Phil Mickelson Shanks One

Possibly the worst shot of his career.

Mickelson instantly became the perfect example of the rich, out of touch, privileged white man when he complained about the amount of taxes he pays for the backbreaking work of playing a game dominated by rich, out of touch, privileged white men.

“Well, it’s been an interesting offseason, and I’m going to have to make some drastic changes,” said Mickelson, who lives with his wife and three children in Rancho Santa Fe, just north of San Diego. “And I’m not going to jump the gun and do it right away, but I will be making some drastic changes." 

... “If you add up all the federal and you look at the disability and the unemployment and the Social Security and the state, my tax rate is 62, 63 percent,” Mickelson said. “I’ve got to make some decisions on what I am going to do.”

Now if you're a golf enthusiast I'll stop here before you think I'm maligning the game. I'm not. I play golf. I wouldn't call myself a "golfer" for the same reason I wouldn't call myself a basketball player, because I suck at it, but being the masochist I am, I love the game and even enjoy watching professionals on the television apparatus. But I don't delude myself into thinking that this game is for Everyman. It's expensive, time consuming and needs constant practice to even begin to get better at the game, let alone excel. The average person who has the opportunity to play once a week will most normally be a below average golfer. The person who plays once a month or less will suck. The person who can't play but 3 or 4 times a season because he's too busy WORKING will really suck. That's me.

And that's where Mickelson comes in. There's no doubt that the man is a great talent. He's a multiple Major winner, has a beautiful wife who has survived breast cancer and three gorgeous kids. He's paid millions to play a game. He's living the American dream, right? But he clearly has no clue of what goes on outside his little, wealthy bubble.

According to Forbes, Phil Mickelson's net worth is $180 million. He made $48 million last year. Over $40 million of that came in endorsements. FORTY. MILLION. DOLLARS. Just to plaster his face on some product. The other $8 million I assume from actually doing his "job."

Let's put this in perspective. The average person in America making $60,000 a year would have to work 800 years to make what Michelson made last year. But wait, that includes endorsements, something the average person doesn't do - the average person in America making $60,000 a year would have to work 133 years -  52 weeks a year - to earn what Mickelson made actually doing his "job" working about 30 weeks a year.

Phil Mickelson needs to have a 3-wood shoved up his ass to even begin to understand the pain that people who live paycheck to paycheck go through every single day of their lives, while he travels all over the world on private jets week to week to play a game. And he doesn't even have to carry his clubs.

He's had the luxury of living in California and voting with others for tax cut referendum after tax cut referendum, putting the state in a huge financial hole in the process. And now that the people of the state voted to temporarily raise taxes to alleviate their budget woes, Phil cries foul. Poor, poor millionaire.

Phil has quickly realized what a douchebag he sounded like and issued an apology. Sort of.

"Finances and taxes are a personal matter, and I should not have made my opinions on them public,” Mickelson said in a statement released Monday night. “I apologize to those I have upset or insulted, and assure you I intend not to let it happen again.” 

 So he's not apologizing for what he said, he's just sorry he said it in public.

Here's my advice to Mickelson:

1 - When Joe Average is paying their hard earned money to see you play golf, complaining that you can't be part owner of the fucking San Diego Padres comes off as more than a little elitist. You obviously watched Mitt Romney too much during his campaign and didn't learn anything from it.

2 - If you don't want to pay taxes in a certain state, then fine. Move. You have that luxury and aren't bound to one location because of your "job." But keep your fucking mouth shut. Lots of other golfers live in Florida and Texas with low or no state taxes. But they didn't sit under a neon sign that said, "Millionaires Taxes Too Much! Now I  can't buy a Major League baseball team! Whaaaaa!!!"

3 - Get a new financial planner because if you're paying 62-63% in taxes you are either A) getting ripped off by your money men or B) a lair.

Think about it

POSTED BY JHW22

Think about it: The GOP constantly tries to tie the personal tax rates of business owners to the businesses they run. They want you to think that if a person's personal tax rates go up their business will suffer. If their personal taxes go down, they will hire more at their businesses.

Mitt Romney says he has the business experience to create jobs because of his 25 years at Bain.

SOOOO, if the GOP says that personal taxes are a direct factor in how someone runs a business and Mitt Romney says how he ran Bain is the reason to trust he can create jobs, shouldn't we be seeing as much documentation as possible on his taxes? 25 years of running a business can't be summed up in one year of taxes especially when that one year was a year he wasn't "running" that business.

If taxes = job creation. We need to see Mitt Romney's taxes, Bain's taxes, Bain's hiring and firing record.

It's a Tax, It's a Penalty, It's Both!

Here's Mitt Romney during the 2008 Presidential Primary debates explaining that the mandate in Romneycare for Massachusetts is a good thing.

