Liberals care about the poor, the working class, the “little” guy. They care about kids. They care, which is why they want higher taxes on the “rich”. They care about Mother Nature, so they support higher gas prices. They care, so they demand more regulation, more taxation, more government. I had a guy tell me the other day that I should have voted for Obama, because he “cares” about poor people. Hmmm, if the Left cares so much, why do their policies always impact those they “care” so much about? You know, like millions LOSING their employer insurance because of Obamacare? Or the spike in health care premiums because of Obamacare? Or the fact that those with pre-existing conditions might not be helped by Obamacare? Or paying almost $1,000 a year more for gas?
Not doing too much blogging today, I am exhausted, but, I did see this at The Other McCain, where Stacy notes Obama and his fans are happy about higher taxes on the evil rich
Ace has examined the reported terms of the deal, which would raise taxes on those earning more than $400,000, if indeed it is a deal, but deal or no deal, President Obama refused to be distracted from his most important second-term priority, scapegoating Republicans:
Barack Obama held a last-minute press conference today to bash Republicans and gloat about his election victory. At one point in his speech he bragged about how he’s going to be able to raise taxes on wealthy Americans.
His supporters cheered — as if they earned it.
Of course those tax hikes will do nothing at all to address the deficit, but, Democrats love to play that class warfare game so there you are. The Democratic leadership gets to tell
the suckers ah, Democratic base that they are making those rich bastards pay their “fair share” and the sheep, ah Democratic base love to see the rich punished. Amazingly the walking brain donors, ah Democratic base are convinced that other people making less money benefits them somehow.
Under the proposed accord being hammered out by Biden and McConnell, households earning less than $450,000 would largely escape higher income tax bills, though couples earning more than $300,000 a year and individuals earning more than $250,000 would lose part of the value of their exemptions and itemized deductions, under the terms of the emerging agreement.
Low-income households would also benefit from a five-year extension of credits for college tuition and the working poor first enacted as part of Obama’s stimulus package in 2009. And businesses would see a variety of popular tax breaks extended, including a credit for research and development.
The tax on inherited estates would rise from 35 percent to 40 percent, though Democrats agreed to keep in place the current exemption for estates worth up to $5 million. And nearly 30 million households would be protected from paying the costly alternative minimum tax for the first time — either on their 2012 tax returns or at any time in the future. The developing agreement calls for a permanent fix.
The two sides also appeared to have reached consensus on unemployment benefits, with Republicans acceding to Democratic demands to keep benefits flowing to the long-term unemployed for another year. Medicare payments would not be cut for doctors next year, and the cost of preserving those programs would not be offset with other spending cuts.
Especially galling to me is the Death Tax, or tax on inherited estates. Why should an heir pay 40% of property ALREADY taxed? This is yet another reason we need ONE, as in JUST one tax rate, for ALL income, period!
……Is that the Left driven by greed and a hatred of Capitalism kills business with taxes and regulations. Via William Teach
The Democrats who wrote, passed, and support the “American Care Act” probably thought that companies would just roll over and willingly pay a higher tax rate for their medical devices. Alas, the Real World has intruded on the Dem fantasies of collecting more tax money to spread around to their campaign contributors and voters
(Fox News) An Indiana-based medical equipment manufacturer says it’s scrapping plans to open five new plants in the coming years because of a looming tax tied to President Obama’s health care overhaul law.
Cook Medical claims the tax on medical devices, set to take effect next year, will cost the company roughly $20 million a year, cutting into money that would otherwise go toward expanding into new facilities over the next five years.
“This is the equivalent of about a plant a year that we’re not going to be able to build,” a company spokesman told FoxNews.com.
He said the original plan was to build factories in “hard-pressed” Midwestern communities, each employing up to 300 people. But those factories cost roughly the same amount as the projected cost of the new tax.
“In reality, we’re not looking at the U.S. to build factories anymore as long as this tax is in place. We can’t, to be competitive,” he said.
