Government

If The Bush Tax Cuts Expire, How Much More Would You Have To Pay?

The discussion of the Bush-era tax cuts is one of the most reliable political footballs in recent memory. And with the December 31 deadline for the last two-year extension of the cuts looming, we can expect the debate to continue up to and through the election.

What does that mean to you and me? It all depends on where you live? CNBC’s calculations show that Mississippi taxpayers will fare better than most people, but they still are looking at an increased tax liability of just over $1,300 (per household) for the year. Connecticut residents are on the other end of the scale and may be hit with a tax increase of almost $6,000 (per household)  if the Bush tax cuts expire.

It is no secret that President Obama wants the cuts to continue for everyone except those in the top tax brackets, on July 9th he said this:

“The fate of the tax cut for the wealthiest Americans will be decided by the outcome of the next election. My opponent will fight to keep them in place, I will fight to end them…”

Following the President’s public statement on the taxes, and his belief that people (and small businesses) earning more than $250,000 need to pay more, Congress lept into action:

Feeling as if they had actually accomplished something, both the House and Senate left town for recess. However, based on the deep divide between the parties, it is doubtful that an agreement on extending the tax cuts in any form will happen before the coming election. CBS News reports that this is all “political theater” and quotes GOP Senator Mitch McConnell framing the situation this way:

“[T]his is more about messaging or passing the buck than it is about helping anybody or preventing an economic calamity at the end of this year.”

Political theater aside, the clock is ticking on the tax cuts and the debate on the impact of keeping them in place or letting them die, rages on. If nothing is done, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that our economy in the first six months of 2013 could continue to sputter and contract as much as 1.3%.

What happens to you if the cuts expire? The Tax Foundation has done the math and provides a handy map to show the likely economic impact on people in every state. (For the record, the Tax Foundation describes themselves as, “a nonpartisan tax research group based in Washington, D.C.”)

The Five States Facing The Biggest Tax Increases (avg. per household):

  1. Connecticut $5,783
  2. New York $5,542
  3. New Jersey $5030
  4. Massachusetts $4277
  5. California $4242

 

The Five States With The Smallest Tax Increases (avg. per household):

  1. Mississippi $1310
  2. New Mexico $1465
  3. Alabama $1496
  4. Tennessee $1522
  5. West Virginia $1530
Where does your state rank?

How Much More Would You Pay If The Bush Tax Cuts Expire?

 

 

Comments (168)

1 2 3
  • Aerocog
    Posted on August 16, 2012 at 6:09pm

    Ha ha! The liberals will be doing nothing but taxing themselves!

    Report Post »  
    • Annette Burns
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 7:10pm

      I can’t think of more deserving people to get to pay the highest increase. LOL

      Report Post »  
    • soybomb315_II
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 8:38pm

      so what is it going to be republicans…..Are you going to extend Bush tax cuts? If so, are you going to pile it on the national debt – or are you going to decrease spending by same amount????

      Report Post » soybomb315_II  
    • swamp_donkey
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 9:05pm

      the answer is 000000000000000000

      Report Post »  
    • swamp_donkey
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 9:10pm

      you morons dont even follow whats happening the dems will let them all expire and then propose the tax break for everyone under 250.000 i dont think even the fiasco that is the republican party could vote against a tax break could they , you people really need to get away from beck from time to time]

      Report Post »  
    • jmcclena
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 9:11pm

      You realize that the taxes from those “liberal” state subsidize all the poor, “conservative” states right? You conservatives are moochers off the liberal dime.

      Report Post »  
    • the_truth_or_not
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 9:16pm

      @SOYBOMB
      so what is it going to be republicans…..Are you going to extend Bush tax cuts? If so, are you going to pile it on the national debt – or are you going to decrease spending by same amount????

      If I understand your argument which is kinda vague, I would say that you are indicating that extending the tax cuts is another cut. Well the only time the Bush tax cut was a cut, was when it was first introduced. To let them expire now is a tax increase. To keep them it is maintaining the current tax lvl. So by keeping them, it is not taking adding to the Nat’l debt. but not keeping them it is a tax increase.

      For once it would be nice to here unbiased logic from the left.

      Report Post » the_truth_or_not  
    • soybomb315_II
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 9:27pm

      @the_truth_or_not
      All the talk about future deficits and debt is based on the assumption of Bush tax cuts expiring. If they are extended, the deficit will increase next year and every year after that

      The question should be – “Are you going to pay for it”? If the answer is no, then it is just more DEBT. Sorry, i thought we were trying to make things BETTER FOR OUR KIDS…..

      Report Post » soybomb315_II  
    • The Giver
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 9:51pm

      @SOYBOMB, Giving people back THEIR MONEY doesn’t increase deficit because when people have their money … they start businesses and purchase more. The federal funds actually increase. Why would you try to make your business more successful when you’ll just pay at a higher rate. People are not dumb. Investment income is taxed at lower rate ( 15% for long term investment and 25% for short term investment). Businesses will thrive and create better financial opportunities when taxes, fees and regulations are reasonable. No income tax would unleash opportunities in this country.

      Report Post » The Giver  
    • soybomb315_II
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 9:56pm

      @The Giver
      I understand your argument. I think a balanced budget would be the best thing for the future. Obviously, i prefer massive spending cuts. I think spending is the problem, not taxes. If the federal government shrinks – it is good for the economy

      Report Post » soybomb315_II  
    • Al J Zira
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 9:56pm

      @Soybean: I guess you really don’t have a grasp on the issue. The republicans in congress have made, I believe, 32 attempts to reduce the budget and kick start jobs without raising taxes. Harry Reid has refused to allow any of them to come to the senate floor. I’ve heard nothing from the Obama Cartel about letting taxes go up for those making over $250,000 and using it to reduce the deficit. He’s just going to spend more. That‘s all he and the dems do is spend money that isn’t theirs.

