three items, it is a cash value of $1,626.00 a month.

    ReplyReply
  22. john says: 22

    Helene the story about the therapist was a joke, right? He wanted more better socialism not less. Tell him to stop mooching tax payer money and go private

    ReplyReply
  23. Randy says: 23

    Do not forget the lottery tickets they can charge!

    ReplyReply
  24. johngalt says: 24

    @Smorgasbord:

    And that is why I asked the question, Smorg.

    I cannot understand why more people do not see a problem when the people who write and implement the rules the rest of us have to live by, are not encumbered by those same set of rules. Can some liberal or liberal/progressive please explain to me why this is ok?

    Is Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Hilary Clinton, Maxine Waters, or Obama, any more of a US citizen than I am? Since when does entry into the DC political club mean access to more rights than I have?

    -If I engage in the insider trading our Congresspeople engage in, I get carted off to jail.
    -If I float checks like our Congresspeople have, I get carted off to jail.
    -If I exempt myself from Obamacare, like our Congresspeople have, and don’t pay the “tax”, then I will likely get carted off to jail.

    Our Constitution specifically forbids bestowing a title of nobility upon any citizen holding an office of public trust, yet we allow our Congresspeople to be treated as if they are nobility. Exempt from the rules us “little people” are required to follow. And in many cases, our citizenry cheers them on for doing this to us. Are we really that stupid, as a people?

    ReplyReply
  25. Helene says: 25

    Story about therapist is not a joke. The fact that an independent panel can reject or reduce the size of payment after the fact. ( when the therapist is following g the payment schedules) creates a real hardship for any small business owner.

    Do you wonder why medical practioners are not adding more medicate Medicare patients to their schedules?

    Also, note the AARP ads about their insurance plans. They all have a caveat that states , where Medicare is accepted. The insurance is useless unless someone accepts it.

    ReplyReply
  26. john says: 26

    Horrible! They would have to pay an extra 1% of their gross income. Anybody posting here have that kind of gross income?

    ReplyReply
  27. Scott in Oklahoma says: 27

    @john: And you think that’s the fix John? Just tax ‘em a little more? And where does it stop? The taxation Obama wants this time around will support the government for what… 8 days? How does that fix anything? And ya know, IF the libs had put forth that Constitutionally required budget thing that they have IGNORED over the last four years, I might be a little more acceptable to a very small raise in tax rates. But the total failure f the Senate to do their job makes me vary wary of giving them a chance to do anything at all.

    ReplyReply
  28. Smorgasbord says: 28

    @Nan G: #20
    The same logic is behind the US subsidizing Amtrak enough that they could buy first class airline tickets for all of their riders.

    ReplyReply
  29. Smorgasbord says: 29

    @retire05: #18
    Since I am retired, I don’t do much research into the taxes. I hope to remarry some day, but will be more particular. I would love to have to figure out which tax structure would be best for us.

    ReplyReply
  30. Smorgasbord says: 30

    @retire05: #21
    The sad fact is that, unless it has changed from years ago, most states don’t coordinate between welfare agencies, so a person can be getting welfare from agencies they wouldn’t qualify for it all of the person’s info went to all of the agencies. I’m guessing that it is planned that way to buy votes.

    ReplyReply
  31. Hard Right says: 31

    Why should anyone have to pay more taxes because of the insane overspending of others (primarily dems)?

    ReplyReply
  32. Smorgasbord says: 32

    @johngalt: #24

    Since when does entry into the DC political club mean access to more rights than I have?

    Since they were elected into a position where they can vote themselves anything they want to.

    If I engage in the insider trading our Congresspeople engage in, I get carted off to jail.

    Since that became public, that law has been eliminated. One down, many more to go.

    Are we really that stupid, as a people?

    Evidently!

    As I have mentioned before, the democrat’s slogan is: We don’t have to fool all of the people all of the time. We just have to fool enough of them long enough to get elected.

    ReplyReply
  33. Nan G says: 33

    @retire05: Good example, retir05.
    Only ~ $19,500 a year for that ”poor” household, right?
    So, where does the other $40,500 go that runs through the fingers of all our federal welfare programs?
    See? 2/3rds of it is frittered away on paper pushers ….who happen to be unionized.
    What waste!

    ReplyReply
  34. Nan G says: 34

    @Smorgasbord: Also a good point.
    When Obama took office he set new standards for how long a paper pusher was allowed to ”study” an application for any form of welfare.
    It is about a minute and 15 seconds per application.
    It was so short a period of time that many of these unionized gov’t workers told their friends and relatives who also work for the gov’t.
    And some of those public employees, knowing their facts would not be closely scrutinized, went ahead and applied for (and got) food stamps and other welfare payouts.

    As of Nov. 2012: 110 million privately employed workers; 88 million welfare recipients and government workers and those last two numbers are rising rapidly.

    ReplyReply
  35. Smorgasbord says: 35

    @Hard Right: #31

    Why should anyone have to pay more taxes because of the insane overspending of others (primarily dems)?

    So they will have more of YOUR money to spend.

    ReplyReply
  36. Smorgasbord says: 36

    @Nan G: #34

    As of Nov. 2012: 110 million privately employed workers; 88 million welfare recipients and government workers and those last two numbers are rising rapidly.

    This is a liberal way to campaign for votes. The good thing for the liberals is that they don’t have to use campaign funds to get the votes. They are using OUR money.

    ReplyReply
  37. johngalt says: 37

    Still waiting on some liberal/progressive, or anyone, really, to explain to me how it is OK for the people who write and implement the rules we must live and abide by, to exempt themselves from those same rules.

    ReplyReply
  38. Smorgasbord says: 38

    @johngalt: #37
    The average person who is given the power to give themselves what they want, will give themselves what they want.

    ReplyReply
  39. Hard Right says: 39

    @Smorgasbord:

    Yes. Create the crisis. Propose more of the same to fix said crisis.

    ReplyReply
  40. Smorgasbord says: 40

    @Hard Right: #39
    I think he is creating a crisis so that he can declare martial law. I hope I am wrong, but I fear that I’m not.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site