Democrats want a $3,500,000,000,000 tax increase. Yup, that's trillion!

@ladyluna (7004)
United States
March 3, 2008 7:17pm CST
Today I received a letter from my Congresswoman. I was 'floored' by its content. I'll share part of it with you. These are the words of a highly respected, elected member of the U.S. House of Representatives: "We knew it was coming, Liberal Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel want to raise our taxes. The Democrat budget this year paved the way for it. Charlie Rangel, the Democrat Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee unveiled it recently. He called it "the Mother of all Tax Hikes", and he's right; it would be the second largest tax increase in American History .... In bill after bill they have icluded large tax hikes. In December, they wanted to put $22 billion in tax increases on oil and gas production.... (my personal note: that means higher prices at the gas pumps for you and me.) In addition to all that, Democrats want to add a 4% "surtax" on Americans earning more than $150,000 a year ($200,000 for couples). So, under the Democrats' plan, over the next few years, the top individual income tax rate in the United States will go from 35% to 44%. Starting in 2011, only five other developed countries in the world would have highter top marginal tax rates than the United States.... And, because the "surtax" kicks in at $150,000 for individuals and $200,000 for couples, the bill creates a huge, new marriage penalty.... The total impact of allowing the 2001 and 2003 tax relief to expire, plus adding in all the new taxes in Charlie Ragel's bill, will amount to new taxes of $3.5 trillion over ten years...." What does this really mean? 1. Income taxes will go back up. 2. Married couples will once again be unfairly taxed. 3. The 'death tax' will once again rear its ugly head. 4. The 'child tax credit' will be cut in half. 5. Capital Gains and dividends will once again be taxed at higher rates. So, if "WE THE PEOPLE" elect Democrats this November, here's the reality: - If you were thinking about selling your house, you'd better do it now, before the capital gains rate is increased. This while home prices are already dropping. Yup, our Democrat leadership really feel for the 'little guy', eh? - If you have 'little one's' at home, you can kiss 50% of your "child tax credit" goodbye! - More small businesses will have to be sold to pay 'Uncle Sam' his cut of 'death taxes'. This equates to increasing unemployment. Will it be your job that's lost? - If you are married, get used to being taxed more than your single counterpart. Who ever said life was fair, eh? So what if the family is the backbone of our nation? Geesh, and people wonder why California's top income earners are relocating to states with lower taxation, or are moving their assets off-shore! And, subsequently leaving the State of California in a HUGE budget short-fall. Now, do you REALLY want to give the Democrats control over our economy?
4 people like this
7 responses
@AD11RGUY (1265)
• United States
4 Mar 08
Well, thanx for the heads up. This has only added to my depression. We all have seen what the Republicans care about the U.S. over the last 7 years. And back when prune face and Herbert were in office it was the same. I'm long sold off the GOP. But the Dumbs - I mean Dems have nothing to offer either. This 2 party system sucks great big green donkey_ _ _ _! There was a positive alternative available, but history repeated itself and brought back Pero-gate and squashed the only reasonable exit we had. I am currently accepting donations for my project to buy and develop Mars. If interested please send me all you can afford. Be patient...this may take a while....
2 people like this
@theprogamer (10534)
• United States
5 Mar 08
Ahem... Did I uh...hear the sound of an anti-2 party nonsense call? And a Mars colonization plan on top?
2 people like this
@AD11RGUY (1265)
• United States
4 Mar 08
I would love to think so! But if not, we'll try Ron. And if all else fails, we'll try me. I promise a Martian in every pot and a bulldozer in every garage!
2 people like this
@AD11RGUY (1265)
• United States
5 Mar 08
On a serious note I just got to thinking. Not that this would ever happen, but what if the majority of voters were as bummed out as me and say 75% voted for Snoopy or some other fictitious character? Who would go to the Oval Office? I seriously have no candidate I want to vote for and I just had this wonderful thought of forcing a re-election with candidates from one of the other parties and throwing the Dumacrats and Retardicans out of the running for the next 2 terms. Talk about desperation setting in!