      Somehow, liberals have a hard time grasping the concept that we’re not supposed to be paying taxes for every little thing the politicians say they need. Politicians have gotten so greedy over the years they don’t care about the American people. The only time they say they do is election time. The day they made insider trading legal for politicians is the day they told us we’re screwed. But you want to feed this beast?

      Report Post » Al J Zira  
    • jzs
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 10:01pm

      Some good posts here!

      Reagan cut taxes and tripled the deficit. No jobs were created as a result of the tax breaks. Just more deficit. Bush cut taxes once, then twice. No job creation. In fact, job creation under Bush was the worse than any President in the 20th century – job creation was less than the increase in population.

      Those Bush tax are still in effect. They didn’t create jobs when they were passed, and, obviously aren’t creating jobs now. However, the Bush tax cuts ballooned the deficit, and still do to this day. That, and the wars he started of course, let’s not forget that.

      Come on. The US has tried cutting taxes to create jobs. It doesn’t work. How many times do we have to try it, and see it fail, before you realize you’ve been brainwashed? Don’t you find it strange that Republican claim they are SO SERIOUS about the national debt, and yet cannot give you one single they’d do to reduce it?

      President Obama is not going to raise your taxes. But if Rebublicans continue to march in lockstep to oppose absolutely any legistlation from passing – whether they think it’s good for the country or not – then yep, your taxes might go up. It’s really the Tea Party playing this game of chicken. See how much you like their little game if they succeed in blocking any compromise.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • soybomb315_II
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 10:02pm

      @Al J Zira
      The republicans have the house. They have authorized every nickel Obama has spent for the last 2 years (they have many options at their disposal). Dont believe those RINO excuses

      out

      Report Post » soybomb315_II  
    • Freedombeliever
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 10:05pm

      LOL! Cracks me up! Stupid liberals get faced with the facts and STILL vote for barry! I’m so glad I live in Texas. I hope if barry gets re-elected, we secede from the union!

      Report Post » Freedombeliever  
    • may40
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 10:14pm

      Unfortunately, some of us conservatives live in very liberal states and therefore will be taking one for the team. A little sympathy please. If this president gets voted in again people are going to go crazy knowing that they cheated. Well, the Dems are not known for their integrity. Just saying.

      Report Post »  
    • mecanic
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 10:20pm

      @jzlibratard….just go away, idiot.

      Report Post » mecanic  
    • Dan_o
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 10:31pm

      SoyBomb, it‘s been proven time and again that tax cuts increase gov’t intake by jump starting growth and spending in the private sector. Cutting gov’t spending is only half the equation.

      Report Post » Dan_o  
    • stifroc
      Posted on August 17, 2012 at 12:56am

      JZS is always good for a laugh. You’re one of the best there is at trolling. Kudos.

      Report Post » stifroc  
    • gibby45
      Posted on August 17, 2012 at 1:22am

      Hey JZS you are right about the deficit but the interest rates went down and inflation was also at the lowest it has been under any President since. Home buying went up. People had more disposable income. How is that working today?

      Report Post » gibby45  
    • william 123
      Posted on August 17, 2012 at 7:41am

      Not true….a lot of them don’t work!! Just look at an OWS media clip

      Report Post »  
    • Shifty6
      Posted on August 17, 2012 at 10:37am

      @ JZS:

      You are the dumbest person I know. Your arguement is the same as this: Polution went up and fewer peope have polio, therefore polution cures polio.

      Saying the sky is green doesn’t make it so.

      Report Post »  
    • drphil69
      Posted on August 17, 2012 at 11:02am

      @Soy… According to Obama, increasing the taxes on “wealthiest” Americans amounts to a revenue increase of $100 billion per year. THESE ARE OBAMA’S OWN NUMBERS. The deficit is $1.4 TRILLION. The tax increase would reduce the deficit to $1.3 TRILLION.

      The problem with liberals is you never let FACTS get in the way of your arguement.

      So, after Obama and the libs are done bankrupting the country, DON’T LET THE FACTS OF YOUR OWN STARVATION CONCERN YOU, JUST PRETEND YOU HAVE PLENTY OF FOOD.

      Or, you can try to come take my food…. I‘ll be glad to ’help’ you do away with all your misery…

      I WILL NOT COMPLY.

      I AM JOHN GALT.

      Report Post »  
    • Yeah_Buddy
      Posted on August 17, 2012 at 11:11am

      According to Obummer, the recession ended many years ago, the private sector is doing fine and gubbermint is responsible for building all businesses. Its all sunshine and lollipops so lets raise taxes!

      We so need to reelect these really smart people to rule us with more regulation and higer taxes!

      What, y’all want to be back in chains?

      Report Post »  
    • SocialistSlayer
      Posted on August 17, 2012 at 12:02pm

      “You realize that the taxes from those “liberal” state subsidize all the poor, “conservative” states right? You conservatives are moochers off the liberal dime.”

      You do realize all the Liberal Commie states are bankrupt don‘t you and can’t afford to by paper to wipe their butts much less support Conservative states! Go back to your Acorn desk you obama Commie!

      Report Post » SocialistSlayer  
    • Man-On-A-Mission
      Posted on August 17, 2012 at 12:25pm

      Unless your very rich…it will hurt all of us….DUMB….A**

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on August 17, 2012 at 12:50pm

      Shifty6, no, that’s not what my argument “is like.” Here’s my argument:

      1) The US lowers taxes under Reagan, job creation does not increase
      2) The US lowers taxes under Bush, job creation does not increase
      3) The US lowers taxes under Bush again, job creation does not increase

      Therefore lowering taxes does not create jobs. QED

      Report Post » jzs  
    • Leopold
      Posted on August 17, 2012 at 1:27pm

      This tax issue can be put to rest by changing the argument.