 

Fast forward four years and one Affordable Healthcare Act constitutionally upheld by the Supreme Court and here's Mitt Romney's Senior Campaign Advisor, Eric Fehrnstrom, outraged at Obama's "tax" and that Romneycare's mandate was a "penalty," not a tax, and twisting himself into a pretzel to describe... I don't know, you tell me.





Here's Mitt Romney 48 hours later, after realizing his message was going against the entire party, which thought beating the "it's a tax" message like a baby seal was good thing, telling us it's a tax.




Sorry Mitt, I know you don't want to stand on anything that you can be called on until after November, but eventually the lies and tangled webs are going to catch up to you.

Leave Romney ALLONNNE! *bawl*

POSTED BY JHW22



Hey, give the guy a break!

When you have that much money and can claim every deduction the rest of America can't even qualify for, and you have to keep track of what money is off-shore, and you need to make sure you have the illegal lawn guys off the paperwork, and you are trying to decide how to deduct the new mansion you just demolished so you can build a new one, and you're wondering if the car elevator is considered a business expense since you are a "job creator", and your paperwork is spread over multiple states and houses, it's just hard.

The Romneys struggle, y'all. And it's damn class warfare to criticize them for having so much money that they get to take advantage of opportunities we will never have. And we're just envious. It has nothing to do with fairness at all. So quit whining over not being able to take more than the standard deduction! You got your $400 refund already. So what if you had to use it to pay the termite people to insure the termites don't come back and destroy your ONLY house that is worth $113,000. Waaaahhhhh. You can't relate to the Romneys and that's not *their* fault.

This is TOTAL snark, FYI.

President Obama's Weekly Address - April 14, 2012

It’s Time for Congress to Pass the Buffett Rule

Hard Work?

POSTED BY JHW22

When the Republicans take aim in their class war against Democrats, the middle class and the working class, one of their favorite weapons is the all-too-familiar:

Tax increases punish hard work.

We're to believe that the more a person makes, the harder they must have worked to earn it. Never mind the fact that laying roof tiles in 105 degree Texas heat doesn't earn a guy a million bucks. Apparently it's not as hard as going to board meetings and country club meet and greets. So a guy who owns his own roofing company and does a lot of the work himself pays a good chunk of his income in taxes. Shame on us for taxing that guy so high.

But more shame on us for wanting to tax Mitt Romney so high. Because, gosh darn it, he has so much money, he MUST have worked so gosh darn hard for it.

Take 2010, for example. Mitt worked hard. Why should he pay higher taxes as some kind of punishment for his hard work?

What? What's that you say? Mitt didn't actually work for that income? You mean his income came from a company he USED to do work for and some investments?

Well, my dad decided to retire early when he was laid off and now he works every day investing. He reads, researches, plans, has the coolest spreadsheets in the WORLD. So I'd say he works hard.

What? What's that you say? Mitt didn't actually control his investments? He pays a trustee to make all the investment decisions for him?

WHAT?! So, we're not supposed to punish hard work with higher taxes? Well, then hell! Mitt has been paying someone else to do the work of making him money off of him not working. So, seems to me the "punishing hard work" excuse don't float here.

Eric Cantor Reveals His Phoniness

What a way to ring in the New Year!

If you watched 60 Minutes Sunday evening, you treated yourself to a "Get to know the real Eric Cantor" propaganda interview conducted by Lesley Stahl. In it, Cantor wanted to show you his personal side, complete with the family portrait, faded photos of the young couple soon to be Mr. & Mrs. Cantor in love, and a few tidbits of information courtesy of Cantor's son. He likes rap music, like JayZ and Lil' Wayne. (...Yeah, right.)

What turned out to be a complete sabotage and revealed Cantor to be a fraud was when Stahl asked Cantor about compromising, just as his "hero" Ronald Reagan had to do on occasion.



Who else was just as shocked as I was when hearing Cantor's press secretary yelling from off camera to dispute the fact, THE FACT, that Ronald Reagan actually raised taxes during his presidency? He exposed Cantor for the fraud we all know he is on national television. Did he think that 60 Minutes would edit that section out of the piece?! An interview at Cantor's home with his wife at his side, and his press secretary hanging on every word and making sure they don't violate Lord Norquist. Even Weeper Boehner came across better in his 60 Minute interview.

One Good Reason To Raise Taxes

Bill O'Reilly might quit.



Of course, Bill-O is throwing crap on the walls to see what sticks. His fear mongering about a 50% income tax is purely wild speculation. No one in the White House has ever claimed that number, only a reversal to the Clinton Era tax rates, which were 36% and 39.6% for individuals in the top 1.2% of wage earners. And in actuality, after deductions and loopholes, they didn't even pay that much.

