Despite Pledge, Taxes Increase for Teenagers

NY Times ^ | 5/20/06 | DAVID CAY JOHNSTON

[ArmstedFragg]

It appears the unearned income of minors between 15 to 18 will be taxed at the same rate as those 14 and under. The text reads:

"(a) In General- Section 1(g)(2)(A) (relating to child to whom subsection applies) is amended by striking `age 14' and inserting `age 18'."

[dufekin]

Have you ever heard of shorting stocks--especially GM and NYT?

[Tzimisce]

Teens should be happy to pay their taxes.

So many of them walked out of class to support illegals. Maybe they need to fork over some of the money for them...

[Old_Mil]

I can see the people at NY Times saying ...Maybe this will make em hate Bush...

I have it on good authority that if Bush hadn't signed off on it, the Times wouldn't have been able to write about it. Perhaps the question is not the motivation of an admittedly liberal rag (we all know what that is), but rather the motivation of a supposedly conservative administration.

[KarlInOhio]

what's wrong with this statement:

despite Mr. Bush's 1999 pledge to veto any tax increase.

Is that set of letters between "to" and "any" even a word? I do not recognize it.

[woofie]

I found this on google:

Reagan is, to be sure, one of the most conservative presidents in U.S. history and will certainly be remembered as such. His record on the environment, defense, and economic policy is very much in line with its portrayal. But he entered office as an ideologue who promised a conservative revolution, vowing to slash the size of government, radically scale back entitlements, and deploy the powers of the presidency in pursuit of socially and culturally conservative goals. That he essentially failed in this mission hasn't stopped partisan biographers from pretending otherwise. (Noonan writes of his 1980 campaign pledges: "Done, done, done, done, done, done, and done. Every bit of it.")

A sober review of Reagan's presidency doesn't yield the seamlessly conservative record being peddled today. Federal government expanded on his watch. The conservative desire to outlaw abortion was never seriously pursued. Reagan broke with the hardliners in his administration and compromised with the Soviets on arms control. His assault on entitlements never materialized; instead he saved Social Security in 1983. And he repeatedly ignored the fundamental conservative dogma that taxes should never be raised.

All of this has been airbrushed from the new literature of Reagan. But as any balanced account must make clear, Reagan acceded to political compromises as all presidents do once in office--and on many occasions did so willingly. In fact, however often unintentionally, many of his actions as president wound up facilitating liberal objectives. What this clamor of adulation is seeking to deny is that beyond his conservative legacy, Ronald Reagan has bequeathed a liberal one.

More here:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html

[Jameison]

"Perhaps the question is not the motivation of an admittedly liberal rag (we all know what that is), but rather the motivation of a supposedly conservative administration"

You mean the motivation of this suppsedly conservative administration that just reduced taxes by a whopping $69 billion, right?


BTW, how much income taxes do 14-17 year olds pay again?
The New York Slimes are just soooooooooooo transparent it's not even funny anymore.
This the best they can do?

[goodnesswins]

Actually.....this could make these teenagers HATE TAXES!

[ArmstedFragg]

So here's the deal:

The old law provided that, for kids under 14, unearned income got taxed at the parent's rate, thereby limiting the parents ability to put their stock in the kids name. The new law applies that rule to kids under 18.

Since, as the New York Times tells us, only the rich have stock, this appears to be a tax increase on the rich. I thought they were in favor of those.

Maybe the reporter didn't get the memo... or maybe the need for a consistent editorial position gets waived if the story can be spun in a way that takes a swipe at Bush.

[markman46]

LOL, ya I didn't reconize that word either, I was refering to the year

[pacpam]

The lawyers found a loop-hole and it got plugged. problem is those without lawyers won't be able to recover, but those with lawyers will find yet another loop-hole.

Reagan's change in tax codes closed loop-holes for the rich and lowered the tax rate for everyone. The rate has since increased, thanks to Clinton and now the lawyers are back protecting the uber-rich while the W-2er is stuck holding the bag of manure.

[tina07]

I got what you pointed out about the year. Another gem from the NY Slimes!

[garylmoore]

Funny, I heard it the other way around that it tripled tax savings for teenagers. I don't really understand how a tax CUT can hurt teenagers.

[tobyhill]

Sit-n-Spin. The Slimes are trying to give the impression that these are college fund investments but what they really are is regular investments that was going to be used for college (beer, bongs, parties and if going to Duke strippers). Once these kids get to college anyway they're going to be able to take additional tax credits from their tax returns.

[freepatriot32]

ping

[CheyennePress]

Can't you hear some liberal weiner crying about trustfund babies one minute and then buying into this plate of steaming you-know-what buy the shovelful because it's neative tone towards Bush?

[traviskicks]

The less you vote the more the criminals in government will rob you.





Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[Supernatural]

Lowering taxes while spending more money never works.

Soon new taxes will appear, or old taxes of another kind will increase.

It is just smoke and mirrors.

[markman46]

Yep another good reason NOT to read the SLIMES