The tax code is now more progressive than any point since 1980.

[geek tragedy]

Taxes on the most well-off went up while remaining at historic lows for the middle class and working poor.

Capital gains tax on the Romney class went up 33%--from 15 to 20%.

The burden thus got shifted to the wealthy.

UI got extended with no off-set.

No more spending cuts.

No chained CPI.

No cuts in Medicaid.

No cuts or increase in retirement age for Medicare.

Not all I hoped for, but a lot better than most of us feared.

[oxymoron]

1. I see you don't even mention the huge giveaway on the estate tax.

Please tell me how progressive raising the exemption from $1 mil to $5 mil is. I would also like to hear why Obama caved on a campaign promise of raising taxes on income of $250 k and above. He was voted into office on that one, and had a mandate. He gave that one away practically before the negotiations began.

Why did the Dems even buy into this whole fiscal cliff joke? They could have come back on the 4th and had a lot more leverage.

[SammyWinstonJack]

2. +1. nt

[unblock]

6. in truth the estate tax is the most easily avoided tax of all.

you can set up trusts, you can gift it away, all sorts of things you can do.

for the most part, the only people who realistically pay the estate tax are the people who did plan properly, or who received a ton of money just before their death or even posthumously.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

20. The way I heard it described was,...

"Anyone who actually paid the estate tax should fire their tax attorney."

[Egalitarian Thug]

37. "The way I heard it". That should have been your first clue.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

44. Actually, that was they way it was.

Sure, there were people who dodged paying the tax rate.

But they weren't heralded as heroes.

Spiro had to resign due to owing taxes.

[Egalitarian Thug]

45. You can evade a few tens of millions, but hundreds of millions and billions just can't be

shuffled off. That's why this has been a priority for them for so long.

Agnew was barely rich, a low rent lackey they hired to do what they wanted, and he was too cheap and/or stupid to get the help he needed to get away with his larceny. Oh, and that was almost half a century ago.

55% on everything over a million is/was a thorn that tasks them. Fortunately they own both parties now so it won't be a bother for long.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

46. With all the attention on bought politicians we have ignored bought judges...

Many of them are willing to let things slide for a hot tub and a hooker.

[hfojvt]

25. How strange then

that there was such a big push to repeal it, or to lower the rate

a push which has apparently succeeeded.

and also funny how it would have brought in about $70 billion a year

"KLEIN: So how much does this cost? With a $1 million exemption and a 55 percent rate—in other words, what will happen if we do nothing—the estate tax would raise about $700 billion over the next 10 years. The Lincoln-Kyl version would raise less than $300 billion. And the compromise most Democrats have coalesced around—which was the 2009 level, with a $3.5 million exemption and a 45 percent rate—would've brought in a bit less than $400 billion." via the Daily Howler http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh121610.shtml

Except that Obama and Senate Democrats decided to join with the Republicans to give out $300 billion in tax cuts.

And who got those tax cuts?

Only people with estates worth more than $1 million.

Meaning that Ed Schulz, if his estate is worth $40 million, would see his estate tax cut from $21.45 million down to $14 million. $7 million to the heirs of Ed Schulz.

No wonder he was praising the "deal".

[obama2terms]

23. It has to go through the republican controlled house

Remember many of those republicans in the house didn't want to even raise taxes on incomes of 1 million and more ( Boehner's Plan B). There is no way 250K would have made it through the house, we are lucky they caved at all on taxes.

[Festivito]

27. We offered to raise it to $100-million once.

$5 million is reasonable to me, which surprises me because Republicans allowing something reasonable to happen surprises me.

[Tarheel_Dem]

52. Let's ask the 3 mil people who got their UI extended if they give a crap about your petty nonsense

[MH1]

3. "no more spending cuts" - not true, I think

my understanding is that "sequestration" (i.e. automatic spending cuts) is only deferred for 2 months.

Then there will need to be yet another "deal" or all those cuts go into effect. OR the can gets kicked again.

Personally I'm not sure I mind it getting kicked down the road a bit IF it puts us in a better place for getting defense cuts vs. social programs cuts. But I don't think we can keep kicking it long enough to get a really good deal, which would require that we retake the House (since that pretty much requires that we retake state legislatures and un-screw the redistricting that we gave to the republicans last time).

[Victor_c3]

11. I'd love to see huge cuts in our defense budget

I'd also like to see our department of defense get officially renamed "department of war" like it used to be prior to 1949. Someone pointed out in another thread that the name was changed from "war" to "defense" to make it harder to make cuts to the budget. I forget who it was, but it was a good point and it is absolutely worth repeating.

[Honeycombe8]

4. I think that's incorrect. nt

[hfojvt]

28. it's total propaganda

1. the tax rate on capital gains was 20% back in 1999 as well, before Bush cut it, and it was going to go up again automatically (so it is not like Obama won something there)

2. the tax rate on dividends (income that people do not have to work for) is still lower than ordinary rates (unlike 1999)

3. the people who gain the most from the "historically low rates" are those in the top 20-30% and NOT those in the bottom 40%.

4. in other words, in spite of the small tax increases on the bottom 40% that it would have caused, letting the Bush tax cuts EXPIRE would have resulted in far, far more progressivity than this "deal" which gives most of its benefits to those ABOVE the median income.

