Obama seeks to cut muni bond tax breaks

[Deleted]

Suze Orman is going to be so angry!

President Barack Obama on Monday proposed limiting tax breaks given to high-income earners on the interest paid by municipal bonds, a change that could rock the $3.7 trillion market if approved.

In his fiscal 2013 budget, Obama reiterated his desire to cut tax breaks for families with incomes over $250,000, saying they should only be allowed to reduce their tax liabilities to 28 percent of income from the current 35 percent.

"It is very unfortunate that investors who bought tax-exempt muni bonds in good faith under the premise that they would be tax-exempt would be subject to at least a 7 percent tax under the proposed budget," said Chris Mier, a managing director at Loop Capital Markets.

Among the list of breaks, Obama included tax-exempt interest, the payments made by U.S. municipal bonds. Obama made a similar suggestion in legislation in September, and many of his proposals that could impact the municipal bond market have surfaced previously.

news.yahoo.com/obama-seeks-cut-municipal-bond-tax-breaks-165322368.html

But seriously - do you think this will impact his proposal to invest more in infrastructure? Isn't that usually paid for by munis?

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Muni bonds finance all sorts of local, county and state activities ranging from highways, bridges, tunnels, schools, capital projects, libraries, public works projects, water and sewer projects, tax anticipation, etc...etc...

Back in the 90s, Clinton was talking about removing the tax exemption for muni bonds and the state governors went ballistic, lead by the infamous Mario Cuomo, the govt of NY State.

[Deleted]

They should be taxable. But the lobby probably wont' allow it.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Feb 13, 2012 16:02:49 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

It's not as if anyone in his right mind would be buying new issues of munis anyway. Interest rates can only go up from here and the credit quality of existing munis is shaky. I don't see anything here except political theater.

[jkapp]

Feb 13, 2012 15:55:53 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

Suze Orman is going to be so angry!

President Barack Obama on Monday proposed limiting tax breaks given to high-income earners on the interest paid by municipal bonds, a change that could rock the $3.7 trillion market if approved.

In his fiscal 2013 budget, Obama reiterated his desire to cut tax breaks for families with incomes over $250,000, saying they should only be allowed to reduce their tax liabilities to 28 percent of income from the current 35 percent.

"It is very unfortunate that investors who bought tax-exempt muni bonds in good faith under the premise that they would be tax-exempt would be subject to at least a 7 percent tax under the proposed budget," said Chris Mier, a managing director at Loop Capital Markets.

Among the list of breaks, Obama included tax-exempt interest, the payments made by U.S. municipal bonds. Obama made a similar suggestion in legislation in September, and many of his proposals that could impact the municipal bond market have surfaced previously.

news.yahoo.com/obama-seeks-cut-municipal-bond-tax-breaks-165322368.html

But seriously - do you think this will impact his proposal to invest more in infrastructure? Isn't that usually paid for by munis?

Pretty simple - Obama wants all projects currently funded by muni's to be placed under the umbrella of federal government. More centralized control over states...

Notice at the same time he pushes forth a budget with $100's of billions of "stimulus" for such projects.

[handyman2]

I don't know who is trying harder to lose the election, Obama or the Republicans. This would hurt many states I would think.

[Deleted]

Speaking of unintended consequenses.... If the middle class votes to raise their own taxes by raising the cost for their cities to borrow, I'm sure they'll still whine when it happens.

[formerexpat]

Speaking of unintended consequenses....

Unintended by whom? I think it's fully Obama's intention to raise middle class taxes through this proposal because he knows damn well that 99% of the populace is too stupid to understand the cause and effect of such a measure.

[Deleted]

Good point. I was thinking of unintended in terms of voters making decisions, but I also had not thought of that. Obama is a smart man, so it wouldn't suprise me if you're right.

[floridayankee]

I'm not scared. Congress hasn't passed an annual budget in the last few years.

[floridayankee]

Feb 13, 2012 20:17:02 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

Speaking of unintended consequenses.... If the middle class votes to raise their own taxes by raising the cost for their cities to borrow, I'm sure they'll still whine when it happens.

I thought the exact same thing. Tax free munis are able to pay a much lower rate simply because they are tax free. Remove that benefit, rates will need to increase in order to secure investors.

[Deleted]

Feb 14, 2012 9:55:37 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Feb 13, 2012 20:17:02 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

Speaking of unintended consequenses.... If the middle class votes to raise their own taxes by raising the cost for their cities to borrow, I'm sure they'll still whine when it happens.

I thought the exact same thing. Tax free munis are able to pay a much lower rate simply because they are tax free. Remove that benefit, rates will need to increase in order to secure investors.

Which is the way it should be.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Feb 14, 2012 9:56:20 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Feb 14, 2012 9:55:37 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

I thought the exact same thing. Tax free munis are able to pay a much lower rate simply because they are tax free. Remove that benefit, rates will need to increase in order to secure investors.

Which is the way it should be.

