7 ms·

Senate-Passed Deal Means Higher Tax on 77% of Households

18 points by pebb 14y ago

geogra4 14y ago
Endlessly frustrating that there is such vindictive zeal on the right for pushing the faces of the poor into the dirt.
- pebb 14y ago
  Welcome to America :(
- thisisdallas 14y ago
  Endlessly frustrating that there is such vindictive zeal on the left for pushing the face of the economy into the dirt by refusing to cut spending.
  - Steko 14y ago
    If only the right could control the presidency and both houses of congress we'd finally see spending get under control right?
    - tesmar2 14y ago
      If all the right were Ron Paul drones :)
    - smsm42 14y ago
      We would probably have less rampant abuse, though if Bush times is an indication of anything, the right can definitely be tempted by debt spending also, just in less egregious quantities. But I'd take Bush-level deficits (400bn) over Obama-level (1trln+) any day.
      - Steko 14y ago
        Obama's deficits are caused by the depression bush brought us (decreased tax revenues -> deficit) and the continued unfunded wars, tax cuts and Medicare D program. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonoberholtzer/2012/02/01/obama-vs-bush-breaking-down-the-deficit/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonoberholtzer/2012/02/01/obam...
        smsm42 14y ago
        Of course Bush is to blame for everything. It's not like Obama had control over the budget for 4 years now and did nothing to reign in spending. Here I was naively hoping there's some point where blaming Bush has to stop. Of course it will never stop. >>>> decreased tax revenues -> deficit This is only partially true - IIRC, CBO estimates are about 24% of the Bush-era deficits were caused by tax cuts. The rest is spending increases and tax revenue falling short of previous expectations (i.e. would happen with or without tax cuts, and without tax cuts would probably be more severe as tax cuts were observed to decrease tax avoidance). The difference between 400bn and 1trln can not be explained by tax cuts.
        Steko 14y ago
        "It's not like Obama had control over the budget for 4 years now" Because he's a dictator? "and did nothing to reign in spending. " Slowest increase in spending since Eisenhower? "Here I was naively hoping there's some point where blaming Bush has to stop. Of course it will never stop." Because it will never stop being true that he's responsible for the current fiscal mess? I'm sorry it's an 'inconvenient truth" for you that Bush sucked and got us in this mess. "The rest is spending increases and tax revenue falling short of previous expectations" This is actually what I meant by decreased revenues. My full quote as you can see is: "decreased tax revenues -> deficit) and the continued unfunded wars, tax cuts and Medicare D program." So perhaps that could have been punctuated better but it's not hard to see that I was making the distinction between the tax cuts and the decreased revenues due to recession/depression.
        smsm42 14y ago
  - bippi 14y ago
    What do we cut spending on? There's never any cost-benefit analysis of what we stand to gain by cutting what's left to cut. It's frustrating, because the right wants a nice, happy round number to match their nice happy round-number of a tax rate they also think they should have to match the nice happy round-number of what's too big for a deficit. Meanwhile, there's a society that, by definition of "government" is going to be impacted by what government does or doesn't do---regardless of whatever Randian fantasies one may have.
    - geargrinder 14y ago
      The economy is not a zero-sum game. If we concentrate on getting the economy to grow, most of these problems (the deficit, federal spending and revenue) are easier to solve. But our government (both sides of the aisle) seem to do everything in their power to stall the economy and create uncertainty. For the last 6 months, what business person could make a reliable forecast as to the state of the economy? It certainly has not been an environment where you would want to invest in growing your company or employees, given the number of unknowns (future taxes, economic growth, spending, even health care expenses). Our politicians on both sides seem to be creating a system where they and lobbyists are the only winners. By making short-term decisions, various interest groups are forced to pump more money, more often, into this lobby/politician funnel.
  - TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
    For those reading this outside of the USA, this grandparent and parent poster are why this country suffers from backbiting and lack of any sort of progressive reform, like basic health. This view exists from the very bottom to the very top of the socio-economic ladder. Being a citizen of Indiana, I am embarrassed to have such people at the helm in this country. It is all [pro-democrat, hate republican] or [pro-republican, hate democrat] with no room for even discussion of what works or not. It's all platform based demagoguery.
jere 14y ago
Let's be clear here. The deal means the bush era tax cuts remain for most people (a 3 percentage point reduction for most brackets), while we lose a temporary payroll tax for 2%: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-28/breaking-down-the-cliff-the-bush-tax-cuts.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-28/breaking-down-the-c... If I understand correctly, that means taxes should still be about 1% lower than they were during Clinton. I love how every time a temporary tax cut expires, we call it a "tax hike." I don't see how we can ever fix the debt if no one is willing to pay more taxes and no one is willing to lose benefits.