1 person likes this
@theprogamer (10534)
• United States
5 Mar 08
I put most of my peace for now underneath Melissa's response. Like I said, this tax increase totaled would exceed the budget amounts thus far. Taken on a by year basis, its still 350 billion per year in new taxes. Of course we can pay for this, that's what most people think. What people fail to realize is who pays for it really and what that will entail. The energy bill for example, there are taxes on energy sources, but already we're seeing trucking and truck dependent companies taking a major hit with fuel (as if the prices weren't enough already...). How about taxing corporations because of that 'evil' profit? Corporations are experts at dodging their taxes, most notably, the tax is at the end of the production process waiting for the consumer to pay it (when they buy the product). One way or another, and it never fails to occur. By the way, profit doesn't always equal "wrong", "evil" or "foul play" and I've seen regular people attack on this basis, primarily through jealousy or ignorance of what is going on. If people keep buying the products, its actually pretty backwards if they start complaining about how much profit the manufacturer made (I mean after all... its YOUR money going to them from that one process... uh...Capitalism? -_-). And yes all the penalties that occur. I'm going to say do not mistake me in any of this. Taxes are required to run the government and should go to real programs that help people in actual need. They shouldn't be used to inflate the government, expand the government power beyond its original design, and for sanity's sake, taxes should end up as rewards for people able to cheat the system (fraud, using legal loopholes to cheat, etc). So the tax credit evaporates with this? Nice work -_-. And if you get married and somehow exceed the $200,000... good game -_-. Meanwhile (a bit of a tangent) there are still legal rewards for not maintaining[destroying] a marriage: inflatable alimony+child support, 18-23 years of required work from one individual, instant assistance through the government on many levels. Ah well... I'm sure nothing but good can come out of that and all of this. -_- /facepalm. I do recall an urban legend with this, 8 steps to the fall of democracy. But with any decent legend there can still be something useful to draw from it. People really do not care about the economy as a whole, or the government and what it does, or subtle events in the world that may effect the country... no none of that. People care about what affects them (pebble in the shoe). Politicans have and will use this to their own advantage. This major tax increase follows the same premise. Politicans will get the vote if they promise enough of the till for the citizenry (while keeping the majority of the promised till for themselves... but that stays hidden -_-). But just like my other points no need to think about this. Apathy is a good thing. Ignorance (of economy, country and world) is also good too... They've never lead to anything wrong or catacylsmic...-_-
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
5 Mar 08
Hey there ProGamer, So, when are we jaunting off to colonize Mars? I'm up for a bulldozer race, if you are. Yours is a terrific response! If I may, I'd like to capitalize on your budget analysis for a moment: I purported under Justabloke's response that if a team of C.P.A. were to have the power to scrutinize the budget, that they would most likely be able to find enough to cut in: underperforming programs, wasteful spending, pork, and out-and-out thievery to balance the budget with the existing tax revenue. Would you agree with my supposition?
@theprogamer (10534)
• United States
5 Mar 08
Thats an interesting idea but I would be careful about what the CPA would actually do, unless there was a guarantee it would be an independent analysis nothing can be certain. For all we know the CPA used could come to a "conclusion" favoring the government and big spending. (Hey if the feds cut someone in... its rare they'll say no.)-And with that, lets not forget the role in the Enron scandal either -_-. I know there is a professional ethical standard (AICPA I believe), but still it had to be said. If things were equal, fair and guaranteed working as intended, yes good idea. Any sort of outside independent investigation into the budget could yield some results. Even my scrutiny has turned up something and I'm a "lightweight" (I've posted on education vs other countries, problems with transportation, research, energy) CPA or another investigative body could take that basis and analyze further. I recall there were past proposals to have CPA or other private investigations into the federal budget, but there was a lot of resistance on the matter. Shouldn't be too much of a surprise. -_- Another issue to bring up, there should be investigations on all levels of government and their budgets. The spending and monetary exchange is rather high for certain institutions (education, healthcare) and there's more to them than simple observation. $500 billion total in public school education for example (not just the $80+billion at the federal level). I do not mean to take away anything, but shouldn't people be curious about these figures and why spending is so high in the face of a degrading inefficient product?
2 people like this
@AD11RGUY (1265)
• United States
5 Mar 08
Well, you've got the rhetoric down. I nominate YOU!
1 person likes this
• Singapore
4 Mar 08
Though, I am not a United States citizen, but from the title that is given here, I will not give my precious vote to the Democrats. Vote for Republican instead. I simply don't understand why is there a need to increase taxes which contribute lots of negative effects on citizens. When more and more people are unable to afford to pay the taxes, what does the government get in return? If the government wants some contribution from citizens, they should set a reasonable tax rate and there must be a win-win situation instead of increase this and that which makes it unaffordable to everybody. Not to say the locals found it unaffordable, foreigners may drop the idea of migrating to America.