      We hear all the time tax increases for the rich. Just because Obama declared that $200.000,00 makes you rich, doesn’t make it so.

      What bothers me the most is, that a small business owner who makes even $300,000.00 to a $1,000,000.00 is put on the same level as a billionaire.

      Why does nobody mention that?

      $200,000.00 – two hundred thousand
      $1,000,000,000.00 – one billion

      These 2 #s are the same? And therefore should be taxed the same?

      The difference is only $900.800,000.00

      I don’t know folks, that seems like a very big difference.

      Report Post »  
    • Leopold
      Posted on August 17, 2012 at 2:36pm

      @ JZS

      Increase taxes, less money for you to spend.

      Less money to spend, less buying power.

      Less products manufactured.

      Increase in job loss.

      Increase in unemployment.

      Increase taxes to pay for the more unemployed.

      Less money to spend.

      Even less production.

      More lay-offs

      More taxes needed to pay for the unemployed and now welfare programs have to increase.

      Increase the taxes some more. They now have to cover the unemployed and the welfare recipients.

      Do you see a pattern here?

      This is exactly what happened in All of the USSR.

      I know how it works. My husband had and still has relatives in East-Germany. I am German and lived right beside East-Germany.

      It is only because of the German industriousness that it is in a little better position than the rest of Europe.

      They did already extend the retirement age and made huge cuts in health care and welfare.

      And because Germans are able to figure these things out for themselves, they do not go out and destroy other peoples property. At least until now.

      If you were truly informed you would know that all of Europe is suffering because of exactly these methods of unending tax increases.

      Yeah, it works really well.

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on August 17, 2012 at 4:22pm

      Leopold, you are correct. We need to get money into the hands of the average American, including with food stamps if needed. The economy grows from the bottom up.

      That’s exactly what the Democrats are proposing and what the vast majority of economists agree is best for our economy.

      Romney on the other hand wants to give tax breaks to the tiny fraction of Americans like him, who are only paying 13% of taxes as it stands.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • SpeckChaser
      Posted on August 17, 2012 at 6:29pm

      JZS says the Bush tax rates are the cause of many problems but wants all of those rates to stay in place except for one.

      JZS says tax cuts don’t create jobs but won’t cite examples where raising taxes led to significant job growth or reductions in unemployment.

      JZS says tax cuts balloon the deficit but has never answered the following question. How much will the deficit balloon if you lower taxes 100% and spend $0.00?

      JZS says removing money from the economy via tax increases grow the economy and taking less money from the economy via lower taxes reduce the economy. No punch line…he really says that.

      JZS says spending 40% more than you make is unsustainable for the simplest home budget, but has no problem with an infinitely more complex budget, the federal budget, spending that much. So, a principle in its simplest form is unsustainable but it is fine in an infinitely more complex form.

      JZS says he’s educated.

      Report Post » SpeckChaser  
    • Leopold
      Posted on August 17, 2012 at 8:18pm

      @JZS

      And the bottom gets the money from where, please?

      From the government providing food stamps, unemployment and welfare?

      The government gets its money from where, please?

      From the people who pay the most taxes?

      Nah, that cannot be so, please say it aint so.

      That would mean the economy works from the top down.

      We cannot admitt to that, right?

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on August 17, 2012 at 11:12pm

      Hey Speck. Honestly your remarks are difficult to follow. But I’ll address them anyway.

      - “JZS says tax cuts don’t create jobs.” Yes, that’s true. Tax cuts have never created jobs. The tax rate isn’t related to job growth. Taxes were way higher under Clinton and job growth was high.

      - “JZS says tax cuts balloon the deficit…” Yes, that historically true. A dollar cut in tax = a dollar added to the deficit. I don’t understand your hypothetical.

      - “JZS says removing money from the economy via tax increases grow the economy and taking less money from the economy via lower taxes reduce the economy.” No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying let the temporary Bush tax cuts expire for the top income brackets. Bush’s tax cuts for the “job creators” gave us the lowest job creation of the 20th century, less than population growth. It doesn’t work. Romney pays less taxes than you, and you want to give him another tax break.

      Speck, ow much less in taxes do you want Romney and people like him to pay? Why would you want the US to give them money when we’re broke? How much medical care would you take away from the poor in this country to give Romney an extra quarter million or so in reduced taxes?

      Report Post » jzs  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on August 17, 2012 at 11:35pm

      JZS aka J-Zak says….

      “No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying let the temporary Bush tax cuts expire for the top income brackets. Bush’s tax cuts for the “job creators” gave us the lowest job creation of the 20th century…..”

      You do know that it’s the 21st Century? George W Bush and his tax cuts were never in the 20th Century. You’re sounding more like Joe Biden every day J-Zak.

      http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-folks-wheres-it-written-we-cant-lead-world-20th-century_650017.html

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • SpeckChaser
      Posted on August 18, 2012 at 2:11am

      JZS

      Hard to follow? What century are you living in? It may be hard if you obtained less that a first grade education.

      “The tax rate isn’t related to job growth”

      So hypothetically, there would be no difference in hiring an employee under a 0% tax rate as it would be a 100% rate. That is reasonable to you? Whatever. That being the case, you believe the tax payer is here to give the government every dollar that they can make it on without. I do not.

      “A dollar cut in tax = a dollar added to the deficit.

      You can only reach that conclusion by overlooking the definition of deficit, which is “the amount by which expenditures or liabilities exceed income or assets.” Simply, if you take in X but spend X + 1% you have a deficit. If you spend less than X, you have a surplus. Your equation does not hold up.

      “I’m saying let the temporary Bush tax cuts expire for the top income brackets.”

