But there’s something the politicians weren’t bragging about – the fact that they’re paying for the two-month tax cut with what has turned into a brand new fee on home buyers.

The new fee is a minimum of one-tenth of 1 percent on Fannie Mae- and Freddie Mac-backed loans, and is likely to go much higher.

It will be imposed for the next 10 years on most mortgages and refinancings and it lasts for the life of the loan.

For every $200,000, it amounts to an extra $15 dollars a month.

It’s bad news for Patty Anderson, who’s buying a home in Virginia.

Anderson will save a couple hundred dollars from having her payroll tax cut extended but her mortgage broker told her the new fee would cost her almost $9,500.

“I was absolutely startled that it would add up to that much,” she said. (Read More)

Worse still, the money collected will not be going to fund Social Security. Instead it will go into the general fund for Congress to waste spend any way they see fit.

H/T Hot Air

A majority of voters say they have not benefited from the payroll tax holiday that lawmakers are working to extend through the rest of this year, according to this week’s poll conducted for The Hill.

Fifty-four percent said the tax holiday has not helped them financially, while only 25 percent said it had been a help to them.

President Obama and congressional Democrats have made the temporary extension of the payroll tax cut — which dropped the tax rate from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent — a top priority, arguing that it will save the average middle-class taxpayer $1,500 this year.

When broken down by party, 61 percent of Republicans and 45 percent of Democrats said they didn’t benefit from the tax cut. Only 35 percent of Democrats and 21 percent of Republicans said they did.

A slight majority of those polled also trust Republicans more when it comes to tax policy. It’s too bad the Republicans aren’t better at selling their message.

President Barack Obama has left unanswered a major question about his Buffett Rule tax on millionaires: Just how much money would it raise?

Administration officials are not releasing projected revenues from the much-hyped plan named after billionaire investor Warren Buffett. During the State of the Union address, Obama tied his proposal — which would tax those earning $1 million at a minimum of 30 percent — to cutting a deficit estimated to top $1.1 trillion for the fourth straight year.

But for the moment, the White House wants to keep the attention focused on Obama’s argument that it’s unfair to tax Buffett’s secretary at a higher rate than her boss.

“I’m not going to give you a schedule of how broad individual tax reform would break down and what impact it would have,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said at the Wednesday briefing. “The president simply believes that as a matter of principle that unfairness ought to be changed.” (Read More)

This is getting so very old.

Kind of related: Be sure to read Jonah Golberg’s latest at NRO: Obama’s Vision for a Spartan America.

On the heels of President Obama‘s State of the Union address, where he called for the “Buffett Rule”: a requirement that millionaires pay at least 30% of their income in taxes, the richest man in America, Bill Gates, weighed in on solutions to the country’s economic problems. “The United States has a huge budget deficit, so taxes are going to have to go up,” Gates told the BBC. “And I certainly agree that they should go up more on the rich than everyone else. That’s just justice.” (Read More)

He went on to say he doesn’t believe income tax increases should be limited to uber-rich fellows like himself, and that there should be “shared sacrifice.” So I guess in his mind the small business owner who finally has a good year and earns in excess of $200,000 should pay the same high tax rate he pays, even if that’s the only good year he has in his life.

I wonder if he’d also agree that there should be a wealth tax, or an increase to the capital gains tax. Probably not. But hey, if he thinks the government is such a fine steward of our tax dollars, why doesn’t he just get rid of his charitable foundation and give all of that money to the government to distribute? Yeah, I know, I won’t hold my breath.

A new report just out from the Internal Revenue Service reveals that 36 of President Obama’s executive office staff owe the country $833,970 in back taxes. These people working for Mr. Fair Share apparently haven’t paid any share, let alone their fair share.

Previous reports have shown how well-paid Obama’s White House staff is, with 457 aides pulling down more than $37 million last year. That’s up seven workers and nearly $4 million from the Bush administration’s last year.

Nearly one-third of Obama’s aides make more than $100,000 with 21 being paid the top White House salary of $172,200, each.

Read on to see where else the tax cheats are working.

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney paid a 14% effective income tax rate in 2010 after making $3 million in tax-deductible charitable donations and drawing most of his income from investments, according to a summary of Mr. Romney’s 2010 tax form provided by his campaign.

Mr. Romney reported $21.7 million in income. He paid $3 million in federal taxes, slightly more than the $2.98 million he made in charitable donations. At least $1.5 million of his charitable donations went to the Mormon Church.