Surprise! Who could imagine that increasing taxes could cause a company to change its behavior rather than rolling over in docility? Liberals might say that a 2.3% tax on medical devices isn’t a big deal, but when that increases costs on a company by $20 million dollars, which is real money when you get outside the Washington, D.C. bubble, things have to be changed. And that cost also tends to be passed on to the consumer, who might think twice about making the purchase, and go with that product that was made in another country and is not subject to the tax.
But the Cook Medical spokesman said the impact is greater than just a 2.3 percent uptick in taxes. He said the impact on actual earnings is another 15 percent, and he projected the company’s total tax burden next year will rise to over 50 percent.
Go read the rest. Don’t you just love how that “spreading the wealth around” hurts, rather than helps working people. The jobs Cook Medical WOULD have created are gone, and of course Cook is not the only company being forced to cut back expansion plans. Just another example of how the Left promises to spread the wealth, but actually spreads the misery
Smitty notes that the French voters have voted to double down on Socialism
According to Breitbart, Nicolas the Short has been ousted in favor of Francois Holland. Holland seems to favor:
- raise taxes (including a marginal tax rate for earnings above $1 million to 75%),
- lower retirement age, and
- boost spending levels
No one takes that option, now, do they? But Warren — the Harvard lawprof who’s trying to wrest Teddy Kennedy’s Senate seat out from under Scott Brown, a Republican — has been lambasting Brown for voting against the so-called millionaire’s tax.
As Warren deftly — and professorily — put it: “I paid the taxes that I legally owed. I did not make a charitable contribution to the state.” Yeah, who expects anybody to make a charitable contribution to the state?
The state is all about compulsion. It’s a crisp, cold force that says you owe, and we will punish you if you don’t pay. So you do exactly that (if you’re reasonably competent and rational). There’s no warmth and love left over. If you’re feeling charitable, you go looking for something more specific upon which to lavish your love-in-the-form of money. In fact, it would be kind of screwy to love the government like that, to put your love-money into the general pot from which the state pays all its general expenses, even if you want the people of the state to put you in a position to cause the government to rack up even more expenses.
Brown’s campaign called Warren a hypocrite for not checking the optional higher tax rate on her personal income. “The problem with running a campaign based on self-righteousness and moral superiority is that you had better live up to the same standard you would impose on everyone else,” said the incumbent’s campaign manager, Jim Barnett, in a statement. The Brown team said Warren earned over $700,000 in 2011, adding, “This is the sort of hypocrisy and double-speak voters are sick and tired of hearing from politicians, especially those who can’t keep their hands out of others’ pocketbooks.”
Look, I have no issue with Warren not paying higher taxes. None at all. It is, after all HER money, but the hypocrisy is the important thing here. The Left screeches about the rich, paying their fair share, or about the rich not being taxed enough, yet, they never seem to stand up and take the very medicine they prescribe for “the rich”.
Now, we know what Warren, and other Democrats are doing. They are engaging in class politics, with their aim being to build up hatred towards the rich. This, they feel, is a path towards electoral victories in November. The fascinating thing here is that among those who suck this bilge up, there seems to be no awareness that these Liberal politicians are lying to them. The “99%” crowd is being led to hate a segment of the country simply because they are wealthy. They are buying into the Marxist blatherings of Liberals like Warren, while ignoring the actions of Warren and her ilk.
This is yet another reason I have come to view the Left this way. The leaders, or maybe more to the point agitators, spew their lies, and engage in class or racial politics, knowing all along that they are lying. And then you have the fools, the useful idiots who buy into this garbage. Perhaps this group likes feeling like, or at least playing the victim. Maybe they are just so buried in the inherent pessimism of Liberalism that they cannot see through the lies their leaders preach to them.
If these useful idiots had a grasp of history, they would realize that these lies, and false promises they are being told never come true. They might look at the 100,000,000 people who died last century because people bought into the lies of Marxism. But, they are too busy holding their hands out, expecting to mooch off the labors of others.
