Already Looking forward to 2011!!!

[Boghie]

The evil BusHitler's great tax giveaway to the corpulant wealthy of Nazi America is about to sunset...

On this very day next year the pathetic slugs that stole so much over the past decade will be taxed using the same rates as they were during the Clinton administration. Here is a comparison for folks filing as Married Filing Jointly:

Just lookup this years taxable income right here. I know you are starting to mess with your taxes - I am. Just take a round guess and use this chart to give you an idea of the joy to come. I know this looks like everybody is getting jobbed, but that just ain't so. Those rich bastards (and their families) making a hundred G's will get whacked for $3,464 more per year. So what if you get knocked up for an additional $2,560 a year. You can handle it. It's just $215 less take home pay for the month. What's that - gas, electricity, food, maybe entertainment. Just cut the fat and enjoy the schadenfreude.

This example of social justice is inflation adjusted (uses 2009 dollars), uses a 2009 tax schedule, and uses a 2000 inflation adjusted tax schedule to demonstrate this power to the people moment.


And, lookie here everybody.

The Moronic BushMcHitlerChimp sunsetted his tax giveaway just after folks vote in November 2010. Just after the vote. It won't hit them for almost another two months. Nobody will be talking about it before it happens. And, nobody will be adjusting their taxable income till after it hits em. Nobody will know a thing!

What a waste of air!!

What an idiot!!!

Chimp!!!

:nuts:

 

[Show-me]

Boghie,

I wish you would not hold back, it makes it hard to understand were you are coming from. :nuts:

 

[Jackbnimble]

Did you notice the percentage increase will be about the same for taxable income of 10,000 as it is for 100,000? 194/1000 =19.4% vs. 3464/17375=19.9%?

The $194 will hurt the family at $10,000 more than the $3,464 will hurt the 100k family.
Talk about regressive. Hope and change.

 

[FAB1]

Did you notice the percentage increase will be about the same for taxable income of 10,000 as it is for 100,000? 194/1000 =19.4% vs. 3464/17375=19.9%?

The $194 will hurt the family at $10,000 more than the $3,464 will hurt the 100k family.
Talk about regressive. Hope and change.

+1 - wish I had the 100 grand income and bigger taxes - sheesh

 

[Silverbird]

Ok...this is because those tax breaks under the former Administration are going away in 2011??? So why are you blaming Obama, the Congress under the Bush Admin wrote it that way so they could play Creative Accounting - and that creative accounting even needed the wars off budget. If Congress does what is supposed to happen if we were going to be financially responsible based on the assumptions of the time, the tax breaks should go away.

But, you are assuming it's going to be Groundhog Day in 2011 and no one is going to notice. I don't think that's going to be the case - everyone knows what's coming. Someone's gonna squawk about such a big hit, because even though the breaks were phased in, the end of them wasn't. So if you are a conspiracy theorist, here is your conspiracy - it was meant to mess up the next President.

To me it was just a big accounting trick and we are going to be kicked with it and that was how it was designed. The 2011 budget will be another shocker because someone is going to make sure at least some of those tax breaks continue into 2011 - otherwise Congress better just get ready to retire.

 

[grandma]

So why is not the President and the Congress fixing these hang-over things from previous - was that not what their electors expected as part of `the change?'

 

[Frixxxx]

.....To me it was just a big accounting trick and we are going to be kicked with it and that was how it was designed. The 2011 budget will be another shocker because someone is going to make sure at least some of those tax breaks continue into 2011 - otherwise Congress better just get ready to retire.

Accounting Trick = Bad Accounting Practice

As long as lawmakers can make laws on accounting, there will always be tricks. The problem with our government is that the checks and balances of a three divisioned architecture still doesn't have a proper audit function. The supreme court should not allow any accounting laws be validated FROM the house and senate. That IS the fox watching the hen house.

Accounting laws should be reduced to credits and debits. Take out deferments, writeoffs, deductions. I know you're thinking flat tax, but what is wrong with that?

10% - of 10,000
10% - of 100,000
10% - of 1,000,000

The U.S. citizen determines their altitude. Then they know the tax level facing them.

I don't get it! I see it as Black & White!

 

[Steadygain]

Ok...this is because those tax breaks under the former Administration are going away in 2011??? So why are you blaming Obama, the Congress under the Bush Admin wrote it that way so they could play Creative Accounting.

