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


B00Mer
#1
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
 
BaalsTears
+1
#2
America is an Empire of Lies. Speaking the truth in America is a revolutionary act.
 
Mowich
+3
#3

 
damngrumpy
#4
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
#5
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
+1
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Dixie Cup View Post

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
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

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
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

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
+1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

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
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

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
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

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
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

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
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

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
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

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
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

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 by petros; Jan 1st, 2013 at 01:07 PM..
 
Kreskin
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Dixie Cup View Post

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
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

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
-1
#18
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
+4
#19  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Liberalman View Post

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
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

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"!
 
Walter
+1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Liberalman View Post

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.

Where do you get this stuff?
 
Risus
#22
Who really gives a crap... The Yanks are living beyond their means anyway. Let them sink.
 
Walter
+3
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Risus View Post

Who really gives a crap... The Yanks are living beyond their means anyway. Let them sink.

They sink; we sink.
 
damngrumpy
#24
Pensions and Social Security payments if they are cut the persons who set that up are
doomed.. I can see making the age go up a few years but to cut the payments not a
chance in hell.
There are a lot of voters, the majority of voters that spoke to that issue last November
they said NO when they voted for the Presidents overall policies. The problem is most
people don't realize they have to get rid of the Congressmen and women who hold up
the program.
Perhaps the mid term election will take care of that, With a Democratic Congress, Senate
and the Oval Office, they will be able to finish the job the people want them to do.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

Pensions and Social Security payments if they are cut the persons who set that up are
doomed.. I can see making the age go up a few years but to cut the payments not a
chance in hell.
There are a lot of voters, the majority of voters that spoke to that issue last November
they said NO when they voted for the Presidents overall policies. The problem is most
people don't realize they have to get rid of the Congressmen and women who hold up
the program.
Perhaps the mid term election will take care of that, With a Democratic Congress, Senate
and the Oval Office, they will be able to finish the job the people want them to do.

Yup.......I see it coming too..........

GOT OBAMA PHONE - Remix - #ObamaPhone - YouTube
 
Goober
+2
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

Pensions and Social Security payments if they are cut the persons who set that up are
doomed.. I can see making the age go up a few years but to cut the payments not a
chance in hell.
There are a lot of voters, the majority of voters that spoke to that issue last November
they said NO when they voted for the Presidents overall policies. The problem is most
people don't realize they have to get rid of the Congressmen and women who hold up
the program.
Perhaps the mid term election will take care of that, With a Democratic Congress, Senate
and the Oval Office, they will be able to finish the job the people want them to do.

Social Security in the US in beyond sustainability. Over 225 Trillion in coming down the road costs.
Now compare that to the National Debt of approx 16 Trillion.
Now tell me how they pay for the that. They cannot.
 
Cliffy
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

Social Security in the US in beyond sustainability. Over 225 Trillion in coming down the road costs.
Now compare that to the National Debt of approx 16 Trillion.
Now tell me how they pay for the that. They cannot.

Sounds like the proverbial hand basket is about to descend into hell.
 
Goober
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Sounds like the proverbial hand basket is about to descend into hell.

It means a dramatic drop in Govt spending for support programs- tax increases as well- rewriting the Tax Code is alos needed. Why do people need some many freaking accountants- because the tax system is to complex- They need engineers- scientists- better education. Not untold numbers of accountants and oh yes lawyers.

But never think the US cannot do something. Amazing country when they put their will to addressing things.
It can be done- if not - then the last depression the world went thu in the 30's will be a piker compared to the next one.
 
JLM
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

Social Security in the US in beyond sustainability. Over 225 Trillion in coming down the road costs.
Now compare that to the National Debt of approx 16 Trillion.
Now tell me how they pay for the that. They cannot.

Well, that's just it Goober, you hear many philosophies, but none of them means sh*t when the well is dry. I know we all value our pensions and seem to think they are a right, but right or not, they are not infallible, so perhaps it's a good time right now to start putting part of the pension aside for a rainy day, that is if you are solely dependent on the pensions.
 
petros
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

Social Security in the US in beyond sustainability. Over 225 Trillion in coming down the road costs.
Now compare that to the National Debt of approx 16 Trillion.
Now tell me how they pay for the that. They cannot.

There is a way to pound the snot out of future liabilities and current debt issues.

Do what it takes to raise the value of the dollar or by creating a north american currency that will dominate the markets.

Raising the value of the dollar means reducing the amount of currency in circulation to give it more buying power hence the drive for north american oil Independence while beating down the green monster and the collapse of the carbon market they were going to rely on as a cash generator.
 

Similar Threads

14
The Obama Cliff
by B00Mer | Dec 29th, 2012
55
US Fiscal Cliff-
by Goober | Dec 10th, 2012