Fiscal Cliff Deal: $1 in Spending Cuts for Every $41 in Tax Increases

cnredd · #1 (**permalink**) 01-02-2013, 02:53 AM

Quote:

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the last-minute fiscal cliff deal reached by congressional leaders and President Barack Obama cuts only $15 billion in spending while increasing tax revenues by $620 billion—a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts.

I can't put this any better...

America loses, but the Democrats won a political victory...and THAT'S what's important, right?...

cnredd · #2 (**permalink**) 01-02-2013, 03:00 AM

CBO: 'Fiscal cliff' deal carries $4 trillion price tag over next decade

Quote:

The Senate deal to avoid the "fiscal cliff" will add roughly $4 trillion to the deficit when compared to current law, according to new numbers from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

The CBO determined Tuesday that the package, hammered out late Monday evening by Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would — over the next decade — come with a $3.9 trillion price tag.

But successful people get their money taken! Victory!...

WallyWager · #3 (**permalink**) 01-02-2013, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

CBO: 'Fiscal cliff' deal carries $4 trillion price tag over next decade

Mostly though the taxes we didn't increase through this deal. When this article talks of current law, it means comparing the bill just signed to what would happen if we did nothing and let eveyr single tax cut expire all at once. Of course doing that would have had its own set of negative consequences.

Quote:

The Senate deal to avoid the "fiscal cliff" will add roughly $4 trillion to the deficit when compared to current law, according to new numbers from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

The CBO determined Tuesday that the package, hammered out late Monday evening by Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would — over the next decade — come with a $3.9 trillion price tag.

The agreement, which is pending before the House after passing in a 89-8 Senate vote early Tuesday, would extend lower tax rates on annual household income under $450,000 and postpone automatic spending cuts for two months.

The extension of lower tax rates for a bulk of the nation's taxpayers and the addition of a permanent patch to the alternative minimum tax would add roughly $3.6 trillion to the deficit over the next decade,(This part bold is pretty relevant.) the CBO said. Other individual, business, and energy tax extenders would add another $76 billion. The extension of unemployment benefits would cost roughly $30 billion, and the so-called "doc fix" would tally another $25 billion through fiscal 2022.

The CBO says the budget agreement will lead to an overall increase in spending of about $330 billion over 10 years.

The combination of tax hikes and spending cuts that make up the fiscal cliff — if allowed to proceed — would improve the nation's deficit, but economic experts on both sides warn its dramatic impact would push the nation back into a recession if allowed to take effect in 2013.

The CBO price tag is based on a "current law" baseline, which assumes that all components of the "fiscal cliff" will take effect, which includes a wide range of automatic tax hikes and spending cuts. Neither party in Congress is seriously considered allowing those policies to take effect unaltered.

White House officials and lawmakers who voted for the bill argue the bill would raise $620 billion in new tax revenue compared to current policy.

The new numbers come as both parties in the House are grappling with whether to support the deal. The two sides met separately behind closed doors to discuss the Senate package.

In addition to indefinitely extending the Bush-era income tax rates for family income up to $450,000 and individual income up to $400,000, the agreement would also set the estate tax rate at 40 percent, up from 35, and exempt inheritances below $5 million.

The deal would also increase the capital gains and dividends tax rates to 20 percent from the 15 percent level in 2012 — although both rates jumped Tuesday when the U.S. entered the new year.

The deal would also postpone automatic spending cuts known as the sequester for two months, offsetting the $24 billion cost of that delay with a combination of other spending cuts and new revenues.

The CBO estimate comes after the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated it would reduce federal revenue by $3.93 trillion over the next 10 years when compared to current law.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an advocacy group that supports broad deficit-reduction reforms, estimates the enitre package would increase deficits by about $4.6 trillion over the next ten years compared to current law projections.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

But successful people get their money taken!

To try to pay down the deficit. That costs money no matter how you want try to slice it. If we're to try, it's preferable to get blood from a soaked sponge as opposed to a stone.

And if we didn't raise taxes on 400k+ earners the deficit headline would have been even higher. Also, f-ck the bawling and coddling. I don't think the tax increases went far enough. It's a start, but we need to do a lot more on the spending and revenue factors if we want to drop this deficit problem. Hopefully we'll not kick the can down the road again when it comes to the spending cuts, and make some meaningful budget slashes, I think this has to happen too. I'd rather not waste my emotions or angry emoticons lamenting over some upper-class folks having to see their taxes go from prosperous 35% to the mountainous and inconceivable 39.6%.

WallyWager · #4 (**permalink**) 01-02-2013, 03:40 AM

I do find a bit of humor over how all during the election, Republican POTUS candidates refused to even consider a hypothetical 10-1 deal, and a huge chunk of GOPers in both chambers just voted yes on a technical 1-41 negotiation.

Technical, because the spending cuts still loom just down the street, but it's still on paper. 10-1, to 1-41, does it suck being them?

MrLiberty · #5 (**permalink**) 01-02-2013, 06:41 AM

Hey wally if you don't mind, why don't you pay 40% of your income to the government? If it is good for some Americans to be fleeced it should be good for you too. Or are you going to be a hypocrite?

If we can tax the top 2% of the country 40% we can tax the bottom half at 15%, let the goddamn takers pay for some of the crap they get.

AZRWinger · #6 (**permalink**) 01-02-2013, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WallyWager

Mostly though the taxes we didn't increase through this deal. When this article talks of current law, it means comparing the bill just signed to what would happen if we did nothing and let eveyr single tax cut expire all at once. Of course doing that would have had its own set of negative consequences.