But hey, if Bill O'Reilly will quit working altogether because of a 3% hike in his taxes, that's all the more reason to support President Obama's revenue increase plan. I'm sure O'Reilly's narcissism will allow him to go quietly into the night and forgo the $20 million he makes a year. No more Fox. No more books. No more showing how he's so much smarter he is than everyone else on the planet. I'm sure that the self-avowed second most powerful man in the nation will go that route. Maybe he can just go back to a simple life of sexual harassment.

I Hate Taxes!

...Just sayin'.

The Right Crowd

POSTED BY JHW22

This economist shared his perspective on why Bristol Palin provides more social value, thus earns more income, than a pediatrician. And when you think about it, it's what lies at the root of why some people protect the incomes of the wealthy, as if the higher the value of one's paycheck, the more value they must obviously provide to society.

Some say that it's our world of tabloid, celebrity and "reality" television that has warped our sense of what value is. And to an extent, they are right. You could argue that some celebrities use that vast wealth to contribute far more to society than residents of a small town combined. But the celebrity still has a huge chunk of cash left over and the good they performed was about the heart and not a paycheck, though, right?

So there is that point, and it's valid. But what I think is the greater disservice, the thing that causes the warped vision of value to really harm America, is the way our elected leadership distorts the meaning of value in order to benefit the new definition of value. If we place a higher value on someone's status via a job, then they are worth more in the value of a dollar. If they are worth more in the value of a dollar, they are worth more to society. Ergo, if you don't make a lot of money, your value to society is less. Despite the work actually done by the person making $10,000 or the person making $10,000,000.

Public policy and politicians have used this as a wedge to create an ideal that every American can reach the big bucks if they just work hard enough. So, if someone is a community organizer, they aren't really contributing. We want CEOs as Presidents, not community organizers. That's not a reality show or summer blockbuster meme, that is a political manipulation of the American Dream in order to create a Haves and Have Nots mentality. But when the gap is growing so much that the wealthiest Americans are paying less in taxes than the middle class, then you have to stop and ask, "What is really happening?" America has distorted our values by saying that asking a millionaire to pay more in taxes is class warfare despite all the evidence that they have had more tax benefits than their kids' teachers.

And it hasn't been reality shows and tabloids going after teachers and public workers lately. It's been elected leaders.

Senator Orrin Hatch said that 51% of American families don't pay income taxes -- right after he said he thinks really poor people shouldn't have to. What people are missing when they discuss how many people don't pay income taxes is that it's because they are too poor to pay taxes. The people he's talking about aren't rich enough to get fancy tax accountants to get them to not pay anything. They're not tax evaders. They're people living on such low income that they don't owe income taxes. And what's wrong with that? What's wrong is that we have TOO MANY families making so little that they don't owe taxes! And yet, it's a pejorative to say they don't pay taxes. THEY DON'T MAKE MONEY. And see, they are the bad guy. Why? So that we won't pay attention to the people who get to deduct mortgages on their second and third homes and their yachts.

And right now, the left is divided among the "Yell at Obama" crowd and the "Fight the GOP" crowd. And the GOP is divided among the "Get Government Out" crowd and the "Block Obama" crowd.

Frankly, when I look at who is harming America the most, I can't fathom why more people aren't rushing to be part of a "Get Something Done" crowd. And when I think of it, Obama is right in the middle of that "Get Something Done" crowd. He has been leading that crowd and keeping it focused and effective. And although I stray over to the "Fight the GOP" crowd every so often, I am most certainly part of Obama's crowd. I want to get something done!

Do Not Believe Jon Cornyn

Over the weekend, Texas Senator Jon Cornyn appeared on Fox News Sunday and said he was open to the idea of closing loopholes and cutting corporate subsidies as an overall part of tax reform. And this morning it seems like the media is jumping all over this as an example of how Republicans are willing to compromise.

“I think it’s clear that the Republicans are opposed to any tax hikes, particularly during a fragile economic recovery,” Mr. Cornyn said on “Fox News Sunday.” “Now, do we believe tax reform is necessary? I would say absolutely.”

He also included that he thought there wouldn't be enough time for tax reform measures to be changed at such a late date, so let's do this thing now, give the Republicans what they want now, and then in August let's talk about tax reform.

Bullshit.

Don't believe Jon Cornyn. Tax reform for whom? Shall we rehash the Ryan plan all over again and reform taxes that look like a 10% decrease in upper income earners and a tax increase for those than can least afford it? And what guarantee do Democrats have if they went along with Cornyn's idea of tax reform after August? Will he pull a Chris "rotten prick" Christie and stab them in the back? And one other thing the pundits didn't mention in their rush to tweak their nipples at Cornyn's willingness to "compromise":

[Cornyn] insisted that any changes in taxes be “revenue neutral,” meaning that the government would not take in any more money from individuals or businesses than it does now.