      So you don’t agree with the American Dream, whatever. But how do you sell that idea to the disadvantaged people that I assume you spend all of your free time mentoring? Is it like, “Even though you are dirt poor you can make something of yourself. Just don’t make too much of yourself because you will cross the line from doing well to taking advantage of the poor.” If those tax cuts are so terrible why do you want to keep all but one bracket?

      The only question left is why you intentionally ignore simple truths.

      Report Post » SpeckChaser  
    • teresa2010
      Posted on August 18, 2012 at 7:39am

      Awesome…. I agree, let the worthless liberals pay the higher taxes….The morons still haven‘t figured out that taxing stifles the amount of revenue coming into their state gov’t….DUH!!

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on August 18, 2012 at 2:03pm

      Monk, you’re right. My wording may have been confusing but it’s still correct. It wouldn‘t make since to compare Bush’s job creation rate to other administrations in the 21st century, because his was the first administration in the 21st century. No, my comparison was to the 20th century. Here’s what the Wall Street Journal says: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

      Speck, I see your point. $1 tax reduction = $1 increase in the deficit only if expenditures stay constant. Take Bush. He cut taxes during wartime, something never seen in American history. Wars increase expenditures. So the deficit really climbed. He also, with Paul Ryan’s vote, passed a completely unpaid for Medicaid benefit, which further increased the debt. Maybe you should explain this to Republicans. You know, the fiscal hawks.

      Since when does the American Dream include the richest paying less taxes than you? Actually Republican policies are making it harder than ever to pursue the American Dream. “Economic mobility” is lower in the United States than Canada and most European countries and getting worse. The income disparity between the rich and poor is increasing. And it’s not because rich people are smarter than they used to be. It’s because the game is rigged in favor of those who are already rich, not those pursuing the American Dream.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • SpeckChaser
      Posted on August 18, 2012 at 3:13pm

      JZS

      “Richest paying less taxes than you?”

      I trust you are talking apples to apples right?

      You could claim Romney pays lower taxes than I by comparing his local sales tax/capital gains rate my income tax rate. Surely you wouldn’t try to pass that as a legitimate comparison.

      “The income disparity between the rich and poor is increasing.”

      I agree there is a consorted effort to keep a “section” of the poor in poverty. There is no system more effective at doing that than our welfare system. I have told you before that I have close friends who are on their fourth generation of government assistance and fourth generation of living in poverty. Is that a coincidence?

      The platitudes you post about, “Romney will tax the poor to give cuts to small businesses” have no truth to them. Please post his proposal with specifics on which taxes will be raised on the poor and what taxes will be lowered for small businesses.

      Your party is the only party singling out one group of people to impose higher taxes on, which is the definition of unfair. Please explain how an X% flat income tax rate for all earners is unfair?

      The saddest point about your “tax small business” argument is that it will not curb the debt, will not feed the poor, and will not give the underprivileged a better chance. Wasn’t the estimated increase in revenue only around 5B for the proposed tax increase on small businesses?

      The economy is not a pie. The more that is had does not

      Report Post » SpeckChaser  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on August 18, 2012 at 8:26pm

      JZS aka J-Zak says….
      “Monk, you’re right. My wording may have been confusing but it’s still correct. It wouldn‘t make since to compare Bush’s job creation rate to other administrations in the 21st century….”

      No, I’m still correct and you are too CS to admit it. Thanks for the WSJ link; I like the first sentence, you know, when journalists start a story the first sentence is the prelude for the story.

      “President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting….”

      Why was a recession starting? Was it Clinton or that he had a Republican Congress? Please enlighten us with the “facts” as you see them?

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • patents
      Posted on August 20, 2012 at 1:44pm

      Why are we still calling the Bush Tax Cuts, which have been the law of the land for ten years, “tax cuts”, If the rates are not extended, we can call the new tax rates the “Obama Tax Increase”

      Report Post »  
  • AnimalsAsLeaders
    Posted on August 16, 2012 at 5:14pm

    Like Paul Ryan tried to explain to a very *misinformed* newscaster on CNN, not extending a temporary tax cut is not the same thing as raising taxes.

    Report Post » AnimalsAsLeaders  
    • eagle2715
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 5:37pm

      Not in political definitions and pandering, but the math works out to be the same….

      Report Post » eagle2715  
    • MadeintheUSA2
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 6:00pm

      They can no longer be called the Bush tax cuts since Obama extended them last year. They are Obama’s tax cuts now.

      Report Post »  
    • Chiso
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 7:04pm

      No dumass – they‘re Bush’s tax cuts.
      He implemented them; they’re his.

      Obama will either, extend the Bush Tax Cuts, or he will end the Bush Tax Cuts.

      In order for Obama to claim ownership on some tax cuts, he would have to make some.

      Report Post »  
    • oneshiner
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 7:17pm

      @SKREWEDRETIREE: Thank you for making sense. Why can‘t the gov’t see the truth?
      Most of us have worked all our lives and shouldn’t have to face more taxes upon retirement….
      If we seem angry, it‘s having to support all the others who don’t or can’t work, or illegal. They are kinda like having more children than you can afford to support.

      Report Post »  
    • swamp_donkey
      Posted on August 17, 2012 at 10:47am

      Freedombeliever texas will be a dem state soon

      Report Post »  
    • integrican
      Posted on August 17, 2012 at 12:39pm

      @SwampDonkey……Here is why.

      “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.” Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747–1813)

      Report Post » integrican  
  • Skrewedretiree
    Posted on August 16, 2012 at 4:31pm

    I’m a retired mailman, living on a shoestring – Take home pay is less than 25 thousand per year.
    Under the Obama Regime, my retirement has been hit HARD, and now I see the Socialists in my area have approved another “do it for the children” school levy which will hit me harder still. My property value continues to decline, but the taxes stay the same or go up!

