George W. Bush's 2010 Tax Miracle

[Lil Red]

+JMJ+
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304222504575173790279735972.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular
With the federal budget deficit estimated at $1.342 trillion for next year, it's going to take a miracle to put America's fiscal house in order. Happily, a tax revenue miracle may be just around the corner. At a minimum, it will reduce next year's deficit by 15%. It might end up cutting it in half.

When this miracle happens, don't let anyone tell you it was Obamanomics or "stimulus" that caused it. In reality, it will be the unexpected result of an obscure provision of the Bush tax cuts that's been hiding in plain sight since 2006. That's right, the much-maligned Bush tax cuts are going to save the day.

Here's how it's going to happen. In the 2010 tax year, for the first time, there is no $100,000 income limitation on the ability to convert IRAs and other tax-deferred retirement accounts into Roth IRAs. Abolition of the limit was set in May 2006, as part of the 2005 Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act, which extended the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on wages, dividends and capital gains through 2010.
=============
more at the link

[Hassan]

[quote name='Lil Red' date='15 April 2010 - 03:54 PM' timestamp='1271361251' post='2094176']
+JMJ+
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304222504575173790279735972.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular
With the federal budget deficit estimated at $1.342 trillion for next year, it's going to take a miracle to put America's fiscal house in order. Happily, a tax revenue miracle may be just around the corner. At a minimum, it will reduce next year's deficit by 15%. It might end up cutting it in half.

When this miracle happens, don't let anyone tell you it was Obamanomics or "stimulus" that caused it. In reality, it will be the unexpected result of an obscure provision of the Bush tax cuts that's been hiding in plain sight since 2006. That's right, the much-maligned Bush tax cuts are going to save the day.

Here's how it's going to happen. In the 2010 tax year, for the first time, there is no $100,000 income limitation on the ability to convert IRAs and other tax-deferred retirement accounts into Roth IRAs. Abolition of the limit was set in May 2006, as part of the 2005 Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act, which extended the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on wages, dividends and capital gains through 2010.
=============
more at the link
[/quote]


No.

I don't know what else to say.

It's the same response I'd give to an article saying the earth really spins because Elephants spin it by walking around.

Just...'no'.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Hassan' date='15 April 2010 - 01:29 PM' timestamp='1271363375' post='2094195']
No.

I don't know what else to say.

It's the same response I'd give to an article saying the earth really spins because Elephants spin it by walking around.

Just...'no'.
[/quote]
+JMJ+
wow. great refutation.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Lil Red' date='15 April 2010 - 04:30 PM' timestamp='1271363409' post='2094196']
+JMJ+
wow. great refutation.
[/quote]


Thanks.

[kamiller42]

Reduce the deficit by 15% through IRA conversions? The deficit is astronomically high. That would be a lot of conversions going on! It does make sense to do it now and get tax free gains from here on out. Without restraint, the feds are going to push taxes higher and higher. Going Roth now protects your money from future pain.

I agree with Hassan that Obama and the dems have worked up such a high deficit that such activity will be a drop in the bucket, elephants (conversions) making our large planet (deficit) going round (down). Thank you donkeys!

[Apotheoun]

[url="http://www.usdebtclock.org/"]U.S. National Debt Clock[/url]

[StMichael]

2011 is going to be terrible. Frightfully so.

Firstly, the Bush tax cuts expire, so we all see a raise in our taxes. The death tax goes from 0% to 55% (tax advisors are actually advising their clients to die this year so they can pass their assets to their heirs.).

Secondly, the commercial real estate market is currently under water and we will see foreclosures on some 50% of these in 2011. Our credit market is already too weak and this will absolutely collapse the credit market.

There is nothing this administration is doing to bring this economy to any form of prosperity, nothing, zip. Under this administration we are seeing a very aggressive IRS going after small businesses. Almost 100% of these businesses, who are being audited, conclude with no change in their payment to the IRS. So small business is under attack.

Sadly, Obama and his minions either have no clue as to what they are doing or know EXACTLY what they are doing.

The balance of power, even if there is a massive shift in November, will do nothing to save this nation until well into 2012. And by then, who knows what can be salvaged.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='StMichael' date='15 April 2010 - 04:51 PM' timestamp='1271371873' post='2094276']
2011 is going to be terrible. Frightfully so.

Firstly, the Bush tax cuts expire, so we all see a raise in our taxes. The death tax goes from 0% to 55% (tax advisors are actually advising their clients to die this year so they can pass their assets to their heirs.).

Secondly, the commercial real estate market is currently under water and we will see foreclosures on some 50% of these in 2011. Our credit market is already too weak and this will absolutely collapse the credit market.

There is nothing this administration is doing to bring this economy to any form of prosperity, nothing, zip. Under this administration we are seeing a very aggressive IRS going after small businesses. Almost 100% of these businesses, who are being audited, conclude with no change in their payment to the IRS. So small business is under attack.

