BREAKING : Deal emerges in 'fiscal cliff' talks; Obama to speak

B00Mer

Keep Calm and Carry On
Sep 6, 2008
44,800
7,297
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.getafteritmedia.com
Deal emerges in 'fiscal cliff' talks; Obama to speak



WASHINGTON – A deal was emerging Monday that would raise taxes on incomes, including investments, for taxpayers making more than $450,000 a year – although the two sides remain divided on what to do about the automatic spending cuts that make up part of the year-end “fiscal cliff.”

The contours of the agreement between Vice President Joe Biden and the Republican leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, represents a significant compromise for Democrats, as well as Republicans, making it uncertain it could pass Congress in the hours remaining before a midnight deadline.

More than $600 billion in revenue would be raised – far less than the target President Obama first set in talks with congressional leaders. The president sought $1.6 trillion in new revenue from a large deficit-reduction package, and at least $800 billion in earlier talks with Republicans over a deal on tax increases.

Without action, taxes will automatically rise on New Year’s Day and massive spending cuts would start the next day in a potentially upsetting jolt to the economy.

QUIZ: How much do you know about the fiscal cliff?

The president was set to speak, surrounded by middle-class Americans, at 10:30 a.m. Pacific time in an event on the White House grounds.

The agreement would set the top tax rates at 39.6% for income above $450,000 for households and $400,000 for singles, which is a narrower definition of who is wealthy than Obama once sought, according to a source who was not authorized to discuss the negotiations. The president won reelection campaigning on asking those who earn above $250,000 to contribute more in taxes.

Investment income tax rates would also rise for those higher-income households, from the historic low 15% rate on capital gains and dividends to a new 20% rate. The president had sought to tax dividends at the same rate as ordinary income.

The estate tax, which has been a key sticking point throughout the weekend of negotiations, appears to have been settled. The agreement cuts the difference, setting the new rate at 40% on estates valued at more than $5 million – a compromise between today’s 35% rate and the 45% rate Democrats sought on estates of $3.5 million or more.

One area that hewed closer to Democratic priorities was the income level for phasing out deductions on upper income households, which would be set at $250,000.

Even with these thorny tax issues all but resolved, a deal remains in doubt.

PHOTOS: Notable moments of the 2012 presidential election

The vice president and the Senate Republican leader continue to discuss the mandatory budget cuts coming Jan. 2 that both sides also want to address.

Those cuts had been set as a last-ditch trigger after a previous deficit-reduction effort failed. Lawmakers had hoped the severity of the reductions that slice across defense and domestic accounts would spur negotiations for a broader budget deal.

Republicans want no reductions, or at most, reductions only for a month, which would set up another budget battle quickly in the new year. Democrats prefer to postpone those cuts for a year to allow a longer timetable for further talks.

The outlines of this deal stemmed from hours of negotiating between Biden and McConnell that ran well past midnight Sunday and picked up again early Monday morning. The proposal, however, was being met with mixed results in Congress.

source: Deal emerges in 'fiscal cliff' talks; Obama to speak - latimes.com
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
There are always tough decisions to be made in these kinds of talks and this is a
positive sign that both sides are willing to at least explore something,
In addition the Democrats have the final hammer here because when those tax
increases hit the middle class most won't notice until close to 2014 when it sinks in.
Democrats can always make the case these taxes were put upon you by the
congress to protect those guys over there. Not good for congress in mid term
elections. I hope however they do not delay for too long as the longer the delay
the less serious either side is to make the changes required.
As long as pensions and medicare are not affected a deal is welcome Remember
entitlements are not entitlements they are services paid for during one's lifetime.
The government wasted the money on other things and its time they honored
what they instituted.
 

Dixie Cup

Senate Member
Sep 16, 2006
5,728
3,600
113
Edmonton
It'll be interesting to see how businesses and individuals react to the increase in dividend taxes and to see how that's going to affect investments. People invest their money in companies that issue dividends because the rate is less than taxes paid on employment income. Wonder how the increase will affect this.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
It'll be interesting to see how businesses and individuals react to the increase in dividend taxes and to see how that's going to affect investments. People invest their money in companies that issue dividends because the rate is less than taxes paid on employment income. Wonder how the increase will affect this.

Good thought! I have little doubt that people who depend on investments for retirement living will be PISSED OFF. I think that in many conflicts between employer and employee the third party in the equation is largely forgotten, the investor, upon which companies depend to remain viable.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
There are always tough decisions to be made in these kinds of talks and this is a
positive sign that both sides are willing to at least explore something,
In addition the Democrats have the final hammer here because when those tax
increases hit the middle class most won't notice until close to 2014 when it sinks in.
Democrats can always make the case these taxes were put upon you by the
congress to protect those guys over there. Not good for congress in mid term
elections. I hope however they do not delay for too long as the longer the delay
the less serious either side is to make the changes required.
As long as pensions and medicare are not affected a deal is welcome Remember
entitlements are not entitlements they are services paid for during one's lifetime.
The government wasted the money on other things and its time they honored
what they instituted.