    But, the worst thing is: The Government considers me “rich” because I own my own home.

    What they don’t want to admit is the fact that it took me a lifetime of work to pay for it, and now that I have, I am not “paying my fair share”!

    Vote these Communist bast-terds out in November, and put America back on track!

    I am a retiree. I WORKED for my meager pension! There are MILLIONS of blacks and latinos who are getting everything they need and want off Welfare, who NEVER WORKED A DAY IN THEIR LIVES!

    Also, my tax dollars go to Mexicans and Foreigners who do NOTHING to benefit me, or my country!

    Remember in November/Load up, Stock up.

    Report Post » Skrewedretiree  
    • JC_is_KING
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 4:50pm

      agreed

      Report Post » JC_is_KING  
    • Wolf
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 5:52pm

      But according to the Bamster, you didn’t earn it or make it, therefore, you don’t deserve it.

      Report Post »  
    • OBAMANATIONOFDESOLATION
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 6:03pm

      Remember, you didn’t pay for that house, the government did that for you.

      Report Post »  
    • BHOHG2G
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 6:44pm

      Me too.

      Report Post » BHOHG2G  
    • normalmom
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 7:08pm

      Agreed, the ones not trying to go to work need to be cut off welfare. NO I don’t mean the literally disabled, fatso‘s you don’t count.

      Report Post »  
    • soybomb315_II
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 8:40pm

      @Skrewedretiree
      So the government gave you retirement without you having to contribute? Sounds like free money to me. You should either be greatful the government smiles upon you, or you should not be dependent on the federal government for your means of survival in your later stages of life

      Report Post » soybomb315_II  
    • mecanic
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 10:09pm

      god help us, your right. romney/ryan 2012. people need to prepiar it’s not going to be fun.

      Report Post » mecanic  
  • NoUseForLogic
    Posted on August 16, 2012 at 4:29pm

    Technically, he wouldn’t be raising taxes. They are temporary tax cuts that were designed to expire, and the cuts for income over $250,000 account for almost 50% of our debt. Here are some nice little charts for you to wrap your heads around. (I know… they’re biased, right?)
    http://jamiekemmerer.com/not-conservative

    It is only for income over $250,000, not people’s entire incomes that make $250,000+ per year.

    And if you made more than $250,000 per year you wouldn’t be sitting here commenting on this delusional, fact-free website.

    Well what do you know, the “Tax Foundation” was founded in 1937 by the Chairman of General Motors and the President of Exxon at the time, so we can surely trust these numbers…

    Report Post »  
    • beekeeper
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 4:56pm

      I think the argument of ‘fairness’ the left is pushing is mis-placed. Taxes were lowered for all tax paying Americans by 5 percentage points per bracket – that’s fair.

      If we were to select some of the tax rates and extend the temporary cuts to them while letting other rates increase that is not fair.

      I say either all the taxes rates revert and we live with the fallout (and the estimated $3+ Trillion in new tax revenue over the next ten years) OR every tax rate remains as it is… That is fair.

      The under $250K/yr tax cuts cost the IRS about $300BN/yr in lost tax revenues, the above $250K/yr tax cuts cost the IRS about one-fourth as much (about $75BN/yr) – if we can’t afford the above $250K/yr cuts, how can anyone argue we can afford four times the cuts for those earning less than $250K/yr? Oh wait, I know – we have to apply the fantastical ‘economic activity multiplier’, just like the left says we need to apply to welfare, unemployment, monies…

      Report Post » beekeeper  
    • term limits for congress
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 5:06pm

      … account for almost 50% of our debt.

      Spending borrowed money creates debt.

      Report Post »  
    • scguitar
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 5:07pm

      First off, the cost of healthcare is WAYYY off. Secondly, the Bush tax cuts brought in more revenue. This blog also says cutting spending will hurt the economy? Most economists DO NOT believe that. Your little blog is flat out wrong.

      Report Post »  
    • Mojoron
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 5:08pm

      I’m not to sure that what you are saying is correct. In your world those who make more than $250000 are evil and they should be punished for their evil ways. I’m the exact opposite, I believe that people who make more than $250000 do so by their own efforts, the effort it takes to get a good education, spend time understanding how to make money and effectively use their money to make more money. In my opinion the workers who don’t work hard and make the tight choices in their lives, don’t complete their training/educational undertakings and routinely use the government to get more money are the ones that are a drain on society. Anyone can make $250000 a year if they put their heads into it. It starts back in grade school when most leaders are trying to learn the losers a f‘n around with Margaret’s curls or playing with his penis. Success should not be penalized, success should be praised, it is in the NFL, NBA, and all other sports, why can’t it be in people who achieve prosperity on their own? After all, the money that we make is OUR money not THEIR money. This is the basis of the TEA party, Taxed Enough Already. That must be pointed out every time someone like you thinks that our works product is the Government not OURS.

      Report Post » Mojoron  
    • trinklefinder
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 5:17pm

      Technically it would be raising taxes because prior to 1862 we didn’t pay income taxes. is that the game you want to play?

      Report Post » trinklefinder  
    • yosemitefan
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 5:35pm

      NoUse – your name says it all…Fact is taxpayers making 70,000 to 250,000 per year pay 80% of all income taxes collected. 47-49% of people pay Zero Tax. If those people paid just 8% for their income would double the total revenue collected currently. However the Government SPENDS almost twice what it takes in -That is the real problem.

      Report Post »  
    • eagle2715
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 5:40pm

      ” and the cuts for income over $250,000 account for almost 50% of our debt.”