Well -- your message deserves a hug and a kiss :cheesy::worried:

During the second Bush Term I honestly tried to keep up with the Debt and many of the 'hidden' Financial Things going on. For those who went out of their way to keep up - the information was there.

Over and Over -- the Creative Accounting was addressed and there was absolutely no way anyone could avoid seeing that the 'next' administration would have to deal with it.

I'm not saying Obama doesn't have his faults -- but the overwhelming expectations and all the more the greviences constantly lodged against him way more reflect the ongoing damage from the previous years than what Obama himself is even slightly respondsible for.

Anyway --- thank you !!

 

[Silverbird]

Actually, if the change is to move to responsible accounting, that means let the tax breaks expire - because that's how the accounts record it should be done. I get the feeling that's not what people *think* change should be, but there is a difference between astronomy and astrology, if you know what I mean.:toung:

Change does not mean more creative accounting. Instead, we get to see how much we *really* are in the hole.

However, for those of you who don't want the "Change" back to pre-Bush to happen, fear not, certain people in Congress do not want to be lynched (in a figurative way) and instead we will just kick the defict up again. And one can hope, with the push toward showing the real numbers, they won't put an artificial end date on the breaks and we can see the real glory fun of what this does if if goes on forever. But I am not hopeful there won't be another "endit" date just so the numbers don't go bezerk 10+ years from now.

 

[Boghie]

SilverBird, Steady,

FY2007:

Revenue: $2,567,671
Expenditures: $2,730,505
Deficit: $161,527​

FY2008:

Revenue: $2,523,642
Expenditures: $2,978,440 (+9.08%)
Deficit: $454,798​

FY2009:

Revenue: $2,104,613
Expenditures: $3,521,734 (+18.24%)
Deficit: $1,417,121​

As of FY2009 I don't think you can directly correlate the revenue drop to either President Bush or President Obama. It was a market cycle. Also, some of the government spending can be attributed to an economic theory (Keynesianism) – so that is somewhat expected and maybe necessary. As of the FY2009 midterm review (January 2009) – the last spending controlled by President Bush - the budgeted FY2009 expenditure was $3,133,2003. That would have resulted in a growth of Federal expenditures by +10.51%.

But, the actual expenditure growth in FY2009 was over 18%??? That is spending bloat.

Also, note that the final pre-Great Recession year deficit (FY2007) was $161 Billion. Given something other than the ‘Great Recession’ we would have gone to surplus in FY2008. That implies that if we reign in spending and keep the tax code unchanged we will be in surplus almost as soon as the recession ends. Additionally, that surplus will grow dramatically each year spending is held in check.

On the other hand, if Liberals keep threatening tax and regulation changes, folks and businesses will continue to adjust to those threats. Here is a simple example: If taxes on dividends revert to the pre-2003 level (income tax rate vs. capital gains tax rate) than investors will NOT want dividends and companies will NOT distribute dividends. Dividends are distributed with corporate after-tax profits. Thus, corporations will move numbers around and not show as much in taxable profits. That will reduce Federal revenue. It will also entice investors and businesses to seek ways of increasing stock price. Can we say ENRON and Global Crossing accounting gimmicks?

Everyone, the Administration included, claims the recession is over. FY2010 should be a normal recovery year. The stock market leads main street. The stock market corrected from a stupid crash and leveled off at -28%. My guess is that the economy will adjust similarly over the next few months. Now, it is President Obama and the Liberal Congress that define the framework of our economy. If neither the market nor the economy as a whole grow at a sustainable rate (see other recoveries) than one can presume that framework changes are having a detrimental effect. If the growth is statistically more vibrant than one can presume that framework changes are having a beneficial effect. We can look at Federal tax revenue as a proxy. The revenue growth from FY2003 (September 2002 – September 2003) to FY2004 was 5.44%. That was pre-Bush tax code modification – but folks were beginning to expect change and adjust to projected change. The revenue growth from FY2004 to FY2005 was 14.63%. The revenue growth so far from FY2009 to FY2010 has been -13.15%. That does not bode well. Folks (you and me and businesses) are moving numbers around in an effort to adjust to the new framework.

My money is on the bet that the President Obama/Congress economic framework (projected and actual) will result in a miserable Federal revenue growth rate This stuff is easy to predict. Fish in a barrel.

