Archive for the ‘My View’ Category
This column was written by William R. Bischoff, a certified public accountant in Colorado Springs, Colorado for PPC, which is part of the tax and accounting business at Thomson Reuters. The opinions expressed here are his own.
The so-called Bush tax cuts (from legislation enacted in 2001 and 2003) are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. But you may not understand the full extent of what is in store if Congress simply sits back and allows the expirations to occur without making any changes.
Here are some highlights:
Higher income tax rates
Some of you may believe that only individuals in the top two federal income
tax brackets will face higher rates when the Bush cuts go bye-bye. Not true! Unless Congress takes action and President Obama goes along, rates will automatically go up for everyone who pays taxes — not just “the rich.”
Specifically, the existing 10% bracket will go away, and the lowest “new” bracket will be 15%. The existing 25% bracket will be replaced by the “new” 28% bracket; the existing 28% bracket will be replaced by the “new” 31% bracket; the existing 33% bracket will be replaced by the “new” 36 % bracket; and the existing 35% bracket will be replaced by the “new” 39.6% bracket.
My take: The Administration has pledged to keep the three lowest brackets (the 10%, 15%, and 25% brackets) in place. The 28% bracket would be expanded to accommodate unmarried taxpayers with income (whatever that is determined to mean) below $200,000 and joint filers with income below $250,000. Only taxpayers with income above those levels would be affected by the new 36% and 39.6% rates. However, Congress must make changes, and the president must go along for these things to happen.
Right now, that’s looking more problematic than a few months ago, and it now appears that Congress won’t even bring up the subject until sometime after returning from its summer recess in August. The only thing we know for sure is that tax rates will go up for everyone if Congress sits on its hands.
The marriage penalty will get worse
The Bush tax cuts put a relatively favorable framework for married individuals in place to reduce the so-called marriage penalty, which can cause a married couple to pay more federal income tax than if they were single. Note that the marriage penalty still exists for many married couples, but it’s not as harsh as before the Bush tax cuts. However, unless Congress makes changes and the president goes along, the marriage penalty will automatically get worse when the Bush tax cuts expire.
Currently, the standard deduction for some married couples is as much as 200% of the amount for singles. Starting next year, the new lowest bracket of 15% for married filing joint (MFJ) couples will be only 167% as wide as the 15% bracket for singles and the new standard deduction for married couples in other brackets – as well as those who file taxes separately — isn’t as generous.
My take: Presumably, the Administration’s pledge to keep things the same for lower and middle-income taxpayers includes extending the Bush tax cut elements that reduce the impact of the marriage penalty. However, extending those elements would require Congress to make changes and the president to go along. Will it happen? We don’t know, and neither does anyone else.
Higher capital gains and dividends taxes for all
Right now, the maximum federal rate on garden-variety long-term capital gains and qualified dividends
is 15 percent. Starting next year, the maximum long-term capital gains rate will increase to 20 % (or 18 % on gains from assets held for over five years). Dividends will once again be taxed at ordinary income rates. So, the maximum rate on dividends will balloon to a whopping 39.6 %.
My take: The Administration has repeatedly said the current 0% and 15% rates on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends will be left in place except for married couples with income above $250,000 and unmarried individuals with income above $200,000.
For that to happen, however, Congress must take action and the president must go along. A few months ago that looked likely, but now it looks more problematic. In particular, we think the odds are rising that dividends will once again be taxed at ordinary rates (of up to 39.6 %), starting next year. We hope we are wrong.
In addition to these changes, both the itemized deduction and personal exemption phase-out rules will return with a vengeance. But current versions of the child tax credit, earned income credit, dependent care credit, and adoption credit are also likely to be continued.
Stay tuned for developments, but don’t hold your breath. Our Washington politicians don’t seem to be in a big hurry to resolve the many tax uncertainties that we have summarized here. Even worse, it appears the odds are increasing that we may not see resolution until after the November election. Good grief!
————————————————————————————
Seems to me that at this point I can say “I told you so”!
Although the above are the thought of Mr. Bischoff, I can only say that the current administration was elected under false pretenses and lies. So what else is new?
Thank you Mr. Bischoff!
