OT: Taxes

**copy**

It's Almost Too Late to Escape Pelosi's New Year's Eve Tax Trap By David Galland, Managing Director, Casey Research

The administration knows its massive deficits will be poison come the November 2010 midterm elections. At the same time, it also knows if it cuts stimulus spending, it risks kicking the props out from under the recovery just ahead of those same elections.

There's only one way out. That's to boost revenues... and soon. It would be political suicide for Obama to break his pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class. So all that's left is to mug the "wealthy."

It's already a given that taxes are going up for higher income earners and investors. Most importantly, the administration and its Congressional allies have announced they'll allow the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2011. Those cuts, passed in 2001 and 2003, reduced personal income taxes and capital gains taxes, as well as eliminated the estate tax.

Once the Bush tax cuts expire, high earners will see their personal income taxes rise from 35% to 39.6%. (And probably go up from there. The House health care bill includes an additional 5.4% surtax on gross income for high-income individuals.) In addition, the estate tax will return.

And long-term capital gains tax rates, now at 15%, will be boosted to as much as 28%.

But here's the rub: Ahead of the 2011 tax changes, investors will begin dumping appreciated stocks in order to lock in capital gains and avoid paying the additional taxes. That will create an unwelcome stock market selloff ahead of the November 2010 elections.

The Democrats knows this, which is why ? behind the scenes ? they are now setting a bulletproof tax trap to spring soon after the New Year begins. The trap is simplicity itself: a repeal of the Bush tax cuts in

2010, a year ahead of schedule.

Further, when passed, the legislation will be retroactive to January 1,

2010.

It's the perfect trap, because once the higher taxes are in place, there will be no tax incentive for anyone to divest their shares. In fact, many people will decide to hang on to their stocks until a more investor-friendly regime returns to power.

By increasing taxes across the board on the wealthy a year ahead of schedule, the government gets a big lift in revenue. Simultaneously, it avoids a rush for the exits that would otherwise occur ahead of the capital gains tax increases. For the government, it's a win-win. Very much not the case for investors.

Could the government really pull this off ? implementing a retroactive tax increase?

In a word, yes. Back in August 1993, President Clinton passed the largest tax increase in history ? the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA) ? and made it retroactive to January of that year.

It was challenged in court, and the court held that retroactive tax increases were legal. This was not the first time this sort of chicanery had been pulled. (You can read more on the topic of retroactive taxes by clicking here.)

Why am I so confident this trap is being set? Nancy Pelosi herself tipped her hand on the retroactive tax plan when she said last January she wanted Congress to repeal Bush's tax cuts well before their scheduled expiration date. An early repeal of the Bush tax cuts was also one of President Obama's campaign promises.

The administration and its allies have since gone quiet on its intentions. But that's only because they want to avoid triggering a stock selloff before the end of 2009. That all changes once the ball drops in Times Square this coming New Year's Eve. At that point, it will be too late to escape.

The good news is that avoiding this trap is as easy as selling your most profitable stock positions on or before December 31, 2009. This way, you'll only pay 15% on your long-term capital gains... instead of the

28% the government is planning to sting you with once its tax trap is sprung in 2010.

You've been warned.

Good investing,

David Galland

Reply to
Robert Baer
Loading thread data ...

____________________________________ | | | | Tax rate-------------

___ | \___ | \__ | \__ | \__ Tax revenue ---------- \__ \__ \__ \_________

======> time =====>

It's hard to get sociology majors to understand complicated dynamics like this.

John

Reply to
John Larkin

+- No jump here | V___

They don't care. It's not about revenue. It a matter of not allowing others to keep what's theirs. The poor don't like the rich and the rich don't like the new rich. "They're easier to control if they're kept down on the farm".

Reply to
krw

ax.

e

_______

=A0 =A0 =A0\__

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 \__

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0\_________

There's nothing complicated about the Laffer Curve

formatting link

but proponents of tax cuts who have cited the laffer Curve have found that their tax cuts have lost them revenue. It does seem to be a little more difficult to predict where the maximum of the Laffer curve is actually located, and Bush and Regan both got it wrong.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Reply to
Bill Sloman

d
n

tax.

e
s

re

e

________

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0

=A0 =A0 \__

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0\__

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 \_________

g

Regan and Bush both lost revenue by cutting taxes rates and claiming to hope that the Laffer Curve would compensate for the immediate loss of the tax income.

So presumably it wasn't about revenue there either, but about giving the right-wing rich more money to bestow on Republican election campaigns.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Reply to
Bill Sloman

There is a complicating factor: time. Of course a tax increase will spike revenue, and a tax cut will reduce revenue in the near term. But it takes a while, years or decades, for businesses to adjust to tax increases. Businesses react to cost increases by exporting labor, by reducing investment, or by just going out of business. They react to tax cuts by producting more stuff, hiring, and surviving.

The combination of taxes and unions have slowly but surely destroyed the domestic steel, shipbuilding, furniture, appliance, toy, tool, camera, calculator, hardware, computer, and consumer electronics businesses, and much of the auto industry.

John

Reply to
John Larkin

t

uld

on

s
o

e tax.

The

as

in

d

et

are

in

1,

ere

it

__________

__

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0\__

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 \__

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0\_________

Curious that the higher taxes and more powerful unions in Europe haven't had the same destructive effect.

You are perhaps neglecting the destructive effect of insufficient investment in the education of the workers available to be hired by these firms, the consequences of an inadequate - in the sense of less than universal - health care system, and the general under-investment in community infra-structure that follows from setting the tax rate too low.

As I siad, if you feel that you are being over-taxed in California, you should relocate to a place with lower taxes - Somalia comes to mind - and grow rich there.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Reply to
Bill Sloman

tax.

Europe has certainly lost most of its semiconductor, consumer electronics, shipbuilding, camera, and computer industries. I don't know about the others... maybe someone can comment.

At present, there are too many educated workers and too few jobs for them. Taxing businesses to pay for education makes that imbalance worse. Most of The Brat's Cornell classmates are unemployed or grossly underemployed; their educations aren't helping much.

Your education doesn't seem to be helping you find something useful to do.

I don't see how inadequate infrastructure is a serious impedimant to job creation. There's plenty of industrial space available, for free in many places, and the occasional pothole is no big deal. It's not as if the important stuff is crumbling to the ground, or there are militias driving jeeps around and shooting the place up.

I'm doing fine. I like it here and, most likely, the real estate we're buying will be the ultimate longterm payoff. We can and do survive in California. But California is, as someone noted, a "fine-tuned job killing machine." I employ superb engineers and managers and production people, and we make and sell high-performance, premium-priced products. But the real problem is the "worker-guy" manufacturing and service jobs which are increasingly exported to low-labor-cost countries. This is producing an increasing schism between the high-paid technical/academic/medical/business types and the unemployed "working class" who can't compete with offshore or immigrant labor. That is what mostly concerns me.

I've been told first-hand about life in Denmark, where the native population is doing well but most of the construction/painting/plumbing sorts of jobs are going to questionally legal immigrants, a new underclass.

I have a friend who started a business in France. He has no formal employees because it's just too difficult and expensive to start a business and hire people there. I got involved with a British company that I thought was sincere about developing a technology. What they were actually sincere about was a public floatation, the 20M pounds of which was immediately used not for technology development but to purchase the family stock.

The US is, as usual, just a bit ahead of the curve.

John

Reply to
John Larkin

Tax is not the real issue. Labour is the biggest cost for many traditional industries and we cannot compete with the labour costs of the third world, china, india etc. These countries have a low average standard of living in many cases and they drive their workers very hard. They don't pay them too much either, not much better than sweatshop rates. Even with all the shipping, it's still cheaper than we could build it here. Yet, our wonderfull globalised multinationals have no problem with dealing with these people, exporting jobs from the us and europe just to make that little bit more greedy, sleazy bottom line. I don't think they really cae whether the us sinks or swims in many cases. If you want to revitalise the manufacturing industries of the west, start by reigning in the business practices of these companies and wake up to what the final outcome will be if we don't.

The other point is the effect all this has on the shift in the balance of power from the west to the east. What do you think is fuelling the growth in china, for example ?. It's said that they will overtake the us in a few years. Doesn't anyone care about this ?...

Regards,

Chris

Reply to
ChrisQ

Businesses have to compete or die. No single business can elect to retain high-priced union labor, and pay all the associated payroll and unemployment and workers' comp taxes and income taxes and medical costs when its competitors are buying Chinese stuff and rebranding it. And the companies can't all agree to use domestic labor because such collusion is illegal.

By "reigning in business practices" you must mean trade barriers. They are mostly illegal by international treaty.

Do you always buy US-made products, even when they cost a lot more than imports? Are all your cars and appliances and tools US made?

If more domestic taxation was shifted to sales tax, including taxes on services, and less were heaped on employers, we'd have more domestic jobs.

What do you mean by "overtake" ? Should the rest of the world stay poor and uneducated and hungry so we can still be NumbahOne?

John

Reply to
John Larkin

Not trade barriers or protectionism and have no problem with competition. It improves the breed :-). However, the current disparity between the labour costs between the west and east means that there is no chance of competing in many areas of manufacturing at all, where labour costs dominate. It's not enough to say that we win in design, or high tech skills, because the rest of the world is catching up fast in that area as well. There will be nothing left for the west to trade with eventually, so what happens then ?.

As you imply, the real problem is what to do to keep employed all the mid to low skill part of the population that have had their work exported. They are a majority, btw, so it's not a trivial problem to solve long term. High tech workers are only a small proportion of the total population.

