A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Backdoor taxes to hit Middle Class


Posted: Feb 2, 2010

Yesterday, Feb. 1, at 4:00 pm, Reuters published an article on the back door taxes on the middle class imposed by Obama. White House minions protested, so at 8:07 pm last night, pusillanimous Reuters withdrew the article, saying:  ”The story Backdoor taxes to hit middle class has been withdrawn. A replacement story will run later in the week.” See here.

This is exactly the sort of anti-democratic anti-liberty measures that took place in totalitarian systems, Nazi and Communist. The government’s censorship of the press/media was conducted via pre- as well as post-publication censorship. In the latter case, after something is published, the government objects and brings pressure upon the news medium to retract the “offensive” story. The Reuters case is an example of the latter.

Here is the article:

 

 

Backdoor taxes to hit middle class

Reuters-

"By Terri Cullen Mon Feb 1, 4:09 pm ET

NEW YORK (Reuters.com) –The Obama administration’s plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year — effectively a tax hike by stealth.

While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.

The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration’s Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.

If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 — though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.

Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a “patch” that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.

Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year’s levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy — the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.

Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:

  • Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;
  • The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;
  • The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;
  • Individuals who don’t itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;
  • The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free. "
;

Hardly a real news article - NJ

[ In Reply To ..]

Sales tax: Who but the rich would spend more in sales tax than state and local tax? It does not target the middle class.


College tuition: This was put into place with the stimulus bill and may expire after 2 years. Let me make sure I am being clear: Obama's stimulus put this tax credit into play for 2009 and 2010. 


Unemployment benefits tax: Started by Reagan, suspended by Obama in 2009 for 2009 income. Again, part of Obama's response to the economic mess left by his predecessor.


I'm glad the administration spoke up about these kind of lies and misrepresentations. Yah, freedom of speech is wonderful but enough with the lies and propaganda. The article was poorly written, slanted, and at best lied through omission. This is not a news article. It is propaganda.


NJ

Well, NJ, not to get in a huffy fit, but I don't - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]
half the articles you post with links are propaganda too.

You have your ideas, and I have mine, but at least I post from newspaper articles.

This is not rocket science. All tax expirations detailed here - will not affect ANYTHING...

[ In Reply To ..]
until December 31, 2010. Between now and then, there will be financial reforms, jobs creation debates ongoing. It would stand to reason that these talks will negotiate tax issues along the way.

Regarding the UI benefits, Senator John Reed D-RI introduced Senate Bill 2831 Helping Unemployed Workers Act back in December to address the issue of extending deadlines on all current UI 3-Tiered Extended Benefits and the $2400 deduction for 2010 taxes.

Why retraction and revision of the article is in order is clear. The way it reads now, it can easily be seized upon for GOP propaganda purposes, innuendoes, fear-mongering, panic and mayhem. There are 11 months between now and the end of the 2010 tax year. Get it?

Getting it - WWZD

[ In Reply To ..]
I've watched our income taxes CLIMB since Jan 2010. Oh, I've gotten it alright. Anyone who watches their paystubs closer than the net amount gets it, too.

Notice the article does not mention income tax. - Cae to share specifics, or...

[ In Reply To ..]
are you only interested in having a last word monologue? This would imply either you had a change in number of dependents (or their status), withholding or deduction status versus a rate increase. There are only very limited numbers of ways your claim could actually be true. I have some questions so we can "get" to the bottom of this.

A close examination of that paycheck stub is needed. Change in number of dependents? Are you sure your health insurance premiums have not increased? That would be the most logical source. How about amounts of employee or employer contributions toward health, retirement or savings benefits? Social Security or FICA the culprit or as you said, was it actually your income tax? What earnings bracket does your income fall in? You talking individual or combined income increases? Are you a regular employee or IC? What percentage of increase did you have?