The fed govt does not tax income received on state and local bonds. States also do not tax income from Federal securities(treasuries).

[Deleted]

Feb 14, 2012 10:01:49 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Feb 14, 2012 9:56:20 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Which is the way it should be.

The fed govt does not tax income received on state and local bonds. States also do not tax income from Federal securities(treasuries).

They should.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Feb 14, 2012 10:02:33 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Feb 14, 2012 10:01:49 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

The fed govt does not tax income received on state and local bonds. States also do not tax income from Federal securities(treasuries).

They should.

But they don't... incidentally, income and benefits received from govt social agencies, like food stamps, heating assistance, Section 8, free school meals, EITC are not taxed either.

[Deleted]

Feb 14, 2012 10:03:43 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Feb 14, 2012 10:02:33 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

They should.

But they don't... incidentally, income and benefits received from govt social agencies, like food stamps, heating assistance, Section 8, free school meals, EITC are not taxed either.

They should be.

[Deleted]

Archie, you're starting to piss me off. I don't have time to read such long-winded responses. Please be concise and to the point.

[Deleted]

All along Obama has know that the "rich" don't have enough or make enough to totally support a welfare state. Going after the rich was just an attempt starting a class warfare situation which would both improve his chance of re-election & further his socialist agenda. The middle class was always going to pay more in taxes to support his ultimate goals. You just don't get re-elected by saying that up front. So.....you do back door tax things to get them in place & then point out all the "benefits" that you have bought with those tax increase. This works because:

1. Most people don't see it coming.

2. Most people don't understand that they can manage their money & spending it much better than the federal government.

3. Most people are at best, sheep when it comes to fighting the government.

Sadly people even now don't understand what's really going on here. Just like most democrats don't understand that the agenda of the democratic parties ultimate aim is a socialist state. The fall back reply when told that is that they aren't proposing government ownership of business which of course nobody would support. So what you do is slowly erode the principles of this country until you have something very similar to European socialism in which "all people" are equal & at a level much lower than they have now. That means bigger government because it takes a lot larger government to monitor & control people's every day lives. The first stage of something like that is exactly what Obama's setting up. Raise taxes, expand government, class warfare, etc are all building blocks for that European socialist government that isn't working in Europe & won't work here.

[Deleted]

Feb 14, 2012 10:15:17 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

Archie, you're starting to piss me off. I don't have time to read such long-winded responses. Please be concise and to the point.

;D


For you, IB, anything.

[floridayankee]

Feb 14, 2012 10:29:37 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Feb 14, 2012 10:15:17 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

Archie, you're starting to piss me off. I don't have time to read such long-winded responses. Please be concise and to the point.

;D


For you, IB, anything.

A simple "OK" would suffice.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I am starting to think Obama really doesn't want the job, but he's kinda screwed because the GOP is likely to nominate Romney, so he's going the extra mile to piss people off.

[Deleted]

"A simple "OK" would suffice."

He obviously doesn't get it.

[2kids10horses]

tex,

Your post #18 is probably the best post I've ever seen in this entire forum!

Karma to you!

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Feb 14, 2012 12:05:39 GMT -5 2kids10horses said:

tex,

Your post #18 is probably the best post I've ever seen in this entire forum!

Karma to you!

True, simply put and very elementary but right on target.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 14, 2012 10:28:38 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

All along Obama has know that the "rich" don't have enough or make enough to totally support a welfare state. Going after the rich was just an attempt starting a class warfare situation which would both improve his chance of re-election & further his socialist agenda. The middle class was always going to pay more in taxes to support his ultimate goals. You just don't get re-elected by saying that up front. So.....you do back door tax things to get them in place & then point out all the "benefits" that you have bought with those tax increase. This works because:

1. Most people don't see it coming.

2. Most people don't understand that they can manage their money & spending it much better than the federal government.

3. Most people are at best, sheep when it comes to fighting the government.

Sadly people even now don't understand what's really going on here. Just like most democrats don't understand that the agenda of the democratic parties ultimate aim is a socialist state. The fall back reply when told that is that they aren't proposing government ownership of business which of course nobody would support. So what you do is slowly erode the principles of this country until you have something very similar to European socialism in which "all people" are equal & at a level much lower than they have now. That means bigger government because it takes a lot larger government to monitor & control people's every day lives. The first stage of something like that is exactly what Obama's setting up. Raise taxes, expand government, class warfare, etc are all building blocks for that European socialist government that isn't working in Europe & won't work here.

[Deleted]

I will add to my statement a little.

Our taxes on both people & businesses has always (more or less for the quibblers out there) been lower than other industrial countries. Those lower taxes combined with higher spending money resulted in a better life for people here & a better business model for selling goods overseas. Because of that our country has always been very prosperous compared to most of the world. In booming times our economy is almost always a leader in the world & because of that we rake in higher taxes (collecting when we sell things). Changing the tax structures will at best even the playing field in both areas. Americans will be able to buy less & Americans will sell less overseas. Now all of this is pretty common sense but oddly somehow most democrats don't see it. They can't understand that if people have less money...they HAVE to spend LESS. It doesn't matter why they have less money, they could burn it or simply pay it in taxes. The results are the same, they have less to spend.

