Econwatch
By

Jill Schlesinger /

CBS News/ September 9, 2009, 12:03 PM

What Pres Obama Won't Say: Your Taxes are Going Up


When President Obama speaks tomorrow night, here's what he won't say: your taxes are going up. OK, maybe the lowest echelon on taxpayers will be spared, but anyone who does the simple math can see that the amount of money necessary to finance health care reform, along with existing government obligations, means that taxpayer liability is going up–and not just for the rich.

According to the CBO, the US budget deficit is expected to rise by something close to a gazillion dollars. OK, the White House expects the ten-year budget deficit to reach $9 trillion, up from the original estimate of $7.1 trillion. Given that there are few plans to cut anything out of the budget, the alternative is to raise taxes.

What the President won't say about health care reform is the following: there are not enough rich people to float the country's needs right now. This is not a political statement, it's a fact. This chart from last week's Wall Street Journal demonstrates the point that to close the budget gap over the next ten years, tax rates on the rich would need to rise to nearly 69%. Even if you think that would be a good idea, it just isn't going to happen.


Source: Wall Street Journal

So where do we go from here? Well, the former investment advisor in me says that rather than fight the concept, embrace higher taxes as a likelihood and adjust your life as much as possible. That means maxing out retirement accounts; using tax efficient vehicles like index funds or ETFs; and limiting dividend and capital gains as much as possible. Far better to prepare for the eventuality than screaming, yelling and belly-aching about it.




(CBS)
This post originally appeared The Financial Decoder blog on CBS MoneyWatch.com. Jill Schlesinger is the Editor-at-Large for CBS MoneyWatch.com. Prior to the launch of MoneyWatch, she was the Chief Investment Officer for an independent investment advisory firm. In her infancy, she was an options trader on the Commodities Exchange of New York.
© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
8 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
erasmus111 says:
by Howellstephen75 September 8, 2009 9:37 PM EDT
Why in god's name are we spending so much money if we are so deep in the hole.


It's like this. You have to spend money to get OUT of the hole. Changes need to be made and you can't do that without money.

The U.S. was in major debt long before Obama. And the only way you are going to get out of that debt is to raise the taxes! No way out of that one. It's time that some of you started living in REALITY.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
credibility2 says:
For anyone gullible enough to have believed anything that came out of the president's mouth is laughable. With all of his grandiose programs he and his stooges want to implement, just how were they all going to paid for without having to up the taxes on all but the poor? It's also being reported today that the so-called auto bailout will in fact cost taxpayers some $23B in loan defaults the auto companies won't be able to pay back to the government. And then to think there are those that want the government to run health care? More laughs. The president's skit before Congress and we, the people, should make for some more uncontrollable guffawing.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Howellstephen75 says:
Why in god's name are we spending so much money if we are so deep in the hole. This guy has got to go along with alot of other wacho's in washinton.
reply
brianbwb-2009 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
You make a point, but check what they left out of the math, 120 billion per year (at 10 billion per month) for Bush's wars, the back debt of which has yet to be paid for, not to mention the interest on the debt that was sold to the Chinese to borrow for it.

With that large elephant sitting in the middle of the room, "the rich" are now complaining about paying taxes on unearned money they got from "trickle down"?

I find that almost funny.

You would think that they would begin to understand that we don't need to be involved in military hostilities in Iraq, and Afghanistan, but no, they insist we must continue, at $10 billion per month, to "kill the boogieman".

Then they whine when the bill comes in.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
msimamaji says:
Guess what???
During the Eisenhower years, the rich paid a lot higher tax rates than they do now. Everyone agrees that the Eisnehower years were a time of relative prosperity (unless you were African-American.) The rich can easily afford higher taxes and still do very nicely. It will prevent them from donating to right-wing think tanks, but these are the same people who brought us the war in Iraq. Truth told. The rich have shipwrecked this economy - they can pay for the damages they have done.
As far as the stats Schlesinger quoted, Mark Twain stated "There are lies, damn lies and statistics." The Wall Street Journal assured us we could afford a war in Iraq and a tax cut for the rich at the same time. Can we believe anything else the Wall Street Journal says.
While we're on stats, let's see if Schlesinger has a grasp of these stats. Every year 22,000 people die because of a lack of medical care, according to the Urban Institute. Our health care system kills 7 times more people than we lost at 9/11. Does Wall Street Journal care??? According to the 2009 CIA fact book, our infant mortality rate is twice as high as the infant mortality rate of Sweden or France. The Wall Street Journal would rather sentence babies to death than tread down the slippery slope to socialism.
I might point out that our current dysfunctional health care system is the most expensive health care system in the world. It drains $ 2.2 trillion dollars from the economy. And if we do not act now, our health care system will collapse.
Does Wall Street Journal have the right determine the value of human life. Perhaps the denizens of Wall Street as well as their puppets in Congres are the real "panels of death" that we're supposed to fear.
reply
inketolstoy replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
While I agree with many of your statements (our health care system needs fixed, congress is too cozy with wall street, and you should never completely trust media statistics), your association of the rich (defined by the current administration as anyone making over 250,000$)with all our ills is off target. Government should not seek to get rid of the rich to help the poor, it should help the poor also become rich. That is what is wrong with Socialism. It makes every one equal by making them all poor. Poverty is responsible for the high infant mortality (along with ignorance), and much of our health care woes. I think that wealthy people should share in helping the less fortunate out, but the hatred of the wealthy displayed by some here, as well as the old Robin Hood "take from the rich to give to the poor" only will result in poverty for everyone. Isntead of having the Government tax the rich to give poor health care, maybe the goverment should put restrictions on hospitals, insurance companies and lawyers to ensure that low imcome citizens can afford basic healthcare. Education and spending habits create wealth, not government redistribution.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
slownewsday_5 says:
Good article. Nice to see some facts!

What a lot of conservatives don't remember are the 50% to 70% tax brackets under Reagan.

Of course, we could just do like Bush did an borrow, instead.

What I'd like to see is personal income tax abolished and a flat nationwide sales tax implemented. It would be interesting to see the Wall Street Journal run some numbers for that.


.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
mjvwsr says:
wow...cbs speaking the truth. i'm impressed!!
reply