I am assuming you are not talking about small business since you mentioned a paycheck stub. See what I mean about being specific? Would be of interest to know where you saw the increase. Do tell.
nothing has changed - WWZD
[ In Reply To ..]
Nothing has changed at all except the rate. Quit trying to justify the lies your candidate is still spreading, or deflecting the fact that ALL taxes are increasing in the wake of his spend and tax spree.
Threadis about MC fed income tax, which has not seen rate hike. - Who is deflecting and
[ In Reply To ..]
where is the data that backs up this bogus claim? If what you say is true, it should be in the tax publication we receive with our returns every year. I've compared this year to last year and there has been no rate increase. You have provide no reliable information to back up the bark.
only 2 issues - WWZD
[ In Reply To ..]
As a matter of fact, I voted for O. It came down to 2 main issues for me and I believed him: That he would reduce taxes on the middle class and begin troop withdrawal in Iraq. Our taxes have gone up and my husband is now on alert to go to Afghanistan. Silly me, I didn't listen closely enough when he said from IRAQ and that we would pay more taxes for the privilege. He's a liar, he's as much a Washington insider as anyone he accuses of being, and he's not going to stop lying or campaigning long enough to even remember what his original campaign promises were.
he made himself quite clear on Afghanistan. - Unfinished Cheney and W stuff. sm
[ In Reply To ..]
"Afghanistan, not Iraq, should be the focus." It was published on his website and discussed throughout the campaign, particularly in the summer leading up to the election. Sorry you missed that part.

If your taxes went up, it is not because of a rate hike. No amount of repreating youself if going to change that.

Generally speaking, the President works and lives inside the beltway. Goes with the job description. It is premature to make a final judgement on his leadership style or campaign promises just 1 year into his term. You simply cannot ignore the the party of No-O when assessing the first year either.

Lies are often in the ears of the beholder, and not in the mouths of the speaker.
not sure where you got - WWZD
[ In Reply To ..]
"last word monologue" to describe my post

Reuters' retraction - NJ

[ In Reply To ..]
Reuters' statement on the bogus article:

"The Feb 1 story headlined "Backdoor taxes to hit middle class" is wrong and has been withdrawn. The story said lower-income families will pay more under tax provisions scheduled to expire Dec 31. The Obama administration's budget calls for the extension of those tax provisions for households earning less than $250,000. There will be no substitute story."

At least they owned up to the mistake.

NJ

retractions - WWZD

[ In Reply To ..]
If the only thing wrong with the article was about tax breaks for *lower* income families, then the entire article wasn't incorrect and the entire article shouldn't have been retracted. Also, sales taxes are regressive. Everyone pays sales taxes not just the rich, and that means that the lower your income the HIGHER percentage you pay in sales taxes. That is what makes a tax regressive.

We can't keep living in the past and saying "But, BUSH!" And if the best we can say is "But, OBAMA!" then we gotten nowhere.

Hello. Changes in tax breaks are not rate hikes. - On that sales tax misconception or yours....

[ In Reply To ..]
There is no fine print here. Read what it says. "Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local INCOME taxes."

Let's break this down for ya. Taxpayers who itemize. Typically, low, lower middle and middle income earners do not itemize beyond Head of the Household and Earned Income Credit categories. They are not itemizing huge amounts of interests or dividends paid on investments or savings and possess few if any other advantages that would justify detailed income itemization of their returns.

Will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes. People who do not pay state or local income tax never had this option, so they are not impacted. There are 7 states who do not have income tax and 2 others who only tax interest and dividend income. There are very few instances where counties or municipalities tax income.

The option only favors folks who BUY MORE STUFF and whose sales tax on that STUFF exceed state and local income taxes IF they pay them. Typically, income taxes for lower and middle income brackets exceed tax they pay on STUFF. Food is not taxed and represents a healthy chunk of middle and lower income expense. Their sales tax on gas certainly would not exceed state and local income taxes unless it is a business expense, which is another whole ball game. These folks have very little disposable income for LOTS OF STUFF.

Therefore, the removal of that option does not impact the middle class in the conflated ways you are trying to suggest. And keep in mind, we are talking about a DEDUCTION from taxable income, not a tax rate increase.

Don't let that imaginary back door hitcha on the way out.
a couple misconceptions here - taxed to death
[ In Reply To ..]
who says low, lower middle and middle income earner don't itemize? Everyone who owns a home itemizes, and that includes many low to middle income earners. also, food is not taxable? That is only partially true. Some food is not taxed, some is. The stuff that isn't includes the basics. all the junk foods, soda, candies, etc, as well as food purchased in restaurants and fast food establishments, are taxed, and plenty of that is also purchased by those people in those tax brackets.
Try again. Already discussed things they do and do not itemize. - So is your defense reducing down to
[ In Reply To ..]
arguing on behalf of that portion of the lower and middle class population who indulge so much junk food NOT purchased in the grocery store, sodas, candies, and eating in restaurants that those taxes exceed their state and local income taxes? Bit of a stretch, dontcha think?