- Steko 14y ago
  The bottom line is taxes are going up from what people paid two weeks ago. Calling that a hike is not disingenuous to me. It's a bit linkbaity, yes. The payroll tax holiday was a stimulus measure that was never meant to be permanent, yes. We should not compound the long term issues with social security by chronically underfunding it, yes. It's a hike and one I'm perfectly happy to live with. As a commenter at metafilter put it: Well, it's that or more ice floes to put the old folk on, and the ice industry isn't making any production gains either.
  - jere 14y ago
    >The bottom line is taxes are going up from what people paid two weeks ago. Calling that a hike is not disingenuous to me. I'm not so sure. If a company has a huge sale for 1 month and everything is temporarily 50% off, we don't call it a 100% "price hike" the next month. Maybe it's just me, but hike has a very specific connotation that isn't appropriate here.
    - Steko 14y ago
      There's a subtle difference between a companies prices and taxes. If I only bought from one store every week and for 10 years I paid $1 for a loaf of bread and one day the bread cost $2 I would still feel justified in calling that a 100% price hike regardless of whether they had announced that the $1 price was temporary 10 years ago. I'll admit there's some wiggle room to argue price hike or not but I don't feel as if I'm the one jumping through all the hoops to make my case. Full disclosure: I normally pay around $4 for a loaf of bread.
jonhinson 14y ago
The article makes it sound like the bill explicitly raises taxes on 77% of households. This would be false. The bill simply does not extend the temporary tax holiday that was signed into law at the end of 2010. The payroll tax rate goes back to the rate we've had since 1990.
- smsm42 14y ago
  "Your Honor, the prosecutor makes it sound as if I killed that man with a brick. Nothing could be farther from the truth - I just let the brick go, and some time later, completely independently from my actions and completely beyond my control, the brick fell onto the victim's skull and crushed it. I simply failed to extend my temporary holding over the brick, which I never promised to hold forever, by the way, and fully intended to let it go at some point. Clearly, I can accept no blame for this unfortunate incident and am completely innocent". There was a tax reduction in 2010 and there is a tax hike in 2013. How adding word "temporary" to it changes anything?
  - jonhinson 14y ago
    I was simply commenting on the semantics of the article. The wording in the title and body claims this bill is the cause of the temporary tax cut expiring. That would be disingenuous. The cause of this "tax increase" is the fact that the original legislation made it temporary. This bill has nothing to do with "...[raising] taxes on 77.1 percent of U.S. households..."
    - smsm42 14y ago
      Of course the bill is the cause. If they didn't want the tax to raise in 2013, they'd make it permanent in 2010 or extended the current levels in 2012. They did not, which means they fully intended for it to happen exactly like it happened. E.g., have taxes for 77% of households be higher in 2013 then they were in 2012.
outside1234 14y ago
I'll probably be unpopular, but it should be 100% of households. We are in denial that we can have all of the benefits we want and not raise taxes. The choices we have is: A) Cutting Medicare B) Cutting Social Security C) Cutting National Defense D) Raising Taxes Everything else is noise. Choose some combination of A-D. My choice is a 35% cut in C and D to cover the rest.
- jug6ernaut 14y ago
  Medicare and Social Security are broken systems. Until you fix the problem you are only making it worse.
  - rednukleus 14y ago
    How do you propose to "fix" Social Security?
    - anonymoushn 14y ago
      In current law it is already fixed. When it runs out of bonds in the "trust fund," it will automatically decrease its payouts to become revenue neutral.
      - outside1234 14y ago
        i have a bridge to sell you - interested?
        anonymoushn 14y ago
        I'm not sure what I've said to suggest that I'd like to buy a bridge (presumably contained in a dry region of a landlocked state). The discussion is about fixes to a perceived problem, but the problem will fix itself if the legislature does precisely nothing. I expect it is easier to get it to accomplish nothing than to accomplish any particular other solution.
    - deleted 14y ago
codegeek 14y ago
An interesting read related to Medicare issues. It says that on average, "Medicare couple pays $109,000 into the program and gets $343,000 in benefits out" http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/opinion/brooks-another-fiscal-flop.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/opinion/brooks-another-fis...
IgorPartola 14y ago
For reference, here is the 2013 US federal budget [1]. Make sure to sort the spending table by the Total column. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget#Total_revenues_and_spending http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budg...