      I don’t even have to go look anything up to know that that is total bull sh#$…

      The expiration of the tax cuts over a whole year will provide 8-10 days worth of money to run the government. How the hell does that account for 50% of our excess spending? I don’t care who you got that from, they need to learn how to count to 10 still apparently….

      Report Post » eagle2715  
    • Obama Hang-over
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 5:45pm

      So you provide a link to a far left blogger with some manipulated numbers and charts and claim this is the truth, not actual numbers put forth by economists. I have to hand it to the left, what they don’t have in facts they make up for with exuberant lies.

      Report Post »  
    • happy2BAmerican
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 6:53pm

      Social Security was also designed with a SUNDOWN clause, but that didn’t stop it from staying in effect for the past 70+ years.

      Report Post »  
    • ProfessorChaos
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 6:57pm

      I especially love how your cost pf new policies graph conveniently leaves out the staggering cost of Obamacare. ….. Seems Legit.

      Report Post » ProfessorChaos  
    • NoUseForLogic
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 7:27pm

      You’ll notice that the Affordable Care Act would be under “Health Reform and Entitlement Changes” on the right. A.K.A, “Obamacare” to you folks, the smallest number on the chart.

      Report Post »  
    • HI_Don
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 8:46pm

      I make more than 250 per year (barely) and I’m commenting and complaining. The military moved me to a very high cost of living area and I served and lived there for over 25 years, came to love the people and the climate so during my service I bought some property and built a house (yea, I built that). The liberals have ruined the government here so bad that the public school system is the worst in the country. I have three kids I raised in Private school and now two of them are in college. I drive 20 year old cars falling apart, and have no hobbies or vices that take my income. After two college tuitions and a remaining child in private school it takes every penny to pay the bills, the mortgage, and the school. We haven’t had a vacation in over 10 years. My military retirement after 25 years goes completely to pay taxes. I have a full time job and so does my wife, but we are just holding our own and if either of us gets canned or gets sick – we have almost nothing saved for the “rainy day”. I don’t own any business, just a blue collar working stiff, retired enlisted military and the President calls me the evil rich guy who isn’t paying his fair share. Oh, and thanks for raiding the military health care funds along with Medicare to pay for the even more unsustainable Obama Care. You want to rob me more and have stolen my kids future. Change in 2012 please. But hey, if I divorce, the two of us could each make 200K and we would be protected. Anti-Family?

      Report Post »  
  • Lotus503
    Posted on August 16, 2012 at 4:11pm

    They keep stealing the purchasing power of our currency by creating more and more money to where our dollar is now only worth a couple of cents compared to its purchasing power it had right after World War II…and they still have the nerve to insist on raising our tax rates to take our money directly from us!

    I don’t know about you, but I think it’s time for a BIG change in our federal government. Otherwise, I think that our country is doomed to the ages.

    Report Post »  
    • Skrewedretiree
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 4:24pm

      Funny you should mention WW2.

      I have a copy of a local newspaper from WW2, 1942 I believe, that has a small article about the withholding tax passing Congress and President Roosevelt expected to sign it.

      Before this, ALL Federal taxes were payed directly by the taxpayer, not just taken out of your paycheck automatically. But, with the passage of withholding, all anyone seems to look at now is the “bottom line”, the “take home pay” and they tend to ignore the taxes taken out.

      This was to be a Wartime measure, aimed at getting the money now instead of later in order to fund the war against the enemy. The war ended, but withholding did not. I don’t know who said it first, but Reagan quoted it: “There is no more permanent thing than a temporary Government program.

      Just remember: The Federal Income Tax and Paycheck Withholding (Fed taxes taken out of your paycheck each payday) were both passed under DEMOCRATS (Wilson, Roosevelt).

      Report Post » Skrewedretiree  
    • cmcel
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 7:49pm

      “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” – Milton Friedman

      He was Reagan’s economic adviser, and a very big name in Austrian school of economics and libertarian.

      Report Post »  
  • TommyGuns
    Posted on August 16, 2012 at 4:08pm

    An example of ObamaSpeak is that he accuses the Republicans of wanting to raise taxes on the middle class so that they can give a tax cut to the ‘wealthiest Americans’. Lost in this tortured logic is the fact that the money doesn’t belong to the government in the first place. It doesn’t matter how much you pay in taxes. It’s your money and not theirs. Another example of ObamaSpeak is his insistence that everyone pay their ‘fair share’. Puzzle me this. If you pay no income taxes at all, because the Bush tax cuts actually removed over 40 million people from the tax rolls, how are you paying your fair share? The answers to our ‘revenue’ problems are pretty simple, too simple for the politicians to understand I guess. You need to broaden the tax base – everybody pays something. You need to cut government spending on programs that they have no business being involved with in the first place. Finally, you need to eliminate all deductions, and I do mean all of them, even the most popular ones, and reduce the tax rates to just a single bracket or, at most, two or three brackets.

    Report Post » TommyGuns  
  • Oversat
    Posted on August 16, 2012 at 4:07pm

    It is always great to see my beloved state of Tennessee at the bottom of the tax burden barrels!

    Report Post » Oversat  
  • cause_glen_said_so
    Posted on August 16, 2012 at 4:03pm

    Tax Foundation…former Bush and Reagan people, former Koch exec, former Repub congressman, McCain economic advisor…do I see a pattern here?

     
    • Oversat
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 4:09pm

      Yes! Apparently conservatives and Republicans are better at math!

      Report Post » Oversat  
    • kalli
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 4:41pm

      @Oversat: ROFLOL…reply of the day!

      Report Post »  
    • eagle2715
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 5:36pm

      of the day? hahaha, i give him reply of the month for that one… at least the week…

      HAHAHAHAHA…Thanks man, i’m gonna laugh all day thinking about that now…

      Report Post » eagle2715  
    • piper22
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 5:53pm

      overstat,

      What are you talking about. Sandra Fluke and Obama are the greatest mathmeticians ever to live! $8/month turns into $1000/yr for birth control; Obamacare reduces insurance premiums by 2500%!! How dare you say R’s are better at math you sexist racist.

