Obama's #1 pledge that got him elected: No tax increases under 250K

Chapdog

Abreast of the situations
Yes, take away the people who voted for him based on this pledge and he stands no chance in the next election. People hate being lied to about tax increases.

That being said when the 10year tax cuts expire at the end of this year it will be a breach of the pledge that won him the election unless congress acts on a new bill or extension.


Higher Tax Rates for All

You may have been led to believe that only individuals in the top two brackets will face higher federal income taxes when the Bush cuts go bye-bye. Not true! Unless Congress takes action and President Obama goes along, rates will go up for everyone -- not just a sliver of the wealthiest Americans. The current six rate brackets of 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% will be replaced by five new brackets with the higher rates of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%. Just a few months ago, it seemed like a safe bet that Congress would make a fix to keep the existing 10%, 15%, 25% and 28% rate brackets to help out lower and middle-income folks. That bet is now looking iffy.

Higher Capital Gains and Dividends Taxes for All

Right now, the maximum federal rate on long-term capital gains and dividends is only 15%. Starting next year, the maximum rate on long-term gains will increase to 20%. The maximum rate on dividends will skyrocket to 39.6% unless action is taken to limit the rate to 20%, as the president has repeatedly promised. Plan on 39.6%, and hope I'm wrong.

Right now, an unbeatable 0% rate applies to long-term gains and dividends collected by folks in lowest two rate brackets of 10% and 15%. Starting next year, those folks will pay 10% on long-term gains and 15% and 28% on dividends (compared with 0% now) unless a change is made. Otherwise, taxes on long-term gains and dividends will go up for everyone.

Return of the Marriage Penalty

Right now, the standard deduction for married joint-filing couples is double the amount for singles. For this, we can thank the Bush tax cuts, which included several provisions to ease the so-called marriage penalty. The penalty can force a married couple to pay more in taxes than when they were single. Starting next year, the joint-filer standard deduction will fall back to about 167% of the amount for singles unless Congress takes action and the president approves. We don't know if that will happen. If not, lots of lower and middle-income couples will face higher tax bills.

Now, the bottom two tax brackets for married joint-filing couples are exactly twice as wide as those for singles. That ratio helps keep the marriage penalty from biting lower- and middle-income couples. Starting next year, the joint-filer tax brackets will contract, causing higher tax bills, unless a change is made.

Return of Phase-Out Rule for Itemized Deductions

Before the Bush tax cuts, a nasty phase-out rule could eliminate up to 80% of a higher-income individual's itemized deductions for mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable donations. The rule was gradually eased and finally eliminated this year. Next year, it will be back in full force unless Congress takes action -- which is unlikely. So if you itemize and have adjusted gross income above about $170,000 ($85,000 if you use married filing separate status), be ready for this phase-out rule to take a toll.

Return of Phase-Out Rule for Personal Exemptions

Before the Bush tax cuts, another nasty phase-out rule could eliminate some or all of a higher-income individual's personal exemption deductions. The rule was gradually cut back and finally eliminated this year. But it will be back with a vengeance next year unless Congress blocks it. So be ready for another tax hike if your adjusted gross income exceeds about $252,000 if you file jointly; about $168,000 if you're single; about $210,000 if you're a head of household; or about $126,000 if you use married filing separate status. (For 2010, personal exemption deductions are $3,650 each, and they will be about the same next year.)

The Bottom Line

The Bush tax cuts don't just offer tax relief to the wealthiest Americans. They offer it to just about anyone who pays federal income taxes. Their scheduled demise next year will raise the tax bill of nearly every taxpayer, unless Congress makes changes and the president jumps on board.

http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/arti...tax-cuts-affect-you?mod=taxes-advice_strategy
 
so your claiming he won't pander and buy votes again? LOL

They just extended the home credit yet again. Obama will pay top dollar for votes in 12.
 
tidbits:

Indeed, some influential players in Washington have signaled that it's no longer a given that the tax cuts will be made permanent, at least not right away.

The most prominent Democrat to suggest as much is House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. In a speech last month, Hoyer said point-blank that lawmakers can't ignore the budget consequences of extending the cuts.

"We need to have a serious discussion about their implications for our fiscal outlook, including whether we can afford to permanently extend them before we have a real plan for long-term deficit reduction," Hoyer said.

In May, conservative economist Martin Feldstein, who was President Reagan's top economic adviser and now sits on Obama's recovery advisory board, wrote in a Wall Street Journal commentary that while he favors temporarily extending the cuts for everyone, the country can't afford to make them permanent.

