She does hold extreme views in several arenas that I do not personally share. Her you tube interviews regarding the financial crisis I find to be really interesting. She nails MF Global and what happened with the customer segregated funds, so I respect her for that.
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }
I just listen to her speak on You Tube about MF Global. She sounds very very intelligent as long as she sticks to what she knows. I love it when she swears but I think we could all do without her nonstop raciest commentary. I have found that racial stereotypes are always incorrect and are never based in fact.
Here's a list of new taxes that may kick in next year (from BusinessInsider):
And if you live in Calfornia and make >$250k in income, you'll likley be interested to know that Prop 30 is retroactive to Jan 2012. So make sure to factor that into your tax planning for April...Here are some of the new taxes you're going to have to pay to pay for Obamacare:
- A 3.8% surtax on "investment income" when your adjusted gross income is more than $200,000 ($250,000 for joint-filers). What is "investment income?" Dividends, interest, rent, capital gains, annuities, house sales, partnerships, etc. Thanks to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, taxes on dividends will rise rise from 15% to a shocking 43.8% on January 1st, unless Congress cuts a deal with respect to the fiscal cliff. (WSJ)
- A 0.9% surtax on Medicare taxes for those making $200,000 or more ($250,000 joint). You already pay Medicare tax of 1.45%, and your employer pays another 1.45% for you (unless you're self-employed, in which case you pay the whole 2.9% yourself). Next year, your Medicare bill will be 2.35%. (WSJ)
- Flexible Spending Account contributions will be capped at $2,500. Currently, there is no tax-related limit on how much you can set aside pre-tax to pay for medical expenses. Next year, there will be. If you have been socking away, say, $10,000 in your FSA to pay medical bills, you'll have to cut that to $2,500. (ATR.org)
- The itemized-deduction hurdle for medical expenses is going up to 10% of adjusted gross income. Right now, any medical expenses over 7.5% of AGI are deductible. Next year, that hurdle will be 10%. (ATR.org)
- The penalty on non-medical withdrawals from Healthcare Savings Accounts is now 20% instead of 10%. That's twice the penalty that applies to annuities, IRAs, and other tax-free vehicles. (ATR.org)
- A tax of 10% on indoor tanning services. This has been in place for two years, since the summer of 2010. (ATR.org)
- A 40% tax on "Cadillac Health Care Plans" starting in 2018.Those whose employers pay for all or most of comprehensive healthcare plans (costing $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for families) will have to pay a 40% tax on the amount their employer pays. The 2018 start date is said to have been a gift to unions, which often have comprehensive plans. (ATR.org)
- A"Medicine Cabinet Tax" that eliminates the ability to pay for over-the-counter medicines from a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account. This started in January 2011. (ATR.org)
- A "penalty" tax for those who don't buy health insurance. This will phase in from 2014-2016. It will range from $695 per person to about $4,700 per person, depending on your income. (More details here.)
- A tax on medical devices costing more than $100. Starting in 2013, medical device manufacturers will have to pay a 2.3% excise tax on medical equipment. This is expected to raise the cost of medical procedures. (Breitbart.com)
Don't worry about a thing, the Fed's got this jobs thingie under control:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-16/fed-s-lockhart-says-aggressive-easing-needed-to-revive-jobs.html
[quote]Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta President Dennis Lockhart said forceful central bank policies will remain needed to spur job growth even if Congress averts sudden tax increases and spending cuts at the end of the year.
“I expect that continued aggressive use of balance sheet monetary tools will be appropriate and justified by economic conditions for some time even if fiscal cliff issues are properly addressed,” Lockhart said today in Charlottesville, Virginia. Fed easing isn’t aimed at “abetting” fiscal policy by reducing the cost of financing the federal deficit, he said.[/quote]
[quote]Chicago Fed President Charles Evans has proposed holding interest rates near zero until unemployment falls to 7 percent so long as inflation does not breach 3 percent. Minneapolis Fed President Narayana Kocherlakota has suggested continuing with zero rates until unemployment falls to 5.5 percent so long as inflation remains below 2.25 percent.
“We are likely to have to begin to tighten before we get to full employment,” Lockhart told reporters. “So I am more comfortable with one of the interim target numbers, say 7 percent, conceivably 6.5 percent” as the unemployment rate threshold. Currently the jobless rate is 7.9 percent.[/quote]
Oh, "new challenges" and "uncomfortable tension" don't sound so bad. I thought we were in trouble for a minute there.
Doug
[quote=Doug][quote]
<snip>“there is no direct link in terms of intention between the low-interest rate policy and the financing of the deficit.”[/quote]
[/quote]
Bet there are at least 47 indirect links masked in layers of obtuse FED-speak bullshit
From BusinessInsider:
Sigh... while this is exactly the kind of tax-grabbing predicted in my article above, I still find myself surprised by the swiftness and overtness with which tax hikes are rolling out these days.CALIFORNIA SCREWS SILICON VALLEY: Entrepreneurs And Angels Socked With Absurd Retroactive Tax
As a way of encouraging entrepreneurs and investors to start companies in California, the state has long offered a tax deduction for those who start, invest in, and eventually sell companies.
This tax deduction allowed entrepreneurs and angels to exclude 50% of any gain on the sale of "Qualified Small Business" stock.
California's capital gains taxes are a high 9%, so the deduction reduced the capital gains rate to 4.5%. This encouraged the entrepreneurs to start and keep their companies in California, instead of decamping to lower-tax states.
And, for many years, California entrepreneurs and investors have taken advantage of the deduction.
But now the state has apparently decided that it no longer needs to encourage entrepreneurs to start and keep their companies in California.
So it is eliminating the tax deduction.
Far more startling, the state is eliminating the deduction retroactively–going all the back to 2008.
In other words, anyone who sold their California company in the past 5 years and took advantage of the tax deduction is now going to have to pay the tax.
With interest!
To copy Chris and quote Lily Tomlin:
No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up.