Entitlements are not necessarily pre paid. That is a myth perpetuated by government unions. As an example when our "free" medical was introduced everyone was automatically covered although not a single taxpayer had yet paid into it. Most lower income people have never paid dime one into medical coverage but are entitled to full benefits while the rest of us are paying over $100/mo. Same applies to government pensions when they were introduced. Everyone of the right age was immediately eligible without having paid into it.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Entitlements are not necessarily pre paid. That is a myth perpetuated by government unions. As an example when our "free" medical was introduced everyone was automatically covered although not a single taxpayer had yet paid into it. Most lower income people have never paid dime one into medical coverage but are entitled to full benefits while the rest of us are paying over $100/mo. Same applies to government pensions when they were introduced. Everyone of the right age was immediately eligible without having paid into it.

Same thing with C.P.P. and then of course to make things worse they covered other sh*t that wasn't originally planned!
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,388
11,445
113
Low Earth Orbit
Most lower income people have never paid dime one into medical coverage but are entitled to full benefits while the rest of us are paying over $100/mo.
It must really suck to have to pay for Provincial coverage or coverage to pick up where the Province left off. I'd more pissed off at having to pay directly out of pocket than having poor use the system.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
It must really suck to have to pay for Provincial coverage or coverage to pick up where the Province left off. I'd more pissed off at having to pay directly out of pocket than having poor use the system.

That is my biggest beef. Especially since most of what I require isn't even covered. Like the physicals I am required to take for various licenses, my naturopath and chiropractor. Things that government employees get for free courtesy of the taxpayer that isn't eligible. But hey they are entitled to their entitlements.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,388
11,445
113
Low Earth Orbit
That is my biggest beef. Especially since most of what I require isn't even covered. Like the physicals I am required to take for various licenses, my naturopath and chiropractor. Things that government employees get for free courtesy of the taxpayer that isn't eligible. But hey they are entitled to their entitlements.
Govt employees don't have to pay extra out of pocket for pseudo-medical treatment?
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
That is my biggest beef. Especially since most of what I require isn't even covered. Like the physicals I am required to take for various licenses, my naturopath and chiropractor. Things that government employees get for free courtesy of the taxpayer that isn't eligible. But hey they are entitled to their entitlements.

It's all about getting votes..........you're just not part of a big enough demographic!
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
Govt employees don't have to pay extra out of pocket for pseudo-medical treatment?

Depends somewhat on their plan. Not all are the same. Pseudo-medical coverage is what we all get, it is the important ones that are not covered.
Most of government employees even get prescription drugs paid for by the taxpayer. Rather convenient for the pill pushers.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Depends somewhat on their plan. Not all are the same. Pseudo-medical coverage is what we all get, it is the important ones that are not covered.
Most of government employees even get prescription drugs paid for by the taxpayer. Rather convenient for the pill pushers.

A very, very small percentage unless your health is such that you need a LOT of drugs. I paid for mine all year until Dec. when Blue finally kicked in so I guess for the year I benefitted by $50.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,388
11,445
113
Low Earth Orbit
Depends somewhat on their plan. Not all are the same. Pseudo-medical coverage is what we all get, it is the important ones that are not covered.
Most of government employees even get prescription drugs paid for by the taxpayer. Rather convenient for the pill pushers.
Lets get this straight.

Govt employees pay for a health plan, aren't taxpayers and get free prescriptions under the plan they pay for but don't pay for?
 
Last edited:

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
It'll be interesting to see how businesses and individuals react to the increase in dividend taxes and to see how that's going to affect investments. People invest their money in companies that issue dividends because the rate is less than taxes paid on employment income. Wonder how the increase will affect this.
Probably not too much. In Canada, Income-Trusts were clobbered tax-wise but investment dollars still arrived. Unless there is something better, dividends will still be popular.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Lets get this straight.

Govt employees pay for a health plan, aren't taxpayers and get free prescriptions under the plan they pay for but don't pay for?

Oh, we Petros, of course they pay for it, just not at the time of the purchase- the only ones who get a real break are the poverty stricken and if being poverty stricken is a "break", I'm not really for it. Also with drugs there is that $10 prescription fee you get charged for each separate prescription even if it's only putting 5 pills in a container.
 

Liberalman

Senate Member
Mar 18, 2007
5,623
35
48
Toronto
Wealth redistribution is good for the poor the rich should invest their money into businesses that create jobs. We have to remember that the American Constitution reads like a communist red book where everyone is equal financially.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
Wealth redistribution is good for the poor the rich should invest their money into businesses that create jobs. We have to remember that the American Constitution reads like a communist red book where everyone is equal financially.

Equal oppertunity is good for everyone. Stealing from those that have to give to those that never bothered to try is not good for anyone.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Equal oppertunity is good for everyone. Stealing from those that have to give to those that never bothered to try is not good for anyone.

Ain't that the truth? The only problem is sometimes it hard to figure out which ones weren't "dealt a good hand"!