http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100415/ap_on_bi_ge/us_lower_taxes
Tax Day rhetoric aside, Americans' bills are lower
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer – Wed Apr 14, 11:36 pm ET
WASHINGTON – You wouldn't know it by the Tax Day rhetoric, but Americans are paying lower taxes this year, even with increases passed by many states to balance their budgets. Don't expect it to last. Congress cut individuals' federal taxes for this year by about $173 billion shortly after President Barack Obama took office, dwarfing the $28.6 billion in increases by states.
In the next few years, however, many can expect to pay more. Some future increases were enacted as part of Obama's health care overhaul. And former President George W. Bush's tax cuts expire in January. Obama and the Democrats want to renew only some of them, thus raising taxes for individuals making more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000.
As this year's April 15 federal deadline passes, the debate about future tax increases has Republicans in Congress and conservatives across the country portraying Democrats as tax-and-spend liberals even before any new levies are approved. The discussion also is helping frame the congressional elections this fall.
"The fact is in the past year we have had more tax cuts than almost anytime in our nation's history," said Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn. "It's something that people don't realize because of the false rhetoric that is spread throughout this Congress."
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, said conservatives didn't see any need to wait before protesting.
"I thought that we were going to have to wait until the tax increases started to see popular unhappiness," Norquist said at a Capitol Hill forum Wednesday. "Last year, people started reacting, the tea parties started organizing, in reaction to spending too much. They didn't wait for the tax increases to come."
The massive economic recovery package enacted last year included about $300 billion in tax cuts over 10 years. About $232 billion was in cuts for individuals, nearly all in the first two years.
The most generous was Obama's Making Work Pay credit, which gives individuals up to $400 and couples up to $800 for 2009 and 2010. The $1,000 child tax credit was expanded to more families, and the working poor can qualify for as much as $5,657 from the Earned Income Tax Credit.
There were also credits for qualified families who buy new homes or make energy improvements to existing ones, as well as tax breaks to help pay college tuition or buy new cars.
"From investing in small business to buying a home or making it energy efficient, to sending your children to college to buying a car, these tax cuts are helping families and businesses across the country," said Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-Mo.
At the same time, many states raised taxes last year because they are required by state constitutions to balance their budgets, even during a recession. In all, states increased personal income taxes by $11.4 billion, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. They increased sales taxes by $7.2 billion and business taxes by $2 billion.
States also increased a number of other taxes, including levies on alcohol, motor vehicles and tobacco, for an additional $8 billion.
The biggest tax increase in the health care overhaul is limited to individuals making more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000, though other increases would hit lower income taxpayers.
For the first time, the Medicare payroll tax would be applied to investment income, beginning in 2013. A new 3.8 percent tax would be imposed on interest, dividends, capital gains and other investment income for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000.
The bill also would increase the Medicare payroll tax by 0.9 percentage point to 2.35 percent on wages above $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly. "We know the tax man cometh, and over the next few years, boy, will he be coming with a vengeance," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
I don't know why the tea party protests are all about lower taxes, yet the organizers keep saying Obama is responsible for higher taxes.
I suppose the truth doesn't get people all excited.
RM, the reasons are in the story you posted when they quoted Grover Norquist.
I have no personal complaints at least on this year. My taxes were definitely lower. My income was down this year by about 11%, and I paid about 30% less taxes than I did last year on the Fed. return. I haven't looked close but I believe I may have dropped down a bracket and there were some credits I could take this year which I could not last year. I use H & R Block online so I don't use the tax tables. Based on my income projection for next year and changing tax codes, I won't be as happy this time next year.
Now if they will just cut spending...
The majority of tea partiers say they have no problem with the amount they are paying currently and "lowering taxes" is the chief goal of only a very small minority of the tea party group (source nytimes/cbs)
I thought it was interesting that they had their rallies on public property paid for with tax dollars.
Did they think that Expo Square was owned by Mr. Square?
I assumed expo square was rented, therefore they were paying into a government entity.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 16, 2010, 10:51:37 AM
I thought it was interesting that they had their rallies on public property paid for with tax dollars.
Did they think that Expo Square was owned by Mr. Square?
As it is public property paid for with their tax dollars, it is their property.
Liberals could have just as easily staged their own rally there as well.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 16, 2010, 11:33:04 AM
As it is public property paid for with their tax dollars, it is their property.
Liberals could have just as easily staged their own rally there as well.
So is the Tea Party movement positioned opposite Liberal?
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 16, 2010, 10:48:13 AM
The majority of tea partiers say they have no problem with the amount they are paying currently and "lowering taxes" is the chief goal of only a very small minority of the tea party group (source nytimes/cbs)
And they also, by and large, have no problems with social safety net programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.
What kind of spending, then, are they protesting?
That poll was enlightening, but served to confuse me about their goals more than clarify them.
Quote from: we vs us on April 16, 2010, 11:55:34 AM
And they also, by and large, have no problems with social safety net programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.
What kind of spending, then, are they protesting?
That poll was enlightening, but served to confuse me about their goals more than clarify them.
If you don't understand it, then you probably didn't belong there ;)
I'm confused too.
I thought they were protesting the massive growth of the federal government and "non-representative" taxation. I figured they were also against administrative decisions made against the will of the people.
