Tag Archives: jobs

The Obama Tax Increases

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s a partial enumeration of the taxes which President Barack Obama is willing to blow up our economy in order to get.

Income tax: Across the board.  Top rate rises to 39.6% from current 35%, bottom 15% rate disappears.  Obama claims to be interested only in the top rates, but his evident lack of seriousness in his proposals counters this claim.  See the table below

Self-employment tax:  Rise from 2.9% to 3.8%.

Exemption Phase-Out: Otherwise allowable exemption amounts will be reduced by 2% for each $2,500 or part of $2,500 ($1,250 for married filing separately) that the taxpayer’s AGI exceeds the AGI threshold for the year based on the taxpayer’s filing status.

Itemized Deduction Phase-Out: Resumed income-based phase-out of these deductions: taxes, interest (except investment interest), charitable contributions, employee job expenses and other miscellaneous itemized deductions, etc.  Additionally, and independent of income (in the sense of a phase-out), the threshold for deductibility of medically related items rises from 7.5% to 10% of AGI.

Long-Term Capital Gains Rates Increase: See the table below

Coverdell Education Accounts: Dollar limit on contributions for any one beneficiary is reduced to $500 from $2,000, contributions can be made only by individuals; the income phase-out range for the annual contribution limit rises from twice the amounts for single filers to a hard $150,000-$160,000 for joint filers instead of simply; contributions for special needs students age 18 or over no longer allowed; qualifying expenses elementary or secondary school expenses no longer allowed; contributions to a Coverdell account and a Sec 529 Qualified Tuition Program no longer allowed in the same year; education credits in a year in which a Coverdell withdrawal is made no longer allowed.

American Opportunity Tax Credit: Disappears.

Child & Dependent Care Credit: Falls from $3,000 ($6,000 for two or more qualifiers) to 2,400 ($4,800 for two or more qualifiers).

Estate tax: Rise to 45% from current 35% (and from 0% just a couple of years ago) on everything above $3.5 million estate value, down from current $5.12 million exclusion.

Investment surcharge: An Obamacare tax for 2013 and beyond—higher-income individuals hit with an additional 3.8% Medicare tax on net investment income, including long-term gains and dividends.

Medical device tax: 2.3% on top-line revenues of companies making devices such as prosthetic limbs, pacemakers, and operating tables.  This is levied even if the respective company doesn’t earn a profit.

Employer Health FLEX-Spending Plan Contributions: Maximum amount available for reimbursement of incurred medical expenses in an FSA for a plan year cannot exceed $2,500, down from…unlimited.

Codification of the “economic substance doctrine“: Allows IRS to disallow tax deductions and other tax-minimizing plans solely on the IRS opinion that the matter lacks “substance.”

Negotiating?

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressives in our Federal government insist, with a straight face, that the Republicans have put forward no concrete proposals in the present budget…negotiations.  They carefully ignore the fact that the Republicans already have put forward three concrete proposals: two House-passed budgets (for 2011 and 2012, which contained explicit spending, taxing, and entitlement reform steps), and the proposal on which they campaigned last fall.

Oh, wait—the Progressives studiously ignored those, too—in the Senate, where they refused even to permit debate on the budgets and ever since, with their pretense that the spending, tax, and entitlement reforms of the campaign don’t exist.

The Progressives’ current position?  As The Wall Street Journal reports,

[M]any Democrats have ruled out any changes to Social Security during the current fiscal talks.

And

A senior administration official said the White House would make no new offers until Republicans changed their opposition to raising top tax rates.

Throughout this entire shabby charade, President Barack Obama has been accusing the Republicans of holding middle-class America hostage against their refusal to agree to tax rate hikes on his hated Americans.  Yet the Republicans and Progressives already agree on making permanent current tax rates on 98% of Americans.  It’s Obama who is threatening to blow up our economy on his ego trip of demanding 100% of a tax deal for which he already has 98%.

It’s Obama who’s threatening to blow up our economy by refusing to discuss spending cuts and entitlement reform at all—after agreeing that they should be on the table shortly after the election.

It’s Obama who’s threatening to blow up our economy with his insult of demanding sole debt ceiling authority in utter disregard of the Constitutional role of Congress—and not the President—in setting spending.

Update: Speaker John Boehner (R, OH) and a number fellow members of the Republican leadership made a counterproposal Tuesday that included much of Obama’s precious tax revenue increases–not as rate increases–to the tune of $800 billion, and $1.2 trillion in spending cuts.  Obama blew this off within the hour.  So much for negotiating.

Ex-Senator Rick Santorum, last night on Greta van Susteren’s On the Record,  said that Obama’s fallback–his Plan A–of Sequestration and tax rate increases across the board makes him entirely willing to take our economy over the cliff: Obama gets his tax rate increases, and he gets the Progressives’ decades-long fought-for cut in defense spending, a $500 billion reduction.  Obama sees this as a heads, I win; tails, you lose situation.

I think Santorum is right.

Republicans and Talking to Folks

Posted on by
Reply

Neil King and Victoria McGrane have some thoughts.  They cite various conservatives, for instance:

[A]ctivists—including tea-party activists but also some mainline Republicans—say the party should adopt a more populist tone, one that places more emphasis on ways Republican policies would help the middle class.

And

The critique from these Republicans suggests that the party should change some policies—such as adopting a more skeptical posture toward big banks—as well as the way it talks about economic issues.