And that’s my view at www.vetsexpo.org
From the American Legion web site.
By National Commander Clarence Hill – August 1, 2010
When an overzealous homeowners association ordered retired Army Col. Van Barfoot, a Medal of Honor recipient, to stop displaying a U.S. flag on his property last fall, the public response was deafening. Blog sites, such as The American Legion’s Burn Pit, overflowed with comments from outraged readers. Friends of Barfoot started a Facebook page in support of his right to display the flag; the effort soon had nearly 63,000 fans. Letters to the editor poured in. National media picked up on it. Finally, under nothing more than pressure from the people, the association decided to drop the matter. Disturbing as the incident was, this can happen, and does happen, across the United States.
The whole phenomenon strikes me as ironic. A ban can be imposed against a war hero who wants to fly the flag of our country over his own property, but there can be no such ban on desecrating the sacred symbol of our freedom. “Sorry, Mr. Veteran, you’re not allowed to fly the flag on your private property, but the Constitution says you can urinate on it, spit on it and burn it all you want.”
For the past 21 years, dating back to the Supreme Court’s flawed 5-4 Texas v. Johnson decision, The American Legion has been fighting to end that irony. By a margin of one justice’s vote, flag-protection laws enacted by 48 states and the federal government were invalidated.
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist usually voted differently, but they were both right about flag desecration.
“In my considered judgment, sanctioning the public desecration of the flag will tarnish its value, both for those who cherish the ideals for which it waves and for those who desire to don the robes of martyrdom by burning it,” Stevens wrote. “That tarnish is not justified by the trivial burden on free expression occasioned by requiring that an available, alternative mode of expression – including uttering words critical of the flag – be employed.”
Rehnquist: “I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the act of Congress, and the laws of 48 of the 50 states, which make criminal the burning of the flag.”
Fortunately, we can do something about this. Bipartisan legislation has been introduced in both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives that would allow for a narrowly drawn constitutional amendment that would return to the people the right to protect Old Glory. It simply says, “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.”
Flag-protection amendments have passed the House six times, only to fall short of the necessary two-thirds super majority required in the Senate by the narrowest of margins. It is true that most Americans – and all 50 state legislatures – agree that our flag is worth protecting. That is why The American Legion continues to fight on Old Glory’s behalf, and always will.
Please join me today in contacting your congressional representatives to seek their support for House Joint Resolution 47 and Senate Joint Resolution 15. The number is toll-free: (877) 762-8762.
Ok, now here is my thought.
Every veteran that reads this should take action. It makes no difference the veteran’s race, religion or political standing. TAKE ACTION!!
And that’s my view at Veteran Expositions
I figured I would wait a bit before sticking in my view. The dust would settle (wrong) and the New York City people would do the right thing (wrong) and the Muslims would have the chance to prove to everyone that they are as sensitive and peace loving as they claim (wrong).
Now don’t take me wrong. I am not anti-Muslim! I am pretty much not anti-anything but stupidity – and I must say there sure is a lot of it going on in NYC.
1 – Stupid and BAD move – Muslim Terrorists attack the U.S. and Kill almost 3,000 of our friends, neighbors, co-workers and family members.
2 – Stupid – Regular Muslims want to build a Muslim Mosque way too close to that hole-in-the-ground that USED to be the World Trade Center.
3 – Stupid – The dumb-ass mayor of NYC, Bloomberg, thinks that doing so is a good idea.
4 – Stupid – The dumb-ass board in NYC vote to approve that building.
5 – Stupid – The “Regular Muslims” are saying they want a religious and cultural center to ease tensions and bring everyone together.
While I still don’t really care if a person is Jewish, Catholic, Baptist (etc) or Muslim, this move has made me more un-trusting of the Muslims and that is a shame.
Now before anyone gets annoyed with me think on this.
If a Muslim Mosque in NY was attacked the way NYC was attacked, would the Muslim’s stand for having such a building built right there? I would hope they would not and I believe they probably would not.
This is very easy to fix and should be fixed.
1 – The Muslim Community should say NO to that location and move the building up-town, especially if they really mean what they are saying about bringing people together.
2 – The dumb-ass Mayor should do the same.
