Question regarding tax increases in this supposed deal

[W_HAMILTON]

Does anyone know if there are any tax increases in this supposed deal that are actually going to be GREATER than they would have been had no deal been made and we went over "the fiscal cliff?" By capitulating on the income threshold for tax increases, the estate tax, etc., what are we getting in return tax-wise? What, if any, additional revenue did Democrats get in exchange for relaxing other tax provisions already scheduled to go up due to "the fiscal cliff?" Anything?

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Don't be silly.

It wouldn't be prudent to be too hard on the Job Creators.

[Shivering Jemmy]

2. Getting republicans to break their no tax increase oath

Satisfies me. Was less interested in absolute levels. More interested in establishing principle.

[W_HAMILTON]

5. They didn't break their oath.

This deal is not going to be passed before we go over the cliff tonight. That's why the House said they basically would not be voting on anything tonight.

If my guess is right, you won't see any re-elected Republican Senators vote for the Senate version tonight either.

In essence, that means that no Republicans will be voting for tax increases. Tonight, they are tax increases, but you won't see the House vote on the bill and probably won't see any Republican Senators vote for it. Tomorrow, they are tax cuts.

That was one of the reasons I asked my question to begin with. If all the taxes agreed to in this supposed deal are actually just lower taxes than what we would have gotten had we just gone off "the fiscal cliff," then none of these are tax increases -- they are all just tax decreases.

[Shivering Jemmy]

7. unconvinced

That anyone apart from political junkies will make that distinction.

[W_HAMILTON]

8. The Republicans are already using it as their talking point.

Not that they ever let the truth dictate what they say, but they'd actually be honest in this case. They didn't vote for a tax increase. They voted to lower taxes that were increased by going off the fiscal cliff.

Again, that's why I was wondering if this deal included ANYTHING tax-related that went above and beyond what the fiscal cliff "no deal" would have gotten us tax-wise.

[Shivering Jemmy]

11. Can use it all they want

Changes nothing about how most will perceive it.

Have more faith in your fellow citizens to see through bullshit.

[W_HAMILTON]

12. I don't.

Every Republican will say they voted for this because it was a tax decrease, a permanent enshrinement of most of the Bush tax cuts that had expired.

Fox News will echo the point and other media outlets will say the same thing (and even if they don't, they'll have the usual one Democrat / one Republican on to present both sides and you can be damn sure the Republican will claim to high hell that he voted to lower taxes).

And the sad thing is, that this is one time that they'd be telling the truth.

[Shivering Jemmy]

13. *shrugs*

Nothing more to discuss then. No point continuing this discussion.

[frazzled]

3. Democrats got

Extension of unemployment benefits, permanent fix to Alternative Minimum Tax (so it won't hit middle class earners, and won't have to be constantly renegotiated), permanent "doc fix" for Medicare, renewable energy tax extension.

Don't ask me about what they could have gotten on all this if we were to go over the cliff and start negotiations anew. I have no idea. At this point, I don't really care. I just want to stop hearing about it, basically.

[W_HAMILTON]

6. Ugh.

Two of those items are just "permanent" fixes to temporary fixes we usually make each year without much fanfare. I guess they are the new debt ceiling, i.e., something we used to pass in a bipartisan fashion but is now being taken hostage by the Republicans just because they can.

Extension of the unemployment benefits is a populist position, much like the middle class tax cuts. I thought the whole deal was that Obama was asking Reid to put the middle class tax cuts and the unemployment benefits extension up for vote, and if the Republicans voted against it or dared to obstruct it, that would be on them and he would take his case to the American people and get them to put pressure on the Republicans to act.

I don't know much about the renewable energy tax extension, but I'm sure it's not worth conceding everything else for.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

4. Return? You were expecting something in return?

[robinlynne]

9. no. we lose 10 billion in revenue per year if we make the current deal. actually more like

20 billion per year. 10 billion lost just by upping 250 to 450,000.
additional revenue lost on estate taxes, capital gains tax, etc.

Since the projected revenue increase was originally 80 billion per year, we are losing just under 20% of tax revenue.
(approx from what I've read.)

[Igel]

10. The general breakdown for any deal:

Fewer tax hikes
Fewer spending cuts
Increased spending that doesn't have to be balanced by increased revenues

So it was a big deal that this year's projected deficit will be under $1 trillion for the first time since inauguration.

Any deal that doesn't abide by the BCA won't meet that boast. Most of the increased revenue wasn't from the top 2% of income earners. There was almost no actual spending cuts to begin with--the large number is, as most spending cuts, based on 10 years' cuts with most of the cuts in the last 5 years.

About 1/3 of the national debt was until *'s inauguration in 2001.

About 1/3 of the national debt was from *'s inauguration until his last day in office.

About 1/3 of the national debt was from 1/20/09 to 12/31/12.