New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Oh Boy, 2 Quarters of Negative GDP. One More And It Will Officially Be Recession Time

Guess [Unwelcome language removed] Obama's Tax The Rich policy isn't working too well Let's see; he raised taxes on those making 200K+ to 40%, Then in Obamacare there are too many tax increases to mention, especially in the same income group. Cap gains go to 23% increasing the risk a lowering the reward for investing, + many other tax increases.



U.S. economy contracts in first quarter, dollar hits corporate profits

The U.S. economy contracted in the first quarter as it buckled under the weight of unusually heavy snowfalls and a resurgent dollar, but activity has rebounded modestly.
The government on Friday slashed its gross domestic product estimate to show it shrinking at a 0.7 per cent annual rate instead of the 0.2 per cent growth pace it estimated last month.
A larger trade deficit and a smaller accumulation of inventories by businesses than previously thought accounted for much of the downward revision. There was also a modest downward revision to consumer spending.
With growth estimates so far for the second quarter around 2 per cent, the economy appears poised for its worst first-half performance since 2011.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/us-economy-contracts-dollar-hits-corporate-profits/article24692483/


Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes
Issues: Health
Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes: Listed by Size of Tax Hike
Complied by Americans for Tax Reform
WASHINGTON, DC -- Obamacare contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and small businesses. Arranged by their respective sizes according to CBO scores, below is the total list of all $500 billion-plus in tax hikes (over the next ten years) in Obamacare, their effective dates, and where to find them in the bill.
$123 Billion: Surtax on Investment Income (Takes effect Jan. 2013): A new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income:
Capital Gains
Dividends
Other*

2012
15%
15%
35%
2013+
23.8%
43.4%
43.4%
*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens. (Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93)
$86 Billion: Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Current law and changes:
First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee
All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee
Current Law
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
Obamacare Tax Hike
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed
Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation Act; Page: 2000-2003; 87-93
$65 Billion: Individual Mandate Excise Tax and Employer Mandate Tax (Both taxes take effect Jan. 2014):
Individual: Anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance as defined by Obama-appointed HHS bureaucrats must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following
1 Adult
2 Adults
3+ Adults
2014
1% AGI/$95
1% AGI/$190
1% AGI/$285
2015
2% AGI/$325
2% AGI/$650
2% AGI/$975
2016 +
2.5% AGI/$695
2.5% AGI/$1390
2.5% AGI/$2085
Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS). Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337
Employer: If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346
(Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion)

$60.1 Billion: Tax on Health Insurers (Takes effect Jan. 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. Phases in gradually until 2018. Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993
$32 Billion: Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Takes effect Jan. 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956
$23.6 Billion: “Black liquor” tax hike (Took effect in 2010) This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105
$22.2 Billion: Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Took effect in 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980
$20 Billion: Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986
$15.2 Billion: High Medical Bills Tax (Takes effect Jan 1. 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995
$13.2 Billion: Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center (link is external)) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389
$5 Billion: Medicine Cabinet Tax (Took effect Jan. 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959
$4.5 Billion: Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Takes effect Jan. 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994
$4.5 Billion: Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Took effect in 2010): This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113
$2.7 Billion: Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Took effect July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399
$1.4 Billion: HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Took effect Jan. 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959
$0.6 Billion: $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000
$0.4 Billion: Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Took effect in 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004
$ Negligible: Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Took effect in 2010): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971
$ Negligible: Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Took effect in Jan. 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957

Read more: http://www.atr.org/full-list-obamacare-tax-hikes-listed-a7010#ixzz1zTXuZUYl
 
Guess [Unwelcome language removed] Obama's Tax The Rich policy isn't working too well Let's see; he raised taxes on those making 200K+ to 40%, Then in Obamacare there are too many tax increases to mention, especially in the same income group. Cap gains go to 23% increasing the risk a lowering the reward for investing, + many other tax increases.
How do you reconcile Obama's "Tax The Rich policy" with 95% of income gains between 2009-13 going to the richest 1% of Americans?
"All told, average inflation-adjusted income per family climbed 6% between 2009 and 2012, the first years of the economic recovery. During that period, the top 1% saw their incomes climb 31.4% — or, 95% of the total gain — while the bottom 99% saw growth of 0.4%"
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/09/10/some-95-of-2009-2012-income-gains-went-to-wealthiest-1/
 
How do you reconcile Obama's "Tax The Rich policy" with 95% of income gains between 2009-13 going to the richest 1% of Americans?
"All told, average inflation-adjusted income per family climbed 6% between 2009 and 2012, the first years of the economic recovery. During that period, the top 1% saw their incomes climb 31.4% — or, 95% of the total gain — while the bottom 99% saw growth of 0.4%"
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/09/10/some-95-of-2009-2012-income-gains-went-to-wealthiest-1/
Obama is devotee of Saul Alinsky's plan to destroy the middle class, and its working. In order to have absolute power, you need to PO the largest segment of the public, which is the Middle Income Earners.

That said, if you make 10 times as much, and everybody gets a 10% increase, the bulk of the money will go to those making higher incomes.

It's up to you to make yourself worth more money.

I really don't care what anyone makes, as long as I have enough money to enjoy the things I like to do.

For the life of me, I can't understand the left's obsession with money, sex, race, and sexual orientation.
 