Liberals love to use the word fair, as in “The rich do not pay their fair share“, well Milton Wolf has some questions, via the WSJ for the president.
Barack Obama is centering his re-election strategy on class warfare and the politics of jealousy. He speaks of economic justice and fairness and sews the seeds of resentment that divides our nation. OK, fine. Stephen Moore has A Fairness Quiz for the President….
Is it fair that some of Mr. Obama’s largest campaign contributors received federal loan guarantees on their investments in renewable energy projects that went bust?
Is it fair that federal employees receive benefits that are nearly 50% higher than those of private-sector workers whose taxes pay their salaries, according to the Congressional Budget Office?
Is it fair that President Obama sends his two daughters to elite private schools that are safer, better-run, and produce higher test scores than public schools in Washington, D.C.—but millions of other families across America are denied that free choice and forced to send their kids to rotten schools?
Is it fair that wind, solar and ethanol producers get billions of dollars of subsidies each year and pay virtually no taxes, while the oil and gas industry—which provides at least 10 times as much energy—pays tens of billions of dollars of taxes while the president complains that it is “subsidized”?
Is it fair that those who work full-time jobs (and sometimes more) to make ends meet have to pay taxes to support up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits for those who don’t work?
There are more, and they are worth the read. To be sure the Left has bastardized the words fair and unfair. And the Liberal base eats that type of class warfare up. Just another example of just what a childish and self-centered ideology Liberalism is.
Aleister at American Glob has an interesting video. A rich union boss telling poor Americans that life is not, say it with me now……
Well now isn’t that………..
Don Surber nails it!
Should Republicans follow Rick Santorum’s lead and offer a tax credit to low-wage young men to make them more “marriageable”?
This is a particularly bad idea that James Taranto identified as “Sexual Socialism,” but then did not really explain why this is such a terrible idea. His argument is that David Brooks of the New York Times thinks this is a good idea, so it must be a bad one. That’s a convincing argument, but let me take it one step further.
This is a lousy idea because it perverts the tax code once again to do some social engineering. Instead of simply collecting taxes to support the government, Congress and the president would use if for behavior modification. We already do $1 trillion worth of socialistic behavior modification by offering tax deductions and tax credits for everything from having a child to what sort of dishwasher you buy. At election time, these are referred to both as “tax loopholes” and as help for the middle class. It depends on whose ox the federal government is subsidizing.
Again, Santorum and his “Social Conservatism” prove my theory that you cannot trust a man wearing a sweater vest. Good Grief!
I like Rick Santorum, but his support of this type of thing bothers me greatly.
The next piece is his economics section, but while he sounds the same general theme as the other campaigns—too much spending and statism, and the need to cut the size of government—he spends a lot of time talking about his proposal to eliminate the corporate tax on manufacturing. The reason we need to give special status to manufacturing, he says, is that the sector is fungible. Goods can be produced anywhere, so Santorum believes we need to give those businesses special protection to keep them in America. Captive businesses—my words, not his—can be taxed at the normal rate because, he says, it’s harder to relocate those jobs. Why should florists and restaurants pay corporate taxes but not manufacturers? “Because,” Santorum says, “this restaurant isn’t moving to China, right? The florist isn’t moving to China.”
Hmmm, I must say, we should have one flat, and yes low, rate for all corporations, and individuals, that makes sense. But, giving one industry lower taxes than others is just another way of allowing government to pick winners and losers. Taxes ought never be used to punish, or reward certain behaviors. And the same rule ought to apply to taxing companies.
What Santorum is advocating here is making some businesses pay more corporate taxes than other businesses. Sorry, Senator Santorum, but that stinks, and it is sad that you would support such a policy. Frankly, it seems as if you do not want less government as much as you want the government meddling in ways that you approve of. Andy at Ace of Spades asks the obvious question
Wait. What? Sprinkle the word “green” in there a little and this quote could have come from Obama.