Sadly, Obama and his minions either have no clue as to what they are doing or know EXACTLY what they are doing.

The balance of power, even if there is a massive shift in November, will do nothing to save this nation until well into 2012. And by then, who knows what can be salvaged.
[/quote]
Yes, bad times are ahead.

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='Hassan' date='15 April 2010 - 04:29 PM' timestamp='1271363375' post='2094195']
No.

I don't know what else to say.

It's the same response I'd give to an article saying the earth really spins because Elephants spin it by walking around.

Just...'no'.
[/quote]

...that's not how the earth moves?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='StMichael' date='15 April 2010 - 06:51 PM' timestamp='1271371873' post='2094276']

Sadly, Obama and his minions either have no clue as to what they are doing or know EXACTLY what they are doing.

[/quote]

I'm of the opinion that the facts seem to point to a deliberate attempt to collapse the economy as a ploy for power. Radical financial restructuring, political maneuvering, dictatorship.

Conspiracy theory: the government so handily passed the health care bill without fear of voters precisely because they know they will suspend elections in November due to "chaos" in the midst of "economic collapse."

Regardless of what happens, I'm of the opinion that if you have the funds, you should go buy a large plot of land far out in the country and build a modest home there: 1) to avoid rioting when it finally happens, and 2) to grow your own food and make it through this whole disaster.

[Winchester]

The rich leftists in this country (who, oddly enough, remain rich) are always trying to change the economy to a more socialist type. They know they won't really be hurt by it and that it gets them re-elected by people who, while not socialists, feel the government should be a provider instead of a protector. It seems to me the laws should mostly be concerned with one may not do as opposed to prescribing behaviors. I am aware of the rhetotical ability to rephrase many laws forbidding certain behaviors as actually prescribing certain behaviors (like donating to charity as enforce by law, or saving for retirement as enforced by law).

I am not entirely against some broad forms of government enforced savings, but these systems need to be thought out and applied properly, if at all.

They weren't, or we wouldn't have to uphold them. There can be an argument, I suppose for national interest requiring some social programs for national stability. I am not saying I support this notion, but that I suspect there's an argument worthy of being made. It hasn't been made by any of our leaders. There's been some rhetoric about doing the right thing, but it's a selective right thing and I don't believe the government should be in the business of compelling charity under penalty of law. It currently does this through broad and ineffective social programs.

The right of government to tax to provide general welfare seems applicable to dealing with disasters, not ongoing social problems. So I can see a justification for aid to a storm wracked community, but not an ongoing housing project in said community under ordinary or "normally" extraordinary circumstances.


I don't see any obligation for society to help you maintain your residence for your entire life. Examples: Aid to small towns that fail when the major employer leaves. Life can be tough and it's not society's job to insulate you from life. You might have to move, if the wireworks shuts down. Sorry. You might have to move if you need better access to special medical facilities due to a particular medical problem--the government has no obligation to provide a medical facility to you. Nor does a doctor have an obligation to move to serve you. We have come to expect as a people convenience in life. Our services are supposed to come to us.

The current model is being made to try to bring everything to the people. The people might need to get off their asses and go to what they need.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='16 April 2010 - 09:48 AM' timestamp='1271425688' post='2094591']
...that's not how the earth moves?
[/quote]
Don't be fooled by that rightwing propaganda!

We all know the earth is propelled by donkeys farting.

[Socrates]

Big plots to suspend elections or seize "emergency powers" may not be necessary for socialistic politicians to stay in, and increase, their power.
Unfortunately, much of our electorate has fallen prey to the myth that economic success depends on government action, and that economic troubles are the result of inadequate government "regulation," or government "not doing enough." The truth is that the federal reserve and government involvement in the economy (by the Fed essentially creating money out of thin air and "lending" it to major banks) are what got us into this economic mess in the first place.

If we're in hard times, the government needs to "do more," and if times stay bad, it means it's "not doing enough." This child-like sense of dependence on government leads to the election of politicians like Obama who insist that by government action they will "save us." All that's important is that the government is doing something, [i]anything![/i] Those who oppose increased government power are blamed for standing in the way of the government's salvific mission.

Thus socialism perpetuates itself.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Winchester' date='16 April 2010 - 10:45 AM' timestamp='1271429132' post='2094654']
The rich leftists in this country (who, oddly enough, remain rich) are always trying to change the economy to a more socialist type. They know they won't really be hurt by it and that it gets them re-elected by people who, while not socialists, feel the government should be a provider instead of a protector. It seems to me the laws should mostly be concerned with one may not do as opposed to prescribing behaviors. I am aware of the rhetotical ability to rephrase many laws forbidding certain behaviors as actually prescribing certain behaviors (like donating to charity as enforce by law, or saving for retirement as enforced by law).