18 points by pebb 14y ago

geogra4 14y ago

Endlessly frustrating that there is such vindictive zeal on the right for pushing the faces of the poor into the dirt.

pebb 14y ago
Welcome to America :(
thisisdallas 14y ago
Endlessly frustrating that there is such vindictive zeal on the left for pushing the face of the economy into the dirt by refusing to cut spending.
- Steko 14y ago
  If only the right could control the presidency and both houses of congress we'd finally see spending get under control right?
  - tesmar2 14y ago
    If all the right were Ron Paul drones :)
  - smsm42 14y ago
    We would probably have less rampant abuse, though if Bush times is an indication of anything, the right can definitely be tempted by debt spending also, just in less egregious quantities. But I'd take Bush-level deficits (400bn) over Obama-level (1trln+) any day.
    - Steko 14y ago
      Obama's deficits are caused by the depression bush brought us (decreased tax revenues -> deficit) and the continued unfunded wars, tax cuts and Medicare D program. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonoberholtzer/2012/02/01/obama-vs-bush-breaking-down-the-deficit/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonoberholtzer/2012/02/01/obam...
      - smsm42 14y ago
        Of course Bush is to blame for everything. It's not like Obama had control over the budget for 4 years now and did nothing to reign in spending. Here I was naively hoping there's some point where blaming Bush has to stop. Of course it will never stop. >>>> decreased tax revenues -> deficit This is only partially true - IIRC, CBO estimates are about 24% of the Bush-era deficits were caused by tax cuts. The rest is spending increases and tax revenue falling short of previous expectations (i.e. would happen with or without tax cuts, and without tax cuts would probably be more severe as tax cuts were observed to decrease tax avoidance). The difference between 400bn and 1trln can not be explained by tax cuts.
        Steko 14y ago
        "It's not like Obama had control over the budget for 4 years now" Because he's a dictator? "and did nothing to reign in spending. " Slowest increase in spending since Eisenhower? "Here I was naively hoping there's some point where blaming Bush has to stop. Of course it will never stop." Because it will never stop being true that he's responsible for the current fiscal mess? I'm sorry it's an 'inconvenient truth" for you that Bush sucked and got us in this mess. "The rest is spending increases and tax revenue falling short of previous expectations" This is actually what I meant by decreased revenues. My full quote as you can see is: "decreased tax revenues -> deficit) and the continued unfunded wars, tax cuts and Medicare D program." So perhaps that could have been punctuated better but it's not hard to see that I was making the distinction between the tax cuts and the decreased revenues due to recession/depression.
        smsm42 14y ago
- bippi 14y ago
  What do we cut spending on? There's never any cost-benefit analysis of what we stand to gain by cutting what's left to cut. It's frustrating, because the right wants a nice, happy round number to match their nice happy round-number of a tax rate they also think they should have to match the nice happy round-number of what's too big for a deficit. Meanwhile, there's a society that, by definition of "government" is going to be impacted by what government does or doesn't do---regardless of whatever Randian fantasies one may have.
  - geargrinder 14y ago
    The economy is not a zero-sum game. If we concentrate on getting the economy to grow, most of these problems (the deficit, federal spending and revenue) are easier to solve. But our government (both sides of the aisle) seem to do everything in their power to stall the economy and create uncertainty. For the last 6 months, what business person could make a reliable forecast as to the state of the economy? It certainly has not been an environment where you would want to invest in growing your company or employees, given the number of unknowns (future taxes, economic growth, spending, even health care expenses). Our politicians on both sides seem to be creating a system where they and lobbyists are the only winners. By making short-term decisions, various interest groups are forced to pump more money, more often, into this lobby/politician funnel.
- TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
  For those reading this outside of the USA, this grandparent and parent poster are why this country suffers from backbiting and lack of any sort of progressive reform, like basic health. This view exists from the very bottom to the very top of the socio-economic ladder. Being a citizen of Indiana, I am embarrassed to have such people at the helm in this country. It is all [pro-democrat, hate republican] or [pro-republican, hate democrat] with no room for even discussion of what works or not. It's all platform based demagoguery.

jere 14y ago

Let's be clear here. The deal means the bush era tax cuts remain for most people (a 3 percentage point reduction for most brackets), while we lose a temporary payroll tax for 2%: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-28/breaking-down-the-cliff-the-bush-tax-cuts.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-28/breaking-down-the-c... If I understand correctly, that means taxes should still be about 1% lower than they were during Clinton. I love how every time a temporary tax cut expires, we call it a "tax hike." I don't see how we can ever fix the debt if no one is willing to pay more taxes and no one is willing to lose benefits.

