Here's What's in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 - page 2
by Joe V 2,386 Views | 41 Comments Admin
In this new White House White Board, Brian Deese, the Deputy Director of the National Economic Council, explains what the new agreement to extend tax cuts for the middle class means for the economy and how it met President... Read More
- 4Jan 10, '13 by herring_RN GuideIn December 2010 the Bush tax cuts were set to expire. The Republicans in Congress wanted an extension of the Bush tax cuts while the Obama administration wanted fiscal support to help lower unemployment. The final compromise included a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts, a one-year extension of emergency unemployment insurance (UI) benefits, and a one-year payroll tax cut.
This payroll tax cut was a way compromise for the "Making Work Pay" tax credit Ė a policy that President Obama campaigned on and was was part of the Recovery Act (stimulus).
Republicans didnít like the "Making Work Pay" (MWP) perhaps because it was a tax cut associated with the Obama administration. So, to get more money into circulation, the administration agreed to exchange MWP for a payroll tax cut.
Consumers to see smaller paychecks despite 'fiscal cliff' deal
Congress did not extend a payroll tax cut, so workers will see the tax on their paychecks rise to 6.2% from 4.2% last year.
- 5Jan 10, '13 by VivaLasViejas GuideQuote from CrufflerJJI get that, and as someone approaching old age at the speed of light, I agree. What I was thinking was that it's rather unfair that all of a low- to middle-income earner's wages are subject to SS taxes, while earnings above a certain figure (can't remember, but think it's in the low $100,000s) are not. That's the only thing I have a problem with.Ummm....by ensuring the long term viability of Social Security, for our most fragile members of society - the elderly.
Yeah, that's it! Help the elderly.
Not to mention, provide added dollars to be borrowed to reduce the apparent National Debt ($2.72 Trillion, according to Who Owns Most of the US National Debt ).
- 3Jan 10, '13 by BostonTerrierLoverRNAwesome Tag Viva!!
Bipartisan Agreement is like an oxymoron these days. Jumbo Shrimp, Authentic Replica, Good Lawyer, etc. I kind of think it's because most of the extremes in both parties. Used to, there actually were Moderate and Liberal Republicans, and Moderate and Conservative (Blue Dog Democrats) in numbers significant enough to pass worthwhile Legislation. Now my own party views "Compromise" as a 4 letter word, and I have never seen the American Public so disillusioned with their Congressmen and women. We have such low expectations of the most "Representive" body in our Government, who individually drag in $200K plus per year are disillusioned with us. So, I can only hope it's a "cycle" just as American Politics have always drastically changed over the years- perhaps it will change for the positive again one day.
There have been many times in American History where the nation's future looked bleak, but something changed it for the better, and the giant recovered. I just hope that wasn't because of the Morals, Values, and Standards of our Predecessors who are dying out rapidly for more extremist positions(both sides of the isle). I hope the "X Factor" that keeps this Nation strong and great is still there somewhere in enough mass to repeat another success story.
I see a glimmer of hope that they were able to reach this agreement, with huge obstacles breathing down our necks, I hope they have the stomachs for much more.
- 6Jan 10, '13 by herring_RN GuideI think we the people should let our representives know we will only vote for candidates who will compromise. It will take haggling and arguing but it needs to happen.
Ideology is fine, practicality is important too.Last edit by herring_RN on Jan 10, '13 : Reason: typo
- 0Jan 10, '13 by msn10What I was thinking was that it's rather unfair that all of a low- to middle-income earner's wages are subject to SS taxes, while earnings above a certain figure (can't remember, but think it's in the low $100,000s) are not. That's the only thing I have a problem with.
- 2Quote from msn10IIRC the limit for payroll deductions is going to increase that is higher income wage earners will see more of their income subject to the tax, but it still cuts off at some point.SS has to be paid by middle and high income earners, but there was a limit of how much a high earner had to pay which was a significant amount more than a lower wage earner. That limit is going away too, however.
Here is why: in order for the Democrats to get SS and the rest of the "entitlements" passed into law it was agreed the scheme was not a sort of welfare. That is persons in theory get out whatever benefits they have paid (or in some cases their spouse or parent) into the system. If you raise the amount subject to payroll taxes then those wealthy wager earners have every single right to see an increase in their benefits at retirement. Fair is fair.
Being as this may via laws encacted through Obamacare there are now various taxes on capital gains and such that wealthy/high income persons will pay in order to help fund Medicare regardless of what they can expect to get back. In short the government is taxing the wealthy to pay towards healthcare for middle income workers.
- 3Personally the whole Taxpayer Relief Act and the fiscal cliff drama that preceeded it was a hot steaming pile of manure.
For all the wrangling and posture taking the thing achived very little to nil in revenue raising and actually increases the national debt over the long run.
The problem is a lack of balls in Washington on both sides and branches of government to tell the Amercian people the plain ugly and simple truth; this country is broke.
No one is also standing up to tell the American people they cannot have their cake and eat it as well. If you believe Obama and his camp they won the election because the country does not want increased taxes (except on the "wealthy"), but equally wants vast increases in social and government spending. Everyone has one behind and cannot dance at two weddings. The only reason this country is getting by is because for the moment the world is willing to lend us money at *very* low rates, that will not last forever.
As it stands now our the current goverment has put our children,grand-children and even great-grandchildren on a path that all but assures most will have a lower standard than those that came before. This is all due to debt and yet we keep running up more.
Having already gotten tax increases on the wealthy that well is now off limits. Sooner or later this government and the American people are going to have to deal with some substantial cuts to spending. We can either do it ourselves in an orderly fashion or have China and the other world markets impose it upon us just as with Greece.
- 3Jan 10, '13 by msn10Being as this may via laws encacted through Obamacare there are now various taxes on capital gains and such that wealthy/high income persons will pay in order to help fund Medicare regardless of what they can expect to get back. In short the government is taxing the wealthy to pay towards healthcare for middle income workers.
- 1Quote from herring_RNProblem is that really today only works for the senate and maybe White House. A large part of Congress has elected officals that come from *VERY* safe districts, and this is true of both parties. This is why things that sail through the senate often meet a slow death in Congress.I think we the people should let our representives know we will only vote for candidates who will compromise. It will take haggling and arguing but it needs to happen.
Ideology is fine, practicality is important too.
Worse still John Boehner has to be one of the weakest House Speakers of recent memory. Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, Tip O'Neil to name a few knew how to control their caucus. Even the Pelosi woman managed to keep her "House" in line.
- 1Jan 11, '13 by DoGoodThenGoMortgage interest deduction:
There is a common misconception as to just how much this benefits the American economy. In reality nearly a majority of the deductions for mortgage interest are for persons or households whom are very well off to wealthy. This is because your average rate payer takes the standard deduction and does not itemize his or her taxes. Unless you do the latter the benefit is of no use. However the scheme costs the United States treasury billions per year in lost revenue.
What the mortgage interest deduction does do in inflate the cost of homes and often cause persons to purchase a more expensive home that they should.
Critics argue that eliminating the MID would cause housing prices to drop. Considering how inflated home prices are in many areas of this country that is not such a bad thing. Problem is having created this monster no one in government or the real estate business can find away to cushion such a blow to current homeowners. We've heard nothing but over the past several years about persons whom are "underwater" on their mortgages. So imagine if the MID was eliminated and or scaled back? For certain areas of the country home prices would drop which is good for those buying, but could be a disaster for the sellers who have to absorb the financial hit.