How do you reconcile Obama's "Tax The Rich policy" with 95% of income gains between 2009-13 going to the richest 1% of Americans?
"All told, average inflation-adjusted income per family climbed 6% between 2009 and 2012, the first years of the economic recovery. During that period, the top 1% saw their incomes climb 31.4% — or, 95% of the total gain — while the bottom 99% saw growth of 0.4%"
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/09/10/some-95-of-2009-2012-income-gains-went-to-wealthiest-1/
Hillary is in the top 0.1%
 
Obama is devotee of Saul Alinsky's plan to destroy the middle class, and its working. In order to have absolute power, you need to PO the largest segment of the public, which is the Middle Income Earners.
Can you provide a link for Alinsky's plan to destroy the US middle class? Saul would have been more likely to agree with Marx about why capitalism eventually consumes the middle class workers who made its past profit levels possible. As far as I know, Alinsky never shipped millions of middle class jobs out of the US to pad his stock portfolio.
 

Lukey

Senator

Lukey

Senator
How do you reconcile Obama's "Tax The Rich policy" with 95% of income gains between 2009-13 going to the richest 1% of Americans?
"All told, average inflation-adjusted income per family climbed 6% between 2009 and 2012, the first years of the economic recovery. During that period, the top 1% saw their incomes climb 31.4% — or, 95% of the total gain — while the bottom 99% saw growth of 0.4%"
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/09/10/some-95-of-2009-2012-income-gains-went-to-wealthiest-1/
That's because his economy sucks so bad that despite near record levels of government spending as a percent of GDP it still has averaged only (really) about 1% per year GDP growth, so the Fed engages in ZIRP and QE designed to create asset bubbles that will lead to a wealth effect and "improve aggregate demand." Which it has, for luxury yachts, high end real estate and collectable art.
 
did you all miss the winter we just had? Notice the trade deficit numbers...still like all these free trade agreements? As for tax policy, rich people do not make up a significant amount of aggregate demand. If they spent all their money they wouldn't be rich anymore would they?
 
Perhaps he is referring to Cloward & Piven:
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2010/03/24/weight-poor-strategy-end-poverty
"How can the poor be organized to press for relief from poverty? How can a broad-based movement be developed and the current disarray of activist forces be halted? These questions confront, and confound, activists today. It is our purpose to advance a strategy which affords the basis for a convergence of civil rights organizations, militant anti-poverty groups and the poor. If this strategy were implemented, a political crisis would result that could lead to legislation for a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty."
Basic income programs could function in place of all other federal, state, and local welfare activities. Tom Paine called for something similar two hundred years ago in this country.
"Basic income systems financed on returns to publicly owned enterprises are major components in many proposals formarket socialism.[citation needed] Basic income schemes have also been promoted within the context of capitalist systems[clarification needed], which would be financed through taxation.[3]"

"Similar proposals for 'capital grants provided at the age of majority' date to Thomas Paine's Agrarian Justice of 1795, there paired with asset-based egalitarianism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
 

Lukey

Senator
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2010/03/24/weight-poor-strategy-end-poverty
"How can the poor be organized to press for relief from poverty? How can a broad-based movement be developed and the current disarray of activist forces be halted? These questions confront, and confound, activists today. It is our purpose to advance a strategy which affords the basis for a convergence of civil rights organizations, militant anti-poverty groups and the poor. If this strategy were implemented, a political crisis would result that could lead to legislation for a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty."
Basic income programs could function in place of all other federal, state, and local welfare activities. Tom Paine called for something similar two hundred years ago in this country.
"Basic income systems financed on returns to publicly owned enterprises are major components in many proposals formarket socialism.[citation needed] Basic income schemes have also been promoted within the context of capitalist systems[clarification needed], which would be financed through taxation.[3]"

"Similar proposals for 'capital grants provided at the age of majority' date to Thomas Paine's Agrarian Justice of 1795, there paired with asset-based egalitarianism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
Cloward Piven is basically a scheme to enact a broader "dictatorship of the proletariat" which is a Marxist construct, notwithstanding Thomas Paine's endorsement for a guaranteed annual income.
 
Cloward Piven is basically a scheme to enact a broader "dictatorship of the proletariat" which is a Marxist construct, notwithstanding Thomas Paine's endorsement for a guaranteed annual income.
Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat was coined at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when jobs were prevalent and workers were told the machine would one day eliminate their need to work.

imho, Cloward and Piven proposed one possible strategy for answering a question faced by millions of US workers today: How does one survive when the private sector can't or won't provide enough jobs for all who need one?

"The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward–Piven_strategy#The_strategy
 

Lukey

Senator
Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat was coined at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when jobs were prevalent and workers were told the machine would one day eliminate their need to work.

imho, Cloward and Piven proposed one possible strategy for answering a question faced by millions of US workers today: How does one survive when the private sector can't or won't provide enough jobs for all who need one?

"The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward–Piven_strategy#The_strategy
The problem is that it destroys the economy through perverse reward for not producing. I'm okay with doing it through the EITC so people who work but whose labor isn't worth enough to grant them an acceptable minimum standard of living can be rewarded for their contribution to production. Some oppose it as "corporate welfare" but to them I say a) it is the lesser evil to guaranteed income and b) then free up the markets and zero out the corporate tax so the growth of job opportunity minimizes this effect. That is at least an approach that is consistent with capitalism.
 
The problem is that it destroys the economy through perverse reward for not producing
I want to make sure we are addressing the same form of entitlement. Basic income is the form of social security I'm referring to, and it would flow to all citizens regardless of how much they produced:
"An unconditional basic income (also called basic income, basic income guarantee,universal basic income, universal demogrant,[1] or citizen’s income) is a form of social security system[2] in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money, either from a government or some other public institution, in addition to any income received from elsewhere."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
 
then free up the markets and zero out the corporate tax so the growth of job opportunity minimizes this effect. That is at least an approach that is consistent with capitalism.
Unless US capitalists maximize their profit by creating jobs outside the US or create domestic jobs that pay a third-world wage; by contrast, we could try the FDR approach and tax the corporations at a sufficient level to fund another New Deal.
 
Top