Show us where the middle class is suffering over this tiny ajustment on a sales tax vs income tax deduction option. You will have to do better than this if you care anything about credibility.
i notice you didn't address.. - taxed to death
[ In Reply To ..]
the home ownership issue. it is a huge one and you can't dismiss it. as for junk food, doesn't matter where you buy it. junk food is junk food and is taxed.
Property tax, mortgage interests are itemized - but have nothing to do with
[ In Reply To ..]
sales tax vs state and local INCOME tax options. You still have sum zero in working this up into an issue impacted within the context of this article. Furthermore, property tax is a county calculation and interest rates on mortgages emanate from the private sector.

There are plenty of junk food grocery items sold at the grocery store that are not taxed. Junk food as in fast food outlets (inside of outside the grocery store) is is not a grocery item and therefore is taxed. Let's get real here. The majority of food middle class folks consume is not taxed and still represents a huge chunk of their household expenses. For those whose diet IS composed of a series of unhealthy choices, the tax may serve as a useful incentive to reconsider those choices. They are choices, after all.

While we are on the subject of things not addressed, how about my question about this hair-splitting junk food, sodas and candies nitpicking you have reduced your argument down to and how it is relative the information in the article?

Also not addressed in other posts is that close scruitiny of your paycheck stub and why you are not happy over no tax increases on the middle class and still trying your best to make a mountain over an imaginary molehill. Care to elaborate?
So what is next? - Read Orwell lately?
[ In Reply To ..]
Salt is bad for you, hence it should be taxed. White flour is bad for you, hence all products containing white flour should be taxed. Ham is bad for you because it contains nitrates, hence it should be taxed. And because people are making "unhealthy choices" the government should tell them what to eat and if the government thinks it is bad for you they will tax it.

Sounding more and more like Orwell's 1984.
How far off the subject do you intend to take this? - Nobody said anything about....
[ In Reply To ..]
those items. There is one comment worthy of consideration, though. Sodas, candy and junk food fall into categories of lifestyle CHOICES. Salt and white flour are staples and there are no reasonably affordable alternatives to using them. Nitrites that serve as preservatives are in many food items. Benefits of preserving food in terms of disease prevention may or may not outweight the risks of using them. Not likely they will be taxed unless technology provides a healthy and cost effective advancement over nitrites that is equal to or surpasses nitrites in terms of food preservation.

Bottom line. You have disgressed to the dark side of the moon with regard to the original post, now that you are broadening the scope into prognostication and prophecy. We are dealing with realtime tax reforms for this current year. Come back to earth and keep in mind that revenues have to come from somewhere. Taxing sodas, candies and junk food seems like a fairly innocuous way of producing revenue, especially since you can choose not to pay the tax by not buying the products. I know this is a difficult concept for right fringe folks to grock, but it seems that considering all the problems we have with need, greed, partisanship, the deficit, etc, that COMPROMISE is in order. There are few people around who passionately oppose this tax. Get real.
You missed the point - Read Orwell lately?
[ In Reply To ..]
Please do not assume. I did not reply to the original post otherwise I would have replied to the original post. I replied to the post of someone who actually thinks it's the government's job to tax us on items that they believe to be bad for us.

Again...what is next....what are they going to deem "bad for us", hence tax whatever little money we have left from all the other taxes.

Oh, yeah, and here's a flash. In Phoenix they are going to be taxing ALL food items. Just not the one they feel are not good for us.

This taxing crap has to end. Easy solution. Stop the needless spending in government, stop the war (you know that unnecessary needless war everyone was screamming and crying about when Bush was in office, but are no fine and dandy with it because Obama is perpetuating it). With the revenues from those two items alone you would not need to tax basic food items that everyone needs.
Phoenix is not the fed. - I have a question...sm
[ In Reply To ..]
Do you think they should repeal all taxes on cigarettes and alcohol effective immediately?
No.. - that is totally different - Read Orwell lately?
[ In Reply To ..]
That is a whole different set of circumstances. Children do not smoke and drink, and you don't need cigarettes and alcohol for daily consumption (milk, bread, eggs, etc you do).