      Report Post »  
    • NoUseForLogic
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 6:31pm

      The Tax Foundation was founded in 1937 by the Chairman of GM and the President of Exxon at the time. lol. Totally accurate numbers I’m certain.

      The fact that we say this about their corporate-funded and founded organizations, naturally creates the psychological projection tactic or saying that the real facts have a liberal bias, and it works, total confusion as illustrated in these Blaze comments.

      Report Post »  
    • cause_glen_said_so
      Posted on August 17, 2012 at 8:31am

      Yes, it was cute, ROTF funny, juvenile and avoided the fact that this non partison group is, in fact, totally partison.

      Report Post »  
  • deeberj
    Posted on August 16, 2012 at 3:54pm

    Oh crap. I’m in NJ. If my taxes go up this much I‘ll owe the gov’t $4000 at tax time. Which I don’t have. Bad news for me.

    Report Post » deeberj  
  • kalli
    Posted on August 16, 2012 at 3:50pm

    I say let it expire and bank on thugobama and dinghy harry being history of the worst kind. With a new executive branch and leadership in the House and Senate, provide a temporary relief to taxpayers immediately and then reform the tax code. Otherwise, if this communist regime is left in office, this country is history.

    Report Post »  
  • hi
    Posted on August 16, 2012 at 3:43pm

    Please say ” What will happen when Obama raises taxes?”

    Report Post » hi  
  • JQCitizen
    Posted on August 16, 2012 at 3:41pm

    I can just tell you that our budget CANNOT TAKE another $200.00 / month. And we are in the top 10% at around $65000.00/yr.

    This hideous president is trying to “BREAK” the spirit of the American People. We CANNOT let him be re-elected!

    Report Post »  
    • LemonyFresh
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 4:01pm

      Same here. I own a small business, that I built, and my wife works part time. We are expecting a baby in a few days and things are tight. It almost seems as if… nah, they would not do that on purpose.

      Report Post » LemonyFresh  
  • macbihi
    Posted on August 16, 2012 at 3:38pm

    I remember under Jimmy Carter, it didn’t make much difference if your employer gave you an annual cost of living increase because the rate of inflation was higher. Taxpayers were pushed into higher brackets by these conditions and had to pay more to Uncle Sugar even though their buying power was actually reduced. People today who make just under $250K will be pushed above that limit by these same conditions. The present administration is aiming for control of private industry and larger goverment involvement in our lives. BHO needs to go!!!

    Report Post »  
  • UXO
    Posted on August 16, 2012 at 3:37pm

    Chump change, The real issue is by 2013 an effective tax rate of 50% or more will be in effect for those of us who get up off the couch and go to work.Obamacare-Obamacareless?

    Report Post »  
  • MODEL82A1
    Posted on August 16, 2012 at 3:37pm

    Not to worry, Lefties. Your rate will remain 0%.

    Report Post » MODEL82A1  
    • Skrewedretiree
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 4:39pm

      To those of you in Rio Linda it means ya ain‘t gonna hafta pay nuthin’ mo’.

      Report Post » Skrewedretiree  
  • progressiveslayer
    Posted on August 16, 2012 at 3:24pm

    Trying to explain taxes and their ramifications to progressives ie Obamazombies is pointless since they pay no federal income tax and only receive they want rates to rise,they’re parasites simple as that.

    Report Post » progressiveslayer  
    • Anonymous T. Irrelevant
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 3:38pm

      Agreed, I’m not even sure any of the welfare parasites know what income tax is, since they have never had to pay any for most of their lives.

      Report Post » Anonymous T. Irrelevant  
    • macbihi
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 3:58pm

      Amen, Progressiveslayer!! Some time ago I became involved in a discussion with a friend who prides himself on being a Moderate Democrat. (That means he is just a Liberal, not a far left Progressive.) His contention was that our State should do away with the Lottery because it intices the “poor” to spend money on a dream. My response was that fifty cents out of every Lottery dollar goes to the State and that fifty cents would be the only contribution to the society that supports the poor that he/she ever made to it. That’s when it got ugly.

      Report Post »  
    • resme
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 8:45pm

      @progressiveslayer, You know the income tax should be abolished… Don’t use sean hannity talking points, lol. Paying taxes isn’t any more patriotic than not paying any.

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance168.html (Article about fair tax and flat tax)

      If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; And the sixteen being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they do now, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; But be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains around the necks of our fellow sufferers; And this is the tendency of all human governments.
      A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second, that second for a third, and so on ’til the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering…and the forehorse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.
      Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816

      Report Post » resme  
  • silvrspur
    Posted on August 16, 2012 at 3:17pm

    Tax cuts, payroll tax reduction, decrease in taxes, whatever you call it, the taxpayer received a decrease in the taxes they WERE paying back in 2010. That tax decrease was extended and is now due to expire. But, what is really the tax(es) that were cut? I didn’t see any tax table that showed a difference in what I paid in 2009/2010/2011–actually, mine went up. What taxpayers are seeing is a reduction in the SS and Medicare tax that paid before the tax decrease in their paycheck. The Medicare tax that taxpayers pay now is what the elderly receive for Medicare. DUH. So, if you reduce what you collect to pay the bill you have for others, you are behind–so you borrow–from what–the Chinese.

