Fiscal Cliff?

[89Hen]

Raising the floor for tax increases...

[Chizzang]

Obama and the Donks are hell bent on raising taxes, but the IRS is settling outstanding tax liabilities for pennies on the dollar....some things just don't make sense.

We deserve what happens to us.

This ^

[houndawg]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/pel ... t-proposal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Pelosi backed Boehner's "plan B". That's big. That's important.

Obviously, Obama didn't agree and rejected it. WTF Obama!?!?!? THe House is working with you?

The White House rejected a House GOP proposal Tuesday to extend the Bush tax cuts for those making up to $1 million, saying it doesn't go far enough and wouldn't pass the Senate anyway

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100323798" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Pres is doing what he is supposed to do: negotiate.

Doing a better job of it than Boehner, too; he knows time is on his side.

[Wedgebuster]

I do not see the Democrats in Congress passing a tax increase for the poor and middle class if favor of saving a large tax cut for those making a quarter million to a million dollars a year.

Looks like that is what President Obushma is pushing, smiling Nancy says she can get the votes, I think she might be wrong.

[danefan]

WSJ had a good analysis chart today comparing the most recent plans. They are very close to getting a deal done, IMO.

Revenue:
Obama - $1.2T new revenue with tax rate raises on over $400k, cap gains and div rates to 20% for over $250k; estate tax to 45% with $3.5m exemption; limited top value of some deductions; permanent AMT fix
Boehner - $1T new revenue; tax rate raises on over $1m; limit some tax deductions
Cliff Result - $4.6T new revenue; tax rates rise on everyone; AMT relief ends; cap gains and div go to 20% and 39.6% respectively; estate tax to 55% with $1m exemption.

Spending Cuts
Obama - Health care - $400b; Non-mandatory health care - $200b; Discretionary $200b (incl. $100b from defense); Chained CPI savings $130b
Boehner - Health care - $600b; Non-mandatory health care - $300b; Discretionary $300b (no defense cuts); Chained CPI savings $200b
Cliff Result - $50b from defense; $50b from discretionary spending next year.

Debt Ceiling
Obama - 2 year extension
Boehner - 1 year extension
Cliff Result - we will probably hit the celing in early January

[UNI88]

Why don't these clowns just go back to Simpson Bowles? It's pretty obvious they're miles apart and the only way they have a chance of coming to an agreement in time is by going back to middle ground as the starting point.

Republicans are going to have to give on tax increases for the wealthy. The question is - where do you draw the line for wealthy? $250K was too low but $400K or $500K is a more reasonable compromise. Plus it's just window dressing, it's not going to make a dent in the fiscal problems we're facing.

Democrats are going to have to give on entitlement reform. I get that you don't want to change the rules in the middle of the game for those that are already retired or close to it but the government can't keep printing more money to pay for more things forever. So you're going to have to raise the age, lower cost of living adjustments, etc. so that there will be social security, medicare, etc. for future retirees.

[danefan]

Why don't these clowns just go back to Simpson Bowles? It's pretty obvious they're miles apart and the only way they have a chance of coming to an agreement in time is by going back to middle ground as the starting point.

Republicans are going to have to give on tax increases for the wealthy. The question is - where do you draw the line for wealthy? $250K was too low but $400K or $500K is a more reasonable compromise. Plus it's just window dressing, it's not going to make a dent in the fiscal problems we're facing.

Democrats are going to have to give on entitlement reform. I get that you don't want to change the rules in the middle of the game for those that are already retired or close to it but the government can't keep printing more money to pay for more things forever. So you're going to have to raise the age, lower cost of living adjustments, etc. so that there will be social security, medicare, etc. for future retirees.

They're not miles apart. Look at the details of the two plans in my post above. I was adding it when you were typing.

[bluehenbillk]

Republicans are going to have to give on tax increases for the wealthy. The question is - where do you draw the line for wealthy? $250K was too low but $400K or $500K is a more reasonable compromise. Plus it's just window dressing, it's not going to make a dent in the fiscal problems we're facing.

Democrats are going to have to give on entitlement reform. I get that you don't want to change the rules in the middle of the game for those that are already retired or close to it but the government can't keep printing more money to pay for more things forever. So you're going to have to raise the age, lower cost of living adjustments, etc. so that there will be social security, medicare, etc. for future retirees.