I don't get this...we're talking about taxes being raised. Someone mentioned that food is not taxed. I wrote that in Phoenix they are starting to tax food. But now your not considering that a "real" tax?

Your way of thinking gives me a headache as it keeps changing.

I've had enough of this cat and mouse game. I need some Tylenol.
Original post was about fed taxes. Didnt say local taxes - arent real. Theyre just not federal. sm
[ In Reply To ..]
Trying to stay on task here. Kids may not smoke or drink, but they may as well if they are fed a steady diet of junk food, sodas and candies. I asked the question because of all the protest over the government determining what is and is not healthy. That's exactly what they did with cigs and alcohol. Seems to be a trend extending into the food categories on account of national obesity, the high cost of obesity related diseases in adults (both healthwise and in terms of dollars and cents) and diabetes in children. The fat tax, as it were.

If you have issues about tax on food in Phoenix (purchased at retail outlets), maybe you should complain to McCain, write your local AZ reps or start another thread. This one was about inaccurate information in a Reuters article about federal taxes that was retracted and revised. Remember?
Actually, no, it's not. - Happy MT Robin
[ In Reply To ..]
I'm not addressing anything other than your comment "doesn't matter where you buy it. Junk food is junk food and is taxed."

That is a generalization and is not correct. I live in New Mexico. We do not have a sales tax on food items, and have not for several years. Junk food falls into that category (loosely, but it does) and so is not taxed.

$250,000 - NJ

[ In Reply To ..]
So, if the breaks only cover households up to $250,000 that, to you, is about lower income families? That figure is pulled from the Reuters' retraction.

Are you rich? Is that why you think the above figures are about lower class people? And why you think the amount a middle class person pays in sales tax would be anywhere near local/state income taxes? Rich or no math skills, it's gotta be one or the other.

NJ
WWZD has overlooked this inconvenient truth and is mum - on your other questions.
[ In Reply To ..]
Inquiring minds want to know.
uh...hello......the people making under $250K are getting taxed more - I am also taxed to death
[ In Reply To ..]
They just hide it and won't come out and say so. However, the figures do not lie.

I certainly make no where near $250K (which by the way VP Biden came out and said it was $200K), but my taxes have gone up.

And I don't care about all these little loopholes (i.e., college, home ownership, junk food, or whatever scams they try pulling.

Taxes are taxes. Mine have gone up. Oooh, another broken promise....go figure.
No broken promises. Nothing to hide. - Where did you see the increase?
[ In Reply To ..]
Change in number of dependents? Health insurance premiums gone up? Different employee or employer contributions toward health, retirement or savings benefits? Social Security or FICA? Change in earnings bracket? Are you a regular employee or IC? What percentage of increase did you have?

There are just some of the variables that can cause increased withholdings. What is NOT causing it is a tax rate hike for incomes of less than $250,000, despite what Biden gaffed on the campaign trail. No need to hide cold, hard fact.

BTW, we know that taxes have been raised on $250,000 individual brackets and higher. Obama was honest about that as a canddidate and as a president. NJ did not imply any different, so what's the the "uh...hello..." all about?
The broken promise of people under $250K will - not have to pay more in taxes
[ In Reply To ..]
That broken promise. My taxes have increased. I'm not talking about purchasing items and paying taxes on them. I'm talking about my income tax I pay each year. My taxes have gone up when his campaign promise was that people making $250 and under will not pay more in taxes. Unless of course they think $30K is more than $250K and that's why I'm paying higher taxes.

That's what the uh....hello was about.
Why are you not answering the questions? There has been - no tax rate hike. sm
[ In Reply To ..]
Where it is coming from is in the answers to the questions you are ignoring. You are mistaken to keep insisting otherwise.
Um....I've been to my tax lady. Same pay as last year, but now have to pay more in taxes - Id call that a tax increase
[ In Reply To ..]
What part of that don't you understand.
The part about why you are not answering all questions - wo we can see why that is....
[ In Reply To ..]
since it's not due to a tax hike. Maybe you are avoiding the question because the "tax lady" does your taxes, which would imply that you don't know as much about tax rates as you would have us believe you do. Ask her why you taxes went up. Don't just assume you can plug any old reason that helps you justify some partisan agenda you are trying to promote.