Of Mr. Romney’s 2010 income, he noted a capital gain of $12.6 million, taxable interest of $3.3 million, ordinary dividends of $4.9 million and smaller sums of gains and losses on business income, refunds and other income. (Read More)

He also had some accounts in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands, but he also paid taxes on those funds.

Even though Romney paid the taxes he legally owed, and no more, as he noted in the debate, expect the Democrats to use this as another weapon in their class war arsenal. You’ve probably been hearing it already if you’ve had the news on this morning. You’ll hear that the $3 million Romney paid in taxes isn’t his fair share and that taxes should be raised on the wealthy. But since Romney’s income came from capital gains, any income tax hike wouldn’t effect him at all. Ed Morrissey explained how wrong they are in their arguments.

Not only is this cheap class-warfare nonsense, it’s also flat-out false — unless Obama has proposed at some point treating capital gains differently than income.  He has talked at times of raising the cap-gains rate from 15% to 20%, but that will still put cap-gains at “a lower rate than average Americans who are struggling to get by.”  Obama’s so-called “millionaire’s tax” surcharge wouldn’t have applied to Romney either, because that was a surcharge on income, not capital gains.  If Obama wanted to have that debate with Romney, he’d shortly be exposed as either a hypocrite or an idiot.

Romney paid the exact same rate as anyone else on capital gains.  Had an average household made money on capital gains — and some might on smaller investments in portfolios — they would pay the exact same rate on cap-gains as Romney did.  We treat capital gains differently because (a) that money got taxed elsewhere at an income rate in most cases, and (b) we want to provide an incentive for risk.  Capital investment is a significant risk, much more so than income derived from sitting on capital and deriving interest.  We want people to put their capital to work instead of sitting on it.  That’s what Romney did, and he’s paying the tax rate on the reward for taking risk. (Read More)

It doesn’t matter how wrong the Democrats are on this issue, they’ll keep repeating the same nonsense. I half expect President Obama to bring up Romney’s tax returns in his SOTU address tonight.

“I’ve been hearing a lot of these Republicans talking about, oh, that’s class warfare, and he just wants to redistribute, and doesn’t believe in work, and he’s trying to create an entitlement society, and this and that and the other. Let me be absolutely clear: I should pay more taxes, and folks in my income bracket should pay more taxes, and certainly folks who are making billions of dollars should pay more taxes, not because I want to take their money and just give it to somebody else.”

So what’s stopping him? He can write a check any time he wants. Or hey, maybe he could just cancel a few trips and save the rest of us taxpayers a ton of dough.

Via Breitbart

Update: Linked by Katy Pundit – thanks!

The skies over Europe just became less friendly. Statists and environmentalists on the Continent have linked up to impose a new carbon-dioxide-emissions tax on flights to and from Europe. This heightens prospects for a trade war that could prolong economic stagnation the world over.

The European Union’s “cap-and-trade” tax, which took effect Jan. 1, charges international airlines for their carbon-dioxide emissions, including mileage logged outside of European airspace. Of course, those carriers are already struggling financially and will have no choice but to pass along the extra cost to fliers. It will add an average of $30 to a round-trip ticket. U.S. airlines have estimated the new tax will cost them at least $3.1 billion by 2020, and travelers worldwide are expected to pay an additional $22.9 billion over the same period, gobbling up a sizable portion of airline profits. (Read More)

In January 2013, Obamacare will impose a medical-device tax on everything from pacemakers and prosthetic limbs to hospital beds and CT scanners. This 2.3 percent federal excise tax will be applied to all sales revenue and levied on each and every one of the 6,000 domestic medical-device manufacturing plants, whether or not the respective plants turn a profit.

The tax will have a negative impact on medical innovation and lead to higher consumer cost, the latter fact confirmed by the Obama administration in an April 2010 report published by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). “We anticipate that these fees and the excise tax would generally be passed through to health consumers in the form of higher drug and device prices and higher insurance premiums” wrote chief CMS actuary Richard S. Foster.

The medical-device tax is already causing direct job losses. Stryker Corp., a Michigan-based manufacturer of orthopedic devices, announced in November its plan to lay off 5 percent of its workforce – about 1,000 workers – to prepare for the burden imposed by the impending tax.

I wish that was it, but there is much more. Read the whole thing.

Update: Café Press linked – thanks!

