There is furor in the US over the US Bill on Taxes which was passed yesterday with a lot of maneuvering by Obama Administration.
There has been a hue and cry over the Bill stating that it will increase inflation for it aims at increasing Revenue without a cut in spending.
Those who object to this Bill really mean spending on Social Welfare and expenses accruing on account of relief to the middle Income and Lower Income Group.
As expected these Groups welcome the Bill.
No body suggests that there should be a cut in Military spending or conspicuous consumption.
They are enraged that The Corporate are not given more, forgetting the doles for Corporate misadventures in the recent past.
If the US Economy is to improve,it is only effecting a curb on military spending and Conspicuous consumption.
These are the details of The US Bill.
—Income tax rates: Extends decade-old tax cuts on incomes up to $400,000 for individuals, $450,000 for couples. Earnings above those amounts would be taxed at a rate of 39.6 percent, up from the current 35 percent. Extends Clinton-era caps on itemized deductions and the phase-out of the personal exemption for individuals making more than $250,000 and couples earning more than $300,000.
—Estate tax: Estates would be taxed at a top rate of 40 percent, with the first $5 million in value exempted for individual estates and $10 million for family estates. In 2012, such estates were subject to a top rate of 35 percent.
—Capital gains, dividends: Taxes on capital gains and dividend income exceeding $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for families would increase from 15 percent to 20 percent.
—Alternative minimum tax: Permanently addresses the alternative minimum tax and indexes it for inflation to prevent nearly 30 million middle- and upper-middle income taxpayers from being hit with higher tax bills averaging almost $3,000. The tax was originally designed to ensure that the wealthy did not avoid owing taxes by using loopholes.
—Other tax changes: Extends for five years Obama-sought expansions of the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit, and an up-to-$2,500 tax credit for college tuition. Also extends for one year accelerated “bonus” depreciation of business investments in new property and equipment, a tax credit for research and development costs and a tax credit for renewable energy such as wind-generated electricity.
—Unemployment benefits: Extends jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed for one year.
—Cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors: Blocks a 27 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors for one year. The cut is the product of an obsolete 1997 budget formula.
—Social Security payroll tax cut: Allows a 2-percentage-point cut in the payroll tax first enacted two years ago to lapse, which restores the payroll tax to 6.2 percent.
—Across-the-board cuts: Delays for two months $109 billion worth of across-the-board spending cuts set to start striking the Pentagon and domestic agencies this week. Cost of $24 billion is divided between spending cuts and new revenues from rule changes on converting traditional individual retirement accounts into Roth IRAs.
That’s not what the Pledge says. Signers pledge to the taxpayers of their Congressional district (or state in the case of senators) and to the American people that they won’t support a net income tax increase. The Pledge is made in writing to voters before a politician is elected so that these voters can hold the politician accountable on the tax issue. Pledge enforcement is done by voters, not by Grover Norquist or Americans for Tax Reform.
On Income Tax Increase.
Become so hysterical that they have a petition signed.
Fact: That’s not what the Pledge says. Signers pledge to the taxpayers of their Congressional district (or state in the case of senators) and to the American people that they won’t support a net income tax increase. The Pledge is made in writing to voters before a politician is elected so that these voters can hold the politician accountable on the tax issue. Pledge enforcement is done by voters, not by Grover Norquist or Americans for Tax Reform.
Myth: The Taxpayer Protection Pledge “Ships Jobs Overseas.”
Fact: This baseless assertion had its origins in the bowels of the DCCC. It makes no logical sense. It has been debunked by several large fact checking services, including FactCheck.org, Politifact, and the Associated Press. FactCheck.org called the charge, “blatantly false.” They further noted that, “[The Pledge] leaves ample room for elimination of any number of special tax breaks so long as the overall level of taxation is not increased. To claim that this ‘protects’ any particular provision of the tax code is simply untrue.” The AP said that, “the pledge… makes no promise to protect [particular tax preferences or taxpayers]. It says nothing about jobs. It’s a pledge to oppose tax increases.” As you will see below, the Pledge does not protect any particular tax preference.
Iowa Republican Party Chairman A.J. Spiker on Tuesday urged the two Iowa Republicans in the House, U.S. Reps. Steve King and Tom Latham, to vote no on the “ill-advised bill.”
“The bill passed by the Senate (Tuesday) morning raises taxes without any meaningful spending cuts. The so-called fiscal cliff deal will only hurt middle class families, continue out-of-control government spending and fails to address the $16.5 trillion federal deficit,” Spiker said in a release.
Another U.S. representative from Iowa, Bruce Braley, a Democrat, said he would vote for the measure. The positions of U.S. Reps. Leonard Boswell and Dave Loebsack, the other two Democratic representatives from Iowa, were not known.
U.S. Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., was among the 89 affirmative votes early Tuesday. He said the package is imperfect, but protects the middle class from tax increases.
“It will keep tax rates the same for the vast majority of Americans,” Johnson said in a release.
“It was also important for me that the legislation asks millionaires and billionaires to pay the same rates they did during the Clinton Administration. We can’t get our fiscal house in order on the backs of the elderly and students. The richest among us will now pay a little more to improve our fiscal situation.”
It is not only these tests that are found to be a sham.As far as my knowledge goes, no body seems to have been cured of cancer.only the postponement of death, that too after painful repurcussions.Recurring cancer is called euphemistically ‘Remission’, meaning it has resurfaced.
Why not say in English that we do not have a cure?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Since AlterNet edited this piece, a new study was released by The Journal of the American Medical Association that also raises concerns about the efficacy of screenings to definitively detect breast cancer. The study, taken together with those cited here in Naomi Freundlich’s analysis, prompted a stunning shift in thinking at the American Cancer Society. According to the New York Times, “The American Cancer Society, which has long been a staunch defender of most cancer screening, is now saying that the benefits of detecting many cancers, especially breast and prostate, have been overstated.”
New regulatory body is not necessary for Health care
Intention is good, but it is doubtful whether the insured will really reap the benefits is a moot question.In India, there is a system where employers go in for insurance schemes for their employees with private companies.The process looks very simple, but the companies wiggle out of commitment quoting some clause or other.If service is bad in a private sector, I am afraid, it shall be worse in a cooperative system.Cooperative systems are found to be fount of corruption in India.
There is also no guarantee that the Insurance giants shall not gain entry through back door,which is exactly the insurance companies
<a href="http://<a href="http://“>s wanted.“>