Thank you - WWZD

[ In Reply To ..]
This is great service you've done for us today. I would never have known about the article. It certainly doesn't surprise me that corporate-controlled Reuters lifted the story. Only 2 kinds of people appreciate Barack-O-Tax: The rich and the poor. The rest of us will have to pay their tabs.

Obviously not comprehending why the article was revised. - It was inaccurate. Why all the glee....

[ In Reply To ..]
over trying to make political hay with information that is so debunkable on so many different levels? There has been no increase on middle income taxpayer amounts...front or back door. You should be happy to hear that news, but instead would rather grouse over having failed to make a mountain out of an imagined molehill.

We all knew he was lying when he said the middle income - would not pay more in taxes

[ In Reply To ..]
Seems like everyone who is breaking this story is getting told to pull it. Reuters is definitely corporate controlled and the corporations protect their precious BO. Doesn't surprise me they pulled it.

I think pretty much everyone knows the middle income are the ones who are going to get screwed royally with higher taxes.

Did you read the back door tax thread? The reasons - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
for the retraction and revision have been well established by now. Info contained in that first article was inaccurate and inflammatory. Reuers made their own decision to retract based on corrective info they received. No big scandal there.

Similar Messages:


Hillary Clinton Wants To Raises Taxes On The Middle Class.Aug 02, 2016
force them to become lower class, which "needs" Big Government even more. Mission Accomplished! It’s all about rationing the “free stuff.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q3VZOT_k_0&feature=youtu.be ...

Middle Class Will Face Higher Taxes Under Republican PlanJun 20, 2012
Those changes would benefit virtually every taxpayer, but they also would reduce federal tax collections by about $4.5 trillion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. To avoid increasing the national debt by that amount, GOP leaders such as House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (Wis.) have pledged to get rid of all the special-interest loopholes and tax shelters that litter the code. Republicans have declined to identify their targets. However, some ...

America Without A Middle Class (sm)Dec 04, 2009
This lady is extremely intelligent and has a knack for taking such a complex subject and breaking it down so the average person (like me) can understand it. ...

She Claimed She Is Middle ClassSep 11, 2012
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is anything but middle class like she claimed. In fact, she's rich! Say, one-percenter? http://shark-tank.net/2012/09/11/wasserman-schultzs-luxury-cars-and-growing-net-worth-raise-questions/ ...

What Income Level Do You Consider Middle Class AndMar 08, 2011
how do you feel about a flat tax rate of 10% for everyone? ...

A Long And Persistent Middle Class Dec 07, 2010
This is some really interesting info with graphs showing income trends under the following presidents and how the gap started widening in 1981. 37th - Richard M Nixon (1969-1974) 38th - Gerald R Ford (1974-1977) 39th - Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) 40th - Ronald W Reagan (1981-1989) 41st - George Bush (1989-1993) 42nd - William J Clinton (1993-2001) 43th - George W Bush (2001-2009) ...

Divide And Conquer--the Middle Class?Jun 17, 2011
A link to an excellent 2-minute explanation of the our current economy in a nutshell. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTzMqm2TwgE&feature=player_embedded ...

I'm Glad To See That The Middle Class Is BeginningOct 04, 2011
and big business greed by taking to the streets and demonstrating.  I hope the movement picks up steam, and the demonstrations fill the streets of every town & city across the U.S.   I for one can't wait 'til there's one in my town, because when the demonstrations start here, I tend to stop transcribing, turn off my PC, and go join them.  ...

Is Obamacare Really Affordable? Not For The Middle Class.Nov 05, 2016
programs. For the 85% of enrollees with lower incomes, federal subsidies make the premiums somewhat more affordable. Those even closer to the poverty line can get additional subsidies that reduce the deductibles, which can run into the thousands of dollars. But for many middle class Americans -- a single person earning more than $47,520 or a family of four with an income of $97,200 -- the pricey premiums and deductibles mean health care coverage remains out of reach. "The middle clas ...

My Consolation--if The Poor And Middle Class SurviveFeb 22, 2011
Hopefully our democracy will still have enough substance left to defeat the T-pot republicans at the next election.  ...