Yep agree on all that, but again, that's only a start. The federal government needs to stop the thinking that increasing our spending by 6%-7% every year is normal business practice. What they should do is to goto every federal government agency & say we're going to cut across the board 6%-7% as a minimum. The fact that we will debate next the debt ceiling and yet we don't have a balanced budget initiative or amendment is unfathomable. I don't want to have the end of my working years in America look economically like what most of Europe is doing now - but that is where both parties are pointing us towards....

[HI54UNI]

WSJ had a good analysis chart today comparing the most recent plans. They are very close to getting a deal done, IMO.

Revenue:
Obama - $1.2T new revenue with tax rate raises on over $400k, cap gains and div rates to 20% for over $250k; estate tax to 45% with $3.5m exemption; limited top value of some deductions; permanent AMT fix
Boehner - $1T new revenue; tax rate raises on over $1m; limit some tax deductions
Cliff Result - $4.6T new revenue; tax rates rise on everyone; AMT relief ends; cap gains and div go to 20% and 39.6% respectively; estate tax to 55% with $1m exemption.

Spending Cuts
Obama - Health care - $400b; Non-mandatory health care - $200b; Discretionary $200b (incl. $100b from defense); Chained CPI savings $130b
Boehner - Health care - $600b; Non-mandatory health care - $300b; Discretionary $300b (no defense cuts); Chained CPI savings $200b
Cliff Result - $50b from defense; $50b from discretionary spending next year.

Debt Ceiling
Obama - 2 year extension
Boehner - 1 year extension
Cliff Result - we will probably hit the celing in early January

And all these cuts and revenue increases are over 10 years while our annual deficit is $1.5 trillion. It's like a gallon of water out of the ocean.

[danefan]

WSJ had a good analysis chart today comparing the most recent plans. They are very close to getting a deal done, IMO.

Revenue:
Obama - $1.2T new revenue with tax rate raises on over $400k, cap gains and div rates to 20% for over $250k; estate tax to 45% with $3.5m exemption; limited top value of some deductions; permanent AMT fix
Boehner - $1T new revenue; tax rate raises on over $1m; limit some tax deductions
Cliff Result - $4.6T new revenue; tax rates rise on everyone; AMT relief ends; cap gains and div go to 20% and 39.6% respectively; estate tax to 55% with $1m exemption.

Spending Cuts
Obama - Health care - $400b; Non-mandatory health care - $200b; Discretionary $200b (incl. $100b from defense); Chained CPI savings $130b
Boehner - Health care - $600b; Non-mandatory health care - $300b; Discretionary $300b (no defense cuts); Chained CPI savings $200b
Cliff Result - $50b from defense; $50b from discretionary spending next year.

Debt Ceiling
Obama - 2 year extension
Boehner - 1 year extension
Cliff Result - we will probably hit the celing in early January

And all these cuts and revenue increases are over 10 years while our annual deficit is $1.5 trillion. It's like a gallon of water out of the ocean.

Agreed, but its a start.

[GannonFan]

And all these cuts and revenue increases are over 10 years while our annual deficit is $1.5 trillion. It's like a gallon of water out of the ocean.

Agreed, but its a start.

And that is what is so disconcerting - even when we are talking about a molehill compared to the massive mountain of a problem we have in front of us, we still have problems coming up with solutions, after months of thinking about it. The next 10 years just look more and more sobering when we begin to see the massive fiscal problems ahead and the lack of interest from the political class in Washington to do anything about it.

[danefan]

Agreed, but its a start.

And that is what is so disconcerting - even when we are talking about a molehill compared to the massive mountain of a problem we have in front of us, we still have problems coming up with solutions, after months of thinking about it. The next 10 years just look more and more sobering when we begin to see the massive fiscal problems ahead and the lack of interest from the political class in Washington to do anything about it.

Also agreed.

Just wait until these clowns start trying to tackle Corporate Tax reform. We're going to end up with a more complicated system than we have now.

At least it will keep me employed for a long time.

[UNI88]

And all these cuts and revenue increases are over 10 years while our annual deficit is $1.5 trillion. It's like a gallon of water out of the ocean.

Agreed, but its a start.

Dane, from a rational perspective you're right that they're close but I don't know if Boehner can rein in the tea party element in the House or if Obama can exert enough influence over Reid and Pelosi to get enough Democrat support to pass something. Are they close but so far away?

The other concern I have is even if they do get it done, do they realize that it's just a start? Or will they pull a fast one and start slapping each other on the backs and pretending that they really finished the job rather than facing even tougher choices to really get to the heart of the matter?