3 – The dumb-ass board should do the same.
4 – The Press should applaud such a decision.
5 – Bloggers should jump all over the positive, correct moves, and also applaud such a decision.
(My prediction – there will be major problems in downtown NYC if that project moves ahead.)
And that’s my view at Veterans Expositions
Okay, here is a question for you to ponder.
Should Illegal Invaders be offered the same rights as American Citizens? (I could really expand of this but will just stay with Miranda for now.)
Here is another question for you.
Do you think Miranda was too “weak” on the criminals; killers, robbers, thieves etc?
(Gave too much to the bad guy)
If you answered yes to the second one then you are in sync with our Supreme Court.
High court trims Miranda warning rights bit by bit
AP 9/02/2010 – By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press Writer – 57 mins ago
WASHINGTON – You have the right to remain silent, but only if you tell the police that you’re remaining silent.
You have a right to a lawyer — before, during and after questioning, even though the police don’t have to tell you exactly when the lawyer can be with you. If you can’t afford a lawyer, one will be provided to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you, which, by the way, are only good for the next two weeks?
The Supreme Court made major revisions to the now familiar Miranda warnings this year. The rulings will change the ways police, lawyers and criminal suspects interact amid what experts call an attempt to pull back some of the rights that Americans have become used to over recent decades.
The high court has made clear it’s not going to eliminate the requirement that police officers give suspects a Miranda warning, so it is tinkering around the edges, said Jeffrey L. Fisher, co-chair of the amicus committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
“It’s death by a thousand cuts,” Fisher said. “For the past 20-25 years, as the court has turned more conservative on law and order issues, it has been whittling away at Miranda and doing everything it can to ease the admissibility of confessions that police wriggle out of suspects.”
The court placed limits on the so-called Miranda rights three times during the just-ended session. Experts viewed the large number of rulings as a statistical aberration, rather than a full-fledged attempt to get rid of the famous 1966 decision. The original ruling emerged from police questioning of Ernesto Miranda in a rape and kidnapping case in Phoenix. It required officers to tell suspects taken into custody that they have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can’t afford one.
The court’s three decisions “indicate a desire to prune back the rules somewhat,” Kent Scheidegger, the legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a victims’ rights group. “But I don’t think any overruling of Miranda is in the near future. I think that controversy is pretty much dead.”
The Supreme Court in 2000 upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects.
This year’s Supreme Court decisions did not mandate changes in the wording of Miranda warnings read by arresting police officers. The most common version is now familiar to most Americans, thanks to television police shows: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?”
However, the court did approve one state version of the Miranda warnings that did not specifically inform suspects that they had a right to have a lawyer present during their police questioning.
The Miranda warning used in parts of Florida told suspects: “You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview.”
Lawyers — and the Florida Supreme Court — said that didn’t make clear that lawyers can be present as the police are doing their questioning. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing the 7-2 majority decision, said all the required information was there.
“Nothing in the words used indicated that counsel’s presence would be restricted after the questioning commenced,” Ginsburg said. “Instead, the warning communicated that the right to counsel carried forward to and through the interrogation.”
The next day, the court unanimously limited how long Miranda rights are valid.
The high court said for the first time that a suspect’s request for a lawyer is good for only 14 days after the person is released from police custody. The 9-0 ruling pulled back from an earlier decision that said that police must halt all questioning for all time if a suspect asks for a lawyer.
Police can now attempt to question a suspect who asked for a lawyer — once the person has been released from custody for at least two weeks — without violating the person’s constitutional rights and without having to repeat the Miranda warning.
“In our judgment, 14 days will provide plenty of time for the suspect to get reacclimated to his normal life, to consult with friends and counsel and to shake off any residual coercive effects of his prior custody,” said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion.
And finally, the court’s conservatives used their 5-4 advantage to rule that suspects must break their silence and tell police they are going to remain quiet if they want to invoke their “right to remain silent” and stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.
All the criminal suspect needs to say is he or she is remaining silent, wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. “Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his ‘right to cut off questioning.’ Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent.”
But Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the majority’s decision “turns Miranda upside down.”
“Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counter intuitively requires them to speak,” she said. “At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so.”