Well then what's the fucking point of tax reform if not to dig ourselves out of this shithole that's been created over the last 10 years and not just since January 20th, 2009 as these jackasses would have you believe?

Once again, there is absolutely no way to get out of this debt "crisis" we are in solely by cutting spending on the backs of the middle and lower class while the GOP insist that no revenue increases be applied on those who can most afford it, namely big oil corporations with record breaking profits who still receive government subsidies, hedge fund manager loopholes and lower and lower tax rates on millionaires and billionaires.

ADDING... John McCain mentioned something about tax revenue increases too, but does anyone really care what McCain has to say anymore?

Perry's Tax Plan Hurts Schools

POSTED BY JHW22

I just watched Karen Finney, on MSNBC, correctly remind viewers that Rick Perry's job growth in Texas, over the last two years, was in part due to the federal stimulus. That needs to be stated over and over.

What also needs to be stated over and over, is that Republicans in the state have been calling out Perry's state tax plan as detrimental to the state, primarily to education.

In 2006, the then State Comptroller, a Republican who later ran against Perry as an Independent, stated EMPHATICALLY and repeatedly that Perry's plan would destroy school budgets. She wrote, in a public letter to Perry

Texans deserve relief from high property taxes, but they do not need it at the expense of future tax hikes and more cuts in public education. Educators are justifiably skeptical of this program because they know that when the state controls the purse strings, rather than locally elected school boards, the result will be devastating to our schools.

The property tax relief contained in the bill, if it can be financed past 2008, will be quickly eroded by rising property values, and increases in local tax rates forced on local school districts struggling to keep up with rising costs. In as little as five years, the state could be right back in court.

Finally, your plan represents the largest tax bill in Texas history, includes an unconstitutional income tax, represents a 200 percent tax increase on Texas businesses at a time when the state has taken an $8.2 billion surplus out of the pockets of hardworking Texans, and does not pay for itself as required by the spirit of our Texas Constitution's "pay-as-you-go, no-deficit-spending" provision. That is unconscionable.

Governor, we should be working to improve state services for Texans and to reduce the burden of government on businesses and individuals. This plan creates a rolling mess that will take 20 years for future leaders of the state to untangle. Texans will recognize this plan for what it is -- a short-term, smoke-and-mirrors patch at best.

Sadly, the only part she was wrong about was "Texans will recognize this plan for what it is -- a short-term, smoke-and-mirrors patch at best."

My husband works for a local school district that just voted down a property tax increase that would have amounted to a bag of chips a week per household. Now buses are on the chopping block, as well as MORE teachers, sports, music, summer school, etc.

The ISD is ranked one of the highest in the state on ROI -- meaning they are efficiently run. Sure they have waste they can cut. But that waste is a blip on the $$$ scale. YET, the people most vocal against the tax increases' ONLY argument was that the ISD wastes money. Since all evidence from the current (Republican) state comptroller and other measurements shows otherwise, and even though the dollars they point to as waste were so minor that we'd still have a budget disaster, all I can say is that messaging, not common sense or comprehension of basic math, won out.

Perry says he has brought jobs to TX (without crediting the many of which were created by the stimulus to the feds). But when you bring families to TX then eliminate the way to fund educating the kids in those families, you can't blame the local ISDs. You especially can't blame the ISDs with high rankings of budget efficiency.

The entire state is facing school budget crises. Why people think each and every ISD created the problem is absurd.

And THIS guy may run for President. If he does, Texans better not fail the American people. We better tell everyone what he has done.

We need to make sure the independents hear the correct messaging: Perry destroyed the budget in the state of Texas. He has led the state since Bush left and has had a Republican state congress. All of the state's problems are his to own and he can't run away from them while running on lies. And finally, if you close your eyes and listen to him talk, you can hear George W. Bush -- and I don't mean the accent.

The only gift his run against Obama would mean would be that Obama COULD actually run against Bush policies again.

So I am also asking a favor: don't bash Texas or Texans. Help the blues in this red/purple state fight. Don't denigrate the state because we need friends outside the state standing with us. We'll have a huge battle on our hands down here -- mocking us will only give us additional fights to counter. Attack Perry and HIS policies. But treat the state with respect and friendship and lift us so that we may have the strength to fight another Texas governor ruining the country!

Shared Sacrifice, Huh?

This caught my eye on the way to work and I had to share it.

Grand Oil Party

DCCC: Despite the need to cut spending and reduce the debt, today House Republicans voted against cutting taxpayer spending on subsidies for Big Oil companies making record profits. Last week, House Republicans voted to slash education, research and public safety budgets that would lead to more than 700,000 jobs lost nationwide.

One simple question: why are the leading oil companies, whose profits topped $485 BILLION in a 5-year span, receiving tax subsidies from the government?