The cost of doing so for everyone would top $3 trillion over 10 years. Making them permanent for families making less than $250,000 -- which tracks with Obama's promise -- would cost less but not much less: an estimated $2.2 trillion.

Two prominent Senate Democrats recently told The Hill, a newspaper that covers Congress, that the $250,000 threshold is not necessarily a done deal with Congress.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who chairs the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, said he didn't think there was "any magic" in $250,000. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., noted "you could go lower ... why not $200,000? With the debt and deficit we have, you can't make promises to people."

Meanwhile, the House Ways and Means Committee is considering a one-year extension of the tax cuts for families making less than $250,000, according to a report in Congress Daily. The extension would be accompanied by a two-year "patch" to protect the middle class from getting hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax. The estimated cost of those measures combined is $270 billion over 10 years.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Fate-of-Bush-tax-cuts-cnnm-1743028113.html?x=0
 
so your claiming he won't pander and buy votes again? LOL

They just extended the home credit yet again. Obama will pay top dollar for votes in 12.

Id say Vegas odds are 75% that under 250k no new taxes. BUT if obama cant get that job done hes out for sure next election. No doubt about it. Just bringing up the subject here as its being floated more in the media over the past few days.
 
If the cuts lapse, it's a broken promise; he even spoke specifically to that in the campaign.

Broken tax promises don't go over well w/ the electorate, either - most voters tend to be more forgiving of other types of promises, but tax promises are biggies.
 
I think it would be a testimony to how he can control the fringe left in congress. If he cant do it then he needs to go.

Bush struggled with the religious right at times but always got his way. Obama seems to me to be a little weaker in terms of controlling the fringe parts of his party.
 
so your claiming he won't pander and buy votes again? LOL

They just extended the home credit yet again. Obama will pay top dollar for votes in 12.
No, he's saying that people won't accept his pandering if he does tax those making less than 250K at a higher rate.

He either fixes this, or he'll be toast. Remember Bush and his "Read my lips" promise?
 
If the cuts lapse, it's a broken promise; he even spoke specifically to that in the campaign.

Broken tax promises don't go over well w/ the electorate, either - most voters tend to be more forgiving of other types of promises, but tax promises are biggies.
I agree with this.
 
I think it would be a testimony to how he can control the fringe left in congress. If he cant do it then he needs to go.

Bush struggled with the religious right at times but always got his way. Obama seems to me to be a little weaker in terms of controlling the fringe parts of his party.


I don't think the fringe left will be the problem. I don't see why they would oppose making the tax cuts permanent for people earning less than $250,000. Instead, it will be the Republicans, so-called moderates and "deficit hawks" in the Senate that will insist on making the tax cuts permanent for everyone, including those earning over $250,000, and making corresponding spending cuts to account for the resultant deficits.
 
He will buy off the under 250,000 crowd big time. I agree to do otherwise he might as well aim at his foot.
 
I don't think the fringe left will be the problem. I don't see why they would oppose making the tax cuts permanent for people earning less than $250,000. Instead, it will be the Republicans, so-called moderates and "deficit hawks" in the Senate that will insist on making the tax cuts permanent for everyone, including those earning over $250,000, and making corresponding spending cuts to account for the resultant deficits.

I see what your saying but based on some of the comments above from Dem's hes got some work to do with his own party as well.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who chairs the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, said he didn't think there was "any magic" in $250,000. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., noted "you could go lower ... why not $200,000? With the debt and deficit we have, you can't make promises to people."
 
No, he's saying that people won't accept his pandering if he does tax those making less than 250K at a higher rate.

He either fixes this, or he'll be toast. Remember Bush and his "Read my lips" promise?

I've always been impressed with how that sunk Bush. It demonstrated how many retards have crept into the modern GOP.
 
Actually Perot sank Bush.


I remember talking with this DLC guy one time and he was such a condescending shit. He says to me he says, "I'm very active with the DLC, the Democratic Leadership Council - the group that helped elect President Clinton . . ." And so I says to him I says, "Wait, the DLC worked for Perot?" He was not amused.
 
I remember talking with this DLC guy one time and he was such a condescending shit. He says to me he says, "I'm very active with the DLC, the Democratic Leadership Council - the group that helped elect President Clinton . . ." And so I says to him I says, "Wait, the DLC worked for Perot?" He was not amused.
Perot and a broken promise about taxes...
 
the reps only want tax cuts for the rich and if the tax package does not include them -they say no or is it that they say no to everything except more war spending
 
Back
Top