Reply With Quote
John Boehner
Washington (CNN) -- House Republicans will hold a conference call at 5 p.m. Thursday amid indications of a possible deal to extend the payroll tax cut before it expires on January 1, according to Republican and Democratic sources.
According to the sources, previously recalcitrant House GOP leaders have agreed to a two-month extension of the tax break to allow time for further negotiations. Those terms were part of a bipartisan Senate deal that President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats demanded the House accept.
The deal also includes the addition of legislative language to ease the administrative burden on small businesses implementing the plan, a House GOP aide told CNN.
If the deal is accepted by House Republicans in their conference call, the House would approve the plan Friday in a "pro forma" session requiring only affirmation by unanimous consent so that members don't have to return to Washington from their holiday recess, according to a House Republican aide.
The development came hours after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, called for a short-term extension to end the standoff, increasing pressure on House GOP leaders to end their resistance to such a step.
John Boehner
LOL...the conservative talk show hosts are outraged and I just want to reach through the radio and choke them...The Senate was gone and Boehner didn't have a choice but to finally sign off on it...it's a check, not a checkmate...they already seem to have killed the tax increase...gonna have an ugly showdown again in February...
BTW, I don't really have a problem with the tax increase...it's nothing to walk the plank on in my opinion.
Which tax increase? The increase of letting this expire, or the proposed tax increase in millionaires to pay for it?BTW, I don't really have a problem with the tax increase...it's nothing to walk the plank on in my opinion.
The "millionaire tax"
I thought that was a stupid one for them to fall on their swords for...
lol criminally in the loose sense of the word
I don't know. What about if we had some system that included a provision such that you pay no more than 25% for a federal income tax. But any money over $100k, no matter you deductions, on all money you make, you pay no less than 15%?
What about if, instead of just throwing ideas out there, you run the math on them and present them to the forum?
Be my guest.
We have all heard about these millionaires paying 12% or less. Isn't that why the liberals start such class warfare?
I am not for raising the marginal rate on the rich, unless you place a percentage cap as well. Not all have these deductions they can take to make it a current 12% effective rate, which would bring them to around 15%. Some will get dinged at nearly the marginal rate. If someone has no huge deductions, isn't 25% of their income over $100k enough, or do you want to see their green blood?
So you want ME to do the math on YOUR ideas? That's what I'm trying to avoid!
I don't really know or care why liberals are "starting" what you like to call "class warfare". Some subjective measure of "what is fair" is not, nor has it ever been, my primary concern. My primary concern is economic conditions which maximize the overall quality of life.We have all heard about these millionaires paying 12% or less. Isn't that why the liberals start such class warfare?
I am not for raising the marginal rate on the rich, unless you place a percentage cap as well. Not all have these deductions they can take to make it a current 12% effective rate, which would bring them to around 15%. Some will get dinged at nearly the marginal rate. If someone has no huge deductions, isn't 25% of their income over $100k enough, or do you want to see their green blood?
With that said, I find it foolish to arbitrarily throw out numbers and say "that is enough" or "that isn't enough" without a further analysis. Could I support a 25% effective tax rate cap? It's possible. Might I be supportive of a higher cap? Also possible.
But, for the sake of analysis, I present to you these numbers (from original analysis performed by me for academic purposes other than participating in internet debates, sourced from IRS Data):
Actual Effective Tax Rates, by Income Bracket for the 2010 Tax Year.
Note: National Average Effective Tax Rate: 11.06%
Bracket :: Actual Effective Tax Rate :: Income Split Point :: # Filers
Bottom 50% :: 1.85% :: <$32,396 :: 69.0MM
Top 25-50% :: 5.58% :: $32,396 :: 34.5MM
Top 10-25% :: 8.23% :: $66,193 20.7MM
Top 5-10% :: 11.40% :: $112,124 11.3MM
Top 1-5% :: 16.5% :: $154,643 5.5MM
Top 1% :: 24.01% :: $343,927 1.38MM
Top 0.1% :: 24.28% :: $1,432,890 :: 139.0M (this group is included in the top 1% group)
In any event, I don't disagree that floors & cap on effective tax rates are a bad idea, but I think they should vary with each bracket (which I think you have suggested, correct me if I'm wrong?) and I'm not prepared to say where those floors or caps should be numerically.
I also personally believe there should be another marginal tax bracket added to the upper end of the spectrum as opposed to simply raising the existing highest marginal bracket (but I'm also not prepared to suggest where that income split point should be, or what that new rate should be).
And I almost forgot... isn't this the point of the AMT?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