[SDHornet]

The more this thing trudges one, the more and more I hope we go over the "cliff" . Honestly ask yourselves if a deal will truly get this country back on track financially...and the answer is an easy and obvious "no". Maybe, just maybe something so "tragic" as this "fiscal cliff" will get people/politicians focused on what really matters, and this is fiscal responsibility at every level.

[danefan]

The more this thing trudges one, the more and more I hope we go over the "cliff" . Honestly ask yourselves if a deal will truly get this country back on track financially...and the answer is an easy and obvious "no". Maybe, just maybe something so "tragic" as this "fiscal cliff" will get people/politicians focused on what really matters, and this is fiscal responsibility at every level.

We got downgraded and no one flinched.

[BDKJMU]

I do not see the Democrats in Congress passing a tax increase for the poor and middle class if favor of saving a large tax cut for those making a quarter million to a million dollars a year.

Looks like that is what President Obushma is pushing, smiling Nancy says she can get the votes, I think she might be wrong.

The poor don't pay income tax. We're only talking about 53% here.

No one is talking about a tax cut for people making 250k-1 mil. Keeping tax rates the same doesN't equal a tax cut. The choice is either keeping taxes the same or a huge tax increase.

[BDKJMU]

WSJ had a good analysis chart today comparing the most recent plans. They are very close to getting a deal done, IMO.

Revenue:
Obama - $1.2T new revenue with tax rate raises on over $400k, cap gains and div rates to 20% for over $250k; estate tax to 45% with $3.5m exemption; limited top value of some deductions; permanent AMT fix
Boehner - $1T new revenue; tax rate raises on over $1m; limit some tax deductions
Cliff Result - $4.6T new revenue; tax rates rise on everyone; AMT relief ends; cap gains and div go to 20% and 39.6% respectively; estate tax to 55% with $1m exemption.

Spending Cuts
Obama - Health care - $400b; Non-mandatory health care - $200b; Discretionary $200b (incl. $100b from defense); Chained CPI savings $130b
Boehner - Health care - $600b; Non-mandatory health care - $300b; Discretionary $300b (no defense cuts); Chained CPI savings $200b
Cliff Result - $50b from defense; $50b from discretionary spending next year.

Debt Ceiling
Obama - 2 year extension
Boehner - 1 year extension
Cliff Result - we will probably hit the celing in early January

Well looks like could end up with so called spending cuts to = tax increases. Ok.

But a 1 yr increase in the debt limit = 1 trillion+. Republicans have pledged match an increase in the debt limit with an equal amount of spending cuts. Where are the spending cuts to = the debt limit increase? If there aren't any, then he'll no the Republicans shouldn't agree to it.

[danefan]

I do not see the Democrats in Congress passing a tax increase for the poor and middle class if favor of saving a large tax cut for those making a quarter million to a million dollars a year.

Looks like that is what President Obushma is pushing, smiling Nancy says she can get the votes, I think she might be wrong.

The poor don't pay income tax. We're only talking about 53% here.

No one is talking about a tax cut for people making 250k-1 mil. Keeping tax rates the same doesN't equal a tax cut. The choice is either keeping taxes the same or a huge tax increase.

Extending the Bush tax cuts does equal a tax cut. By operation of current law those cuts will expire. The 10-year deficit is determined as if those cuts expire. If you do nothing but extend those cuts there would be a deficit cost.

And neither plan is really balanced. Boehner's tax plan is estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to cost $4.1 trillion over the next 10 years.

[DSUrocks07]

The poor don't pay income tax. We're only talking about 53% here.

No one is talking about a tax cut for people making 250k-1 mil. Keeping tax rates the same doesN't equal a tax cut. The choice is either keeping taxes the same or a huge tax increase.

Extending the Bush tax cuts does equal a tax cut. By operation of current law those cuts will expire. The 10-year deficit is determined as if those cuts expire. If you do nothing but extend those cuts there would be a deficit cost.

And neither plan is really balanced. Boehner's tax plan is estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to cost $4.1 trillion over the next 10 years.

So does the opposite hold true as well then? And all the talk from the left about how the GOP wants to raise taxes on the middle class is just hot air?

[kalm]

Extending the Bush tax cuts does equal a tax cut. By operation of current law those cuts will expire. The 10-year deficit is determined as if those cuts expire. If you do nothing but extend those cuts there would be a deficit cost.

And neither plan is really balanced. Boehner's tax plan is estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to cost $4.1 trillion over the next 10 years.

So does the opposite hold true as well then? And all the talk from the left about how the GOP wants to raise taxes on the middle class is just hot air?

Yes...semantics

[Wedgebuster]

I do not see the Democrats in Congress passing a tax increase for the poor and middle class if favor of saving a large tax cut for those making a quarter million to a million dollars a year.