To try to pay down the deficit. That costs money no matter how you want try to slice it. If we're to try, it's preferable to get blood from a soaked sponge as opposed to a stone.

And if we didn't raise taxes on 400k+ earners the deficit headline would have been even higher. Also, f-ck the bawling and coddling. I don't think the tax increases went far enough. It's a start, but we need to do a lot more on the spending and revenue factors if we want to drop this deficit problem. Hopefully we'll not kick the can down the road again when it comes to the spending cuts, and make some meaningful budget slashes, I think this has to happen too. I'd rather not waste my emotions or angry emoticons lamenting over some upper-class folks having to see their taxes go from prosperous 35% to the mountainous and inconceivable 39.6%.

Yes indeed the triumph of the political imagery where success in making money is characterized as a sponge sucking up the life blood of the economy at the expense of everyone else is to be celebrated.

It is all good as long as Uncle Sugar keeps passing out the welfare freebies paid for by someone else. Vote for revenge.

The hope there will be meaningful spending cuts later is laughable. The Obama voters signed us all up for a steady diet of spending gluttony and class warfare demogoging. If the best that can be done in the current circumstances is a massive debt increase there is no reason to believe politically unpopular spending cuts are in the offing.

saltwn · #7 (**permalink**) 01-02-2013, 07:16 AM

Nothing but cuts are on the table now.
This bill should have been worked out years ago. And amendments having time to go forward.
Dems don't want cuts/Reps don't want tax

The immovability on those stances is the problem because we have to do both.

Mikeyy · #8 (**permalink**) 01-02-2013, 07:58 AM

There is obviously more that needs done but I am tired of hearing the crying for the rich. I don't have an issue with being rich so don't bring me that crap. The fact is that there is a number that is fair given our bills. Over the past several years the rich have faired much better than the average Joe. They have sat on the sidelines while their bankrolls have grown. There was an argument that they weren't investing because of uncertainty of a few percentage points in the tax rates. As though they wouldn't invest to make a profit because they might pay a slightly higher tax. The coddled class is going to pay a little more. It won't make a huge difference but this crying for the wealthy needs to end. The wage gap between management and labor. Between the haves and have nots has been widening faster than any time in history. It has been out of balance for too damn long.
I have advocated for lots of spending cuts here and I am for things my party leaders wouldn't like at all.So I am not supporting the Dem's on this either. Obama is still open to spending cuts and I don't think this BS that Obama is satisfied with this is fooling anyone and is just more partisan BS. Anyone who is honest knows we need to get a grip on spending. But the extremism is what is out of hand. I am seeing Republicans threatening the debt ceiling debacle again which will hurt the country badly.
I will side with whoever comes up with smart spending cuts. Party aside. If the right proposes increasing the retirement age, Social security age, Means testing. Things like that I can be onboard on. Cutting the waist and growth in military spending would also be on the list. It ain't about party to me.
Obama offered a much more comprehensive grand bargain months ago and Boehner turned him down or felt he couldn't get the votes on his side. It included more spending cuts but the gamesmanship brought us this deal.
The markets are happy that we showed we could do something. The market will rise again today. That is good for peoples retirements etc.. It would be nice to continue that trend by showing we can also cut spending without threatening our economy again.

WallyWager · #9 (**permalink**) 01-02-2013, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLiberty

Hey wally if you don't mind, why don't you pay 40% of your income to the government? If it is good for some Americans to be fleeced it should be good for you too. Or are you going to be a hypocrite?

Sure, I'll be a hypocrite, if it means not continuing to expand the gap between rich and poor/middle class by annihilating the wages of the latter by quadrupling their tax burden.

And you can take 40% of a paycheck from a waitress or burger flipper and night shift maintenance person, see how well that works out for you and the country. It says a lot about you when you don't see much of a problem in raising the taxes of the average worker by 400%, but scream bloody murder over the possibility that a person much, much, much more well off might see their taxes increase by 10%. Or maybe you do, and just want to try to score some silly political point or something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLiberty

If we can tax the top 2% of the country 40% we can tax the bottom half at 15%, let the goddamn takers pay for some of the crap they get.

Top 0.8%, not top 2%. They trimmed that back.

And the takers? Really? What a bit of tired, old, classless, bullsh-t attack on class.

No wonder why your side lost.

MrLiberty · #10 (**permalink**) 01-02-2013, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WallyWager

Sure, I'll be a hypocrite, if it means not continuing to expand the gap between rich and poor/middle class by annihilating the wages of the latter by quadrupling their tax burden.

And you can take 40% of a paycheck from a waitress or burger flipper and night shift maintenance person, see how well that works out for you and the country. It says a lot about you when you don't see much of a problem in raising the taxes of the average worker by 400%, but scream bloody murder over the possibility that a person much, much, much more well off might see their taxes increase by 10%. Or maybe you do, and just want to try to score some silly political point or something.

Top 0.8%, not top 2%. They trimmed that back.

And the takers? Really? What a bit of tired, old, classless, bullsh-t attack on class.

No wonder why your side lost.

Our side lost because we now have more people willing to sit on their ass and take government welfare than work. And, people like you think the rich should pay for it. The rich got rich by hard work something 50+% of the people in this country seem not to want to do anymore. Hell why work when the government will take care of me.

Your class warfare **** wears thin and when the economy tanks some more because of your ****ing ******* messiah I expect to hear the same tune again of how the rich ain't paying their fare share.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to MrLiberty For This Useful Post:
AzMike

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
AzMike, MrLiberty

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mikeyy For This Useful Post:
Spencer Collins, WallyWager