The Daily Bell Newswire – It's Free!

News & Analysis

Could U.S. Taxes Rise Hard?

Thursday, April 01, 2010 – by Staff Report

Investors and their advisers can only scratch their heads as they face an uncertain future for U.S. income-tax policy, including one scenario that could send levies on dividends soaring. During the presidency of George W. Bush, long-term dividend and capital-gains taxes were reduced to 15 percent. President Barack Obama, backed by many congressional Democrats, wants to raise both rates to 20 percent for married couples earning more than $250,000 a year. Further clouding the situation, if Congress fails to take any action, the old policy expires and dividends will again be treated as ordinary income and taxed at a rate of up to nearly 40 percent. Capital-gains taxes would go up to 20 percent. "No matter who is doing the planning, we're all guessing as to how high the rates might rise in the future," said Robert McKenzie, a tax lawyer at Arnstein and Lehr. Most political observers expect Congress to address the issue, although many wrongly predicted the same thing last year before estate tax rules expired without a new policy in place. The result is a state of limbo, where financial advisers can only stand back and wait for greater clarity. Tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 are set to expire at the end of this year, and if Congress takes no action, all rates for individuals in all brackets will revert to pre-2001 levels. Obama and the Democrats want to extend the cuts for all but the wealthiest two tax groups. – MoneyNews

Dominant Social Theme: A concern that might lead to additional citizen unhappiness.

Free-Market Analysis: By pushing through extremely unpopular health care legislation, the Obama administration has served notice that progressivism now takes pride of place over pragmatism. It is ironic that the previous Democratic presidency of Bill and Hillary Clinton was seen as potentially a very radical one, whereas the Obama presidency was viewed by many as being middle-of-the road. It is now no such thing.

The health care bill, as we have pointed out, may portend things to come. Until the November US elections, Obama has a nearly definitive majority in the House and Senate and he has shown he is willing to use it. There is no question that if he moves fast enough and lobbies hard enough, he has a chance in the next six months to pass variants of a financial regulation package, an immigration bill and whatever else he and his circle desire, up to and including a tax bill hiking revenues considerably.

In fact, we're not sure of how all of this would work, because the health bill had the advantage of being passed by the Senate, where the Obama administration has lost its definitive edge. But if the administration can woo just one Republican to its point of view on a regular basis, great accomplishments (from their point of view) are in the offing.

Yet the American people are up in arms (metaphorically anyway) and the message Obama is now sending to literally 50 million sometimes-active US voters is that he doesn't care about their middle-of-the-road orientation or concerns.

How then does Obama propose to keep power?

There are two potential answers to this question. The first is that Obama is pursuing a larger power-elite agenda and doesn't care whether he retains power so long as he fulfills it as successfully as he can. But the second possibility is that Obama and the Democrats generally are going to try between now and the next presidential election to fundamentally change the texture of US voting patterns by somehow legalizing the votes of up to 50 million Hispanics.

We've already published an article about the recent passage of the health care bill in which we speculated that part of the Obama's administration's determination to pass it had to do with being able to extend certain health care benefits to currently uncovered workers in America either legally or illegally. We're not sure this is possible, but we wouldn't be surprised if this hadn't occurred to Obama and his brain trust.

Even a few months ago, we would have been skeptical that Obama had the will or political muscle to pursue a truly radical agenda that made use of the overwhelming political firepower at his disposal. But his determination to pass health care – and subsequent success – must be seen a sign of things to come, at least potentially. Even the tone of the Democrats has changed when it comes to contemplating additional legislation, as we can read in another article excerpt:

Sander Levin, acting chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, said this month that he intended to take up expiration of the Bush-era dividend and capital-gains levies when Congress returns from its two-week Easter break that began last week. The lawmaker believes House Democrats back Obama's policy of boosting rates for the wealthiest investors, but said the debate would be tougher in the Senate, where Democrats hold a slimmer majority and both sides of the aisle tend to be more conservative. "We're going to have to force the issue," Levin said.

There are risks in what Obama may have in mind, far beyond mere political ones. As we pointed out in today's other article, America is already boiling as a result of the depressed economic environment and information from the Internet's alternative media. If Obama goes ahead and raises taxes in an economic environment that remains as weak as this one is currently, the resultant electoral reaction might be immense. We would think in fact reactions would go far beyond electoral consequences.

The questions we have raised in this article have no answers yet. And perhaps Obama and the power elite that stands behind him will decide to back off, but we're not seeing signs of that right now. Higher taxes and other progressive programs – especially if married to a continued poor economy and continually rising debt – is a recipe for dollar instability and virtual US insolvency.

Conclusion: Will the US face a great realignment and perhaps some sort of de-factor European-Union-style merger, as we have asked before? Or will the situation, potentially, simply decay into a kind of ungovernable morass. If the latter scenario, admittedly a far-fetched one, were to take place, we would not be surprised to see the gradual ascension of a private market gold and silver standard and perhaps even a form of free-banking. All, therefore, would not be lost. There is always perhaps, a silver (and gold) lining.




