A phone call to your Senator and/or Representative would be more effective at this short notice. Just call up and say you are against repealing Section 1256 of the tax code which would raise taxes for traders. Keep it simple - do it now.
Yes, S. 1054 as approved by the Senate on the 15th does indeed strike out paragraph 3 of section 1256 of the US Tax Code. That paragraph is the one that says 60% long term cap tax rate, 40% short term. That revision is not in the House version (HR 2 I think). From what I understand about congress, both versions of this thing go to a joint committee to hammer out the differences so a final version can be approved and sent to Bush for a signature.
So what is the default? We are assuming that 1256 contracts would fall into normal cap gains calculations - is that really the case?
My max tax rate is 27.5%. It would rise to 38.6%. An increase of about 40%. What gets me is that not one Senator even questioned it. This code has been in place for 20 years. We have businesses built around it. They are either short sighted or asleep in the senate. I though the whole purpose of the bill was to reduce income tax rates, to encourage investments and to improve our financial markets. Well, making them less efficient and driving away liquidity is not a good start!
I emailed one Senator (Dole) - no sense emailing freakin Edwards who'd probably want to triple the cap gains tax. He's probably too busy flying around and running for President to do anything like the Senate job he just got. Anyways, just got off the phone with one of my Rep's aides. It's very painless to call them up. I told her my name & address, that I was concerned about the senate version of the budget bill S.1054 (and I was aware that my rep is in the House), specifically S.A. 680 and very specifically the part about the striking of paragraph 3 of section 1256. I also told her that raises my taxes considerably. There was no hold times, and the whole thing took about 5 minutes.
I'm typing out a letter to my congressmen. Can anyone suggest an extremely compelling reason for a congressman to oppose this? You can email your congressmen from this site: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
I barely know how to spell 1040, but yeah, that's my assumption. Section 1256 provides special treatment, including reduced taxes. If that reduced taxes thing is taken out, seems to me that the "normal" tax code would then apply.
Dear Senator Blowhard: I want to commend you for voting to eliminate the one provision in the entire tax code that I could take advantage of, namely the special tax treatment for so-called Sec. 1256 contracts. Your vote will cost me approximately $******* in extra taxes each and every year, but rest assured that I will not hold that against a public servant like yourself who thinks nothing of voting $20 billion handouts to worthy groups like rich corporate farmers. I know we all have to sacrifice in these difficult times, and I for one am happy to have my small business destroyed so that the economic acumen of leaders like Gov. Davis of California can be properly rewarded by federal revenue sharing. I thought that perhaps I could go into the highway construction business but I saw that the Transportation Department bill continues the practice of reserving construction contracts for minority and female owned businesses. In essence, a white male who has paid taxes his entire life cannot get a federal highway contract, but at least recent immigrants from countries that opposed the war in Iraq can go straight to the front of the line. Please tell President Bush how much I admire his outreach efforts, as do the 3% of minorities who will loyally turn out and vote for him. In closing, I want to encourage you and the other courageous Senators who have held the line on this tax cut for the rich. I personally am appalled by the greed of people who think that paying 95% of the federal budget and providing most of the jobs in this country should give them some special call for tax relief. I know saving $20 billion is crucial when federal revenues will only amount to $30 or 40 trillion over the 10 year budget horizon.
I'm drafting a letter TONIGHT! I second the request, please post YOUR compelling arguments here for inclusion in our individual responses to this crisis. Collective thought is needed for persuasive rebuttals to this BS! :eek:
I wouldn't worry about a compelling reason. There isn't one. Danny Rostenkowski got this enacted whne he was head of Ways and Means and before he was sent to jail. It's a piece of chicago patronage, but dammit it's ours and we're not going to give it up without a fight. Just tell the fucking bastard that you have built your business in reliance on this provision, it is crucial to your ability to support your family, that you have always been a loyal supporter of the Dem/Rep party(pick whichever one he's in) and him personally, but if he votes for this or it makes it into the final bill you will hold him personally responsible and make it your life's work to see him defeated.