Why Your 2012 Tax Bill May Jump By $8,000

Daily Finance ^ | 02/03/12 | DAN CAPLINGER

[Cicero]

This was the original plan. Good grief, does anyone think otherwise?

[maxter]

Somebody correct me if I’m wrong but it is my understanding that there already is a tax surprise awaiting us when we file the 2011, a tax credit that Congress just let lapse. Single working $400; couple working $800. Remember that one? Funny, didn’t hear a word about this from anyone, not the media nor the Congress.

[BobL]

Actually, I prefer the tax increase to the alternative, which is an Argentina / Russia type full-meltdown. I’ve read enough on those meltdowns to know that if another 10% of my income goes to the feds, it’s a heck of a lot better than a full meltdown.

For those that think that there’s any chance of getting control of entitlements, DREAM ON - after some of the debates that I’ve had on this website, even a majority of elderly (and near-elderly) FReepers prefer to see this country destroyed economically, rather than compromise on their ‘benefits’ regarding SS and Medicare (even though those benefits are now being taken off the backs of my kids). And if no more than half of the elderly FReepers are willing to sacrifice, FORGET ABOUT any hope for the rest of the country.

[Qbert]

Obama has no intention of cutting one dime from the national debt (unless it involves something his base loathes- i.e., defense spending). He has no intention even of raising taxes to attempt to pay off the debt- no serious person would keep spending the way he does if that's way he wanted. He talks about raising taxes purely for political purposes.

[null and void]

Dunno. Do we remove the bandages quick or slow?

[dragonblustar]

At what annual income level does this effect?

[proxy_user]

Wouldn’t you do better just to make sure you pay at least 100% of what you owed in 2011, or 110% if your AGI is over $175K?

[null and void]

When they bring the threshold down to $0, we will have a de facto flat tax.

[Trailerpark Badass]

I don't see how you conclude that paying more in taxes will prevent the meltdown you fear.

Do you really believe that reaching some arbitrary revenue figure will compel the government to live within its means? That's preposterous. They'll just spend your additional taxes and a few trillion more besides.

We aren't suffering from some accounting problem.

[raybbr]

Actually, I prefer the tax increase to the alternative, which is an Argentina / Russia type full-meltdown. I’ve read enough on those meltdowns to know that if another 10% of my income goes to the feds, it’s a heck of a lot better than a full meltdown.

For those that think that there’s any chance of getting control of entitlements, DREAM ON...

Unless that first part is sarcasm how long do you think that adding another 10% will last? Three years before our paychecks go to the feds instead of us?

[BobL]

“Do you really believe that reaching some arbitrary revenue figure will compel the government to live within its means? “

If coupled with a responsible Congress like the one we had in 1995, then yes. The higher taxes will cover much of the amount of money that Obama is wasting now, and, more importantly, the bill coming due for our UNTOUCHABLE entitlements.

[BobL]

“Unless that first part is sarcasm how long do you think that adding another 10% will last? Three years before our paychecks go to the feds instead of us?”

My point is that if the generations that spent us blind are unwilling to compromise about the NIGHTMARE this country is becoming, we might as well figure out a way to continue indulging them, rather than have the country collapse.

As to how long the 10% will last...that depends on Congress. Certainly no guarantees, but we’ve been shown in the past that a RESPONSIBLE CONGRESS can actually run a surplus, rather than just spending it away faster than it comes. There is an example to follow.

[Trailerpark Badass]

I couldn’t possibly disagree more.

[DuncanWaring]

I’ve read enough on those meltdowns to know that if another 10% of my income goes to the feds, it’s a heck of a lot better than a full meltdown.

The Federal government is spending so far beyond reality that giving them another 10% of your income will make no measurable difference.

If they were to confiscate every cent of wealth owned by members of the Forbes 400 list, the amount raised, a little over a trillion dollars, wouldn't cover the deficit for even one year.

Then what do you do next year? The next 400 richest don't have nearly as much money.

[null and void]

Hmmm? What he says makes perfect sense:

If you buy his premise...

coupled with a responsible Congress

LISTER: She could've said, "yes." Stranger things have happened!
RIMMER: Only two spring to mind, Lister: the spontaneous combustion of the Mayor of Warsaw in 1546 and that incident in 12th century Burgandy when it rained herring.

[DuncanWaring]

...we’ve been shown in the past that a RESPONSIBLE CONGRESS can actually run a surplus, ...

Haven't had one of those since the Eisenhower administration.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

But that is the thing! We can’t avoid melt-down, only delay it. And the longer we delay it, the worse it is going to be.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

We ought to start keeping a list of names and addresses of responsible parties so that when TSHTF we can check on their well-being.

[dagogo redux]

In the private sector, the whole tax scheme would be recognized as extortion racket that it is.

The intent is not even to fund the government: the intent is to bring this nation and its people, with their dream of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness, to their knees under tyranny.

“The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.”

[silverleaf]

payimg more taxes to this government is like giving money to a credit card junkie who has gone over his limit by triple

Ya’ think he’s gonna use the extra money to pay down the balance?

I DON’T THINK SO