In Tax Details, More Benefits for Middle

[alp227]

WASHINGTON — With the Senate poised to hold a key vote on Monday on the tax cut deal between President Obama and Republicans, the political jousting has focused on what the agreement does for the wealthy by extending all of the Bush-era tax rates, and for the unemployed, by continuing jobless aid.

These new tax breaks are in addition to the cuts Mr. Obama had always planned to maintain on all but the highest incomes, and they could pay big political dividends to Mr. Obama and other Democrats in 2012 — a point that the president and some senior advisers are counting on, and one reason that they were willing to give in to Republican demands to extend all Bush-era tax rates.

Austan Goolsbee, the chairman the White House Council of Economic Advisers, appearing Sunday on “Meet the Press” on NBC, said Mr. Obama was still convinced there was no economic benefit to continuing lower tax rates for the highest earners.

(snip)

The single most expensive component of the package — other than the continuation of all of the marginal rates — is a two-year adjustment of the alternative minimum tax, to prevent it from hitting millions more households. This would insulate couples with income up to $72,450 in 2010 and $74,450 in 2011 at a cost of $137 billion, according to a detailed cost analysis by the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

Middle- and upper-middle-income Americans will also benefit most from the one-year payroll tax cut, which will reduce the Social Security tax on income up to $106,800 to 4.2 percent from 6.2 percent. For couples with two incomes, each above the maximum, the tax savings will be $4,272. That provision will cost $112 billion.

The extension of jobless benefits, by contrast, will cost just under $57 billion, according to the joint tax committee.

And other provisions that benefit the middle class have gotten virtually no attention, including a temporary repeal of a limit on itemized deductions and repeal of the phaseout for personal exemptions. Together, those tax breaks will cost nearly $21 billion.

Mr. Goolsbee said the White House was betting that after a two-year extension of tax policies of President George W. Bush, it would be far harder for Republicans to defend the tax cuts for the wealthy in 2012, when the economy is expected to be stronger, thereby weakening their argument that allowing tax rates to rise for the rich would hamper the recovery.

Full story: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/us/politics/13tax.html

[SHRED]

1. Here is the BIG "if":

"Mr. Goolsbee said the White House was betting that after a two-year extension of tax policies of President George W. Bush, it would be far harder for Republicans to defend the tax cuts for the wealthy in 2012, when the economy is expected to be stronger, thereby weakening their argument that allowing tax rates to rise for the rich would hamper the recovery."

No jobs = no recovery.

Where are the jobs going to come from?


---

[Skittles]

2. the jobs are being created; just not in America

[alp227]

3. wait a second, the author of this article got something a bit wrong.

it'd be harder to defend the tax cuts if the economy gets worse or remains the same. :wtf: Oh wait i guess the rich would know that their tax cuts expire on 12/31/2012 (if the world doesn't come to an end heh heh) and thus with that knowledge that's why the "recovery" might not be hampered...

I guess that rich people need to keep sitting on all that saved tax money to create jobs! :sarcasm:

[AdHocSolver]

5. You are correct. And, in the unlikely event that the economy is marginally better, the GOP will....

...credit the tax cuts, and demand that they be extended further.

Understand this logic!

If the economy gets worse (the most likely scenario), the Republicans will say that it is because the tax cuts were not big enough, and if the economy gets better, they will credit the tax cuts and say they should be extended further. (This is their three-dimensional chess strategy.)

Extending the tax cuts now is a lose-lose proposition for America any way you look at it.

So long as NAFTA, the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, and the Federal Reserve are controlled by the corporations, the economy is NOT going to get better because these corporate cartel agreements make it more profitable to ship jobs offshore.

The REAL economy depends mainly on JOBS (especially manufacturing jobs), which means Americans earning money to pay their bills, pay for their education, and pay taxes.

The REAL economy does not depend on the stock market. In fact, corporate stock prices go up faster as the corporations fire people, since short term profits increase automatically when people are fired since variable costs drop rapidly.

Beware of economists selling snake oil (which is most of them). Economists are the priesthood of capitalism. Their job is to indoctrinate the masses with economic obfuscation.

The economy was good in the 1990's because there were still a lot of good jobs around. Then along came NAFTA, artificially low interest rates courtesy of the Fed, the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act (deregulation of banking), and other deregulation pushed through and signed by the Clinton White House, and the economy started falling apart.

[PurityOfEssence]

6. Yes, for them, all roads lead to tax cuts

If we remember a bit, we'll recall George W. Bush running on a tax cut platform because the economy was doing so well and we were paying down the national debt. When it was apparent that we were in a recession, they were necessary to stimulate job creation through investment. Like the needle of a compass, Republicans automatically turn to tax cuts.

The rest of your analysis is dead-on: the last thirty years of U.S. politics has been dominated by three outright primitive thugs and two gregarious enablers.

[Egnever]

8. "Where are the jobs going to come from?"

You dont think the portion that allows write offs of the full cost of equipment for all companies will creat jobs?

[lunasun]

4. Wow now that the Times pointed all that out, I am all for the tax cuts.......NOt! eom

[pansypoo53219]

7. but also enabling the tax cutting

republikkklan crack whores.