Steko 14y ago
The bottom line is taxes are going up from what people paid two weeks ago. Calling that a hike is not disingenuous to me. It's a bit linkbaity, yes. The payroll tax holiday was a stimulus measure that was never meant to be permanent, yes. We should not compound the long term issues with social security by chronically underfunding it, yes. It's a hike and one I'm perfectly happy to live with. As a commenter at metafilter put it: Well, it's that or more ice floes to put the old folk on, and the ice industry isn't making any production gains either.
- jere 14y ago
  >The bottom line is taxes are going up from what people paid two weeks ago. Calling that a hike is not disingenuous to me. I'm not so sure. If a company has a huge sale for 1 month and everything is temporarily 50% off, we don't call it a 100% "price hike" the next month. Maybe it's just me, but hike has a very specific connotation that isn't appropriate here.
  - Steko 14y ago
    There's a subtle difference between a companies prices and taxes. If I only bought from one store every week and for 10 years I paid $1 for a loaf of bread and one day the bread cost $2 I would still feel justified in calling that a 100% price hike regardless of whether they had announced that the $1 price was temporary 10 years ago. I'll admit there's some wiggle room to argue price hike or not but I don't feel as if I'm the one jumping through all the hoops to make my case. Full disclosure: I normally pay around $4 for a loaf of bread.

jonhinson 14y ago

The article makes it sound like the bill explicitly raises taxes on 77% of households. This would be false. The bill simply does not extend the temporary tax holiday that was signed into law at the end of 2010. The payroll tax rate goes back to the rate we've had since 1990.

smsm42 14y ago
"Your Honor, the prosecutor makes it sound as if I killed that man with a brick. Nothing could be farther from the truth - I just let the brick go, and some time later, completely independently from my actions and completely beyond my control, the brick fell onto the victim's skull and crushed it. I simply failed to extend my temporary holding over the brick, which I never promised to hold forever, by the way, and fully intended to let it go at some point. Clearly, I can accept no blame for this unfortunate incident and am completely innocent". There was a tax reduction in 2010 and there is a tax hike in 2013. How adding word "temporary" to it changes anything?
- jonhinson 14y ago
  I was simply commenting on the semantics of the article. The wording in the title and body claims this bill is the cause of the temporary tax cut expiring. That would be disingenuous. The cause of this "tax increase" is the fact that the original legislation made it temporary. This bill has nothing to do with "...[raising] taxes on 77.1 percent of U.S. households..."
  - smsm42 14y ago
    Of course the bill is the cause. If they didn't want the tax to raise in 2013, they'd make it permanent in 2010 or extended the current levels in 2012. They did not, which means they fully intended for it to happen exactly like it happened. E.g., have taxes for 77% of households be higher in 2013 then they were in 2012.

outside1234 14y ago

I'll probably be unpopular, but it should be 100% of households. We are in denial that we can have all of the benefits we want and not raise taxes. The choices we have is: A) Cutting Medicare B) Cutting Social Security C) Cutting National Defense D) Raising Taxes Everything else is noise. Choose some combination of A-D. My choice is a 35% cut in C and D to cover the rest.

jug6ernaut 14y ago
Medicare and Social Security are broken systems. Until you fix the problem you are only making it worse.
- rednukleus 14y ago
  How do you propose to "fix" Social Security?
  - anonymoushn 14y ago
    In current law it is already fixed. When it runs out of bonds in the "trust fund," it will automatically decrease its payouts to become revenue neutral.
    - outside1234 14y ago
      i have a bridge to sell you - interested?
      - anonymoushn 14y ago
        I'm not sure what I've said to suggest that I'd like to buy a bridge (presumably contained in a dry region of a landlocked state). The discussion is about fixes to a perceived problem, but the problem will fix itself if the legislature does precisely nothing. I expect it is easier to get it to accomplish nothing than to accomplish any particular other solution.
  - deleted 14y ago

codegeek 14y ago

An interesting read related to Medicare issues. It says that on average, "Medicare couple pays $109,000 into the program and gets $343,000 in benefits out" http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/opinion/brooks-another-fiscal-flop.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/opinion/brooks-another-fis...

IgorPartola 14y ago

For reference, here is the 2013 US federal budget [1]. Make sure to sort the spending table by the Total column. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget#Total_revenues_and_spending http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budg...