President Obama’s 2013 budget plan calls for a tax hike on the wealthy at the same time spending more funds on capital projects.  You might say that his tax plan is nothing new, but in fact it is.

You see, Obama administrations budget plan has been in constant flux since he took office. Now it has morphed into a monster.

Initially, Obama called for ending the Bush-era tax cuts, that were extended due to public outcry and government backlash.  For 2013, he has once again called for the end to these tax cuts. Next he added a proposal to limit tax deductions to the rich. But I guess that still wasn’t enough revenue to cut the trade deficit.  So he added a proposal limiting tax deductions and tax breaks to the wealthy.

What’s that, still not enough money!

From out of nowhere, Obama proposes that we raise the dividend tax on taxpayers making over $250,000 to almost 40% (up from the current dividend tax rate of 15%) to generate an addition 200 billion dollars to pay down the trade deficit.

What is happening here?  The continuous changes to Obama’s budget plan makes me ask questions about his leadership and competence: Does he just lack business savvy and common sense? Does he have inept and/or inexperienced economic and tax advisors? Does he have competent and expert advisors but doesn’t listen to them due to arrogance? Is he using his tax plan as a presidential election campaign strategy to win the lower and middle class vote?

Oh, I forgot to mention that Obama defends his tax hike plan with the fact that America must cut the trade deficit.  But in the same breath, his budget plan calls for billions in additional spending.  He is proposing spending federal dollars on community colleges, school construction, home energy improvements and a half TRILLION for highways and commuter rail.

Obama’s multi-trillion budget calls for generating $849 billion by expiring the Bush-era tax cuts from taxpayers making over a quarter of a million dollars annually. Another $584 billion by limiting the value of tax deductions and tax breaks to 28%. It also Includes a tax proposal to generate $206 billion by raising the dividend tax rate on wealthy taxpayers to 39.6% from the current dividend tax rate of 15%.

That’s not all! The proposal calls for getting $61 billion from big banks over the next 10 years (to pay off the bailout and help taxpayers in foreclosure), and another $50 billion by raising the tax rate to 30% for anyone earning over $1 million a year. This tax proposal is called the “Buffet rule”.  Finally, Obama plans to raise $41 billion by eliminating tax breaks for oil, gas and coal companies.

Obama says that taxing the wealthy will give lower and middle class taxpayers a chance to succeed; put all Americans on the same level.  Can he actually believe that? Is he so naive as to think that a few extra bucks to middle class taxpayers will mean the difference in getting rich?

Obama’s 2013 budget plan looks, smells like and tastes like a plan for a Socialist society, not once based on Capitalism.  Capitalism means that anyone with the desire to work hard, regardless of income, have a chance to be successful.  We see success stories every single day.  Getting rich is about sacrifice.  While Socialism makes individuals lazy and uninterested, capitalism spurs growth, initiative, creativity and self improvement.

The biggest reason I hate Obama budget proposal is jobs.  Continued taxation of the wealthy and big business will have a direct negative effect on job creation.  Businesses will need to allocate funds to cover the tax hikes, in lieu of creating jobs.

I commend President Obama for thinking about fixing our schools and highways. Sure they will create jobs but they aren’t private sector jobs. That means that the government is footing the bill; it’s a more expensive unemployment plan. What happens when the construction is finished, will unemployment rise again?

I haven’t even touched on the other elephant in the room, ObamaCare.  While the government “experts” estimate it’s cost at $1 trillion over the next decade, you could probably triple that projection.

Instead of taxing the wealthy and big business, President Obama should look back at successful budget plans implemented by other presidents.  President Ronald Reagan’s budget plan brought the country back from the brink of financial ruin WITH tax cuts and government spending.  A budget plan that calls for cutting taxes will just stymie economic growth and prevent job growth.

What is Obama thinking?

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s proposal to cut  income taxes by ten percent will benefit the rich and not the middle class.

Christie’s plan would benefit taxpayers who pay a significantly higher income tax rate under the state’s current tax system.  But the plan doesn’t help middle-class who are struggling more with the property tax rate.

“We all want to cut taxes, but we want to cut the right taxes in ways that help those most in need and that provides the most benefit to the economy,” said Senator Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen), chairman of the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee, which conducted the first of many expected hearings Monday on the tax cut proposal.

Republicans argue that the Democrats are rebuking the proposal too quickly.

“Democrats cannot have a knee-jerk reaction,” State Sen. Kevin O’Toole (R-Essex) said. “History shows that it will create more income tax revenue, attract jobs and more opportunities.”

O’Toole noted that when former Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, also a Republican, cut income taxes in the 1990s, overall income tax revenue increased as the economy expanded, incomes rose and jobs were created.

Under the proposal, a family earning $50,000 a year would save $80.50, and those making $100,000 would save $275, according to David Rosen, budget and finance officer with OLS. Families who make $1 million would save $7,265, Rosen said.

The Office of Legislative Services also did an analysis of the taxes paid in 2004 and found that NJ taxpayers who made less than $200,000 paid a greater share of their income toward property taxes than income taxes.  For example, a family that makes $80,000 paid about 6 percent of its gross income for property taxes and about 1.6 for income taxes.

Based on the analysis, it seems unlikely that Cristie’s income tax cut proposal will win approval. Expect the Democrats to offer a counter proposal that would emphasize property tax cuts for the middle class.

Yes, its true that the Obama tax cuts will reduce income tax rates and Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). It will also provide tax relief by reducing employee-paid payroll taxes. It’s called the Payroll Tax Holiday.

The Payroll Tax Holiday provides tax relief by reducing the amount of Social Security tax employees pay on wages earned and self-employed individuals pay on all of their self-employment income (up to $106,800) by 2%. Under current law, employees pay a 6.2 percent tax and the self-employed 12.4 percent.

This tax holiday is only temporary however; it provides tax relief for one year. This means that during 2011, employees will pay only 4.2% on wages and self-employed individuals will pay only 10.4% on income in Social Security tax.

So, everyone should be happy, right? Not so fast!

Progressive advocates and many Democrats are concerned that the payroll tax cut will pose a threat to Social Security. Not because they don’t want workers to have extra cash in their pocket, but because they worry the temporary payroll tax rate will become the norm and leave Social Security competing with other programs for funding – and threatening Social Security benefits.

However, several top Republicans maintain they’re not interested in extending the payroll tax cut. Their “gut feeling” is the tax will be allowed to expire as planned.

Although the tax cut is only 2%, it represents a significant tax reduction of 32 percent. For instance, a worker currently earning $100,000 will pay $6,200 in payroll taxes in 2010, and $4,200 in 2011.

Good, tax relief for the working man, right? Nevertheless, consider…

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cut will reduce federal revenues by $112 billion over the next two years. Because the tax package is not offset by changes elsewhere in the budget, the government will have to borrow to fill that hole in the Social Security trust fund.

Not so good, no relief for our national debt.

Sources: democrats.senate.gov, thehill.com, democraticunderground.com