A while back there was a discussion as to companies hiring less people when they have less money. Sure a lot of things could come into play in a scenario like that but the bottom line is that the smaller amount of money that a company has to spend, more than likely the fewer people they are going to try to employ. After all they aren't going to stop buying raw materials to make their products nor are they going to stop delivering their products. The OBVIOUS place to try to cut down is people (one of the most costly parts of business). In bad times that is going to be the first place where cuts are made. Yet even in a place like these board, no liberal is going to admit that's true.

I still say that it's funny as hell that in order for Obama to turn the economy around he has to use the same "tricks" that republican have been pushing all along. That's because even HE knows that higher taxes will slow the economy & he wants to be elected. If the economy was rolling along right now Obama would be taxing the hell out of everybody but the poor. He would be shoving that agenda down our throats (if he could) because with a good economy the programs might work for a while. Then another "normal" business cycle recession would come along & we would be right where we are now. A broke (or getting there fast) country that can't control it's spending.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Feb 14, 2012 14:15:27 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

I will add to my statement a little.

Our taxes on both people & businesses has always (more or less for the quibblers out there) been lower than other industrial countries. Those lower taxes combined with higher spending money resulted in a better life for people here & a better business model for selling goods overseas. Because of that our country has always been very prosperous compared to most of the world. In booming times our economy is almost always a leader in the world & because of that we rake in higher taxes (collecting when we sell things). Changing the tax structures will at best even the playing field in both areas. Americans will be able to buy less & Americans will sell less overseas. Now all of this is pretty common sense but oddly somehow most democrats don't see it. They can't understand that if people have less money...they HAVE to spend LESS. It doesn't matter why they have less money, they could burn it or simply pay it in taxes. The results are the same, they have less to spend.

A while back there was a discussion as to companies hiring less people when they have less money. Sure a lot of things could come into play in a scenario like that but the bottom line is that the smaller amount of money that a company has to spend, more than likely the fewer people they are going to try to employ. After all they aren't going to stop buying raw materials to make their products nor are they going to stop delivering their products. The OBVIOUS place to try to cut down is people (one of the most costly parts of business). In bad times that is going to be the first place where cuts are made. Yet even in a place like these board, no liberal is going to admit that's true.

I still say that it's funny as hell that in order for Obama to turn the economy around he has to use the same "tricks" that republican have been pushing all along. That's because even HE knows that higher taxes will slow the economy & he wants to be elected. If the economy was rolling along right now Obama would be taxing the hell out of everybody but the poor. He would be shoving that agenda down our throats (if he could) because with a good economy the programs might work for a while. Then another "normal" business cycle recession would come along & we would be right where we are now. A broke (or getting there fast) country that can't control it's spending.

[Value Buy]

I once read years ago, that "employee cost" to business is well over 65% of costs for a business.
You cannot cut taxes, or insurance costs, to any degree of success.
You cannot easily raise profit percentages in a falling economy. Unless you are Apple.
The easiest and fastest way to cut costs?
Cut employees, or at least their available working hours.
Our Federal government fails to realize these simple business facts.

[Deleted]

I once read years ago, that "employee cost" to business is well over 65% of costs for a business. You cannot cut taxes, or insurance costs, to any degree of success.
You cannot easily raise profit percentages in a falling economy. Unless you are Apple.The easiest and fastest way to cut costs?Cut employees, or at least their available working hours.Our Federal government fails to realize these simple business facts.

Value Buy, once again is this pretty simple stuff & everyone should see & understand this. Now I can see that on a nameless message board some people wouldn't want to acknowledge this because this is just "talk" & nothing more. What I can't understand is that a major political party not only wouldn't acknowledge this but would base their agenda on in not being true & that's exactly what the democratic party has & is doing. They pretend that higher taxes on people & businesses will make no change in the economy, the number of people working & the amount of taxes that will ultimately have to be charged. The basic plan that I see (on the surface) is spend spend spend & borrow borrow borrow & never face the results.

Now we can argue if the downgrade of our credit was right or not. But we (& I mean all of us) should understand & agree that the fact that it was even suggested is a bad thing & something that should have alerted (woke up) everyone. Yet look at congress & the president. Have they even really addressed the problem? Spending cuts at some future date are not spending cuts. That's the same political bullshit that they have been doing since I was old enough to know that there are 2 main political parties in this country. Same old shit & even in the same sales package. The best they seem to be able to do is slow the growth of spending but we still spend more than we take in. People can't do that, companies can't do that, & the only way that government can do that is if you believe that you can just keep raising taxes forever & nothing bad will happen. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[usaone]

No one is asking the rich to support a welfare state. Taxes on the wealthy will need to go up for a few years.

Its ONE piece of the puzzle to get us back on the right track.