Fact checking political ad regarding taxes

It wasn't the ACA that made these changes. It was the end of the Bush tax cuts. The tax cuts were renewed for 2 years in 2010, and made permanent in 2012 for singles making less than $400K and couples less than $450K. So the actual date that taxes went up was January 1, 2013, not 2014.

If there was any relationship with the ACA, it's probably that repealing it was part of the debate over whether to renew the cuts.

It's crapola other than the medicare tax going from 1.45% to 2.35% for high earners starting 1/1/13 not 1/1/14. The following link has a list with explanation of the various tax provisions (this includes credits as well) in the ACA:

On Friday, October 31, 2014 6:50:04 AM UTC-7, Jake29 wrote: ...

...

Well, one clue that there are income levels associated with this is that a lot of the items have the word "top" in them. Based on what I could find easily, here are the income-based effects. The numbers are for single/married-joint.

Earned income > $200k/$250k

Income > $400k/$450k

Not sure what this is counting.

This seems to have gone only from 15% to 23.8% Full rate applies to income > $400k/$450k.

I believe the qualified dividends tax only went from 15% to 23.8%. Full rate applies to income > $400k/$450k.

Non-qualified would have gone possibly from 35% to 42.8%

The estate tax was only 0% in 2010. That went back to the previous 35% in 2011 and increased to 40%. Tax only applies to estates worth more than $5.34 million.

As far as I can tell, the only provisions relating to the Affordable Care Act are the medicare surtax of 0.9% on earned income > $200k/$250k and a separate 3.8% tax on investment income if gross income > $200k/$250k (but only applies to the net investment income).

Thanks Barry, Alan, and taruss for your replies -- all excellent information that answers what I was wondering.

I did later discover that I inadvertently thought that the ad was allegedly posted by a known local CPA firm, but it was actually a local CFP (Certified Financial Planner) firm that allegedly distributed the politically motivated message. However, the fact that a CFP would post misleading and incomplete information of this type would still be an issue for me.

I keep saying that it was "allegedly" posted by that firm because I have no way of knowing if whoever created and posted that crapola just placed a known CFP firm's name on it to make it look legitimate and appear as if it was coming from a reliable source.

Jake29 wrote: : In news:m303ms$lpu$ snipped-for-privacy@speranza.aioe.org, : Jake29 typed: : > I just saw an obviously politically motivated ad about tax changes : > that went into effect on January 1, 2014. It was allegedly : > distributed by a known CPA firm in my area. . . . , : > : > . . . , I am curious about each of the 6 statements, and I am wondering : > if each one is correct and/or if there is more to each one such as : > that it only applies above a certain income level etc. . . . ,

: Thanks Barry, Alan, and taruss for your replies -- all excellent information : that answers what I was wondering.

: I did later discover that I inadvertently thought that the ad was allegedly : posted by a known local CPA firm, but it was actually a local CFP (Certified : Financial Planner) firm that allegedly distributed the politically motivated : message. However, the fact that a CFP would post misleading and incomplete : information of this type would still be an issue for me.

: I keep saying that it was "allegedly" posted by that firm because I have no : way of knowing if whoever created and posted that crapola just placed a : known CFP firm's name on it to make it look legitimate and appear as if it : was coming from a reliable source. One would assume that the CFP firm had agreed to have its name used, or else whoever put up the ad would likely face a large law suit.

Wendy

When I wrote that it was an obviously politically motivated ad, I probably should have clarified that it was distributed via email in one of those forwarded and re-forwarded emails. I don't know who created the original email, and maybe along the way someone just hijacked a CFP firm's logo and name from their website and pasted it in the email.

I also just tried doing a Google search of one phrase that was in the email (with the quotation marks) -- "If you think that it is important that everyone in the U.S. should know this, pass it on. If not, then delete t." -- and that produced a lot of hits/results.

One of the results is a Snopes link:

Looks like this is a hoax-type false-information email that has been going around a lot.

But, I am curious about each of the 6 statements, and I am wondering if each one is correct and/or if there is more to each one such as that it only applies above a certain income level etc.

Again, I am only interested in knowing more about the accuracy and/or completeness of each of the 6 statements -- not whether the passage of the Affordable Care Act is/was a good idea or not, etc.

Thanks.

Here is what the political ad stated that was allegedly published by a known CPA firm in my area:

"Here is what happened on January 1, 2014:

1) Top Medicare tax went from 1.45% to 2.35% 2) Top Income tax bracket went from 35% to 39.6% 3) Top Income payroll tax went from 37.4% to 52.2% 4) Capital Gains tax went from 15% to 28% 5) Dividends tax went from 15% to 39.6% 6) Estate tax went from 0% to 55%

These taxes were all passed under the Affordable Care Act." =============All of those statements are false.

1) The top rate is 2.90% for portfolio income over $200k/$250k-married. 2) Not PPACA but Bush tax cut expiration. 3) WTF? No idea where this came from. 4) The top rate is 20% for non-collectables. Collectables always were 28%. Does not count #1 above, which may apply. 5) Proposed but never happened. 6) The top rate is 45%.