The Coming Fiscal Cliff

Damn Skippy!!

 

No it doesn't actually. Because spending will still far outpace the additional revenues from taxing the "wealthy".

I think most people think of hedge fund billionaires or rich actors when they think about wealthy. But the category of "wealthy" under Obama's plan is someone making $200,000. Someone earning $200,000 will now pay 40% to the federal government and 10% in state taxes (if they live in California for example). That brings them down to $100,000 before they even begin talking about any of their expenses. They have to pay for their house, car, bills, insurances, etc. There are over 3.5 million people who earn more than $200,000 but only 28,000 millionaires.

 

Gess wut?

So do people who only earn 20,000 a year.

Poor babies with their 80k more to figure out where that monies gunna come from.

 

GRRRR RHETORIC RHETORIC RHETORIC lol

The US currently has 5.9 millionaires and over 200,000 who make a million or more a year sir.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/who-are-americas-millionaires
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/04/irs-incomes_n_918458.html

 

I lovey you

Like 28,000 millionaires isn't a substantial amount even if it wasn't faux speek.

 

Nobody is saying those making under $200,000 don't have bills too. My point is that somebody earning $200,000 is much different than Warren Buffett who is worth $50 billion, but Obama lumps them together. Over 50% of small businesses file as individuals so this will hurt them tremendously.

People earning $20,000 won't have their tax bracket changed. But Romney was proposing taking their tax bracket from 15% to 12% so they would have had more money. But oh well...that went out the window.

 

I incorrectly quoted that stat. I was referencing a state statistic and not the US as a whole.

This is not rhetoric. Rhetoric is when Obama tries to divide the nation and blames the problems on everyone else but himself. The CBO has stated multiple times that increasing taxes on the top bracket will not produce the same gains as if we did nothing and left the Bush tax cuts in place.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83602.html

 

You and Ryan are fudging the numbers regarding the $1.6 trillion in new taxes...
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/02/budget-spin/

"Ryan’s House Budget Committee also claimed on its website that the president’s spending plan includes "$1.6 trillion in new taxes on families, small businesses, and job creators." But that’s a 10-year estimate, and a big chunk of the GOP’s total is due to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on upper-income earners. Republicans say allowing the expiration of the cuts for upper-income folks, as scheduled under current law, would bring in $709 billion over 10 years. That’s 44 percent of the $1.6 trillion figure that Ryan and the GOP call "new taxes."
It was Republicans who initially passed the Bush tax cuts with an expiration date, and Republicans and President Obama worked out a deal in December 2010 to extend the cuts for two years. We’ll leave it to readers to judge whether those can properly be called "new" taxes, or just old taxes returning on schedule.The committee released a document that explains several of its statements about the budget. It says that the "key tax provisions" include "Expiration of 2001/2003 Tax Rates Provisions for Higher Incomes" and that the president’s "proposal would increase the top two income tax brackets from 33 percent to 36 percent, and from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, starting in 2013." But that’s in current law — not something new in Obama’s budget.

And once again,

"The president’s budget proposed cuts totaling $33 billion in 2012 discretionary spending (see pages 3 to 5 for a tabulated account of the cuts)."

 

Do you seriously not understand the difference of 80 thousand dollars?
Because even if the 20.000 and under don't get a tax raise...they WON'T get a tax break because the GOP does not want it. What they want as part of the debt deal is further cuts in Social Security and Medicare and safety net programs all the way around.

For a person who makes 20,000 BEFORE taxes....750.00 is still 750.00 in rent.
No matter the tax bracket they fall into.
And all THE people in my state pay over 4% sales tax whether or not they make over 200,000 or under 20,000 a year in income.

So you can talk about about only INCOME tax for tax brackets....but it isn't the only tax paid.

For instance...my mother and my auntie pay roughly the same about in land tax in the subdivision they live in.
My mom pays that on her fixed income of less that 10,000 a year and my auntie pays that on her fixed income from her husbands benefits as a longshore man all his life, which is MUCH more in amount.
So regardless of who pays what and what tax bracket they fall into when they pay taxes, it's harder for my mom to make her 400.00 dollar tax payment every 6 months than it is for my auntie to make her 675.00 every six months.

Those aren't actual figures they pay. They are doctored..but the bottom line is the bottom line.

For a person who has 80 thousand and change is going to find it much easier to pay for the necessities than someone who may only have 7000 in funds after paying ALL taxes an American can pay.

Why you and your ilk do NOT understand that is so beyond me that I think it's just to be ornery.

And if you seriously think that Romney would have cut the lower classes taxes to 12% while NOT MAKING them pay more in other areas, you seriously need to find something else to drink prontro.

This is the very same man who within hours of losing the election canceled all his staffs credit cards leaving some stranded away from home with no way to get back there.

 

The problem with this comment is that Clinton did not have a good economy when he came to be president. The unemployment rate was only a couple of tenths below What Obama got.
Had he followed Clinton, He might be better off. Still got his second term though.

 

He has not said that. He said he wants it to expire on the rich to bring in revenue to pay down the debt. He won't let it expire because of the middle and lower class. He doesn't want them to pay it. What You are suggesting is kicking the can down the road to my generation. Some thing I am against. Pay it off now!

 

The Congressional Budget Office warned again in a report released Thursday that the U.S. economy could get slammed back into recession, with unemployment hitting 9.1 percent by the end of next year, if President Obama and Congress don’t act to avert the fiscal cliff.

But there were other interesting nuggets in the report, as well. In particular, the CBO gave its most detailed look at how the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts would affect the economy. Apparently, it would do little harm, the numbers show. Here’s the key graph:



The above shows how big each policy is as a share of the total impact of the cliff. Some policies are more important on the budget side than the GDP side. Letting the high-income Bush tax cuts lapse, for example, generates $42 billion in 2013 but hardly hurts GDP at all. By contrast, the defense cuts amount to $24 billion but hurts growth by 0.4 percent — quadruple the high-income cuts’ impact.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...me-tax-cuts-expire-would-barely-hurt-economy/

 

The Republicans are beginning to say that they will be blamed anyway for the fiscal cliff, so let's take the bad medicine and go over the cliff to realign the country's fiscal woes. Force the pain to make changes in spending. Force the President's hand they are now saying. Folk's we are going to go over the cliff. Get ready.

 

I did not get a chance to catch up with politics for a minute. Does anyone know if they're going to raise taxes, what the new bracket/precent is going to look like? does anyone know any link?

Thanx

 

Good concise explanation here

http://factcheck.org/2012/11/facing-facts-on-fiscal-cliff/

 

Just like not raising the tax ceiling was going to be the end of civilization as we know it. I hate the 24 hour news cycle.