Here we sit, with the Tea Party protesting that we're taxed enough already, Wisconsin union members fighting to keep their collective bargaining rights after banksters sucked state pension funds dry, $14 trillion in debt, states laying off workers in the public sector in an attempt to keep their heads above water while dragging down unemployment numbers and the economic recovery in the process, and we're allowing massive oil corporations making record profits to get away with huge tax breaks. Or rather, the fiscally responsible Republicans (and handful of DINOs) are allowing it to continue. How is that remotely acceptable?

President Obama's Weekly Address - November 6, 2010

Priorities on Taxes

Don't Just Hit Send or I'll Just Hit You

POSTED BY JHW22

I received an email from someone just showing me what's going around -- no one is stupid enough to send me this crap as if it's true -- and I made that person PROMISE to send my response to the woman who sent the email. Here is my response, followed by the text of the email. All of my comments are in italics and blue.

When I see emails like this I have three options. I can ignore them. I can pass them on without checking any of the information within. I can reply with facts. As a responsible citizen who cares about this country I choose option 3. It's intolerable that emails like this circulate without people taking the time to check data, facts, original sources and so on. It's bad for the country that people so willingly believe/trust, an email written by a stranger that's been passed on so many times you don't even know anyone who knows anyone who knows the person that wrote it.

So I started addressing each of these one by one (all of my comments are in blue in the original email below). It took me a LONG time. It takes hard work figuring out where the initial claim originates so as to verify the facts. And once that initial claim is somewhat located in some sense of reality, it takes true effort to articulate and cite sources to show where the original email is 100% wrong or has the facts so twisted that it may as well be 100% wrong. So no wonder people add a little sentence of fear and hit send. It's so much easier to do that than to actually seek the truth.

But I got worn out from debunking this stuff. I spent HOURS doing the right thing of finding information. And it occurred to me: why? People who pass these emails around don't want truth. They want to pass on crap as truth because it makes them feel angry and they want others to join them in their anger. And I joined in that anger. But my anger is not at the lies in the email, but at those who pass them on to their friends and family. My anger is at the people who act like they love America as they divide it into those who want to be afraid over lies and those who want to find out the truth.

We just went through eight years where a President said he was a fiscal conservative while creating the very tax cuts that were known to have been bad for the deficit. And now the same party wants to pretend that the effects of those tax cuts weren't so bad and want to blame Democrats for saying they only want to extend the cuts to the middle class. We had an administration who lied about WMD's, thus throwing us into a lie-based war that further added to the deficit. So why, why on Earth, do we allow the people who supported those policies continue to spread lies and manipulate facts to the point of pathetic emails that don't cite sources, leave key sentences out of quoted paragraphs and make sweeping generalizations about fractions of an issue while ignoring the overall benefit of the bigger picture, to pass on lies without a fight?

So even though I ran out of steam and didn't address each issue in this email, I can proudly say that I tried. I did the work. I spent the time finding the truth. Perhaps the people who pass these emails on will take the time to do a reasonable and honest amount of research on their own (and Googling phrases doesn't count because with emails like this, you'll see it plastered all over the internet and the same text repeated 5,000 times is still the same text and not 5,000 supporting documents). But I have a feeling that no one else will take the personal responsibility of researching because perhaps they are afraid they will find out that emails lie. That people who start them have an agenda. That people who just forward them would rather believe an unreliable email than actually take part in the civic duty of being properly informed.

Here is what the President said today (it says a lot about his agenda, the state of the Republican party and the people who would rather read an email and believe it, than find out what's really happening in America):

"And there’s currently a jobs bill before Congress that would do two big things for small business owners: cut more taxes and make available more loans. It would help them get the credit they need, and eliminate capital gains taxes on key investments so they have more incentive to invest right now. And it would accelerate $55 billion of tax relief to encourage American businesses, small and large, to expand their investments over the next 14 months.

Unfortunately, this bill has been languishing in the Senate for months, held up by a partisan minority that won’t even allow it to go to a vote. That makes no sense. This bill is fully paid for. It won’t add to the deficit. And there is no reason to block it besides pure partisan politics." 

I hope that this email will be shared as a reminder that our Founding Fathers didn't take the easy route. They didn't copy and paste or pass on someone else's fact as theirs. No. They were the elite of the elite. They were intelligent and serious and had more integrity in their discourse. They believed in doing the hard work of thinking and writing at levels Americans can't comprehend today. In honor of them, I implore people to DO THE WORK. READ. LEARN. And for Pete's sake, don't just hit send!