Who knows what they are against? Perhaps they are a bunch of nut-jobs that can't make up their minds on what element of tyranny they are against? There's too much diversity in their views to take them seriously.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 16, 2010, 12:17:14 PM
I'm confused too.
I thought they were protesting the massive growth of the federal government and "non-representative" taxation. I figured they were also against administrative decisions made against the will of the people.
Who knows what they are against? Perhaps they are a bunch of nut-jobs that can't make up their minds on what element of tyranny they are against? There's too much diversity in their views to take them seriously.
We do know they are racist and homophobic.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 16, 2010, 12:41:53 PM
We do know they are racist and homophobic.
. . . they wear fanny packs and smell like soap and ammo.
Quote from: we vs us on April 16, 2010, 11:55:34 AM
What kind of spending, then, are they protesting?
One of the articles I read about the protests yesterday quoted one fellow as thinking we need to cut the number of government employees. This was after they asked him about Medicare (no), Social Security (no), and the military (no). Unfortunately, he and people like him don't understand that the cost of federal employees is a tiny percentage of the federal budget. The entire federal workforce costs us something on the order of 300 billion a year (I forget the exact number), on a 3 trillion dollar budget.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 16, 2010, 12:17:14 PM
I'm confused too.
I thought they were protesting the massive growth of the federal government and "non-representative" taxation. I figured they were also against administrative decisions made against the will of the people.
Who knows what they are against? Perhaps they are a bunch of nut-jobs that can't make up their minds on what element of tyranny they are against? There's too much diversity in their views to take them seriously.
Who knows? It's all about BO!!!!
Quote from: fotd on April 16, 2010, 01:22:39 PM
Who knows? It's all about BO!!!!
You're right, it's like they don't approve of anything he is doing.
I just don't get the movement. I know it is not meant for me, so I haven't really researched it enough.
I thought they were started in protest of the 2008 bailouts and the 2009 stimulus package. The first one (by President Bush) is never mentioned, and the second one (by President Obama) is constantly assailed. Before these happened, there were anti-tax rallies, but they were mostly against pork barrel spending.
I think the Tea party movement now embraces all these things. It is truly fiscal conservative in theory and opposed to government intervention. The health care reform measure that was approved became kerosene on the fire on both factors and helped the Tea party explode on the political scene.
It doesn't know what it is yet. Is the Tea party a real national party with candidates and conventions or is it like the Green party who just divide the most likely national party ally?
Can the Tea party define itself and not be unduly influenced by the Larouch Movement, the Council of Conservative Citizens, and the John Birch Society?
It bothers me that the gatherings are all being led by one news channel. FoxNews not only promotes each event, but coordinates and has their employees become the speakers. The fact that one media outlet is so involved in making their own news, then covering it as if it were not scripted is disturbing.
I am not opposed to the creation of this new party nor it's goals as I know them now, but I want to find out more on who is funding the whole program before I embrace it or fight against it.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 16, 2010, 02:36:09 PM
It bothers me that the gatherings are all being led by one news channel. FoxNews not only promotes each event, but coordinates and has their employees become the speakers. The fact that one media outlet is so involved in making their own news, then covering it as if it were not scripted is disturbing.
Check yoself on that one. Rupert Murdoch said that Fox News should not and will not support the tea party movement and told Hannity to get his ( | ) back to his studio in new york.
Also, tea partiers from what I've heard don't want a third party. Yes, they don't mention bush's bailouts in rallies anymore because bush isn't in office. Only one group wants to keep beating that dead horse.
I looked up 20 different tea party protests and every one, including Tulsa, was emceed by a radio station talent that carried FoxNews.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 16, 2010, 02:50:34 PM
I looked up 20 different tea party protests and every one, including Tulsa, was emceed by a radio station talent that carried FoxNews.
The enemy of your enemy is your friend?
But. . .I thought they were fair and balanced?
The Tea party protests are just a bunch of Republicans that think they invented being libertarian. It is pretty pathetic that I have the people that spout Tea Party stuff on their face book page. When I speak to them about voting third party, they don't want to waste their vote (well it was a tea party person so it was waist). I am all for "lower taxes" and "lower spending". Unfortunately they are going to continue to support candidates that while they might lower taxes (which increases our debt) they don't lower costs.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/historicaltables.pdf (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/historicaltables.pdf)
Reagan
Outlays Outlays
1981 1988
678.2 billion 1064 billion +56.89%
Bush Sr.
Outlays Outlays
1989 1992
1,143.7 billion 1,381.5 billion +20.8% (41.6% if continued over 8 years)
Clinton
Outlays Outlays
1993 2000
1,409.4 billion 1,789.0 billion +26.93%
GWB
Outlays Outlays
2001 2008
1,862.9 billion 2,982.6 billion +60.1%
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 16, 2010, 02:50:34 PM
I looked up 20 different tea party protests and every one, including Tulsa, was emceed by a radio station talent that carried FoxNews.
I thought KFAG was the Faux talk radio affiliate in Tulsa.
To my knowledge KRMG carries ABC for it's national news broadcasts.
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 16, 2010, 02:45:04 PM
Check yoself on that one. Rupert Murdoch said that Fox News should not and will not support the tea party movement and told Hannity to get his ( | ) back to his studio in new york.
That would be why the tea party protests were promoted on Fox News as the "FNC Tax Day Tea Party Protests"?