I live in the England, but yes, I do try to buy uk or european made stuff where possible and yes, even if it costs more, but only if it's better design and quality. We should be capable of competing in that area at least. In many cases, you have no choice anyway, because nearly everything seems to be made in the far east, even where it doesn't say so. It can be difficult to find stuff that's actually made locally.

No, A more equitable distribution of living standards would be a great thing for humanity, as would education so that they might see through the lies of politics. Ideally, it should be dependent on a background of democracy, not what exists in some of the countries that we seem all too ready to do business with. Remember, countries like China are not a democracy, but a police state. In any reasonable scenario, we shouldn't even be doing business with them, never mind handing over our manufacturing industry lock, stock and barrel. With the Chinese currency being held artificially low to give them a competitive advantage and the us national debt to China accelerating at an ever increasing rate, what's likely to be the result for the us ?. You may not be worried by this, but I definately am.

I know i'm not explaining this very well and don't have any simple answers, but I see a western civilisation in decline, quite happy to feed undemocratic regimes just so the party of cheap goods from cheap labour can continue. We are just sowing the seeds of our own demise, long term...

Regards,

Chris

Reply to
ChrisQ

the

f it

the

would

xes on

ners

s to

nal

tate tax.

l

e. The

ill

to as

begin

void

arket

hey are

ar

ts in

ry 1,

there

t,

f

y, it

e

ery

_____________

=A0 \__

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0\__

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 \__

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0\_________

s
e

This has more to do with folly of your undercontrolled banking system. You do seem to have noticed that the US house price bubble burst a year or so ago, but you want to blame the consequent contraction of the economy on over-hgih tax rates?

Being 66 in the Nehterlands doesn't help.

Read Gailbraith on private affluence and public squalor, in his 1958 book, the Affluent Society.

And your concern leads you to support the party that wants the "working class" to sicker, more poorly paid and less well educated. Interesting reasoning, if one can dignify the though processes involved wit that term.

Demark is a member of the European Community, so the Polish migrant workers are perfectly legal, and making quite a bit more money than they would in Poland. Ireland has been in the European community a bit longer and the Irish economy has improved to the point where the Irish aren't as enthusiastic about working away from home as they used to be.

It wouldn't be if the business got big enough to need formal employees.

Fraud is international.

In fact it is quite a bit behind the curve, but no American will believe this.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Reply to
Bill Sloman

would

on

tax.

The

as

there

Behind the very public volatility of "markets", namely the buying and selling of things for their speculative value, and the purchase of stuff on credit, I think there has been a 20-year or so hollowing out of the real worker-level productivity of this country, which has been behind the scenes and largely ignored by economists. It's happening in Europe, too.

When I'm 66 in the USA, or 76 if I want, I'll still be working.

I belong to, and support, no political party. I do support Doctors Without Borders and a girls' school in Africa and a shelter for single mothers in San Francisco and a charter school in New Orleans. What do you do?

Even more, since they are often paid in cash and don't pay taxes.

Ireland has been in the European community a bit

It never will!

Done any interesting electronics lately?

John

Reply to
John Larkin

We sell them food.

Taxing employment and investment just makes it worse.

The Chinese debt doesn't bother me much. It's not as if we'll ever pay it back. What the Chinese leadership (and their relatives who own all the companies) should have done is pay their workers better, and let them buy more American stuff, instead of shipping us terabucks worth of cheap products and investing the profits in US treasuries. We'll keep the stuff.

I think the world will gradually, fitfully, become more uniform and more democratic. That's been the trend since WWII. That could be described as "west in decline" I guess.

John

Reply to
John Larkin

me the

s if it

er the

It would

taxes on

earners

cuts to

rsonal

estate tax.

onal

here. The

oss

x will

ted to as

ll begin

d avoid

k market

=96 they are

Year

cuts in

nuary 1,

ce, there

fact,

d of

usly, it

the

. Very

________________

\__

=A0 \__

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0\__

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 \__

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0\_________

mics

und

urve

But

y
o
d

Got any numbers to support this rather implausible claim?

Since you claim to be your own boss, this is plausible, if irrelevant.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Reply to
Bill Sloman

Scrimping education and social security also make it worse.

The USA will eventually get universal health care, and enough electoral reform to stop the rich buying votes (non-stop vote-for-me ads on TV)?

The sooner, the better.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Reply to
Bill Sloman

The government has a perfect record: 100% wrong.

Reply to
Robert Baer

That's fantasy. We are all going to become farmers and get back to the land :-).

Ok, decline of traditional industries, but a message of hope indeed. That's the best kind of sentiment and the same stuff that put men on the moon in the 60's. The belief that all and any problem can be solved if the will and effort is there...

Regards,

Chris

Reply to
ChrisQ

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.