I thought we were against picking winners and losers via the tax code, but it seems that none of our potential candidates can resist it.
I would add here that one candidate does see one tax rate for everyone. Hmmm, who is that? Oh yes, Rick Perry!
Is that unless we relent to higher taxes, which vermin like Nancy Pelosi, call “increased revenue” teachers will all be fired, kids will starve, water and air will be polluted, and the poor will suffer! Not so fast says Lance Burri
“…if you refuse … to take one red cent from the wealthiest people in our country and the price we have to pay is the diminished defense and the diminished strength of our country, I think that something is [wrong] here.”
Say, Madame Speaker, if paying for national defense is suddenly in danger, how about we just stop subsidizing businesses with failing business models?
Or, y’know, we should just stop subsidizing businesses. Because identifying the ones with “failing business models” requires somebody in an office somewhere to make a subjective decision about those business models, and, well, y’know. Connections.
Note what Pelosi says “if you refuse … to take one red cent from the wealthiest people in our country“ as of the wealthy pay nothing at all. Basically the left have nothing to offer America, nothing but class warfare, divisive language, lies, and the continued wasting of our tax dollars, and of course, the continuing spiral into Marxism.
Too bad we do not have Congressmen like Lance Burri, and fewer like Pelosi. Congressmen that realize that our tax dollars should never be thrown into failing companies because it might help Obama get re-elected. The fact is, if Pelosi were honest, she would have said “If Democrats are not willing to stop pissing away American’s tax dollars on far left ventures that always fail, then they are not fit to serve in government!”
From the Blogmocracy. Read the whole thing, but here is a preview
When reading Rick Perry’s economic plan, it may seem very familiar to you. That’s because it is. For anyone who doubts Perry’s conservative bona fides, a review of this plan should immediately alleviate those fears. This plan is a comprehensive list of the very things we free marketeers have been saying for years. It is also very similar to what has been offered both by Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain. Right off the bat here are my main impressions of the plan, the highlights so to speak. Perry introduces his idea for a flat tax, proposes balancing the budget by statute and by cutting spending. He seeks to eliminate special tax breaks for behaviors approved by government, and a massive roll back of onerous regulation inflicted by a bloated Executive Branch. You may recall that yesterday I came out in favor of Newt Gingrich based on his 21st Century Contract With America, but I also hedged somewhat by stating that any of the Gingrich, Perry, Cain trio would be O.K. with me. With that in mind, I will give Perry’s plan an overall grade of A-. There is room for improvement, but all in all, it is Red Meat for us Conservatives.
Perry starts out by pointing to a little talked about government statistic. It costs American Taxpayers $483 Billion per year to comply legally with our current tax code. Remember that figure for later, it will be important. If you log onto the IRS website, you will see an estimation from the IRS as to what percentage of Americans who pay taxes, in fact overpay. This percentage usually hovers around 90%. According to the IRS’ taxpayer advocate in testimony before congress, this is due to the fact that the tax code has become too complicated for even the IRS to follow anymore.
Last year, I called a CPA on behalf of a client. I asked about a specific deduction a client wished to take. The CPA gave me a negative response, saying, “that’s ridiculous.” The client pressed on, so I called the IRS help line. The IRS told me sure, the deduction is good, and here is the publication that I found that info in. I called the CPA back, feeling somewhat not confident in the info, first being conflicted, and also the IRS’ own disclaimer about their answers not being guaranteed. As it happens, they were both wrong. The CPA, graciously followed up by reading the entire publication and not just the first paragraph, or even only the first sentence as I suspect. As it happens the deduction was allowed, but with very severe caveats. The client was not Warren Buffett, but an average American tax paying citizen.
