The Fiscal Cliff Approacheth

[Direckshun]

In an effort to make this thread sticky-worthy, I am going to update this OP to keep casual glancers informed.

This post is the official one-stop shopping of the key points/developments of the fiscal cliff negotiations.

Far as I understand, the fiscal cliff:

1. Gets rid of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
2. Gets rid of the Bush tax cuts for everybody else.
3. Slashes defense spending by something like $500 billion.
4. Slashes domestic programs like the NIH, Head Start, and medicine/drug care for the poor by $500 billion.

The new idea is for Democrats to allow the cliff to hit, then immediately introduce a bill that would bring 2, 4, and some of 3 back. But not 1.

Here is a chart detailing exactly what the fiscal cliff is going to do, financially:

Spoiler!

Originally Posted by Direckshun

New CBO projection: if the fiscal cliff hits, we are in another recession, and lose two million jobs.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...87L0JV20120822

The poor would be hurt by the fiscal cliff:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Overall, if the tax breaks from the 2009 stimulus are allowed to expire—the EITC and Child Tax Credit expansions, along with American Opportunity Credit for college tuition—the poorest 20 percent of Americans would see their taxes go up by $209 on average, reducing their after-tax income by 1.9 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center.

As would the middle class:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

According to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, more than half of all married couples will owe an additional tax of around $4,000 unless Congress acts. And more than a third of families with children will fall subject to the AMT, with parents of three or more children facing an extra tax of $4,700.

Among married couples with at least two children and adjusted gross income between $75,000 and $100,000, the center estimates that 84 percent will face a significantly higher tax bill this year because of the AMT.

There seems to be some consensus between the parties that substantial revenues want to be raised. Boehner and the GOP hopes that's through limiting tax deductions rather than tax raises.

Obama's opening offer, essentially:

• Allow the Bush tax cuts on high earners to expire. $849 billion
• Limit itemized deductions to 28 percent, close some loopholes and deductions on high earners, eliminate tax breaks for oil and gas companies, eliminate the carried interest loophole, plus a few other items. $584 billion
• Create a special "Buffett Rule" tax rate for millionaires. $47 billion
• Restore the estate tax to 2009 levels. $143 billion
• Limit corporate income shifting to low-tax countries. $148 billion
• Other miscellaneous tax increases and reductions. About -$200 billion
• Total: $1.6 trillion

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Doesn't matter, they must chip in as part of a larger deal. To allow the rich to keep tax cuts that they don't need is malpractice of government.

They already pay the vast majority of taxes taken, so no, I think the actual amount generated is rather important. Or, do you not even care about how much is actually generated? It's just the symbology of it?

[vailpass]

obama picks a strange time to finally try and find his nuts. Loser Potus.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by Donger

How much "extra" money would be generated by raising the rates on "the rich"? Has anyone actually done that calculation?

Last I saw calculated was $700 billion over 10 years. Not enough to cover one year of our annual deficit.

Big whoop. This always has been nothing more than a political talking point by Obama. It doesn't do squat.

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by Tom.Jay61

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Donger

They already pay the vast majority of taxes taken, so no, I think the actual amount generated is rather important. Or, do you not even care about how much is actually generated? It's just the symbology of it?

The only way out of this mess is to spread the pain around. Everyone needs to chip in and sacrifice. Just like you cant cut enough spending to get a balanced budget. You cant tax your way to a balanced budget.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

The only way out of this mess is to spread the pain around. Everyone needs to chip in and sacrifice. Just like you cant cut enough spending to get a balanced budget. You cant tax your way to a balanced budget.

Everyone needs to chip in? So, you want to make those people who pay no income tax chip in?

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

The only way out of this mess is to spread the pain around. Everyone needs to chip in and sacrifice. Just like you cant cut enough spending to get a balanced budget. You cant tax your way to a balanced budget.

Where is the everybody

[KCTitus]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

The only way out of this mess is to spread the pain around. Everyone needs to chip in and sacrifice. Just like you cant cut enough spending to get a balanced budget. You cant tax your way to a balanced budget.

No truer words have been spoken by a leftist...spreading the 'pain' around is the bottom line of the leftist philosophy. Im encouraged by your frankness. Yes, we cannot cut spending enough to balance the budget, but it does need to be cut by 1-2T annually immediately.

So, where does that leave us...what other options do we have. For me, it's a growing economy and cheaper energy...increase drilling, put in the pipeline from Canada, allow fracking, etc. With cheaper energy costs comes lower prices at the gas pump, in the grocery store, etc.

Second, is a dropping of the corporate tax rate by half, if not more. Entice bringing the money held up outside the United States to come back in, index capital gains for inflation, eliminate capital gains for anyone under the 250k threshold.

Last, elimination of Obamacare and that on top of the other two should spur enough growth that we could seriously attack our debt, increase growth and new business and that will increase demand for resources.

But I do agree, spreading the pain is not a good solution and has failed every time it has been tried.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Last I saw calculated was $700 billion over 10 years. Not enough to cover one year of our annual deficit.

Big whoop. This always has been nothing more than a political talking point by Obama. It doesn't do squat.

Hey now, you're on record supporting this particular tax hike, are you not?

Along with tax hikes on the middle and lower classes, as well.

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by mikey23545

If only there was some huge group of people that were paying no taxes at all...Now there would be the ones we need to see pay their Fair Share!

Who is John Galt?

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

For what it's worth, Obama's already responsible for the single largest tax cut in American history.

Now there is an oxymoron. I didn't know he was responsible for anything.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Obama can't veto the Fiscal Cliff.

He can just veto any legislation designed to stave off the Fiscal Cliff if he doesn't like it.

Translation: Obama the Petulant can drive us over the cliff.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Translation: Obama the Petulant can drive us over the cliff.

He can certainly cut the brake line.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Hey now, you're on record supporting this particular tax hike, are you not?

Along with tax hikes on the middle and lower classes, as well.

Yes I am. Not if its half assed class warfare done only for political theater though

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by Donger

How much "extra" money would be generated by raising the rates on "the rich"? Has anyone actually done that calculation?

Are you kidding? Do you really think moonbats think things through like that?