Posted on 02/27/2009 8:47:37 AM PST by Wicket
You're waaaay behind the curve..........
If that’s the case, I find something to write off...like a “donation” to Acorn?
“If that’s the case, I find something to write off...like a “donation” to Acorn?”
No doubt about it.
Donations to ACORN will be acceptable.
Other donations ... well... when it doesn’t better the Demoncraps are suspect.
Since libs aren’t known for giving to charities, I could see this as a real possibility.
They are scaling them back for people making over $250,000 a year
I saw an explanation on FR last night that went like this.....a millionaire in the past may have given $100,000 to a charity....and gotten a $38,000 charitable deduction...in the future they will only get a $28,000 deduction....I don’t know how far down this goes into income levels, i.e. if someone who makes $100,000 and gives $10000....whether it changes their deduction.
Those making “over $250,000” would fall into 33% and 35% tax brackets, but would only be allowed to deduct the amounts of someone in the 28% bracket. In other words, deductions would cap at 28%.
Cavuto hinted that the boundary for married couples could be $209,000.
It will end up around $90k before it all ends.
Cavuto has it right. Here is what the Wall Street Journal reports:
Households paying income taxes at the 33% and 35% rates can currently claim deductions at those rates. Under the Obama proposal, they could deduct only 28% of the value of those payments…
For the 2009 tax year, the 33% tax bracket starts with couples with taxable earnings of $208,850, when adjusted for personal exemptions and various deductible expenses. A taxpayer in the top bracket paying $1,000 of mortgage interest, for example, would see a tax break worth $350 reduced to $280.
Eventually all church and faith based giving will be eliminated. Wipe out churches, wipe out more opposition to the Obammunist.
Besides, if the government gets rid of charitable giving, then it can "assume" the role of the charity, and give how it sees fit. And tax individuals accordingly, in the name of charity. AND FAIRNESS.
Notice that in this plan, the taxes don’t “increase” as Obama promised, but the deduction DECREASES, raising the tax LIABILITY but not the TAX RATE. Obama is a liar, but he uses Bill Clinton’s word parsing to evade the truth.
250k is for married couples
200k is for singles
this sort of make sense because more conservatives are married and more liberals are single (unable to live with other people)
The marriage penalty is back big time.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/26/news/economy/obama_budget_outline/index.htm?cnn=yes
Let tax cuts expire for high-income earners: To help reduce the deficit, the president’s budget would allow the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire for joint filers making more than $250,000 and single filers making more than $200,000 a year.
The tax increase would go into effect in 2011.
Specifically, the top two income tax rates would revert to 36% and 39.6%. Limits on how much high-income filers can claim in exemptions and deductions would be reinstated. And the capital gains tax rate would return to 20%, up from 15% currently. The dividend tax rate would also be 20%, but that’s still less than high-income filers paid when dividends used to be taxed at ordinary income tax rates.
The White House estimates letting the cuts expire could raise $637 billion over 10 years, although Obama’s desire to extend those same cuts for lower and middle income families is estimated to increase the deficit by more than $900 billion during the same period.
The impact of this change combined with the change on itemized deductions on high-income filers means wealthier tax filers will be putting significantly more Benjamins into the system.
According to estimates from Deloitte Tax, a married couple with 2 children under age 17 and income of $500,000 a year would owe approximately $11,300 more than under current law if all of the tax provisions in Obama’s budget request outline were enacted.
For the 2009 tax year, the 33% tax bracket starts with couples with taxable earnings of $208,850
He's literally throwing away trillions for a reason, and that reason is not in the peoples best interest.
Yesterday Rush and a caller discussed the proposed elimination of or reduction in the charitable deduction.
Rush’s take on it was if charitable contributions were reduced the government would increasingly take over that role.
My read is that this, intentionally or unintentionally, will kill private education - certainly elhi and probably college too (and my guess is it’s intentional).
If people are hit with a stiff tax increase due to the loss of the property tax deduction, a significant number will be forced to move to public school. The private schools, faced with declining enrollment, and also the double whammy of loss of donations due to the charitable deduction loss, will have no choice but to raise tuition and/or shrink in size. Can you say circling the drain?
You can play the same scenario out at the college level. Wonder how the folks who run the Harvard (and other liberal U’s) endowment are feeling about this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.