Why does this happen? Over the last decade, there have been 4428 changes in the tax code. There will be 350 changes for 2012. 60% of Americans employ the help of paid professionals to file their personal returns. One mistake Perry makes here is one that I have noticed personally. Many of the professionals hired have no actual training or expertise in tax law or preparation. There are a lot of people who operate tax preparation businesses with no more expertise than the software they purchased at their local book store. While I do not wish to disparage the fine software products being sold, It is not the same as paying for the services of a CPA or an Enrolled Agent.
Perry also points out that the Average Corporate Rate paid in the United States is the second highest rate of any industrialized nation. While most of the other industrialized nations around the globe are lowering their rate of confiscation, our government is seeking to increase our corporate tax rates. Perry has also done his homework and refers to a graph originally produced by Art Laffer. In this particular chart, Laffer pointed to the past, and noticed that no matter what tinkering occurred with the tax code, revenues were consistently around 18% of GDP. Fluctuations in tax rates only served to affect GDP in the long term, while increases or decreases in revenue were only affected by increases or decreases in GDP.
As I said go read the entire piece. This plan, along with Perry’s conservative stances on many other issues, guns, life, energy, small government, States rights, is a big reason I am endorsing Perry for president.
Impressive? Yes, and I think he can sell it. If elected could he get it done? A great portion of it? Half of it? All of it? Who knows, but, I like what I see, and look forward to seeing the whole thing
Texas Gov. Rick Perry supports a flat tax, he said, giving a hint Wednesday of what the economic plan he will release “in six days” will look like.
“It starts with scrapping the 3 million words of the tax code, starting over with something simpler: a flat tax,” Perry said at the Western Republican Leadership Conference at the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas.
“I want to make the tax code so simple that even Timothy Geithner can file his taxes on time,” Perry said, taking a shot at President Obama’s Treasury secretary.
The second part of his plan will be a serious commitment to spending cuts and the passage of a balance budget amendment.
“I will barnstorm this country from day one, going to all fifty states if that’s required, to generate support for a balanced budget amendment that will require — that will demand — the necessary changes be placed in our Constitution and make tough choices year after year,” he said. “We must have a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
“We must reform entitlements,” Perry added, saying that he would preserve Social Security for today’s retirees and those approaching retirement.
Again, looks promising, but the details need to be examined.
Watch this video, via Duane Lester and see pathetic!
Duane delves into the details and discovers that this tool is a plant!
As Tim Carney notes, Edwards has given $300,000 to Democrats, which is equal to about 60 Pell grants.
But let’s really get into his question for a bit. He asks,
“My question is would you please raise my taxes? I would like very much for our country to continue to invest in things like Pell grants, infrastructure, job training–programs that made it possible for me to get to where I am. It kills me to see Congress not supporting the expiration of tax cuts that have been benefiting so much of us for so long.”
First of all, Edwards is unemployed. Obama is talking about raising taxes on people’s incomes. Exactly what taxes would Edwards like Obama to raise? It can’t be to raise the limit on his FICA taxes or a higher rate on his income tax. He doesn’t pay any.
Does he want a raise in the capital gains tax, when the stock market is already having one of the wildest years in history? What impact would that have on investments? Does he care?
He’s fairly young, so he can’t be thinking about the estate, or death, tax.
Perhaps it’s his retirement or educational savings accounts…
Honestly, I think he has no idea what taxes he wants raised. He’s a plant. He’s a liberal tool for the movement.
Same old BS from the Left. Why would anyone still fall for this? Honestly, why?
And today, I present a video one such Democrat, one who actually speaks the truth about the purpose of punitive taxes that Democrats love so much.
Rep. Brad Sherman, a leftist representing the 27th District of California, admitted to a packed house that the progressive income tax and the estate tax were designed to prevent the wealthy from keeping any wealth they acquire.
There you are my friends. One of the most frustrating things about battling the Left is when fellow Conservatives say “now don’t you call those Democrats Marxists”. Why the Hell not? The ideals espoused by the majority of Democrats today are based largely in the ranting of Marx and Engels. Duane Lester, at the link above shares the words of the two bastards who brought forth Communism
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
Shared sacrifice? Try paying the taxes you owe Mr. Buffet!