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
4 Mar 08
Hello Titaniumsoul, I'm really glad that you responded here. If I may, might I inquire about your country's taxation? How are the citizens of Singapore taxed? Do you have an income tax? Are you concurrently taxed by national, regional, county and city governments? Do you also have hidden fees built in to the purchase cost of goods & services?
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
5 Mar 08
Thanks for all that info, Titaniumsoul. It is much appreciated! I will look into if further!
• Singapore
5 Mar 08
Singapore do have income tax which we will be taxed according to our annual salary records. Salary more than $10,000 annual will have to pay tax and we are not a big country in fact we are just a red dot on the physical map, you can check with goggle earth. But we are a valuable ruby therefore we do not have cities names like Chicago, Seattle and others, you can check out Singapore at http://www.wikipedia.org for additional information. Back to taxing in Singapore, apart from income tax, we do have GST (Goods and Service Tax) which is 7%, road tax which I am not sure about the rate because my family do not own a car. In addition, the famous Certificate of Entitlement(COE) which means when you buy a car, you will have to bid for the COE in order to own the car. People have to pay thousands of dollars and more just to own a car. In addition to COEs, car owners have to pay Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) where an overheard gantry is built for car owners entering Central Business District (CBD) and other roads. It will be a long story if I carry on, you can check on the wikipedia and http://ecitizen.gov.sg for more information. Singapore is a "FINE" city. Have you heard before?
1 person likes this
• United States
4 Mar 08
Sadly but true, taxes need to be raised to get this country back on track. The debt incured to foreign interests like China and Saudi Arabia is staggering. The lastest tax cuts or stimulus packages will probably be funded by more money borrowed from overseas. I don't want to see taxes increased, but the country cannot go on spending more money than it takes in in taxes. On the other hand, I would be naive to believe that the increased income would not be wasted.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
5 Mar 08
Hello Justabloke, I will make no effort to hide how credibly perterbed I am at your response. What? You didn't notice the criticism of the Democrat Party in the original posting? You think it's a "shame" that I believe that I am endowed with the same 1st Amendment right to Freedom of Speech, that any American Liberal is? At this moment, there are 15 pages of MyLot discussions with the tag "Obama". Should every one of those posters disguise their party or ideological affiliation? I think not! In fact, if we all espoused the same exact views, wouldn't it be a mighty boring world? Should I infer from your reply that my opinion is somehow less valuable, or appropriate than a Pro-Obama, Pro-Hillary, Pro-Che Guevara, Pro-Fidel post? If you didn't like the slant of the discussion, you were free to skip over it, and seek out another that was more in line with your political leanings. I would not enter one of your discussions, respond, then come back and declare that I think it's a shame that you think the way you do. I can think of no social circle where that would not be considered inappropriate and rude.
• United States
5 Mar 08
"Blame the democrates...the huge debt and uncontrolled spending is the fault of the current administration and the republician controlled congress that bowed at every demand Bush made." I really must take issue with this statement that the huge debt and and uncontrolled spending is the fault of Bush and the republicans. You do realize that for 40 out of the last 50 years the democrats had control of the House and they now control Congress? You also realize that it is Congress that appropriates the funds and the president either signs or vetoes the spending bills... you are aware of that, aren't you? In light of this I am curious as to how you justify laying the blame for all of the debt accumulated in the 200 plus years existence of the US onto the current administration and the republicans, especially when the democrats are now in control of Congress? How do you justify such an instance of accusatory partisan propaganda that is nowhere near accurate and it also wildly unrealistic?
1 person likes this
• United States
5 Mar 08
I think your conservative slant is all too obvious in your posts, which is a shame. Blame the democrates...the huge debt and uncontrolled spending is the fault of the current administration and the republician controlled congress that bowed at every demand Bush made. Least we forget the great work done by the Republicans and Bill Clinton in working together to create a balanced budget in the 1990s. I think your letter from your congresswoman is nothing more than scare tactics. Every time there is a change of president or congress letters from both sides are circulated with an attempt to scare people with lies and misinformation. Bush, Clinton, Bush, ?. It doesn't really make a different to one's taxation unless you are in the top 5% of earners and I doubt it is really a life altering concern for them. The ones who lose are the middle class who really suffer when the price of a simple commodity like petroleum continues to rise in price.