Jennifer

ORIGINAL EMAIL ADDRESSES DELETED TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT AND THE STUPID

Just want ALL to be informed………………………CHANGES are coming very sooooooon.
In just six months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2011:
First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief
In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families.
These will all expire on January 1, 2011:

First of all, these taxes, which are set to expire were designed to expire because they were so bad for the deficit. They used the dreaded reconciliation process to get votes on the tax cuts but because of reconciliation rules, the cuts had to expire after ten years unless renewed. President Obama has said that he will ONLY ALLOW the cuts to expire for the top 2% of income earners. Therefore all those expiration listed are as Republicans drafted but NOT how President Obama has said (while campaigning and as President) he will allow it to work. IF he allowed the entire set of taxes to expire, the first part of this ridiculous email would be true. HOWEVER, President Obama has committed to extend the tax cuts for those making less than $200k. This email is disingenuous to say the least. In fact, Obama wants to make the cuts PERMANENT for 95% of Americans.

Here is a link that is far more honest than this email as to the tax cuts. And the guy isn't an Obama lover.

Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:
- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15% - The 25% bracket rises to 28% - The 28% bracket rises to 31% - The 33% bracket rises to 36% - The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%
Higher taxes on marriage and family. The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.
The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax. For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.
Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.
Second Wave: Obamacare
There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:

Since I think links are important, here is a link to the health care bill as finalized as well as a summary provided by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The “Medicine Cabinet Tax” Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be 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).

FSA won't cover OTC meds NOT prescribed by a doctor. They never should have. I think it's funny that we don't want big government but people want to take a tax credit for buying pain reliever or allergy medicine. The abundance of OTC meds that are store brand or so cheap to produce that they cost pennies means that you would have to buy a boat load of vitamins and aspirin to even make a dent in a dent in a dent in the FSA. What this email doesn't point out is that anything like Claritin OTC which does cost more than the average OTC can actually meet the FSA requirements because you CAN have a doctor write a prescription for it. You CAN have a doctor write a prescription for aspirin. I wish everyone on this email chain would calculate how much they actually spend on OTC meds and then calculate how much of a tax savings they get now for paying for it out of an FSA. They'd be shocked at the fraction of a dent this makes in their lives -- especially if they have doctor's orders to use it.

The “Special Needs Kids Tax” This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). 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) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

The FSA was changed to include a limit in part because of the small number of people who actually utilize it or maximize the dollars they withhold. What this email fails to mention is that companies have historically set limits on their own even though the fed govt didn't require them to do so. This email makes it appear as if all families could withhold $14,000 when the actual average is $5,000. By the way, as of 2009, "Health care flexible spending accounts are offered by 27 percent of all employers but 85 percent of those with 500 or more employees. The average employee contribution is $1,424, well below the $2,500 cap that has been suggested in health reform proposals." 

Also, families won't be able to put the same amount in the FSAs HOWEVER they will be able to take a deduction on the money spent as childcare and medical expenses. So they may not get to use pre-tax dollars to pay for a daycare or special school for special needs kids or doctor's appointments or medication but they will be able to add all of that to their out-of pocket childcare and medical expenses for the year. On that point alone it's a wash in the end. Let's also not forget that a lot of special needs kids don't have health insurance or fairly priced insurance. The ObamacaresAboutAmerica Health Care Law will lower premiums and copays and cover preventative care, thus for many families making the FSA cap moot. In fact, the OVERALL health care law will likely end up saving more money for these particular special needs families. Oh, and let's not forget that in his 2011 budget, Obama asked to DOUBLE the child care tax credit for families making less than $85k/year in addition to more funding for child care programs, thus lowering the financial burden on families with children. I guess, if you think about it, the only way to prevent that from happening would be to vote against Obama's budget.

The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision of Obamacare increases the 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.
Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes
When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they’ll be in for a nasty surprise—the AMT won’t be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired. The major items include:
The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress’ failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families—rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.

Now let's look at this WHOPPER of a claim. Yes, the "left-leaning Tax Policy Center" said that AMT taxpaying families will rise from 4 million to 28.5 million. They said it in 2007!! They ALSO said, "Two primary culprits are responsible for this impending explosion: the failure to index the AMT for inflation and the 2001–2006 tax cuts." The original email didn't include a link, so I will provide one here. 

The CBO did say the same thing THIS year: "If current law remains unchanged, the role of the AMT in the tax system will expand rapidly over time. With the expiration of a temporary increase in the AMT’s exemption amounts, the number of taxpayers affected by the AMT will jump from 4 million in calendar year 2009 to 27 million in 2010." They also said, "series of reductions in the regular income tax enacted starting in 2001 would have caused even more returns to be subject to the AMT were it not for the series of temporary adjustments (often called 'patches') that lawmakers made to the alternative tax" -- meaning that we are constantly needing patches. The patches are why emails like this circulate every year scaring people about the AMT because each year the patch from the year before expires.

