November 01, 2005

New Ways to Screw You

President Bush's tax panel has released new proposals for changes to the tax code. So far, I'm not seeing anything to get excited about. Of course they've found new ways to screw the wealthy, because we all know that it's their "duty" to give everything they worked to earn back to the people who like to sit around, watch soaps and spit out babies.

Some of the proposed changes would include:

Eliminate the alternative minimum tax
The AMT is a parallel tax system originally intended to ensure the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes by eliminating many of the deductions and credits they get under the regular income tax system.

But because the income-exemption levels have never been indexed to inflation, by 2010 the AMT threatens to catch more than 30 million taxpayers, mostly from middle-income households. The estimated cost of repealing the AMT is $1.3 trillion over 10 years.

The panel was instructed to come up with proposals that are revenue-neutral, meaning they would have to produce the same revenue as expected under the current system. As a result, the panel had to take a hard look at the tax breaks offered under the current system to see where they could make up for that lost revenue, while at the same time ensuring a new tax code was fairer and more growth oriented than the current one.

So, basically, they are simply moving this tax upward in the pay scale. So once again, if you make more, they're going to take more away.

Alter homeowners' tax breaks
The panel recommended lowering the mortgage interest cap, which is the amount of a loan on which home owners would receive a tax break for interest paid, from $1 million to the average regional housing price in the range of $227,000 to $412.000.

The deduction would be converted to a credit equal to 15 percent of interest paid on mortgages up to the interest cap. A credit is a dollar-for-dollar reduction of the taxes you owe, while a deduction only reduces your taxable income by a percentage equal to your top tax rate.

Generally speaking, the higher your mortgage loan and the higher your tax bracket, the more likely it is that you'll see less of a tax break than you would under the current system.

And once again a Socialist's dream. Tax you on your mortgage based on how much you pay and how much you make.

Reduce the marriage penalty
All tax brackets, family credits and taxation of Social Security benefits for couples would be double those of individuals. Under the current system, some married couples filing jointly end up paying more in taxes than single taxpayers with the same income because of the way various deductions, creidts and tax brackets are structured.

Now this I can get behind. But why stop there? Why not eliminate the marriage penalty altogether? If it's wrong, it's wrong. It's not just a little bit wrong, in a certain bracket.

Reduce tax breaks on employer-provided health insurance
When you work for a company, your employer typically foots a large portion of your health-insurance premiums. That money, which is not reported on your W2, is tax-free to you.

The panel recommended capping the amount of tax-free money that may be used to pay for health insurance to $5,000 for single coverage or $11,500 for family coverage.

Now hold on just a minute there, hoss. Maybe I'm misunderstanding that, but are you talking about taxing me for money that my employer pays for my health care? Or are you just talking about taxing my employer for the good thing that he's trying to do for me and my family? Either way it's a crappy deal. Kentucky politicians have already managed to make health insurance in Kentucky so high and so complicated that nearly no one will carry it. If you now start taxing the money we use to buy it, you're going to totally screw us out of health care. Small companies like the one I work for will simply not be able to afford to pay it anymore, so I'll end up losing what little I've got. How exactly again does that qualify as taking care of your constituitients? Oh, I get it now. When you do this, I'll go broke trying to pay for healthcare, and I'll be forced out of my job because my employer is broke too. Then I can take advantage of your wonderful welfare system that you've set up with the money you just stole from me and my employer! Oh wow! I can't wait!

Repeal the federal deduction of the state and local tax deductions
Under the proposals, taxpayers would no longer be allowed to deduct the state and local taxes they pay on wage income, investment income, and property.

Former Senator John Breaux of Louisiana, who is the panel's vice chair, on CNBC Tuesday morning explained part of the panel's reasoning this way: "If people in California want to pay extra taxes to have their trash picked up, people in Texas shouldn't have to subsidize it."

That's right, just because your state and local governments take your money doesn't mean you don't still owe it to the federal government. After all, they've got to have their piece of the pie too.

Reduce the number of tax brackets
Under the panel's first proposal, which is a streamlined version of the current income tax, the number of tax brackets would be reduced from 6 to 4. They would be: 15%, 25%, 30% and 33%.

Under their second proposal, which combines the income tax with a progressive consumption tax, there would be only three tax brackets: 15%, 25% and 30%.

In the long run, this would probably end up screwing me. But I'd certainly like to see more on this than the proposed percentages that they want to steal from me. Where are they planning on dividing these brackets? Will most of America fall into that 25% bracket? If that's the case, then my taxes are going to go up quite a bit.

So basically, what I'm reading is that you can kiss those nice little tax breaks that Bush gave you last term goodbye. Then you can prepare yourself to bend over and take it. Because everything I'm seeing here looks like a bunch of liberal appeasement programs planned to give the goverment plenty of pork to work with.

When are the American people going to say that we've been screwed enough? When are we going to realize that the current welfare system is a sham? When are we going to demand that our "leaders" get their spending under control and stop stealing our hard earned money? I say the time is now. If we don't get this situation under control immediately, than it is going to get much worse much faster. Conservatives were able to rally together and stop the nomination of Harriet Miers, why can't we rally together and start demanding that our elected officials begin acting like the conservatives they ran as? These proposals haven't been passed into law yet. It's not to late to change them. Write your congressman. Start lobbying. Take control.

Quotes in this article courtesy CNN

Posted by: Drew at 10:30 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 1214 words, total size 7 kb.

1 I'm so sick of the "they make more they can pay more" mentallity. People who make more work for their money. Why do we have to pay for Little Miss Trailer Trash to have more kids? Arg that pisses me off. Can they stop worrying about getting more in taxes from us and figure out how to stop giving so damn much away?!