Remember when Warren Buffett — a staunch Obama supporter — said that rich people like him would be willing to pay more taxes to help out? If you do, it will probably shock you that his company, Berkshire Hathaway, has back taxes dating back to 2002.
The New York Post explains:
That’s right: As Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson notes, the company openly admits that it owes back taxes since as long ago as 2002.
“We anticipate that we will resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for the 2002 through 2004 tax years … within the next 12 months,” the firm’s annual report says.
It also cites outstanding tax issues for 2005 through 2009.
Reduce individual and business income taxes to a maximum 25%
• Eliminate taxes on repatriated foreign profits and capital gains
• The capital gains tax is a wall separating those with ideas from those with money
• Why would we want to wall off those with ideas? That’s where
we get business formation, job creation and innovation.
• When companies sell products overseas they face double
taxation when those profits are brought home (repatriation) to invest in America and pay its workers
• Companies don’t ship jobs overseas, Liberals ship capital overseas and the jobs merely follow.
Lots to like there. Now, I would argue that 25% is too high. That should be a lower rate frankly, but, I like the idea of making tax rates permanent. Cain also lays out much more, and I really like the vision he brings. Please go read it all. Many people argue that Cain has no chance in this race, but, stranger things have happened in presidential races. Herman Cain is a serious man, and these times demand a serious candidate.
The Democratic answer to EVERY problem is either a new law, tighter regulations, or
higher taxes sorry, I mean “revenues” the new word the Democrats are using for higher taxes on “the rich”. To listen to Democrats, which, by the way I do not recommend unless you have lots of Ibuprofen, or bourbon, taxing “the rich” sorry “revenues” will cure every ill. Lord knows, our debt as a nation could never be about OVERFREAKINGSPENDING! Oh no!
The problem with Democrat calls for “revenues” is this. If we give more “revenues” they increase spending well past those revenues. Under the Bush administration, our national debt nearly doubled! Despite the fact that revenues, that is actual revenues, not the Democratic code word for higher taxes, went UP! Yes, Bush cut taxes, revenues rose, and yet, our irresponsible government, rather than acting like fiscally sane people, went on a spending orgy.
The Obama administration, has in just 30 months added another four trillion to our debt, making the spending orgy under Bush look like nothing. So why should we, the taxpayers, even consider giving more revenues to spend-a-holics who continue to illustrate absolutely zero ability to control themselves?
A great example of just how stuck on stoopit the Democrats are let us look at Milwaukee. Via Ann Althouse
2 absurdly discordant stories on the front page of today’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
“There is no way we can avoid major cuts to balance the budget – and balance the budget is what we are going to do,” Abele said during a public briefing on county departmental budget requests for 2012.
Milwaukee Common Council leaders Thursday endorsed building a $64.6 million modern streetcar line downtown, a move that brings the city closer than ever before to resolving a public transit debate that has raged for nearly 20 years.
With Thursday’s vote, a majority of aldermen have now declared their support for building the 2.1-mile line pushed by Mayor Tom Barrett…
The council’s Steering & Rules Committee acted despite warnings by city Comptroller W. Martin “Wally” Morics, who urged aldermen to slow down the process, and despite two utilities’ fears that the planned route would add tens of millions of dollars in costs and delay the project….
OK, now is when that bourbon and aspirin will come in handy. So go ahead, bang your head against the nearest wall a few more times, pop a couple, Hell, three aspirin, and down them with that Knob Creek.
The problem is clear. You cannot fix stoopit! Not with aspirin, bourbon, or even with
higher taxes, er revenues.
Here is the solution that the Democrats need to come to grips with, it has been proven over and over and again. are you ready Democrats? Ready Mr. President? You cannot, I repeat CAN FREAKING NOT spend more than you take in. And you CANNOT, I repeat CAN FREAKING NOT break the backs of Americans with taxes, or revenues, or whatever you mental midgets are calling them this week to fund your Marxist view of what America should be.
