Simple question--if your taxes go up and capital gains double--are they increased or not??
Maybe you and Chad can decipher article below
and then in your own words convince us ingnorant people how biggest tax increases are disingenous.
Tell us where this money will come from if not taxes.
Then please elaborate a bit on the Dems wailing how GW's tax cuts would kill our tax revenue--when fact of matter it produced highest tax revenue in history--were they-
A: Ignorant or
B: Disingenous
:shrug:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_20080317/ai_n25161620
What Will Obama's Plans Cost the Nation?
Human Events, Mar 17, 2008 by Kaminsky, Ross
On March 12, during debate on the federal budget, Sen. Wayne Allard (R.-Colo.) introduced an amendment he called the "Obama Spend-o-Rama." The amendment proposes funding 111 of the 188 spending proposals put out so far during Illinois Democratic Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign at a cost of $300 billion in one year and $1.4 trillion over five years. These were the proposals that Allard's staff had time to analyze before the GOP leadership asked him to offer the amendment on the floor. According to Allard, "There are another 77 proposals with unknown cost estimates that will add billions to this number."
Who Backs Obama's Plan?
Allard freely admits that he will oppose his own amendment and urges other senators to do the same. But, as a senior Senate staffer pointed out to HUMAN EVENTS, "Let's see how many senators who have endorsed Obama will actually vote for [Obama's] budget."
Some of the numbers around the federal budget are incomprehensibly large. How do you wrap your mind around a five-year cost of $1.4 trillion?
Sen. Allard offers some comparisons to help with that mental exercise:
* This new spending, if enacted, would represent an almost 10% increase over the President's FY 2009 budget.
* This $300 billion spending proposal would cost more than 42 states' budgets combined (general fund expenditures).
* It is more than the United States spent last year on imported oil ($294 billion net).
* It is more than 60% larger than any one-year federal spending increase, ever.
According to Steve Wymer, Allard's communications director, "This amendment is obviously somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But if leaders in the Democratic Party are going to propose billions-or trillions-of dollars of new spending, at least let's be honest about it."
Of course, the problem with government spending is that government has only the money it takes from taxpayers. Allard therefore laid out the tax consequences of Obama's budget-busting proposals: "According to CBO, President Clinton's 1993 tax increase raised taxes $240.6 billion over five years. Late Sen. Patrick Moynihan (D.-N.Y.) called it the 'largest tax increase in the history of public finance in the United States or anywhere else in the world.' But this proposal will increase spending $300 billion in a singleyear."
Sen. Richard Burr (R.-N.C.) re-emphasized the point: One year of Obama's proposed spending increase "is bigger than the five-year increase (in federal income tax collections) that President Clinton imposed on the American taxpayer."
Burr argued that Obama's promise to raise taxes just on the Democrats' "attractive target" of people earning more than $250,000, will generate only $225 billion over five years, far short of the $1.4 trillion that Obama's proposed programs (actually only 60% of them) would saddle taxpayers with during that same time frame.
Middle-Class Tax Hikes
If Obama wanted to raise taxes on only the top 1% (earning more than $365,000) to fund his plans, those citizens' tax bills would have to rise by more than $40,000 annually, an increase of 57%. Given the impossibility of that scenario, even under complete Democratic control of government, the tax hikes would have to trickle down to the American middle class.
"So if Congress decides to widen the pool of taxpayers footing the bill," Allard said, "it would have to raise taxes on the top 5% by 38%, or the top 10% by 32%, or the top 25% by 26%, or the top 50% of taxpayers by 23%. The top 50% of American taxpayers, who already pay 96.9% of all federal income taxes, are those who earn $31,000 [adjusted gross income] or more."
"To translate this point into language everyone can understand," Allard continued, "if you have an income of $104,000 or more, the plan will cause your tax bill to go up at least an additional $5,300 a year. If you have an income of $62,000 or more, the plan will cause your tax bill to go up at least $2,300 a year. This is on top of the $2,300 increase already assumed by the failure to extend current tax policy."
Obama claims to want to "balance the budget and stop spending the Social Security surplus." Combining mat laudable goal with Obama's massive new spending would cause the tax bills of the average taxpayer earning $62,000 to rise $5,300, or 61%. For taxpayers earning $104,000, the increase would be more than $12,000, or 74%. And for the top 1%, earning more than $365,000, their tax bill will rise by $93,500, or 132%.
It is not only individuals who would suffer under the Obama Spend-o-Rama: Small businesses will suffer tax hikes, too. This is on top of the $4,100 tax increase that small businesses will face when the Democratic Congress refuses to renew the Bush tax cuts.
In his closing, Allard noted that this is not simply a hypothetical discussion: The current debate is about the 2009 budget, the first year of the next president's administration. It is therefore important (and good politics) to show the American public the ugly details of Obama's pretty talk.