Most of all, bringing Internet gambling to America would hurt the poor, who are most affected when people lose money in government-approved games of chance such as state lotteries or casinos – not to mention the way it would reinforce a belief that one’s future depends on “luck” instead of individual merit.

In effect, President Obama and his appointed Justice officials have bowed to political pressure from states that seek a new source of revenue in Internet gambling rather than taking the difficult decisions to raise taxes or cut spending.

The timing of the memo’s release is telling about its politics. It was dated last September but was quietly made public just before the long Christmas weekend, perhaps to prevent political waves. And it came a day after Nevada officials approved in-state online gaming. (Read More)

I personally don’t care if people want to gamble, that’s their business. But like the cigarette tax, this is nothing more than a revenue grab by a president who refuses to rein in spending.

Speaker John Boehner had an op-ed published in USA Today making the case for House Republicans and calling on President Obama to take a leadership position. (Don’t laugh!)

This fall, President Obama called for a year-long extension of the payroll tax cut, and the House passed a year-long extension, with bipartisan support. Our bill would also extend and reform unemployment insurance, protect seniors’ access to doctors through Medicare, and help create jobs. Unfortunately, instead of passing the House bill or any other year-long extension, Democratic leaders in the Senate passed a two-month measure and left town for the holidays.

Washington doesn’t get to punt on this one.

The president and the House are right to want to extend this tax cut a full year, rather than two months. Having run a small business, met a payroll, and hired workers, I’ve seen first-hand how Washington’s Band-Aids and gimmicks cause further uncertainty for employers and employees alike. The idea that the federal government can set tax rates in two-month increments without doing any harm is exactly the kind of Washington thinking that has helped run our economy off the tracks.

…

Despite all this, Senate Democrats are refusing to return from vacation and negotiate with the House. We hope the president, who has repeatedly said he won’t go on vacation until this matter is resolved, will urge Senate Democrats to change their minds. He should call on them to appoint negotiators so we can extend payroll tax relief for a full year and help create jobs. (Read More)

First of all, Obama doesn’t care about job creation. Secondly, the payroll tax cut didn’t do much to help the economy in the first place, and another temporary extension won’t spur hiring. Plus, if Obama were to lead and craft a compromise, he wouldn’t get to go around accusing Republicans of wanting to raise taxes on the middle class. Now he can pretend he hasn’t given up on the working class.

It’s got to be tough for Republicans on the Hill dealing with these lying Democrats and their constant class warfare drumbeat. They don’t get any credit when they act in a bipartisan manner. Who got credit for the first payroll tax cut (that will bankrupt Social Security faster)? Obama did. They’re in a lose-lose situation. They compromise – we lose. They refuse to compromise – Obama wins a new talking point.

The moral of this story is Obama needs to be defeated in 2012, and we need to not only take over the Senate, but do so with more conservatives.

Update: Donald Lambro notes how Harry Reid and the Democrats are playing politics.

Unable to reach a compromise on extending the tax cut for another year, the Senate kicked the can down the road, passed a 60-day extension, sent it to the House, locked its doors and sent its members home for the Christmas holiday.

In a mean-minded, take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum to the “people’s House,” Senate Majority leader Harry Reid made it clear he didn’t care what the House did with the bill – the Senate was finished for the year.

That’s not the way Congress usually has operated over its 222 years, especially on must-pass legislation that may affect the lives of 160 million working Americans.

In such cases, the Senate remains in session until the House has acted on the bill, presumably rewriting its terms and provisions. Then each chamber appoints members to a conference committee to iron out their differences and craft a compromise that can pass both houses.

Mr. Reid wasn’t the least bit interested in working out a compromise on the broader issues the bill poses, such as how to pay for its $120 billion cost, which will further deplete the Social Security’s trust fund, or the uncertainty raised by the short-term extension. (Read More)

How cynical, and evil. Most of us are well aware of the nature of Harry Reid and President Obama when it comes to such matters. As long as they can score political points, they’re happy. Unfortunately, many people don’t pay that much attention to the workings of Congress. All they hear are the sound bites, and Reid and Obama now have their sound bite.

The Wall Street Journal pointed out how the Republicans got the politics wrong on this.

House Republicans yesterday voted down the Senate’s two-month extension of the two-percentage-point payroll tax holiday to 4.2% from 6.2%. They say the short extension makes no economic sense, but then neither does a one-year extension. No employer is going to hire a worker based on such a small and temporary decrease in employment costs, as this year’s tax holiday has demonstrated. The entire exercise ispolitical, but Republicans have thoroughly botched the politics.