Police officers will look at these decisions and incorporate them into their training, said James Pasco of the National Fraternal Order of Police. “Officers are expected to adapt to changes required by the Supreme Court,” Pasco said. “This will be no different.”
But Fisher thinks the court’s Miranda decisions will make it easier for police to get confessions out of people who don’t want to confess. “Those decisions open up ways for cops to work around Miranda,” Fisher said.
Way to Go!!
And that’s my view at Veterans Expositions
You have to view this short video – then mark your calendar and VOTE!!
And although that’s not mine it’s still at Veterans Expositions
KANSAS CITY, Mo., June 30, 2010 – The national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. is appalled over an Arlington, Mass., school committee decision to reject a 17-year-old student’s request to allow others to voluntarily recite the Pledge of Allegiance because some educators are concerned “that it would be hard to find teachers willing to recite it.”
Thomas J. Tradewell Sr., a combat-wounded Vietnam veteran from Sussex, Wis., said the decision is particularly egregious while America is at war and preparing to celebrate Independence Day.
“I find it unconscionable that on the eve of our most patriotic holiday we are confronted with another reminder that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have largely receded from the collective public mind,” he said. “Even worse is knowing that this school decision occurred just down the road from Lexington and Concord, where the opening battles of our Revolutionary War were fought. This is just another galling example of the total lack of respect some have for America’s freedoms and values.”
The decision by Arlington school officials to disallow recital of the pledge was made even though it would be strictly voluntary for teachers and students alike and in spite of receiving a petition signed by 700 people, along with letters of support from lawmakers including Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.)
“Flying the flag, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and singing our National Anthem are traditions worth maintaining and certainly worth passing on to our nation’s youth — it’s imperative that we do,” said Tradewell. “The 1.5 million members of the VFW find this school decision extremely disrespectful to the members of our armed forces, to those who served in uniform before them, and to history, and we hope that the parents and the community rise up and force a change before the school decides that calling someone an American is now politically incorrect.”
From the Veterans of Foreign Wars Website
http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=5528
WHAT???
I am an American!! Am I now “politically incorrect”?
The only email contact I could locate is for the webmaster
districtwebmaster@arlington.k12.ma.us
Just in case you wish to SCREAM at them!!
And that’s my view at Veterans Expositions
If you have never served in the armed forces, for any country, you will not understand. It seems to me that our current Chief Executive (never served) has no idea what is going on.
Rolling Stone Magazine had reporters on site during meetings held by the General with his staff. Could it be that Rolling Stone Magazine is out to get him?
Military people (and I will bet the Commander in Chief also) are apt to talk “loosely” about things that are going on because there is much riding on their situation. I’ll bet my bottom dollar that the magazine took part of many things they heard and now are trying to hang this 4-star general.
The President doesn’t seem to mind when his Vice President says f*** on a public broadcast, which, by the way, was certainly not covered this much by the liberal media.
I’ll even bet that the President has been saying worse things about his military leaders, Governors of various states, heads of state of other countries and who knows who else. Have a Rolling Stone Magazine reporter stick with him for a month and then let’s see what happens.
And that’s my view.
FREMONT, Neb. — Voters in the eastern Nebraska city of Fremont on Monday approved a ban on hiring or renting property to illegal immigrants, the latest proposal in a series of immigration regulations taken up by communities around the country.
About 57 percent of voters in Fremont supported the proposal, according to unofficial results that still must be certified by the election commissioner. The measure is likely to face a long and costly court battle, with the American Civil Liberties Union saying it will try to block it before it even goes into effect.
The town of about 25,000 people has watched as its Hispanic population surged in the past two decades, largely due to the jobs available at the nearby Fremont Beef and Hormel meatpacking plants. The city also has an enviably low unemployment rate that matches the Nebraska rate of 4.9 percent.
Nonetheless, residents worry that jobs are going to illegal immigrants who they fear could drain community resources. Proponents of the ballot measure collected enough signatures and fought in the Nebraska Supreme Court to put the question to a public vote.
Supporters say the measure is needed to make up for what they see as lax federal law enforcement. Opponents say it could fuel discrimination.