• United States
4 Mar 08
Also, any tax cuts that they take away from big businesses in order to help us "little guys", the middle class and lower class... will just result in higher prices on the store shelves so it is a moot point. It is sad to see how many people are won over by their promises without thinking it through.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
5 Mar 08
Bingo!!! That is exactly what happens when business suffers higher taxation. People seem to forget that businesses never pay any taxes. The final tally on their corporate tax forms is always passed on to the consumer! This on top of the fact that the U.S. has the 2nd highest corporate tax rates in the world. Whenever our elected make the suggestion to "tax the rich", they are in effect saying "suffer the poor".
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
5 Mar 08
It almost brings me to tears to finally find some people in this great nation that actually see the real truth behind the lies of the democrats! I have always maintained that the big businesses don't pay taxes. To say you are going to make these guys pay because they can afford it is ludicrous! Also, the 3.5 trillion the original author of this discussion wrote about is small compared to what will be needed if Hillarycare or Obamacare is passed!
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
6 Mar 08
Hello Rodney, First, I'd like to welcome you to MyLot. I hope that you thoroughly enjoy your time here. If I may, might I suggest that when you find a discussion that is of interest to you, that you make a point to post your individual response, in addition to any respondent posts that you'd like to engage. The reasons for doing so are twofold: 1. You can only be awarded a Best Response (BR) if you provide your own response. 2. Trying to keep track of discussion where you have only replied to a response will become a nightmare to keep track of, as your responses begin to add up. I suspect that you'll be pleasantly surprised by the quality and approachability of many of the Conservatives on this forum. They continue to impress me with both their knowledge and wisdom. I look forward to your future contributions. Happy MyLotting!
@Graagh (95)
• United States
4 Mar 08
You know, with the government spending so much, the money has to come from somewhere. Would you rather just let everything fall apart?
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
4 Mar 08
Hello Graagh, Would I rather just let everything fall apart? No, I wouldn't! What I would like to see is: 1. No more "Bridges to Nowhere" being funded! 2. No more multi-million dollar, closed bidding profiteering by the spouses of our elected members of Congress. That means that California Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein, and her husband should have to pay back the millions that they diverted from our Veterans Services Department! 3. Balanced budgets -- even if it means making difficult choices over cutting under-producing programs. How about we start with the bloated retirement packages afforded to members of Congress? 4. A commitment to fund no new entitlement programs that we cannot afford. Not the least of which is Universal Health Care. Have you taken a look at the spending proposals of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? They are both promising ENORMOUS multi-billion dollar spending initiatives! 5. A commitment by Congress to fully support an energy package that supports lessening our dependence on foreign oil. This is the single biggest factor facing our economy. Everything that you buy at a store has to be trucked to that store. Trucked using fuel. These ridiculous fuel costs are being passed on to you and me, from the store, the truckers, the boats that import items into the country, etc... We need to be locating and drilling for our own oil. Not relying on other nations to give us a good deal -- it's not in their best interests to do so! 5. Adherence to sound economic principles! I.e., keeping taxes lowered bolsters economic development and expansion, which historically fuels tax revenue to the government, and increases employment. Without exception, those times where taxes are lower have demonstrated higher income being funelled into the government, by way of tax revenue, and lower unemployment. Those periods of higher taxation result in lower tax revenues going to the government, and higher unemployment. This is simple common sense: Business owners are less inclined to balk when they are earning 65% of their hard work than when they are earning 57% of their blood, sweat, and tears. When the government endeavors to take too much from 'we the people', we resent it! And, will subsequently do less work, invest less into business expansion, hire fewer people, or lay off more people. If you stand to lose an additional 8% of your income just because different politicians are in D.C., are you going to be happy about it? Or, are you going to tighten your beltstraps to figure out how to keep more of your income? This government over-taxation is a large part of what fuels recessions!
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
5 Mar 08
Hello Oneandone, Great point about our Military Men & Women being the most deserving of a raise! Here, here!!!
• United States
4 Mar 08
I absolutely don't want a democratic president and the higher taxes that go with it. Will be interesting to see who wins and what transpires.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
5 Mar 08
Hello Lolalolacherrycola, Love your I.D. How fun! As for who wins, and what transpires: I've gotta' say that interesting isn't quite the word that comes to my mind. Though, I understand your detachment from it all. It sure is aggravating. So, I'll take your cue, and take a deep, relaxing breath. Thank you! I already feel a little better.