And

Mr. Romney’s lopsided loss among the country’s expanding universe of minority voters has fanned fears within the party that its main challenge is demographic, though others dismiss that worry as secondary.

But these are short-sighted and outright wrong.  The “others” are right; the problem is Republicans’ and conservatives’ general failure to talk to all Americans, regardless of ethnicity.  Republicans and conservative need to get out and talk to people in the neighborhoods in which they live—all of those neighborhoods—as I pointed out here and here.

Ex-Mississippi Governor and erstwhile GOP Chairman Haley Barbour has the right of it.  He understands that conservative policies aren’t the problem.

We do very well when our policies for economic growth and job creation are put in place.  But we often don’t talk about those policies in ways that the middle class and working class see as in their interest.

And they don’t talk at all about those policies where Americans physically live.

The other critiquers, though (the ones who are concerned with the content of the message as well as where it’s delivered), also have a point—apart from attempts to change those policies.

The Republicans’ approach to dealing with the nation’s largest financial firms illustrates the tension.  GOP leaders oppose the Dodd-Frank financial-overhaul law as regulatory overreach and want it scrapped, partly because they say it codifies certain institutions as being too big to fail.  But so far, they haven’t rallied around an alternative means to reining in the big banks.

Or establishing the need for government to “rein in” the big banks.  Which points up another aspect of message content.  In addition to their failure clearly to articulate what they would do differently vis-à-vis Dodd-Frank, their mantra concerning Obamacare is woefully inadequate:  “Repeal and replace.”  Replace with what?

An Empirical Demonstration

Posted on by
Reply

Investor’s Business Daily provides one.

Renting a 20-foot truck one-way from San Francisco to San Antonio, for example, will cost $1,693. But the U-Haul tab to go in the opposite direction is just $983.

Hmm….

This figure compares, across just a few parameters, the outcome of big government, high taxes, and profligate spending—California—with the outcome of limited government, low taxes, and (more) disciplined spending—Texas.  Texas has many faults, but the routine of government interference with its citizens’ wallets and businesses isn’t among them.

California has become a state that people are increasingly trying to escape, and Texas a state people are increasingly migrating to.

…

A study by the Manhattan Institute found that Californians have been leaving for states with better job prospects, lower taxes and better business climates.

In other words, states that are pursuing the kind of low-tax, limited government, free market policies [President Barack] Obama typically rejects.

The public may have voted to give Obama a second term.  But many people in California are voting with their feet, leaving the state that’s already put in place policies Obama has promised to keep pushing for four more years.

Obamanomics, as California demonstrates—its economy actually shrank sharply in the last four years—are an utter failure.  RTWT.

A Market Parallel

Posted on by
Reply

Amity Shlaes has noted some interesting parallels between today’s economic situation and that of 1937, post reelection of another Progressive President (she’s politer than I am).

In this case, “1937” means a market drop similar to the one after the re-election of another Democratic president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, in 1936.

…

[T]he parallels are visible enough to be worth tracing.  They have to do with the danger of big government, and can be captured in a few categories.

Here are those parallels [emphasis added]:

Pre-election spree that sets records.  In the old days, federal spending amounted to about 19 percent or 19.5 percent of gross domestic product. …[from that] federal spending would have dropped back once the worst of the 2008 economic crisis passed.

…even in 2012, when the crisis was long past, the government went on a spree, spending the equivalent of 24.3 percent of the economy, more than the 24.1 percent for the year earlier.

Up until 1936, federal spending flowed at smaller levels than the spending by states and towns combined, with wartime being the exception.  Roosevelt slowly ratcheted up the outlays, and in 1936, Washington spent more than the states and towns.  This shift was dizzying for a country based on the principle of federalism, of strong states.

 

Fearsome attack on the status quo.  In his first news conference on Nov 14, Obama went out of his way to make clear his tax increases would fall on the rich: “What I’m concerned about is not finding ourselves in a situation where the wealthy aren’t paying more or aren’t paying as much as they should.”

Roosevelt was also ferocious, telling the old guard: “I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second administration that in it these forces met their master.”

When Roosevelt followed through in 1937, both with high taxes and his effort to pack the Supreme Court with more progressives, markets shivered.

Shlaes concludes with

The obvious question is why an announcement by Obama or Roosevelt to cut back just after the election doesn’t reassure those who dislike government expansion.

The answer is that the markets, which observe a giant march forward and then a step backward, don’t believe the step back is permanent.  Giants are giants.  Expansionists tend to revert to expanding government….

In the end, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, learned that lesson:

We have tried spending money.  We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.  I want to see this country prosper.  I want to see people get a job.  I want to see people get enough to eat.  We have never made good on our promises.  I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started.  And enormous debt to boot.

The Obama administration, unfortunately, has no Treasury Secretary, or anyone else, capable of (re)learning that lesson.

Why should we care about the stock market, though?  The problem with significant drop in overall market stock prices isn’t just one of hammering rich investors and any workaday American with an IRA, a 401(k), or a 403(b) retirement account.  It’s that selling shares in a company is one of two ways in which businesses raise money (the other being borrowing) for product development or business expansion, either of which means prosperity for the company and, oh by the way, more jobs.  A significant market drop, then, closes off one more avenue for business expansion, jobs, and economic recovery.