Trevor McClurg said the measure is fair because it’s aimed at people who aren’t legally in the U.S.
“I don’t think it’s right to be able to rent to them or hire them,” McClurg said. “They shouldn’t be here in the first place.”
Clint Walraven, 51, who has lived in Fremont all his life, said the jobs should go to legal residents who are unemployed — something he believes the ordinance would help fix. Discussions on the issue can get heated, he said, particularly if racism is mentioned.
“It has nothing to do with being racist,” said. “We all have to play by the same rules. … If you want to stay here, get legal.”
Rachel Fleming said she voted against the measure, noting that the U.S. is a nation of immigrants.
“This country has been founded on waves of immigration,” Fleming said. “I just think it’s (the ordinance) contrary to the spirit of the country.”
From about 165 Hispanics — both legal and illegal — living in Fremont in 1990, the total surged to 1,085 in 2000, according to census expert David Drozd at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. He said an estimated 2,060 Hispanics lived there last year.
The measure will require potential renters to apply for a license to rent. The application process will force Fremont officials to check if the renters are in the country legally. If they are found to be illegal, they will not be issued a license allowing them to rent. The ordinance also requires businesses to use the federal E-Verify database to ensure employees are allowed to work.
Communities that have passed such laws have faced costly legal bills and struggled to enforce them because of legal challenges. Hazleton, Pa., passed an ordinance in 2006 to fine landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny permits to businesses hiring them. The Dallas suburb of Farmers Branch also has tried for years to enforce a ban on landlords renting to illegal immigrants. Federal judges struck down both ordinances, but both are on appeal.
Even before the Fremont measure passed, the ACLU of Nebraska had said it would sue.
“Our goal would be to bring an action to ensure that there is not even one day that the law can go into effect,” said Amy Miller, legal director for the ACLU of Nebraska.
Fremont City Councilman Scott Getzschman said he wasn’t sure when the ordinance would take effect if it’s not blocked by a judge. Once the Dodge County election commissioner certifies it, the City Council must accept the vote.
Getzschman didn’t support the measure but said he expects city leaders will respect the outcome of the election and defend the ordinance in court.
The vote is the latest chapter in the tumult over illegal immigration across the country, including a recently passed Arizona law that will require police investigating another incident or crime to ask people about their immigration status if there’s a “reasonable suspicion” they’re in the country illegally.
Kansas City, Mo.-based attorney Kris Kobach, who helped write the Arizona law, has been working on the ordinance in Fremont. He is also running for secretary of state in Kansas.
From Foxnews.com
Way to go Fremont!!
News starting appearing this week about doctors beginning their exodus out of the Medicare Program. Now this must be great news for all of the Politicos that voted for the plan. After all it is what they voted for, isn’t it? Wasn’t their goal to completely ruin, err I mean run, the health care of every citizen of the United States?
Why are the doctors dropping Medicare? Reduced payments that’s why.
But wait… you didn’t see that the other day? That’s because the “slip stream media” won’t report it very much because it means they lied from the start. It also means the Obama administration lied from the start, along with Pelosi and Reid and every other person that voted for the bill.
The exodus actually began appearing in reports in May – starting with 300 doctors in Texas dropping the plan.
I guess the Seniors are about to start becoming casualties of the law. Hey, I’m one of them!!!!
I gathered a bit of information to write this from a couple of sites.
http://www.athensreview.com/breakingnews/x1414105223/More-Texas-doctors-dropping-Medicare-patients
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/21/shocker-doctors-taking-fewer-medicare-patients/
http://lubbockonline.com/life/2010-05-25/many-doctors-limiting-medicare
http://dailydose.righthealth.com/cautions-concerns/more-doctors-dropping-medicare-insurance/
what can I say?
There are about 15 states now considering legislation like the state of Arizona. How about your state?
Do you believe that enforcing Illegal Immigration laws should be enforced? If the Federal Government refuses to do the main job they are here for then someone has to do it. The FED is forcing the states to do the work of the Federal Government and then they have the audacity to bash the states for doing so!!??
What’s up with that?
My feeling is that every state should enact similar legislation and the Federal Government better get in line with them NOW!
And that’s my view.