| Topic: The fiscal "cliff", unemployment benefits,, estate taxes, tax cuts and tax increases | < Next Oldest | Next Newest > |
|
| Post Number: 1
|
Dennis The Menace 
Group: Members
Posts: 8461
Joined: Apr. 2007
|
 |
Posted on: Dec. 31 2012, 3:20 pm |
|
   |
Some 2.1 million jobless Americans are receiving their last federal unemployment checks this week
if Congress doesn't extend the deadline to file for extended benefits.
And another 1 million who exhaust their state benefits in the first quarter of 2013 will never see
a federal unemployment payment, according to the National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group.
Lawmakers are down to the wire to extend federal jobless benefits -- of up to 47 weeks -- that Americans
can receive after exhausting their six months of state payments. The law expires on Wednesday.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/31/news/economy/unemployment-benefits/
Apparently they are close to a deal based on the following
The Democrats agreed to raise the income threshold for tax increases to $450,000
a year (couples) from the prior $250,000. The Republicans are insisting on $550,000
threshold. This is a massive tax cut for almost the entire country relative to the
rates that will otherwise take effect on January 1. (So agree on $500,000 already and
call it a day.)
* However, to the Republicans' chagrin, the Democrats insist on raising capital gains
and dividend taxes to 20% on households over $250,000 and reducing some of the allowable
deductions. Importantly, this, too, is a massive tax cut relative to the scheduled changes,
which would boost dividend taxes to 40% on incomes over $250,000.
* The Democrats conceded on the estate tax: They'll keep the threshold for taxable estates
at $5 million, with a 35% rate over that level. This, again, is a massive tax cut over current
law, in which the threshold will drop to $1 million with a much higher rate.
* The Democrats' offer would permanently protect middle-class households from the Alternative
Minimum Tax. No details on how this would work.
* On the spending side, the Democrats' offer would delay the "sequester" (automatic spending
cuts) until 2015. This would cost an estimated $200 billion. But it would avoid the cuts to
the military budget that the Republicans are so desperate to avoid.
* The Democrats would also extend unemployment benefits for a year, extend farm subsidies for
a year, and avoid a 27% cut in Medicare payments to doctors. The Republicans say they want
offsets to these with spending cuts.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news....45.html
--------------
if you first punch someone and then that someone punches back and then you complain to
someone else that you were punched, then you're a silly fool
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
Dennis The Menace
Group: Members
Posts: 8461
Joined: Apr. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 31 2012, 3:22 pm |
|
 |
I don't know about the rest of the forum posters but I find it disgusting that in order to
get a deal on unemployment benefits(especially those who have been unemployed a long time and
thus in a far far far more vulnerable state than those making over 250K and those who would be
affected by the estate tax. Many time over more vulnerable) Republicans must get a deal that
raises the income threshold for tax increases to at least $450,000(if not higher) and on the
estate tax(which Republican propagandists call the "death tax"). Its not the fact that in order
to pass something compromise is needed but the mentality behind holding unemployment benefits
hostage just to extract something for people who not only aren't struggling but are being
extracted IMO simply because are part of the Republican donor class.
But its not just a matter of moral/ethics but economics. Unemployment benefits are many many
times more stimulative because like Food stamps(even more stimulative) and unlike so many tax
cuts(cuts on payroll tax cuts being somewhat of an exception), they are not saved but spent/used
immediately to get money circulated in the economy as fast possible. This isn't theory. There
has been research on this by non-partisan credible economist and organizations. For example Moody's
Mark Zandi, who was one of McCain's economic advisors for his 2008 campaign,
http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20081022/
The CBO came to a similar conclusion
in brief, CBO found the following: A temporary increase in aid to the unemployed would have the
largest effect on the economy per dollar of budgetary cost. A temporary reduction in payroll taxes
paid by employers would also have a large bang-for-the-buck, as it would both increase demand for
goods and services and provide a direct incentive for additional hiring. Temporary expensing of
business investment and providing aid to states would have smaller effects, and yet smaller effects
would arise from a temporary increase in infrastructure investment and a temporary across-the-board
reduction in income taxes.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/25106
Tax policy center too came to a similar conclusion in regard to Unemployment benefits
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefin....ive.cfm
So to conclude unemployment benefits are both ethically and morally justified as well as being
the stimulative stimulus(along with with food stamps) yet look what must be extracted to even
consider extending unemployment benefits. Another sad commentary on our political process.
--------------
if you first punch someone and then that someone punches back and then you complain to
someone else that you were punched, then you're a silly fool
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
JimInMD
Group: Members
Posts: 3112
Joined: Feb. 2011
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 31 2012, 3:37 pm |
|
|
I'd be thrilled if we can get the AMT fixed for good
--------------
Checking out for a while, find me on FB.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
Dennis The Menace
Group: Members
Posts: 8461
Joined: Apr. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 31 2012, 3:49 pm |
|
|
yep
AMT is another important thing that needs to be done
--------------
if you first punch someone and then that someone punches back and then you complain to
someone else that you were punched, then you're a silly fool
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
ol-zeke
me in the Tetons
Group: Members
Posts: 10797
Joined: Sep. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 31 2012, 3:50 pm |
|
|
What would fixing the AMT mean? Setting some figure and adjusting it for inflation annually? How about $150K for singles, and $200K for couples? After all, this was meant to prevent taxpayers from taking so many deductions as to offset their income beyond some "normal" level. We need to find some way to pick an income level and then tie it to a consumer price index of some sort, and let it adjust itself for about 20 years before we tinker with it again.
--------------
Everything I know, I learned by doing it wrong at least twice.
The easiest way to ruin a Friday is to realize it is only Tuesday.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
Old Frank
Group: Members
Posts: 624
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 31 2012, 4:03 pm |
|
|
Very interesting post. Sources seem to be relatively unbiased.
And, not very intuitive conclusions, I would have guessed differently. I probably would have come close to turning the chart upside down.
--------------
My favorite compliment: "GrandPa, I've seen other old men, and their faces are a whole lot cruddier than yours is".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