So let's look at what the "left-leaning" Tax Policy Center said THIS year in regards to the 2010/2011 budget presented by Obama: "The president proposes to make permanent the 2009 AMT parameters—exemptions, rate brackets, and phaseout thresholds—and index them for inflation. That would remove a significant source of uncertainty about taxation and prevent inflation from pushing large numbers of taxpayers onto the AMT in future years. Most of the benefits of the change would go to taxpayers with relatively high incomes: about three-fourths of the tax cut in 2012 would go to households with income over $100,000. Over half of taxpayers with income between $200,000 and $500,000 would see their tax bills drop by an average of over $1,800, raising their after-tax income by more than 0.9 percent." 

Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear. Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or “depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be “depreciated.”

It's harder addressing a claim when there is no basis for the claim, no link, law, article, nada. So the best I can figure is this is in reference to the H.R.2847 Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act which DOUBLES deductions on property MAKING the deduction up to $250k. This bill DOUBLED the original limit of $125k and is set to expire by 2011. So the claim that "businesses can normally expense" is based on NOW which is a doubling of the "normal" $125k. Here is what the IRS says:

"HIRE and Section 179 Deduction

A qualifying taxpayer can choose to treat the cost of certain property as an expense and deduct it in the year the property is placed in service instead of depreciating it over several years. This property is frequently referred to as section 179 property.

The Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act of 2010 extends the dates of the IRC Section 179 temporary increase in limitations on expensing of depreciable business assets.

Under HIRE, qualifying businesses can continue to expense up to $250,000 of section 179 property for the 2010 tax year. Without HIRE, the 2010 expensing limit for section 179 property would have been $125,000.

The $250,000 amount provided under the new law is reduced, but not below zero, if the cost of all section 179 property placed in service by the taxpayer during the tax year exceeds $800,000." 

You can find the HIRE bill here.

Now, let's address the "This will be cut all the way down to $25,000" claim and ask, "WHAT?" Again, this is why claims that have zero back-up documentation are such a pain to address. Where did that dollar amount come from? Can you tell from reading that paragraph? No. Because the person who wrote it wants to scared and angry rather than informed. So let's take a stab at it and see if one of these two options makes sense (Both of these potential sources behind that mysterious $25,000 amount are from the IRS's explanation of the Section 179 Deduction on depreciation):

1) "You cannot elect to expense more than $25,000 of the cost of any heavy sport utility vehicle (SUV) and certain other vehicles placed in service during the tax year." ("However, the $25,000 limit does not apply to any vehicle:

Designed to seat more than nine passengers behind the driver's seat,

Equipped with a cargo area (either open or enclosed by a cap) of at least six feet in interior length that is not readily accessible from the passenger compartment, or

That has an integral enclosure fully enclosing the driver compartment and load carrying device, does not have seating rearward of the driver's seat, and has no body section protruding more than 30 inches ahead of the leading edge of the windshield.")

2) "Example. In 2009, you bought and placed in service a $275,000 tractor and a $25,000 circular saw for your business. You elect to deduct $225,000 for the tractor and the entire $25,000 for the saw, a total of $250,000. This is the maximum amount you can deduct. Your $25,000 deduction for the saw completely recovered its cost. Your basis for depreciation is zero. The basis for depreciation of your tractor is $50,000. You figure this by subtracting your $225,000 section 179 deduction for the tractor from the $275,000 cost of the tractor."

And what exactly IS depreciation? According to Business.gov it means:

"If property you acquire to use in your business is expected to last more than one year, you generally cannot deduct the entire cost as a business expense in the year you acquire it. You must spread the cost over more than one tax year and deduct part of it each year on Form 1040, Schedule C. This method of deducting the cost of business property is called depreciation." That's all. It just means you take the deduction over time -- the time you USE it.

Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses. There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the “research and experimentation tax credit,” but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.

When someone tells you there are "literally scores of tax hikes: shouldn't the "literally" list "scores" and their sources? It is "literally" annoying that they don't. And if you think about it, one definition of "scores" is: A grievance that is harbored and requires satisfaction. Well, I require satisfaction on that claim that I harbor grievance over. Since there is a vague reference to "the loss of ... research and experimentation tax credit" let's see what that could possibly mean. Well, again I will refer to Obama's 2011 budget in which he requested the R&E tax credit be made PERMANENT as well as fund "scores" of R&D opportunities. I guess, if you think about it, the only way to prevent that from happening would be to vote against Obama's budget.

Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced. The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available. Tax credits for education will be limited. Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses. Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut. Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed. The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.

Again, no citations. In a statement about education, you would think the person who wrote this email would do what every teacher told him to do: "Show your work", "list your resources", "support your claims". But nope. The writer of this email scares you while giving you no way to confirm whether the claims are fact or fiction. You could search the internet for days and never prove a negative. But let's give it a shot. Oh, yeah. The writer is making the ASSumption that Obama and Congress are going to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for ALL Americans. Again, you would have to buy into the myth that Obama is going to allow all of Bush's tax cuts to expire which there is absolutely no support for. None. Obama has said and continues to say that he will extend the Bush tax cuts for those making less that $200k. That's all that this is based on.

Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA. This contribution also counts toward an annual “required minimum distribution.” This ability will no longer be there.
PDF Version Read more: http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171##ixzz0sY8waPq1
Now your insurance is INCOME on your W2's......
One of the surprises we'll find come next year, is what follows - - a little "surprise" that 99% of us had no idea was included in the "new and improved" healthcare legislation . . . the dupes, er, dopes, who backed this administration will be astonished!

Starting in 2011, (next year folks), your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or governmental body of some sort. If you're retired? So what; your gross will go up by the amount of insurance you get.

You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen. Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year. For many, it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse.

This is how the government is going to buy insurance for the 15% that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases.

Here is a research of the summaries.....

On page 25 of 29: TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS-(sec. 9001, as modified by sec. 10901) Sec.9002 "requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employees gross income."

Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters. Go to Kiplingers and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what is above.

This is my favorite part because it's big and bold and yellow and WRONG. In regards to the Kiplinger's article the email says to go read, it's funny that the person who wrote the email left out a key sentence from Ms. Pryde's article: "3. A requirement that businesses include the value of the health care benefits they provide to employees on W-2s, beginning with W-2s for 2011. The amount reported is not considered taxable income." That's right: NOT CONSIDERED TAXABLE INCOME!! Why would they leave that out of the email? Because they know most people will NOT go to the article itself. They rely on people being scared and lazy and just passing on an email without digging deeper. This alone should have been the one reason to not counter each myth or distortion but it was fun doing it anyway. Since the original email didn't provide a link, I will.

Suck On This, Teabaggers

USA Today: Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.

Some conservative political movements such as the "Tea Party" have criticized federal spending as being out of control. While spending is up, taxes have fallen to exceptionally low levels.

What was that whole TEA Party thing about? Taxed Enough Already?

...Uh huh.

Seriously, Harold Ford?

If you want to run for Senator of New York, being that you've lived here all of four years, wouldn't you think that the first thing you would do is make sure your tax records are in order? Not Harold Fold.

Ford claims to have moved to New York three years ago, and says paying "New York taxes" makes him a New Yorker. But his spokeswoman confirms to Gawker that he's never filed a New York tax return — meaning that he's never paid New York's income tax, despite keeping an office and a residence in New York City as a vice chairman of Merrill Lynch since 2007: "He pays New York taxes and will file a New York tax return in April for the first time," Ford's spokeswoman Tammy Sun told Gawker. "He will file all necessary personal disclosure and tax forms that candidates are required to file if he chooses to run." (According to Sun, Ford admitted to the tax dodge yesterday at a press availability in Albany, but we can't find any news accounts mentioning the remarks.)

Wouldn't this also mean that if he's filing Tennessee taxes and therefore claiming it as his "primary" residence, he's not eligible to run in New York? I suppose by filing in New York in April for the first time makes that point moot since there is no minimum time requirement one must live in a state for eligibility, but what does it say to the constituents whose votes Ford wants to garner?

GOP Budget Plan: Surprised?

Would anyone really be surprised if they found out that the GOP "blueprint" budget plan as an alternative to President Obama's plan would cost more and actually raise taxes for the poorest families while giving yet more tax breaks to the top 1% of income earners? I didn't think so either.

Citizens for Tax Justice crunched the numbers (PDF). They conclude that a quarter of all households, most of them poor, would pay more taxes under the GOP plan, while the richest one percent would pay $100,000 less.

Here's the PDF.

(H/T DailyKos)

Is It Patriotic To Pay Taxes?

When then Senator and now Vice President Joe Biden called paying taxes patriotic, it was derided as ridiculous spin on the Obama campaign's tax plan should he win office. Republican opponent John McCain called income tax increases "painful" although those tax increases (to let the Bush tax cuts that had benefited so many of the nation's wealthiest 1% expire) help us in paying for the war of choice that the right continues to tout to this day.

So they want to rid the world of the evildoers, but they don't want to pay for it? And then they use the "we don't want to use our children's and grandchildren's credit cards to pay for this" line to criticize the Obama recovery plan, when we've been using those credit cards and hiding the true cost of the occupation of Iraq all along.

President Obama spoke today at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina to announce his plan to draw down troops for an eventual end to the War in Iraq. But what struck me most about his speech was the idea of sacrifice for country. Standing behind him, I saw the faces of men and women who have sacrificed for their country, not to mention the faces of those who served that we'll never see again, and yet the privileged few complain about paying higher taxes to support those who are defending us.

What would they say if they saw this?



(H/T Matt Osborne)