Backdoor taxes to hit middle class (Reuters)
—————————————————————————
Backdoor taxes to hit middle class
By Terri Cullen
NEW YORK (Reuters.com) —The Obama administration's plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.
In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year — effectively a tax hike by stealth.
While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.
The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.
If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.
Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 — though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.
Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.
Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year's levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy — the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.
Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:
* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;
* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;
* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;
* Individuals who don't itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;
* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.




This article doesn't even account for the hidden tax called inflation. If the lemmings understood that everytime Barry does something for them it means less purchasing power at Walmart, maybe we'd get some real "change".
Reply to this
Thanks! This is journalism at its best.
Reply to this
Census costs
To whom it may concern.
Any census form sent in prior to April 1, 2010 in which the first question was answered and mailed prior to April 1,2010 would be invalid. And each and every person that sent in a census questionnaire prior to April 1,2010 and answered the first question would be in violation of Title 13 section 221 and possibly section 224.
The questionnaire should have been made very clear as to not return or mail back until after the April 1,2010 date.
I think it would invalidate any questionnaires sent in prior to April 1,2010 and it needs to be addressed as a problem.
I called and asked about this issue and was told it was ok. It is not ok and if allowed the other sections of Title 13 can be addressed
TITLE 13 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER II
SUBCHAPTER II—OTHER PERSONS
§ 221. Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers
§ 222. Giving suggestions or information with intent to cause inaccurate enumeration of population
§ 223. Refusal, by owners, proprietors, etc., to assist census employees
§ 224. Failure to answer questions affecting companies, businesses, religious bodies, and other organizations; false answers
§ 225. Applicability of penal provisions in certain cases
§ 213. False statements, certificates, and information
(a) Whoever, being an officer or employee referred to in subchapter II of chapter 1 of this title, willfully and knowingly swears or affirms falsely as to the truth of any statement required to be made or subscribed by him under oath by or under authority of this title, shall be guilty of perjury, and shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(b) Whoever, being an officer or employee referred to in subchapter II of chapter 1 of this title—
(1) willfully and knowingly makes a false certificate or fictitious return; or
(2) knowingly or willfully furnishes or causes to be furnished, or, having been such an officer or employee, knowingly or willfully furnished or caused to be furnished, directly or indirectly, to the Secretary or to any other officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof, any false statement or false information with reference to any inquiry for which he was authorized and required to collect information provided for in this title—
shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Thank you
George Walsh
Proud Member of the
Apache County Individual & Property Rights Association
http://acipra.wordpress.com/category/home-page/
acipra@frontier.com
Reply to this
I'd like to see a link sourcing the claim that the article was suppressed by Obama.
Reply to this