I am not entirely against some broad forms of government enforced savings, but these systems need to be thought out and applied properly, if at all.

They weren't, or we wouldn't have to uphold them. There can be an argument, I suppose for national interest requiring some social programs for national stability. I am not saying I support this notion, but that I suspect there's an argument worthy of being made. It hasn't been made by any of our leaders. There's been some rhetoric about doing the right thing, but it's a selective right thing and I don't believe the government should be in the business of compelling charity under penalty of law. It currently does this through broad and ineffective social programs.

The right of government to tax to provide general welfare seems applicable to dealing with disasters, not ongoing social problems. So I can see a justification for aid to a storm wracked community, but not an ongoing housing project in said community under ordinary or "normally" extraordinary circumstances.


I don't see any obligation for society to help you maintain your residence for your entire life. Examples: Aid to small towns that fail when the major employer leaves. Life can be tough and it's not society's job to insulate you from life. You might have to move, if the wireworks shuts down. Sorry. You might have to move if you need better access to special medical facilities due to a particular medical problem--the government has no obligation to provide a medical facility to you. Nor does a doctor have an obligation to move to serve you. We have come to expect as a people convenience in life. Our services are supposed to come to us.

The current model is being made to try to bring everything to the people. The people might need to get off their asses and go to what they need.
[/quote]

As I'm currently in the process of reviewing the Church's social documents (I teach Christian Social Teaching), I've been astonished to see how much agreement there is between the Church and the founding principles of the United States. By and large, the Tea Party and similar groups are dead-on.

However, I've also been interested to note that the Church is in favor of several major forms of social assistance which would most likely (but not necessarily) require taxes.

Now, taxes, especially income tax, take away a portion of the funds a person generates through labor. The government has no intrinsic right to what I've worked hard to acquire for myself and my family, especially because the government does not own me.

However, the Church also speaks of the common good, which requires that I keep in mind the authentic needs of others. If a person (truly) cannot work to support himself or his family, then it is a requirement of justice in keeping with the common good of society to help keep that family going. That duty falls first on family members who have a moral obligation to help, then on friends and neighbors (particularly in the Church as the local Christian community), and lastly on the state. It also only applies to what is essential for the material, social, spiritual, and cultural life of the individual and his family. It doesn't include Cadillacs, video games, feasts, designer jeans, etc. A truly responsible system would evaluate the ability of the worker's immediate family and then extended family to assist. Then it would call on the help of others. Then it would pay out what was still needed. The trouble comes in trying to get people to give without forcing them. That would prove quite difficult. Further, it would have to evaluate their spending habits.

So the Church does support social assistance for those in true need, but I'm convinced that what she asks for is far less (and far more effective) than what our government is trying to do.

[quote name='Socrates' date='16 April 2010 - 12:39 PM' timestamp='1271435959' post='2094749']
Don't be fooled by that rightwing propaganda!

We all know the earth is propelled by donkeys farting.
[/quote]

+1

[StMichael]

More than most know.

We lived in a country where all our rights came from God. Over the last 100 years we now must go to men (the government) to ask for rights. In exchange they give us entitlements.

We have enslaved ourselves to the government and this was the only country on Earth that functioned where God came before government. Now the race is on to erase God and the rights he has given us.

Our Founders would spit on the government that it has become, not just current, but almost all of the last 100 years.


[quote name='Raphael' date='16 April 2010 - 01:06 PM' timestamp='1271437563' post='2094777']
As I'm currently in the process of reviewing the Church's social documents (I teach Christian Social Teaching), I've been astonished to see how much agreement there is between the Church and the founding principles of the United States. By and large, the Tea Party and similar groups are dead-on.

However, I've also been interested to note that the Church is in favor of several major forms of social assistance which would most likely (but not necessarily) require taxes.

Now, taxes, especially income tax, take away a portion of the funds a person generates through labor. The government has no intrinsic right to what I've worked hard to acquire for myself and my family, especially because the government does not own me.

However, the Church also speaks of the common good, which requires that I keep in mind the authentic needs of others. If a person (truly) cannot work to support himself or his family, then it is a requirement of justice in keeping with the common good of society to help keep that family going. That duty falls first on family members who have a moral obligation to help, then on friends and neighbors (particularly in the Church as the local Christian community), and lastly on the state. It also only applies to what is essential for the material, social, spiritual, and cultural life of the individual and his family. It doesn't include Cadillacs, video games, feasts, designer jeans, etc. A truly responsible system would evaluate the ability of the worker's immediate family and then extended family to assist. Then it would call on the help of others. Then it would pay out what was still needed. The trouble comes in trying to get people to give without forcing them. That would prove quite difficult. Further, it would have to evaluate their spending habits.

So the Church does support social assistance for those in true need, but I'm convinced that what she asks for is far less (and far more effective) than what our government is trying to do.



+1
[/quote]