Looks like that is what President Obushma is pushing, smiling Nancy says she can get the votes, I think she might be wrong.

The poor don't pay income tax. We're only talking about 53% here.

No one is talking about a tax cut for people making 250k-1 mil. Keeping tax rates the same doesN't equal a tax cut. The choice is either keeping taxes the same or a huge tax increase.

Wrong, again.

Trimming SS benies amounts to a tax increase on the poor and middle class, no matter how you smoke it.

This shit is going to be tough to sell, we are going over the cliff boys.

[UNI88]

The poor don't pay income tax. We're only talking about 53% here.

No one is talking about a tax cut for people making 250k-1 mil. Keeping tax rates the same doesN't equal a tax cut. The choice is either keeping taxes the same or a huge tax increase.

Wrong, again.

Trimming SS benies amounts to a tax increase on the poor and middle class, no matter how you smoke it.

This **** is going to be tough to sell, we are going over the cliff boys.

We have to trim SS bennies. We're paying out more than we're taking in and as it's currently set up it's a fiscally unsustainable ponzi scheme. I don't think we should change the bennies on those currently retired or close to retirement but we need to make changes so that there will be money in the account for the future.

When you have a choice between some financial sacrifice now compared to being bankrupt in the future, you should choose sacrifice. Everyone, including the government, needs to tighten their belts and live within their means (or at least a reasonable approximation of their means for the government).

And going over the cliff is probably better for the long-term financial health of the country than the sort of half-assed solution that both parties are likely able to come to before January 1.

[Ibanez]

Wrong, again.

Trimming SS benies amounts to a tax increase on the poor and middle class, no matter how you smoke it.

This **** is going to be tough to sell, we are going over the cliff boys.

We have to trim SS bennies. We're paying out more than we're taking in and as it's currently set up it's a fiscally unsustainable ponzi scheme. I don't think we should change the bennies on those currently retired or close to retirement but we need to make changes so that there will be money in the account for the future.

When you have a choice between some financial sacrifice now compared to being bankrupt in the future, you should choose sacrifice. Everyone, including the government, needs to tighten their belts and live within their means (or at least a reasonable approximation of their means for the government).

How about SS reform. Say, when a person retires, they submit their planned retirement income (401(k), investments,etc...) a process similar to getting a loan but without the credit score. Submit that info and then we can gauge how much they should receive. This will help the wealthy and people that will be doing fine from getting the max. It sucks but wealthy people don't need S.S.

Or privatize it. I dunno, i'm just spit balling here.

[danefan]

We have to trim SS bennies. We're paying out more than we're taking in and as it's currently set up it's a fiscally unsustainable ponzi scheme. I don't think we should change the bennies on those currently retired or close to retirement but we need to make changes so that there will be money in the account for the future.

When you have a choice between some financial sacrifice now compared to being bankrupt in the future, you should choose sacrifice. Everyone, including the government, needs to tighten their belts and live within their means (or at least a reasonable approximation of their means for the government).

How about SS reform. Say, when a person retires, they submit their planned retirement income (401(k), investments,etc...) a process similar to getting a loan but without the credit score. Submit that info and then we can gauge how much they should receive. This will help the wealthy and people that will be doing fine from getting the max. It sucks but wealthy people don't need S.S.

Or privatize it. I dunno, i'm just spit balling here.

The problem with SS, IMO is the forced contributions. You either have to force contributions and guarantee payouts or you need to allow for optional contributions.

Its true bait and switch if you force people to pay in and you arbitrarily change what they are paid out.

[UNI88]

How about SS reform. Say, when a person retires, they submit their planned retirement income (401(k), investments,etc...) a process similar to getting a loan but without the credit score. Submit that info and then we can gauge how much they should receive. This will help the wealthy and people that will be doing fine from getting the max. It sucks but wealthy people don't need S.S.

Or privatize it. I dunno, i'm just spit balling here.

The problem with SS, IMO is the forced contributions. You either have to force contributions and guarantee payouts or you need to allow for optional contributions.

Its true bait and switch if you force people to pay in and you arbitrarily change what they are paid out.

I'm with Dane on this one. Why should the wealthy have to contribute to SS if they have no hope of ever receiving any benefits?

And more importantly, you could also be punishing the thrifty. If I work hard and save for retirement, including paying into SS, so that I have a nice nest egg when I retire, why I should I potentially get less than someone who made just as much money as me but spent it rather than saving and contributing to their 401(k)?