Let's see, end of Bush tax cuts, new capital gains tax, defense cuts...

[allrevvedup]

are we sure this "fiscal cliff" isn't just a little spanking for the 1%ers? Potential changes:

Let’s take a look at what may happen January 1st should congress and the president fail to reach a new agreement on taxes and spending: *

1. End of 2% Payroll Tax Cut in place for past 2 years.

2. New 3.8% Tax on Dividends, Capital Gains & Interest.

3. 0.9% Medicare Tax increase on earning above $200k ($250 for married filing jointly).

4. Lower Threshold for Alternative Minimum Tax (resulting in $100 billion increase in taxes).

5. Return to 2000 ordinary income tax rates. Eliminates 10% income bracket and increases other tax brackets. Highest marginal tax rate goes back to 39.5%.

6. Increase in Long Term Capital Gains tax rate. Lower income earners move from 0% to 10% and higher income earners move from 15% to 20%.

7. Qualified Dividends no longer taxed at Long Term Capital Gain rate but at higher ordinary income rate.

8. Child Tax Credit goes from $1,000 per child to $500 per child.

9. Estate Tax Exemption lowered from $5.12 million to $1million. Top marginal rate goes back to 55%.

10. Automatic $70 billion mandatory spending cut across Defense, Social Services, Infrastructure and Medicare.[/b

Potential year-over-year impact from Congressional Budget Office: $400-$600 Billion
*Congressional Budget Office

from: http://berkeleycp.com/content/defining-fiscal-cliff

If we're going to get stuck with middle class "austerity" measures anyway, and we are, why not just go home and let the economy go over the cliff, which looks a lot more to me like a speed bump for the Romney class?

p.s. And no, I don't believe it will have any measurable effect on job growth.

[sadbear]

1. Anyone know what that lower threshold for the AMT is?

[allrevvedup]

5. Found this:

AMT patch

Won't be renewed. Income exempt from the Alternative Minimum Tax in 2012 -- for which taxpayers will file returns next year -- falls to $33,750 for individuals and $45,000 for married couples. That's down from $50,600 and $78,750, respectively, if the exemption amounts had been adjusted for inflation.

from: http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/06/news/economy/fiscal-cliff/index.htm?iid=EL

[patricia92243]

2. Your signature line says a lot.

[allrevvedup]

3. Meaning?

[patricia92243]

4. It says that letting Detroit go bankrupt is the way forward.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

8. I totally misread it, I guess

I saw it as a "this is the Republican plan" and then the "Forward" sticker being the rebuttal.

[Hutzpa]

15. You've got a lot to learn around these parts. nt

[SickOfTheOnePct]

19. I don't think so

Seems that my interpretation was spot on.

[allrevvedup]

9. Ah. My point is that we're being bamboozled as usual.

It look to me like the Romney class doesn't want its taxes raised, so they're trying to scare us into keeping all their perks so we don't go over the "fiscal cliff." So they want to make a deal so we "share" the pain.

Well, pardon me, but I call b.s. We've been "sharing" their burden for the last 12 years and it's time for them to pay the piper.

In other words: eliminating tax breaks for the 1%ers is not letting Detroit go bankrupt. Not even close.

[Puzzledtraveller]

6. We have "cake and eat it too" group here

It's an odd mix of chicken little and the ostritch, one groups says the fiscall cliff is coming, the other says it's all bunk. Both can't be right, that's why I say bring it on, sequestration baby!!

[SunSeeker]

7. I would put a little "v." between bankrupt and Forward.

Just to make things clear.

[allrevvedup]

11. Gotcha.

Will do.

[SunSeeker]

10. I only disagree on one point.

I do think it will have a measurable effect on job growth. If that money that would have gone to the 1% as tax cuts is instead spent on hiring back all those teachers and fire fighters we laid off over the last 4 years, it will CREATE significant job growth.

Otherwise, excellent list.

[allrevvedup]

12. But isn't that basically trickle-down theory?

The Romneys won't spend their tax breaks on creating jobs, at least not in the US. That's pretty much what we've learned since Reagan sold us this bill of goods in 1980, isn't it?

[DCKit]

13. Yet you said above we've only been carrying their sorry asses for 12 years.

1980 to now is not twelve years. Not trying to be a dick, you've got a righteous rant going on, but I think you're being too polite - they've been buttfucking us for longer than you care to admit.

[allrevvedup]

16. Good point.

I was thinking of the Bushler tax cuts but yeah those were on top of the Reagan upper-class tax cuts and payroll tax hikes which were supposed to fix Social Security back when they hyped THAT fiscal cliff, the result being a gargantuan, ever-expanding trust fund that I have no doubt will keep SS solvent for the rest of the century wit no adjustments whatsoever and will keep growing indefinitely until the GOP finally figures out a way to steal it.

So I don't think the payroll tax holiday makes any difference one way or the other to the trust fund, and since they didn't publicize it when they passed it I doubt if many would notice when it expires, that is if the pundits didn't make a huge deal about it. The other middle-income tax breaks are probably going to disappear anyway so we might as well get the whole package.

[DCKit]

17. Yeah, all that, but we didn't let them hand the SS trust over to Wall St.

You KNOW that's killing them.

[SunSeeker]

14. No, it's growing the middle class (trickle up).

Trickle down has no intelligent job creating plan to it and has been repeatedly shown not to work. Our nation's economy was always at its strongest when we used the taxes we ALL pay to grow the middle class. What we do now is use the taxes we all pay to give the 1% a tax break. This kills jobs. We are a demand-driven economy. The middle class creates demand for goods, not the rich. Grow the middle class and you grow demand. Grow demand and you grow jobs. It's basic economics. It's math.

[allrevvedup]

18. In other words letting the tax cuts expire would create jobs?

I have to agree with you there, money spent on stimulus would be much more effectively spent than money wasted on upper-bracket tax cuts or defense spending. Another reason to let the cuts expire.

[SunSeeker]

20. Bingo. nt

[DCKit]

22. Hell, I'd like to see a 90% tax rate, with deductions for actually creating jobs.

See how fast they fall in line with that.

[bemildred]

21. Precisely, why is this supposed to be bad? nt