This bet can be claimed 2010/10/13 when the FY2010 Monthly Treasury Statement is posted. For those who are looking here is the future link

Any takers!!!

 

[KevinD]

Page Not Found

 

[Boghie]

Page Not Found

KevinD,

That page will not be found till the second Thursday of October 2010.

Kindof talking smack... Very subtle though, eh...

The main site is: Monthly Treasury Statement

The super top secret is to notice the URL of a specific MTS monthly report. The final portion of the URL is a date in the format of mtsMMYY.pdf. For example, the most recent MTS report is for November 2009. Thus, the URL is:

http://fms.treas.gov/mts/mts1109.pdf.

If you want to grab a crystal ball and see the September 2010 report it will be at:

http://fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0910.pdf.

and, will be posted by the second Wednesday of the month.

This Wednesday we will get the honor of viewing the December 2008 report.

 

[Silverbird]

Do those calculations include the two wars before 2009? They were off-budget before 2009, last I checked. Also, the bailout started in Dec 2008, so that's going to be in 2009 too.

But regardless, numbers show that these tax cuts were accompanied by a deficit, and yes, it's a LOT bigger now, but even when they were started they helped create a deficit in the federal budget.

Again, I say, fear not. Unless Congress wants to get lynched, these tax breaks will be re-instated, and the new calculations of further deficits will be breathtaking.

 

[Boghie]

Do those calculations include the two wars before 2009? They were off-budget before 2009, last I checked. Also, the bailout started in Dec 2008, so that's going to be in 2009 too.

But regardless, numbers show that these tax cuts were accompanied by a deficit, and yes, it's a LOT bigger now, but even when they were started they helped create a deficit in the federal budget.

Again, I say, fear not. Unless Congress wants to get lynched, these tax breaks will be re-instated, and the new calculations of further deficits will be breathtaking.

SilverBird,

The 'Monthly Treasury Statement' is not a 'budget' - it is a record of actual expenditures. So, yes, the war effort is included. The war effort costs about $100 Billion/year. Thus, the 'stimulus' bill consumed about eight years of war spending in a week.

The TARP bailout is included in FY2009. As is President Obama's 'stimulus'. Did you note that much of the TARP has already been paid back within the fiscal year it was expensed? President Obama is not responsible for all the FY2009 deficit - the economy and President Bush had a role. However, President Obama borrowed $789 Billion for the 'stimulus' and used TARP payback money to fund other efforts (GM, Chrysler, etc.). That is not Bush spending. Please note the spending pattern this FY (FY2010). You will get another month this Wednesday/Thursday. My guess is that the pattern will continue. Not good.

Did you note that the FY2007 deficit was $160 Billion. That is rounding error? It would have been overcome had FY2008 been a normal year.

I don't want tax cuts. I want the current structure with no threat of changing it dramatically. It worked in the recent past, it will work again.

 

[Boghie]

But, you are assuming it's going to be Groundhog Day in 2011 and no one is going to notice. I don't think that's going to be the case - everyone knows what's coming. Someone's gonna squawk about such a big hit, because even though the breaks were phased in, the end of them wasn't. So if you are a conspiracy theorist, here is your conspiracy - it was meant to mess up the next President.

Silverbird, It is now May 2nd - and not a peep from Congress or the Administration about adjusting the automatic reversion of the tax code to FY2000. I'm starting to wonder if they will even inflation adjust the brackets:worried:.

Normally, changes to the tax code occur in January/February.

Now, let us project Federal Government Revenue and Expenditures:

FY2007:

Revenue: $2,567,671
Expenditures: $2,730,505
Deficit: $161,527​

FY2008:

Revenue: $2,523,642
Expenditures: $2,978,440 (+9.08%)
Deficit: $454,798​

FY2009:

Revenue: $2,104,613
Expenditures: $3,521,734 (+18.24%)
Deficit: $1,417,121​

And, now lets us look at the MTS 'Post Great Recession' FY2010 Projection:

Revenue: $2,165,119 (+2.87%)
Expenditures: $3,720,701 (+5.65%)
Deficit: $1,555,582​

Given that there has been very little inflation (probably deflation) since FY2007 let us look at President Obama's firt 'Great Recession' budget as ratios with FY2007:

Revenue: $2,165,119 (-18.59% under FY2007)
Expenditures: $3,720,701 (+36.26% over FY2007)
Deficit: $1,555,582​

That is some serious cost cutting:nuts:

Had the gubmint committed to Pre-Great Recession inflation adjusted expenditures in a Post-Great Recession time frame the numbers would have looked like this:

Revenue: $2,165,119 (-18.59% under FY2007)
Expenditures: $2,866,001(+4.96% over FY2007)
Deficit: $701,882 (+34.53% over FY2007​

Bad, but going in the right direction...
The deficit would shrink as the economy improves...