    Report Post » silvrspur  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on August 16, 2012 at 3:07pm

    The Five States Facing The Biggest Tax Increases
    1.Connecticut $5,783
    2.New York $5,542
    3.New Jersey $5030
    4.Massachusetts $4277
    5.California $4242
    Poetic justice is a literary device in which virtue is ultimately rewarded or vice punished,

    Report Post » Gonzo  
    • flatdaddio
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 3:15pm

      It’s no fun living in Assachusetts as a conservative….I will be moving…

      Report Post »  
    • SREGN
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 3:20pm

      Careful Gonzo, there are some of us good guys trapped in those states. I’m stuck in Jersey 3 more years until my youngest graduates college. Then I’m off like a prom dress.

      Report Post »  
    • progressiveslayer
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 3:21pm

      All those states are run by progressives and taxmageddon will hit because the candyasses in DC won’t do anything before the election. I say good let them skyrocket,feel the pain that progressive pigs put them through,feel the burn.

      Report Post » progressiveslayer  
    • lcam67
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 3:28pm

      Sorry to say stuck in Connecticut for two more years. But hey my extra $111 a week will help pay for free healthcare . (sarcasm off) . The only thing red here is the tape…..

      Report Post » lcam67  
    • Anonymous T. Irrelevant
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 3:42pm

      5 States that will be looking for a bail-out in the next 5 years.

      Report Post » Anonymous T. Irrelevant  
    • term limits for congress
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 3:51pm

      Come on down to southwest Florida. Relatively low cost of living – no income tax – real estate prices going up, so better hurry! Must like humidity, sun, lizzards, snakes and mosquitos.

      Report Post »  
    • Skrewedretiree
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 4:37pm

      @Gonzo and @SREGN- Yup, it sucks being retired in the People’s Soviet Utopia Washingtax and not being able to pack up and leave. I would, but the wife won’t and this is a community property state, so I am stuck here for the duration.

      Of course that doesn‘t mean I can’t be vocal or a pain in the butt to all my Liberal Democrat neighbors….my Tea Party flag flies 27-7, 365.

      Report Post » Skrewedretiree  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 4:58pm

      27-7? Long days out there huh?

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • normalmom
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 7:21pm

      Yea in Washington they just increase our sales taxes instead.

      Report Post »  
  • AllLost
    Posted on August 16, 2012 at 3:02pm

    Why to we allow the left to control the lexicon. These are not the ‘Bush tax cuts’. After 10 years we are talking about the tax rate. We are not talking about letting tax cuts expire, we are talking about automatically raising everyone’s taxes.

    Report Post »  
  • rpp
    Posted on August 16, 2012 at 3:02pm

    Please stop calling it “tax cuts”. There was a tax reduction many years ago that set up an automatic tax increase. When news outlets and journalists use the phrase “Bush Tax Cuts”, or “tax cuts expire”, they are actually using big-government talking points and that exorbitant confiscatory taxes are normal and anything less is sheer generosity on the part of our benign government.

    TELL IT LIKE IT IS!!! This is an automatic tax increase, NOT an expiration of a “tax cut”.

    Report Post » rpp  
  • thibx
    Posted on August 16, 2012 at 3:01pm

    from what i understand what oboma wants will fund 8 days of usa spending. i bet if they cut out the waste and fraud, instead of no federal employee making no less than $100.000.00 a year cut their pay make the pay fit the job. i just bet it would be more than 8 days worth of funding. i say the rich pay enough and besides oboma would just waste it.

    Report Post »  
  • Jenny Lind
    Posted on August 16, 2012 at 2:59pm

    Most people have worked darn hard to be over the 250,000$ mark. They are, in general, upward moving companies and business people. Many young Dr’s, still under huge debt of medical school are there. I don’t care how much anyone earns, the more the better for them, minus crooks of course. If one person gets the cut, everyone should, period. I am not jealous of anyone’s income. If you are employing people, you are adding to the welfare of our country. When people get really rich, most seem to grow a give-back attitude and do good things, that’s how a lot of hospitals and arts get funded, and many more things. There are of course exceptions, they seem to be in politics a lot.

    Report Post »  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on August 16, 2012 at 2:57pm

    Great more taxes due to the Communist in the White House; before anyone sees that Obama wants the tax cuts to continue, remember it is the Democratic leadership a couple of weeks past that declared they will see the US Economy collapse before ever handing over power to the Republicans.

    So I do not see him “wanting” these tax cuts to continue.

    Contrary to what Mr Obama declares about prices and other such nonsense going down, and the economy doing fine, in AZ, according to the latest stats, prices on goods from gas to groceries has goen up an average of 3.5-5% just this year to date.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • whywonder
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 11:13pm

      Moron speak. Snowkitty you are blinded by vanity and your posts are cliche ridden,parroted talking points. I have never read any original thoughts from you…just a buzzard on a wire , crowin in a wind that only you hear.

      Report Post »  
  • Docrow
    Posted on August 16, 2012 at 2:50pm

    Why do I feel like the lamb with two wolves fight over what’s for dinner?

    Report Post » Docrow  
  • sWamby
    Posted on August 16, 2012 at 2:46pm

    Yeah, we have the most on welfare, so the lowest average earned income, so we have the least impact by tax increases.

    Report Post »  
    • johnjamison
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 2:53pm

      What about the obamacare regulations that require company provided health insurance counts as taxable income….WHAT IS THAT GOING TO COST A FAMILY OF 4

      Report Post »  
    • sWamby
      Posted on August 16, 2012 at 3:38pm

      Obamacare is going to so screw Mississippi, they are nearly tripling our medicare roles, and only paying for the increase for a couple of years, then they are going to have to nearly double our state budget to pay for medicare. We have one of the largest number of workers in the nation working for small businesses with under 50 employees, most of who don’t pay health insurance, and won’t start now. Any of those people that make to much for medicare will have to pay a tax, or buy insurance that can be over 25% of their income, and may or may not be tax deductible.

      Report Post »  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love