IT is the spending stupid!
No wonder that state is in the economic outhouse!
These are our state’s tax rates, according to the Retirement Living Information Center. Keep in mind many more taxes may be headed our way to close the current budget deficit.
1. Sales Taxes: Tax: 8.25%-10.5% (Some food and prescription drugs exempt.)
2. Gasoline Tax: at 46.6 cents/gallon: some localities include an additional one cent per gallon.
3. Diesel Fuel Tax: at least 48.7 cents/gallon
4. Personal Income Taxes: 1.25%-9.55%. In 2010 the state enacted a 0.25 percentage point increase in each income tax bracket. A tax credit for dependents was reduced from $309 to $98.
5. Retirement Income Taxes: Social Security and Railroad Retirement benefits are exempt, but we have a 2.5% tax on early distributions and qualified pensions. All private, local, state and federal pensions are fully taxed.
6. Property Taxes are assessed at 100% cash value of the property. The maximum amount of tax on real estate is limited to 1% of the full cash value. Under the homestead program, the first $7,000 of the full value of a homeowner’s dwelling is exempt. The Franchise Tax Board’s Homeowner Assistance program, which provided property tax relief to persons who were blind, disabled, or at least 62 years old, and met certain minimum annual income thresholds, has been halted. The state budgets approved for the 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 fiscal years deleted funding for this Homeowner and Renter Assistance Program that once provided cash reimbursement of a portion of the property taxes that residents paid on their home.
7. Inheritance and Estate Taxes: There is no inheritance tax. However, there is a limited California estate tax related to federal estate tax collection.
Quite a quandary the Left faces over tax hikes. They want more revenues, so they can spend more on entitlements. They love higher taxes because it soothes their perverse desire for “fairness”, AKA wealth redistribution. But higher taxes, DECREASE revenues. so what is a Lib to do? Silver Fiddle explores this dilemma
Big government statists make the common mistake of confusing taxes and revenue. They are not the same thing
Taxes are an assessment by government on your earnings. Revenue is the money flowing to the US treasury as a result of taxation. There is not a direct correlation between the two. In fact, government data shows that often it is an inverse relationship.
Poor liberals, staggering blindly around Left and Right Blogistan, suffering under the crack-brained theories of a Robert Reich or Rachel Maddow, parroting nonsensical “theories.” The latest shiny ideological bauble that has enraptured Left Blogistanis is the idea that government can restore fiscal sanity by returning to the sky high tax rates of the 1950′s.
Why 70% Tax rates won’t work
…and this is what Mr. Reich and his friends always fail to mention—the individual income tax actually brought in less revenue when the highest tax rate was 70% to 91% than it did when the highest tax rate was 28%.
President John F. Kennedy’s across-the-board tax cuts reduced the lowest and highest tax rates to 14% and 70% respectively after 1964, yet revenues (after excluding the 5%-10% surtaxes of 1969-70) rose to 8% of GDP.
President Reagan’s across-the-board tax cuts further reduced the lowest and highest tax rates to 11% and 50%, yet revenues rose again to 8.3% of GDP. The 1986 tax reform slashed the top tax rate to 28%, yet revenues dipped trivially to 8.1% of GDP. (WSJ – Alan Reynolds)
Poor Libs, reality keeps getting in the way of their feelings.
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — A New York court says getting a lap dance isn’t the same as taking in a ballet, so an alcohol-free strip club will have to pay the tax man.
Four Appellate Division justices agree with a decision by a state tax appeals commission that says dances onstage or in private rooms at a suburban Albany juice bar don’t qualify for a tax exemption as “dramatic or musical arts performances.”
The court says that among other reasons, the dancers aren’t even required to have any formal dance training.
The case involves 677 New Loudon Corp., doing business as Nite Moves, and a tax bill of nearly $125,000 plus interest the state says it owes on lap dances and admission fees.