Why are government expenditures still bloated AFTER the Keynesian expenditures of FY2009?

And, lets watch projected revenue 'adjust' as corporations move profits to other lines on the balance sheet!!! Remember, come January 2011 we investors no longer desire dividends - thus, corporations will not be forced to show the taxable profits from which dividends are paid. That will certainly be good for main street!!!

Ah, the schadenfreude

 

[Silverbird]

It will be absolute political suicide to put in big giant tax cuts by re-implementing the Bush era tax cuts with the govt in so much debt
It will also be political suicide to let everything lapse

Inflation? Unfortunately not much inflation to use that for an adjustment

The problem is unemployment, and I'm expecting deflation, which makes inflation look like a nice guy.

 

[alevin]

SB, unemployment and deflation are the elephants in the room. And yes, deflation is a whole lot scarier.

Minor field report here-2-day annual Quilt Show here over the weekend, draws people from 1/3 to 2/3 of the state. Attendance on Saturday was equal to total 2-day attendence last year this time. Attendance on Sunday sizeable and bonus over last year's attendance. Venders were much happier this year, but prices on some things were measurably lower than they have been with some items, including some extremely pricey equipment.

One vender said she was entirely travelling shop, no home-base shop. Interesting, first time for that one.

 

[Boghie]

SilverBird,

I am far more concerned about deflation as well. And, I think we would have been in a deflation death spiral without TARP. Even more important was the stuff the FED did.

My comment on inflation adjustment to the tax brackets was a bit of a joke. They are currently allowing the brackets to return to CY2000. It would be less than funny if they did not inflation adjust the brackets from CY2000. But the gubmint needs lots more money since we are spending far more (inflation adjusted) than ever before (maybe excepting WWII and the Civil War):

FY2010 Expenditures: $3,720,701 (in current dollars)
FY2007 Expenditures: $2,866,001 (in current dollars)​

Thus, we are spending $854,700 (+29.82%) (in current dollars) more this year than we did in FY2007.

Why?

The 'Great Recession' is over?

What are we getting for the 29.82% increase in spending (inflation adjusted)?

 

[James48843]

FY2010 Expenditures: $3,720,701 (in current dollars)
FY2007 Expenditures: $2,866,001 (in current dollars)​

Thus, we are spending $854,700 (+29.82%) (in current dollars) more this year than we did in FY2007.

Why?

The 'Great Recession' is over?

What are we getting for the 29.82% increase in spending (inflation adjusted)?

To prime the pump.

During the Great Depression, Hoover raised taxes to balance the budget, and it killed the economy as it struggled to recover. The lesson learned, supposedly, was to inject cash to try to prime the pump. FDR did that, or at least tried to do that until some of his programs got axed by the Supreme Court. It was another few years before they found ways to pump more money into the economy and get it going again, and it was the massive spending by the government as World War II got underway that really knocked the unemployment rate down and got the economy going again.

We aren't going to have a repeat of the mistakes of the early 1930's- that's why we need to pump some money into the economy. My only issue is I wish we had some things going to prime the pump that would be much more visible, and get people working.

Of course- hiring 70,000 people along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, and using BP's money instead of taxpayer money- that sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Too bad it takes a disaster to hire that many folks. I heard that number being floated today as a possible number that BP will end up hiring. So far they've hired over 2,000, and are lining up 700 shrimp boats and small vessels to deploy oil booms. I guess that will make up for some of that loss of shrimping, eh?

 

[burrocrat]

...that's why we need to pump some money into the economy...

hey zues de freakin crisco, how much money we gotta pump into this thing? where did the last 700 billion go?

...are lining up 700 shrimp boats...

well, they got pineapple shrimp, shrimp and potatoes, shrimp sandwiches...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLkNPjbaPTk