• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

IRS aims to clarify investment income tax under healthcare law

j-mac

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
41,104
Reaction score
12,202
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The 3.8 percent surtax on investment income, meant to help pay for healthcare, goes into effect in 2013. It is the first surtax to be applied to capital gains and dividend income.
The tax affects only individuals with more than $200,000 in modified adjusted gross income (MAGI), and married couples filing jointly with more than $250,000 of MAGI.
The tax applies to a broad range of investment securities ranging fromstocks and bonds to commodity securities and specialized derivatives.
The 159 pages of rules spell out when the tax applies to trusts and annuities, as well as to individual securities traders.
Released late on Friday, the new regulations include a 0.9 percent healthcare tax on wages for high-income individuals.
Both sets of rules will be published on Wednesday in the Federal Register.
The proposed rules are effective starting January 1. Before making the rules final, the IRS will take public comments and hold hearings in April.
Together, the two taxes are estimated to raise $317.7 billion over 10 years, according to a Joint Committee on Taxation analysis released in June.
To illustrate when the tax applies, the IRS offered an example of a taxpayer filing as a single individual who makes $180,000 in wage income plus $90,000 from investment income. The individual's modified adjusted gross income is $270,000.
The 3.8 percent tax applies to the $70,000, and the individual would pay $2,660 in surtaxes, the IRS said.
The IRS plans to release a new form for taxpayers to fill out for this tax when filing 2013 returns.

IRS aims to clarify investment income tax under healthcare law | Reuters
Click to expand...


Well, here we go people....As Obama is out campaigning about raising the taxes on "the rich", it is clear that he is already doing that, with no end in sight....Before we are done with him, and his vision, there may not be anyone left who is "rich"....
 
j-mac said:
Well, here we go people....As Obama is out campaigning about raising the taxes on "the rich", it is clear that he is already doing that, with no end in sight....Before we are done with him, and his vision, there may not be anyone left who is "rich"....
Click to expand...

Nope, you better get out of the country now while you still can.

Anymore "the sky is falling" rhetoric or will conservatives now fall on the ole tried "He's a Marxist super secret Kenyon Muslim that will destroy the U.S.!!!"?
 
Interesting. I wonder if this includes the 3.8% for the sale of houses above $500K per couple or if they are double-dipping on those transactions.
 
Follow the social justice angle on every issue, Obama is all about social justice.
 
Fisher said:
Interesting. I wonder if this includes the 3.8% for the sale of houses above $500K per couple or if they are double-dipping on those transactions.
Click to expand...

I can pretty much guarantee you that if you make more than $500k on the sale of your primary residence you will pay the surcharge. The big question is what they are going to decide with regard to rental income and pass through earnings from S-Corps and Partnerships. It's possible that Partnership earnings could get slammed with income tax, SE tax and the surcharge. If the top rate goes up too that would work out to nearly 60% tax starting at roughly $380k which is about as high a rate as we have ever had****



***In 1981 the top rate was 70% on income above $532k(in adjusted dollars) which is about as "progressive" as we have ever had rates.
 
Lutherf said:
I can pretty much guarantee you that if you make more than $500k on the sale of your primary residence you will pay the surcharge. The big question is what they are going to decide with regard to rental income and pass through earnings from S-Corps and Partnerships. It's possible that Partnership earnings could get slammed with income tax, SE tax and the surcharge. If the top rate goes up too that would work out to nearly 60% tax starting at roughly $380k which is about as high a rate as we have ever had****



***In 1981 the top rate was 70% on income above $532k(in adjusted dollars) which is about as "progressive" as we have ever had rates.
Click to expand...


well no, we have had higher rates , but their were 100 of tax shelters, to prevent people from paying those high rates.

Reagan lowered the rates, and sought to get rid of the shelters, to simply the tax code.

i believe before 1980 there was 26 tax brackets.....26?
 
j-mac said:
Well, here we go people....As Obama is out campaigning about raising the taxes on "the rich", it is clear that he is already doing that, with no end in sight....Before we are done with him, and his vision, there may not be anyone left who is "rich"....
Click to expand...

You make our party sound buffoonish. I mean really. The President is obviously plotting to summon the Marxist Death Brigades to drag every wealthy individual and plutocrat from their homes and put them before a Peoples Tribunal. After that happens of course his loyal party apparatchiks will descend upon their fortunes and create mausoleums of socialist state worship. Translating an investment tax (which I oppose and find personally harmful) into the first step on the road to abolition of wealth and all prosperity is outrageous.
 
ernst barkmann said:
well no, we have had higher rates , but their were 100 of tax shelters, to prevent people from paying those high rates.

Reagan lowered the rates, and sought to get rid of the shelters, to simply the tax code.

i believe before 1980 there was 26 tax brackets.....26?
Click to expand...

What I was getting at by "progressive" is that in 1981 we had a 70% tax kick in at a lower nominal level than ever before. Even when rates were 90+% that rate didn't kick in until income was in the multi-million dollar range. Basically, in 1981 the most American taxpayers were getting hit harder than ever before.

Obama, if he gets his way, will get close to having a comparable impact. When Clinton raised the top rate to 39.6% that rate didn't kick in until income hit nearly $400k(in adjusted dollars) but Obama is trying to get that rate plus the surcharges to kick in at 60% of that!
 
j-mac said:
Well, here we go people....As Obama is out campaigning about raising the taxes on "the rich", it is clear that he is already doing that, with no end in sight....Before we are done with him, and his vision, there may not be anyone left who is "rich"....
Click to expand...