Their first mistake was adopting the President’s language that he is proposing a tax cut rather than calling it a temporary tax holiday. People will understand the difference—and discount the benefit.Republicans also failed to put together a unified House and Senate strategy. The House passed a one-year extension last week that included spending cuts to offset the $120 billion or so in lost revenue, such as a one-year freeze on raises for federal employees. Then Mr. McConnell agreed with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the two-month extension financed by higher fees on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (meaning on mortgage borrowers), among other things. It passed with 89 votes and all but seven Republicans.

Read the whole thing. The problem is, as I noted above, the Republicans are stuck compromising with the Democrats who don’t care about good policy – all they care about is politics and playing the game. That’s why they always come out on top in these things – they don’t need to do what’s right, all they need is a narrative that they can use against their opponents, and it seems to be working, at least in the short term.

Peter Isberg, president of the National Payroll Reporting Consortium sent a letter to Congress explaining that employers would not be able to properly implement the policy, according to ABC News.

The two-month payroll tax holiday, which the president has said should be extended throughout 2012, will mean that wages would face a Social Security tax of 4.2 percent during January and February, but it would increase to 6.2 percent in March.

Isberg wrote that “many payroll systems are not likely to be able to make such a substantial programming change before January or even February. The systems affected tend to be highly complex, normally requiring at least ninety days for a change of this magnitude for software testing alone; not to mention analysis, design, coding and implementation.”

Part of the issue has to deal with Congress’ desire to make sure “that highly compensated employees not enjoy the full benefit of the 2% tax break because of bonuses or other high compensation falling into the first two months of the year,” Isberg wrote, saying “there simply is insufficient time to implement this major change in withholding requirements.”

The letter can be found here.

I guess this is the sort of thing that happens when we elect a bunch of know-it-alls who know nothing about how business is run in America.

Update: Da TechGuy linked in a post noting that most of the media simply ignored this story. Of course they did!

It turns out they’re caving on the provision of their beloved millionaires tax. Are they caving on this one provision because they love millionaires? Are they caving because they know that thanks to the internet they can no longer rely on the mainstream media to carry their water? Do they have something else up their sleeve?

In what would be a major concession, President Obama and Senate Democrats will drop their insistence that a surtax on millionaires pay for extending the payroll tax cut, a Democratic source tells CNN. This would be part of a new Democratic offer.

Lost in translation is the fact that their favorite program – Social Security – will continue to go unfunded. I suppose one can say things are all going according to plan. But that’s just my take. I’m sure some paid Democrat strategist will explain it better on the morning shows.

Update: Linked by The Other McCain – thanks!

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s move to make rich people pay a higher share of income taxes next year will bring the state an extra $2.4 billion. How much will come back as tax cuts for a Syracuse-area couple claiming income of $50,000 a year?

About $40, after they fill out their 2012 state income tax forms.

“The average taxpayer will get a night out at the movies, courtesy of the state Legislature, without popcorn, I suppose,” said Ron Deutsch, of New Yorkers for Fiscal Fairness, a liberal tax policy watchdog group in Albany. “It’s not exactly the middle-class tax relief everyone is talking about.”

As for the move raking in more money to balance the budget, well, maybe in a perfect world. But in a world where the income of the wealthy is tied to economic cycles, it may not be such a good idea.

“As many states face increasingly large budget shortfalls that are often related to economic cycles, leaning on high-income earners and small businesses to pick up a disproportionate amount of the bill raises serious equity concerns and is bad for government revenue stability,” said Scott Drenkard, an analyst with the Tax Foundation.

He notes many businesses, 94 percent of which file as individuals, and high-income earners have the most volatile income. If the economy continues to slip, they will have less revenue and that could further hurt businesses or prompt them to flee.

Oh, and the best part? Cuomo’s tax plan went through with no public debate behind closed doors. Looks like politics as usual in Albany.

Update: I received an email from the governor touting this great tax cut.

Last week in Albany, Governor Andrew Cuomo called the Legislature back into Extraordinary Session to deal with the impact on New York of the slow national economy and the political gridlock in Washington.

Working with the legislative leaders he put forth a comprehensive economic plan that includes tax cuts for middle class New Yorkers who earn up to $300,000 a year.  The changes will reduce middle class tax rates to the lowest level since 1953.

The plan brings fairness to our tax code and will provide an economic stimulus to our state.