The Recession's Toll: How Middle Class WealthDec 12, 2012
From The Atlantic: " I'm about to share a statistic that you should remember every time you think about the Great Recession, and why the recovery has been so painstaking. It's going to illustrate precisely how devastating the downturn was for your typical American family, and the size of the hole we've been trying to dig ourselves out of. Ready? Here goes: Between 2007 and 2010, the median net worth of U.S. households fell by 47 percent, reaching its lowest level in more than fo ...

Republican Politicians And The Poor And Middle Class.Feb 22, 2015
I read this this morning, posted on a chat site.  Author unknown. Here is how the typical press interview with your average GOP Politician goes. Reporter: "Governor (or whatever), what concerns you about America today? GOP Politician: "I am very concerned about the plight of the poor and middle class in America today." Reporter: "So you support two years of free community college for poor and middle class students?" GOP Politician: "Oh no!" Reporter: "Oh, do you support raising t ...

Hooplah Over Alleged Middle Class Tax Hikes-infoFeb 06, 2010
Tax cuts for individuals Total: $237 billion 1. $116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.[27] 2. $70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.[27] $15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes). 3. $14 bill ...

Burden Of Healthcare Cost Move To Middle Class. Aug 26, 2016
less money for other things. Growth in overall health-care spending is slowing, but middle-class families’ share of the tab is getting larger, squeezing households already feeling stretched financially. Growth in overall health-care spending is slowing, but middle-class families’ share of the tab is getting larger, squeezing households already feeling stretched financially. Overall, health-care spending across the economy reached 18.2% of gross domestic product as of June, up from ...

"Silent Robber Of Middle Class Income? It's StillSep 15, 2012
  "Who stole the middle class's raise? Cheap foreign workers did it. Software did it. The decline of unions and manufacturing did it, too. But don't forget health care." Very, very short article with graph. Note that although the rise of healthcare costs to business has slowed in recent years it's because they've shifted to providing much cheaper plans (such as my own $5,000 annual deductible, plus my usual-and-customary deductible, plus my copay deductible, plus my co ...

Part 1: Middle-class Jobs Cut In Recession Feared Jan 30, 2013
EDITOR’S NOTE: First in a three-part series on the loss of middle-class jobs in the wake of the Great Recession, and the role of technology. By Associated Press, Published: January 18 | Updated: Wednesday, January 23, 4:44 PM NEW YORK — Five years after the start of the Great Recession, the toll is terrifyingly clear: Millions of middle-class jobs have been lost in developed countries the world over. And the situation is even worse than it appears. ...

YouTube Wealth Inequality Video--We're Not Middle Class.Mar 05, 2013
YouTube Wealth Inequality Video Fails to Tell the Whole Story Andrea Ayres in Business, Jobs 1 day ago Mic this!6  13  11 6 YouTube Wealth Inequality Video Fails to Tell the Whole Story A video detailing income inequality in America began to go viral on Friday, after Reddit posted it in its video forum. The video, which was uploaded by YouTuber Politizane, uses infographics to examine perceptions of wealth in America ...

In The Old Days Middle Class People Could Hope To Move Up The Ranks But NowApr 10, 2011
The graphs are showing that those in the high-income categories are doing better than ever, but the ranks of middle class are not. In fact, many are dropping down into the poverty area.  Lack of jobs would have to be the biggest reason for that, but the fact that we, in the middle, have the responsibility of paying for those below and those above us. Those in the poverty level have no money and pay no taxes. Those above us have so much money that they have expensive tax attorneys, tax plann ...

JP Morgan Tells Investors Why Middle Class Americans Are ScrewedAug 03, 2011
How many working class Republicans do you know? How many blindly vote against their own economic interest? It is not their fault, they have just been duped into believing the conservative mantra that the government is stealing their money, when in actuality it is the wealthy who are stealing their money. Let’s take welfare for example, according to a report by USA Today, in 2010 4.4 million people were on welfare. In a country of 330 million people that equals to a little ove ...

WSJ Chief Economist: 75% Of Obamacare Costs Fall On Middle ClassJul 01, 2012
The Senior Economics Writer at WSJ discusses the costs of Commiecare in this interview. He notes that 75% of Obamacare's costs will fall on the backs of those making LESS THAN $120,000 per year.  (So much for the political spin about the "rich," eh?) He also notes the 8%-10% INcrease in insurance premium costs since Obamacare passed despite the lies Obama told us about it DEcreasing insurance premium prices.  So, my options are:  1)  Not buy health insurance and ...