Posted by: Impatient Girl at November 01, 2005 11:11 AM (ftixA)

2 I'd prefer the VAT (Value Added Tax) system, it seemed to work well for me in the UK.

Posted by: dave at November 01, 2005 11:31 AM (CcXvt)

3 We have chosen not to accept government help for anything. We wouldn't mind the help, but we chose to have two kids, and I chose not to work. Friends of ours encouraged us to get WIC. There answer to why? Because it's there. The problem with that_too many people feel the same way. You see it all the time. The lady uses food stamps to purchase baby formula then heads out to her SUV. It's enough to make you sick. People just suck the government dry. And, the government encourages it!

Posted by: thirdee at November 01, 2005 11:39 AM (2Q47r)

4 The first line about the Alternative Minimum Tax sounds like a good idea. I dunno about the rest of it... There's a CPA who publishes at http://www.taxguru.net. He's been agitating against the AMT for as long as I've been reading him--for the reasons mentioned in the article. Essentially, the AMT was set up for the wealthy, but it was never indexed to inflation, so a huge number of taxpayers will end up paying it in a few years.

Posted by: karrde at November 01, 2005 04:47 PM (65ApY)

5 Fair tax people. Buy the book and call your Congressmen. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060875410/qid=1130886946/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-5090006-5738237?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 01, 2005 05:16 PM (0yYS2)

6 What ever happened to "balanced budgets" ? We control both houses of Congress. We can only blame the liberals for so long. Our deficits are now worse than their deficits. How did YOUR reps and sinators vote ? Mine voyed straight pork.

Posted by: john Ryan at November 01, 2005 09:05 PM (ads7K)

7 IMP: That looks much like the VAT, I was used to in the U.K, is that your reading on it too?

Posted by: dave at November 01, 2005 09:44 PM (CcXvt)

8 We need to get behind Congressman Linder on the FAIR TAX. Al this bull about further complicating a tax code 40,000 pages long has gone on long enough. I can't believe we are still letting the government use taxes to control us. I wrote letters to all my reps in Florida and told them plainly and clearly that they needed to get behind the Fair Tax Plan. Some already are. READ THE FAIR TAX BOOK! You'll be sold on the idea. No more IRS. Got to the wesite. fairtax.org

Posted by: Oyster at November 02, 2005 03:34 AM (YudAC)

9 What happened to my typing skills?

Posted by: Oyster at November 02, 2005 09:00 AM (fl6E1)

10 It is superficially similiar to the VAT dave, but it is just a sales tax at the retail level only, and does not apply to wages, or to any item on the wholesale level, as only the end-user pays the tax. The VAT applies at every level of trade, and still has the same problems of bookkeeping. The Fair Tax will end all Federal tax accounting for anyone who is not a retailer, and the accounting that remains will be so simple that there will be little need for CPA's and no need whatsoever for tax attorneys. See, part of the problem with the current structure is that there is a parasite class of lobbyists, lawyers, and CPA's who make money off of the Byzantine tax code. Another problem is that under the current structure, it's easy for the wealthy to hide their money and avoid paying taxes, like the Kennedys, who pay very little in taxes, though they are among the super-wealthy. A retail tax would affect everyone equally at the point of sale, and so it follows that those who spend lots of money will pay lots of taxes. Also, it would eliminate the corporate income tax, thus encouraging the return of corporations to the US. The progressive tax is the brainchild of Marx, who conceived it for the sole purpose of destroying society. As we can see, the plan is working. By the way, a good liberal is a dead liberal. Have a nice day!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 02, 2005 09:56 AM (0yYS2)

11 John, that's a valid point; most Republican Congressmen are not Reaganites, but rather more like whitewashed Democrats. they should be voted out in '06 and replaced with some young firebrands.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 02, 2005 03:54 PM (0yYS2)

12 the idea of cutting taxes is to reduce the size of gevernment by starving it. If Bush goes on and eliminates much of the tax cuts. See what it seems to me is they are dropping many of the refundable and non refundable credits. Reagan left Bush I to deal with the tax increases and spending cuts that come after you choke the beast down. So I've been expecting this. W will have to raise some taxes and some spending will have to be cut. Gingrich was big time help last time. If Billary had gotten the health care passed we would really be in the red. I'll not be too pissed off. I've already gotten some good returns but I hope they do some spending cuts not just tax the hell our of us. thiree. If your husband works and pays taxes and you qualify no harm in taking what you pay for. I would gladly watch my tax dollars go to the raising of two kids that I won't have to pay to house in the state pen. You have amde a conservative choice and I admire your refusal to take the WIC but many less deserving people take it. I would rather support your choice than those who just scam and never work.

Posted by: Howie at November 02, 2005 04:12 PM (D3+20)

13 The rich of the world will always be targets but they will always win in the end. Wealthy people did not become wealthy because they are stupid. There will always be those that will kiss the asses of the wealthy. Just the way it is. This is a country of the corporations by the corporations and for the corporations and I love it. Ha, ha.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 04, 2005 10:31 PM (ZaAd/)

14 Change the tax laws. Are you nuts? Put all those tax attorneys and CPAs on the welfare rolls? I deserve the wealth my great grandfather left me. The poor should shut up and work harder. Thats what they are here for.

Posted by: Paris Hilton at November 04, 2005 10:37 PM (ZaAd/)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
29kb generated in CPU 0.0163, elapsed 0.1094 seconds.
118 queries taking 0.1012 seconds, 253 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.