Wait, a politician actually doing something he said he would? Is this some way of trying to get people angry at Obama, or are you just reminding us that he is doing exactly what he was elected to do? I am just wondering why I should be mad at him if i actually supported this? I understand the fading republican terrorists may be angry about this considering they did not want it at all, but as for the people who voted for Obama this does not seem to be a bad thing.
 
Sherman123 said:
You make our party sound buffoonish. I mean really. The President is obviously plotting to summon the Marxist Death Brigades to drag every wealthy individual and plutocrat from their homes and put them before a Peoples Tribunal. After that happens of course his loyal party apparatchiks will descend upon their fortunes and create mausoleums of socialist state worship. Translating an investment tax (which I oppose and find personally harmful) into the first step on the road to abolition of wealth and all prosperity is outrageous.
Click to expand...

If you oppose it, you should speak out against it.
 
Sherman123 said:
You make our party sound buffoonish. I mean really. The President is obviously plotting to summon the Marxist Death Brigades to drag every wealthy individual and plutocrat from their homes and put them before a Peoples Tribunal. After that happens of course his loyal party apparatchiks will descend upon their fortunes and create mausoleums of socialist state worship. Translating an investment tax (which I oppose and find personally harmful) into the first step on the road to abolition of wealth and all prosperity is outrageous.
Click to expand...

Please. People too lazy to pay their own way ain't gonna work for free.
 
j-mac said:
Well, here we go people....As Obama is out campaigning about raising the taxes on "the rich", it is clear that he is already doing that, with no end in sight....Before we are done with him, and his vision, there may not be anyone left who is "rich"....
Click to expand...

This tax will not break the rich. The rich will continue to get richer. Providing health care for our people will only improve our society. We will have a healthier workforce and spend less in taxes on paying hospitals for providing emergency care for the uninsured poor. We are only as strong as our weakest link.
 
Hairytic said:
This tax will not break the rich. The rich will continue to get richer. Providing health care for our people will only improve our society. We will have a healthier workforce and spend less in taxes on paying hospitals for providing emergency care for the uninsured poor. We are only as strong as our weakest link.
Click to expand...


that link is in progressive thought if you ask me.
 
apdst said:
If you oppose it, you should speak out against it.
Click to expand...

One can speak out against something without claiming it's going to be the END OF ALL RICH PEOPLE DOOOOOOOOOOOOMED.

Or did that thought not occur to you?
 
Deuce said:
One can speak out against something without claiming it's going to be the END OF ALL RICH PEOPLE DOOOOOOOOOOOOMED.

Or did that thought not occur to you?
Click to expand...

At what point did I say otherwise?
 
Four more years of these threads? Poor, poor wealthy. They'll be trading places with the poor any day now.

:coffeepap
 
Those evil millionaire and billionaires that make $250k!!!! Wait....
 
Fishstyx said:
Those evil millionaire and billionaires that make $250k!!!! Wait....
Click to expand...

How many inaccurate representations of arguments can you get in such a short sentence?
 
Boo Radley said:
Four more years of these threads? Poor, poor wealthy. They'll be trading places with the poor any day now.

:coffeepap
Click to expand...

Much to the excitement of most Libbos. It's exactly what the Libbos are hoping for; Left wing hatred of anyone with money is quite obvious.
 
apdst said:
Much to the excitement of most Libbos. It's exactly what the Libbos are hoping for; Left wing hatred of anyone with money is quite obvious.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I like money myself. But I don't mind at all if my taxes go up a bit. Nor will I cry crocodile tears like some.
 
Boo Radley said:
Nonsense. I like money myself. But I don't mind at all if my taxes go up a bit. Nor will I cry crocodile tears like some.
Click to expand...

But, you don't make 250 grand, so you're just spewing false bravado, because you know it's not going to happen...yet.

Don't you work at a college? Can benefit from tax hikes?
 
apdst said:
But, you don't make 250 grand, so you're just spewing false bravado, because you know it's not going to happen...yet.

Don't you work at a college? Can benefit from tax hikes?
Click to expand...

No, I don't. True enough. But you can propose that those at 100k go up and I'll still be with ya.

And students benefit (and private colleges).
 
j-mac said:
Well, here we go people....As Obama is out campaigning about raising the taxes on "the rich", it is clear that he is already doing that, with no end in sight....Before we are done with him, and his vision, there may not be anyone left who is "rich"....
Click to expand...

hopefully the pimps in office will start pissing off the country club communists who vote dem because they want gay rights, wife swapping, abortion on demand, or they hate the religious right to the point that they cannot afford to vote for stuff that is not quite as important as being able to send Muffy to Vassar or front row seats to the Peter Martins' latest ballet
 
apdst said:
But, you don't make 250 grand, so you're just spewing false bravado, because you know it's not going to happen...yet.

Don't you work at a college? Can benefit from tax hikes?
Click to expand...

right you are--its people who think they might pay 100 to a thousand more saying they don't mind while those who are say retirees with large dividend incomes are going to see their taxes go from 15% to 43 percent. which contrary to the lies that the dems spew is hardly "paying a little more"
 
Boo Radley said:
No, I don't. True enough. But you can propose that those at 100k go up and I'll still be with ya.

And students benefit (and private colleges).
Click to expand...

How do student's benefit? Are we proposing even more handouts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom