The Fiscal Cliff

[cowboy]

I gotten somewhere around 12 hours of sleep in the last 6 days trying to get things squared around for my parents before the estate tax closed. Man, I'm pissed. Happy effing New Year.

[LA Ute]

This is a decent summary, from a conservative point of view.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/01...ding-the-bill/

[Goatnapper'96]

This is a decent summary, from a conservative point of view.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/01...ding-the-bill/

The President might make another effort for increased revenues when the debt ceiling debate takes place, but he has little leverage and he already got his increased revenues from the wealthy. Now I am not convinced that the Republicans will get all the spending cuts they want, but I will be surprised if they give way on the revenue much more. I think McConnell strengthened the Republican position, it will be interesting to see it develop but my prediction is you can likely ignore everthing until noon the day before we can no longer pay our bills.

I buy the narrative that long term this is a win for conservatives from a revenues perspective. The last decade has solidified the shift to the right wrt governmental revenues. Now I am less than confident we will do anything significant on the defecit, but I am more confident that if it is done it will be done on the spending side.

If the deficit is roughly $1 trillion annually, and one goes back to the last debt ceiling debate, the US has moved about $117 billion closer to balancing its annual budget. The new tax schedules will bring in about $62 billion more annually and the $110 billion in decreased spending negotiated in the last debt ceiling debate will be split between decreased spending and the new tax revenues so it will result in $55 billion in decreased government spending. I guess from where the Democrats were in the last debt ceiling debate they have basically gone from a promise of $3 to 1 for spending cuts to increased revenues to a basic $1 to 1 ratio. That could be a win for them, but if the US is going to fix its fiscal situation, not something I think is going to happen, I think the Democrats are going to have to swallow some tough cuts. It appears to me that the Republicans gave up cuts to decrease the pool of those impacted by increased tax rates. Emotionally, this is a huge win for the left to get the wealthy to pay more but I don't see how this benefits their position from a fiscal perspective.

[RC Vikings]

The eight senators voting “no” were Democratic Sens. Tom Harkin (Iowa), Tom Carper (Del.), Michael Bennet (Colo.) and Republican Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Richard Shelby (Ala.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa) and potential 2016 White House hopeful Marco Rubio (Fla.).

Rubio and Paul start making their run. I wonder why the Demo's voted no, not enough new taxes?

[frank ryan]

A lot of folks on the left seem very unhappy about this.

[Goatnapper'96]

A lot of folks on the left seem very unhappy about this.

What would make them happy?

The Bush tax cuts have become permanent for most and that started with Obama in 2008 promising to not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000. The Democrat Party learned in 2002 and 2004 that they needed the middle class to win. I have said before that if spending is not brought under control that the middle class will eventually declare war on the poor. The rich cannot finance our current level of expenditures and it appears to me that the Democrats no longer want to ask the middle class to carry much of the burden. This agreement is basically an extension of where the Democrat Party shifted over the past 10 years. What does the left have to be mad about?

[byu71]

I gotten somewhere around 12 hours of sleep in the last 6 days trying to get things squared around for my parents before the estate tax closed. Man, I'm pissed. Happy effing New Year.

What, you don't believe in fairness???

Someone starts a business in 1985. Builds a fine company, employee's numerous people, pays a lot of income taxes along the way and has the chance to sell the company for $30,000,000, his part of the company.

Capital gain and state taxes. $7,500,000. No big deal, still has $22,500,000.
Dies and if he takes advantage of a Marital Trust pays $5,625,000 in Estate taxes leaving the heirs $16,875,000.

Fair, heirs end up with $16,875,000 and government gets $13,125,000. I mean after all, "he didn't build that"?? Besides his success was probably luck anyway.

[frank ryan]

What would make them happy?

The Bush tax cuts have become permanent for most and that started with Obama in 2008 promising to not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000. The Democrat Party learned in 2002 and 2004 that they needed the middle class to win. I have said before that if spending is not brought under control that the middle class will eventually declare war on the poor. The rich cannot finance our current level of expenditures and it appears to me that the Democrats no longer want to ask the middle class to carry much of the burden. This agreement is basically an extension of where the Democrat Party shifted over the past 10 years. What does the left have to be mad about?

Some of the blogs and opinion pieces paint Obama as too eager to compromise. They want him to be tougher.

[Goatnapper'96]

Some of the blogs and opinion pieces paint Obama as too eager to compromise. They want him to be tougher.

Oh. What does tougher mean? What do they want other than the emotional feeling that they totally got their way?

Did they want it at $250,000? Essentially that is basically only another $80 billion annually. What is the left's answer, after getting that extra $80 billion from those making $250,000, to closing the huge gap between what the government takes in and what it spends?

It seems to me compromise or go over the cliff was what the President faced. Do the hard lefties think that if the middle class had to pay its fair share of what the government spends they are going to discover the love giving the government that much money? Class warfare makes great political rhetoric but when the numbers hit the pavement the middle class gets entangled because the rich don't have enough to cover what the government promises. The Democrats want to stay in power so they have to make sure the middle class is not paying its fair share. Eventually that will trickle down.

If I were to advise the hard left, I would have advised to make the $ ammount of increasing taxes $100,000.

[byu71]

Some of the blogs and opinion pieces paint Obama as too eager to compromise. They want him to be tougher.

The fact there are those on the left and right upset, gives me comfort this was a deal that was about as good as we could have gotten.

[Goatnapper'96]

The fact there are those on the left and right upset, gives me comfort this was a deal that was about as good as we could have gotten.

While not a big move it is a move in the right direction. By right I mean it solidifies some tax rates so people can plan and make fiscal decisions and it moves us closer to closing that annual $1 trillion dollar gap. It is the first significant compromise of the Obama Presidency. While most of the can is being kicked down the road at least the can is getting a wee bit smaller.

[LeedsCougar]

We pay inheritance tax above 300 thousand quid or so. What do you yanks pay?

[venkman]

While not a big move it is a move in the right direction. By right I mean it solidifies some tax rates so people can plan and make fiscal decisions and it moves us closer to closing that annual $1 trillion dollar gap. It is the first significant compromise of the Obama Presidency. While most of the can is being kicked down the road at least the can is getting a wee bit smaller.

60 billion down, 940 billion to go! We can do this!

[byu71]

Did they want it at $250,000? Essentially that is basically only another $80 billion annually. What is the left's answer, after getting that extra $80 billion from those making $250,000, to closing the huge gap between what the government takes in and what it spends?

It seems to me compromise or go over the cliff was what the President faced. Do the hard lefties think that if the middle class had to pay its fair share of what the government spends they are going to discover the love giving the government that much money? Class warfare makes great political rhetoric but when the numbers hit the pavement the middle class gets entangled because the rich don't have enough to cover what the government promises. The Democrats want to stay in power so they have to make sure the middle class is not paying its fair share. Eventually that will trickle down.

If I were to advise the hard left, I would have advised to make the $ ammount of increasing taxes $100,000.

The gripes over not getting a tax on those making over $250,000 solidifies what I have been saying all along. The war on millionaire's and billionaire's was a sham. Great sound bite. WE all hate millionaire's and billionaire's, not so much when it comes to $250,000aires. However, those folks are who they are going after. That is where a pot of gold, taxes, reside.

[Goatnapper'96]

We pay inheritance tax above 300 thousand quid or so. What do you yanks pay?

Have most of your loos finally figured out that water can out of one spicket and one can adjust to a preferred temperature instead of going from freezing to scalding..freezing to scalding. At least that is how it was back between 92-94 when I was attempting your countrymen, in Buirrrmingum and Coventry and Derby and Bletchley and of course lovely Corby, to give up tea, coffee, tobacco and visit Church more frequently than Christmas and Easter or matchings, hatchings and dispatchings!

Our current death tax is 40% above $5,000,000 per individual. So a couple who dies simultaneously would have $10,000,000.

Just to let you know, God won't save your queen if she is still COE!