Latest Daily Bell Articles

Feedback

Effective April 25, 2012, the Daily Bell will discontinue allowing feedback comments. We have left in place the large body of responses posted in the past, as we appreciate the valuable contributions made by some of our readers.
Showing 1 - 7 of 7 - Newest on top - Reorder Feedback
  Posted by Bill Ross on 04/05/10 08:10 AM

Plainspeak:

"US Taxes Rise Hard"

EQUALS US economy falls hard (the PLAN)

Proof:

http://www.cli.gs/MathematicsOfRule

When we are not peacefully co-operating (trading) for mutual self-interest (civilization), we are playing (fighting) the "king of the hill", division of spoils game, destroyer of civilizations. Ask: Cui bono?

  Posted by Skrag on 04/01/10 07:31 PM

Click to view link

Idaho's plan to downgrade the dollar ...

"With only one state representative dissenting, the Idaho House State Affairs committee voted on Monday to endorse HB 633, a bill that would allow Idaho citizens to pay their state taxes with an official state silver medallion."

"But since states aren't allowed to mint their own money, the value of the silver medallion will have to fluctuate according to market forces."

Reply from The Daily Bell

Wow, thanks Scrag!

  Posted by Clayton on 04/01/10 05:28 PM

More symbolism and fakery. Given the cost of this most recent expansion of the State, how many drops in the empty bucket will this catch? But the lower half wants something done about the "rich." Little do they know about that $250,000 number that is paraded around so often.

Earned income above $250.000 is subject to an approximately 40 tax (Federal Income Tax, State Income Tax, and Medicare). It can be even high depending on the division of income between the two earners and whether or not they are subject to Self-Employment Tax. Most of the investment savings of these high income people is in their tax deferred accounts and not affected by the proposed tax increases. The affected group are largely the super wealthy, who have either inherited wealth or netted out substantial amounts from successful business enterprises.

These connected and savvy folks are likely to find ways to minimize or eliminate any impact these new laws will have on their portfolios, after all they are the ones who own the government and whose support is critical to its survival.

So after these measures fail, where will they go looking for money? I believe that they will impose withdrawal fees on retirement accounts and particularly IRA and 401K style savings. At the age of 70 1/2, withdrawals are mandatory, so they can count on a huge windfall that is most probably to happen.

Yes, it is a counterproductive move in many ways, but it would present great opportunities for the friends of the Power Elite to buy up large parts of the economy on the cheap. We must always remember that a government such as ours will stoop to almost any level to serve its true masters.

  Posted by Bill on 04/01/10 12:50 PM

The tax rate at the end of WWII was 91 on incomes greater than $400,000. Two Democrats, Kennedy-Johnson lowered this to 70. Reagan first lowered this to 50 and then in 1986 to 28. No wonder the elite want Reagan on the $50 dollar bill despite his dubious legacy.In 1977, the richest 5 of Americans owned 83 of the personally owned stock. With the Reagan-Bush tax cuts we have the greatest discrepancy in wealth since 1929. Reagan's supply side theory failed miserably and resulted in adding fuel to an economy heading into a recession. The vast majority of Americans do not make over $250,000 per year. I will research the average Swiss income levels, perhaps I am missing something?

  Posted by Adam E on 04/01/10 11:10 AM

Not too hard to see how this will unfold in the public discourse:

1) The agenda-driven media will cover numerous marches by thousands of illegal immigrants--sorry, Undocumented Workers--and will zero-in on the "less-intellectual" signs carried by the virulent opponents to immigration "reform." Bricks will be thrown (possibly even by agents-provocateurs). Therefore, if you're against immigration reform, you're a racist brick-thrower.

2) Obama will make stirring, strident (yet hollow) speeches full of rhetoric about America being a great melting pot, and how everyone must "come together, especially now, during America's time of great need." End of discussion.

3) Since the discussion is over, and most people don't want to cause trouble for themselves (or for anyone else, really), they'll have to keep their real opinions to themselves or their closest friends.

4) Congress and the Senate will interpret this as a lack of uproar, and therefore consider it popular will and a ringing endorsement of "democracy."

5) Laws will be passed.

6) Republic eroded.

  Posted by Knldgskr on 04/01/10 09:33 AM

One small point, the Democrats retain their majority until the new congress sits in 2011.

If anything, the Congress may be even more radical between the November elections and when the defeated must vacate their offices.

I submit that will be the most dangerous time for the old U.S. and the most favorable time for the United Socialist States of America.

  Posted by Gul on 04/01/10 08:36 AM

I am not of the Judeo-Christian faith nor do I consider myself a right-winger. However even before his election to the US Senate; I knew that Obama was as radical as any one could be.

I consider myself to be a Constitutional Free-Marketer and all the readings I had done, listening to all his hollow rhetoric I had come to the conclusion that Obama was set to destroy the America I know.

I agree with the DB he is following the agenda of the elite; he will deliver America to them on a silver platter for their (elitists)global agenda. He will go on and his own riches will multiply making speeches around the world and collecting millions. Look at Clinton, he has a Presidential pension, Secret Service protection, a taxpayer funded office and he goes around making speeches and collecting millions (40 million in 2008).

Some will say those monies go to his non-profit foundation; that is another ruse because ultimately that money is under his control and slowly but surely he gets the most benefit.

Progressives have only one item on their agenda, deliver the world to global elitists, every now and then make war (in which both sides are financed by elitists), talk up a good game and then retire to make more money for themselves. The main stream media knows this and are colluding in this whole drama. Meanwhile the masses can keep struggling and starving and be under-educated. CONTROL is all these leaders are concerned with.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Another succinct feedback.