What? Health Care Countdown: Senate Bill Could Hit Middle Class HardJan 04, 2010
In fact, the Senate is counting on raising $120 billion in new taxes over the next 10 years, the majority of which will come from the middle class. Another $30 billion is expected to roll in from the actual tax on insurance plans, but far more comes from wages. "This is a big tax on the middle class," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, noting that 95 percent of people with the so-called Cadillac plans make under $250,000. And that tax, critics sa ...

"Who Killed American Unions?" Powerful Graph Shows Shows Middle Class IncomeJan 17, 2013
From The Atlantic: "Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker doesn't like unions, and unions don't like him. But the most remarkable thing about Walker's relationship to labor isn't that he thinks unions are worthless -- most Republicans agree -- but that he thinks about them, at all. Today, unions have been swept into dusty corners of the U.S. workforce, such as Las Vegas casino cleaners and New York City hotel staff. For much of the 20th century, things were different. A ...

Middle Age SpreadMar 21, 2010
I know this subject has been done to death, but can anybody tell me what to do as far as diet?  I turn 52 this year and have always had great results when just cutting down on sweets and turning up the exercise a notch or two (nothing super strenuous, just a DVD with yoga or stationary bike, pilates) within a month or so.  Now I am officially in a size bigger and VERY frustrated.  The regular routine isn't working for me anymore, but I will NOT give up.  I've j ...

I Suggest We All Move To The Middle Feb 18, 2016
Neither the right nor the left have any exclusive claim to solutions - and certainly NOT the far right or the far left. Washington has never been more dysfunctional, and it's because of the deepening political schism.  Out here in the electorate, let's show the politicians how people can come together with goodwill, common sense and moderation to move the nation forward, shall we?  And if any politicians cannot or will not learn this lesson from us - whether on the right or ...

Middle Aged Crazy?Dec 30, 2015
I wonder how many of you out there have had a spouse go through what I can only describe as a middle aged crazy. My husband of 23 years has been a motorcycle enthusiast for many years, but recently decided to join a "patched club" and is now the vice president. This has been for a couple of years now and quite frankly, I don't like it at all. I don't like the way they all have stupid nicknames, that their club business cannot be discussed with the "women" and that at the drop of a hat ...

The Entire Middle East Is Going Up In Flames. (sm)Sep 14, 2012
Where's Bozo?  Oh, are we not supposed to say that anymore?  I could call him something else, but I figured this was nicer.  He created these stupid idiotic policies, now he's hiding.  He needs to finally start accepting some responsibility. ...

The Middle East Is In An Uproar. Maybe They'll WipeSep 30, 2012
At least that way Obama can keep campaigning and we won't have to give our tax dollars to any of them.  Oh, wait, he'll keep campaigning anyway. ...

CIA Director Taking The Middle RoadDec 12, 2014
Seems there is some real squirming going on.  CIA director has never given a televised address. He states interrogation helped reveal "secrets," even info to get Bin Laden, but is uncertain if the EIT portion was responsible for that.  So, a veiled manner of saying interrogation is necessary, but not sure if that extreme stuff report is complaining about really revealed anything.   I hope Cheney and Rumsfeld get brought up on charges for this.  It may not be the most ...

Middle School Teacher Will Do Anything To Demolish Tea PartyApr 15, 2010
A middle school teacher in Oregon who announced his intention "to dismantle and demolish the Tea Party" on his "Crash the Tea Party" Web site is under investigation by his state's Teacher Standards & Practices Commission. The investigation by Oregon's teacher licensing agency comes in response to a public outcry over Jason Levin's public statements that he'll do anything short of throwing rocks to bring down the Tea Party. Levin, the media teacher at Conestoga Middle Sc ...

Obama Needs To Stay At The WH During Middle East ProtestsSep 13, 2012
This article is by Scott Paulson and over the attacks and I completely agree with him. Following protests in the capital of Egypt this week, the deadly attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya that took the life of four Americans yesterday, and the latest aggressive protests at the U.S. Embassy in Yemen’s capital that are occurring today, President Barack Obama needs to stay in Washington, D.C., suspend campaigning, and address the threats against Americans in the Middle East. The a ...