5. George W. Bush ALSO argued that his tax cuts made the tax code more progressive since the rich paid a higher percentage of taxes after them than they did before them.

[newthinking]

36. Exactly. It is incorrect.

I have mixed feelings about the deal, but facts incorrectly stated like this hurt us severely. We need to understand where things are at honestly. It is required in a democracy.

[oldhippie]

5. Not yet. I think you may be a bit pre-mature ...

The deal is not law or tax code yet. The House still has to vote on it, and the President sign it. Stay tuned.

[unblock]

7. agreed. people lose sight of the past based on dream of what could have been.

the big remaining problem is that the rich still have a ridiculously low tax rate for dividends and capital gains.

but yes, we have clinton tax rates for the rich, shrub tax rates for the middle class, and obama credits for the poor.

not ideal, but better than we've had in decades.

[oxymoron]

10. Not ideal because the Dems bought into the whole "fiscal cliff" fake controversy.

We would have had a lot more leverage on 1/4. It's a lousy deal.

[unblock]

13. At least it's an improvement.

I agree our leverage would have been a bit better, especially given the timing of the state if the union address.

It may not be as big a victory as might have been, but it is nevertheless a victory. We have a more progressive tax code than we've seen in a long time.

[oxymoron]

18. Yes, so let's cave and you better be happy with what we get.

Complete BS.

[hfojvt]

29. it is not an improvement

because that ridiculously low rate on dividends was scheduled to go up automatically today

and now, for some reason, Democrats are planning to cut it.

Supposedly to benefit the middle class.

[Arcanetrance]

9. As far as I know none of this is true as of yet considering it hasn't gotten out of Congress.

Furthermore its a meaningless gesture because in two months comes the bigger fight and we gave our leverage to the other side. Now they can demand more than they had the ability to with the fiscal cliff dealings.

[santamargarita]

12. It's all for nothing if those treasonous bastards...

in the House vote it down. That bunch should be physically removed from office and put in jail.

[oldhippie]

19. Democracy in Action ....

It's all for nothing if those treasonous bastards...
in the House vote it down. That bunch should be physically removed from office and put in jail.

Way to go. Stalin would be proud of us.

[santamargarita]

21. So true...

[hfojvt]

30. no, actually if they vote it down

the rich will be hit with much bigger tax increases, and the tax code would become much more progressive - automatically

so House Republicans are not likely to let that happen.

But actually it already HAS happened.

The Bush tax cuts have already expired and Obama is preparing to sign into law a massive tax cut giving most of its benefits to the rich.

[Leopolds Ghost]

14. More progressive than the promised repeal of the Bush Tax cuts?

Really?

[hfojvt]

31. of course not

but we are supposed to cheer Obama for not letting the Bush tax cuts expire and instead keeping "the overwhelming majority" (as reported online)

and thus preventing "massive tax hikes" (as reported by the M$M) on the "middle class" (meaning people who make more than $100,000 a year).

Another victory for the greatest President ever.

The greatest Republican President in my lifetime, I suppose.

But then again, even Bush Sr. raised taxes, instead of always cutting them.

[bowens43]

15. They're saving these for round two....a couple of months away

more spending cuts.
chained CPI.
cuts in Medicaid.
No cuts or increase in retirement age for Medicare.
cuts in SS


We got nothing out of this deal and a disproportionate burden and sacrifice is still coming from the poor and the middle class while the majority of the wealthy got a permanent tax break

Obama has a much weaker position now.

[NorthCarolina]

16. I think

that the term "Chained CPI" is being re-coined as simply "slightly bending the long term cost curve", and the two additional months will be needed for the pundits to hit the cable news shows to help promote this change in verbiage for public buy-in.

[MineralMan]

17. All in all, it's not a bad first step, and is being done at the last minute.

Yes, they danced around the estate tax, with the $5 million set-aside, but that is an odd thing. Estate tax planning has been pretty well understood for a long time, now, and it's not as big a factor as we sometimes think.

No Chained CPI! That's something everyone was just "sure" would be in there. Funny...once again, it wasn't. It's not going to be, either. No changes in Medicare eligibility age, either. That doesn't surprise me, but it sure must surprise some people who have been certain that would be in there.

Overall, it's a pretty good bridge over the year end change, and leading into the new Congress, where we will see how things settle out.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

22. Actually, if we want to be honest, taxes on the rich should be 70%.

That's what they were prior to "Supply Side".

[mbperrin]

24. I still prefer the 92% rate in effect during the 50s when I was a kid.

Economy boomed then.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

26. That would pay for the wars the rich wanted.

[mbperrin]

33. Actually, it wouldn't. Nobody ever paid the 92% tax.

Instead, it was a penalty for parking money. The way to avoid paying it? Invest in real brick businesses with real expenses - wages, utilities and so forth.

Now, with the incredibly low rates, there's no penalty for parking money and there's $3 trillion plus just lying around in passive crap doing nothing.

[Leopolds Ghost]

34. Yep. Instead, the inheritance tax is only avoided by people with liquid assets

People with family businesses are forced to go under to pay inheritance tax while the rich pay nothing.

[mbperrin]

40. Give away $10,000 shares in the business to each heir while you're still alive.

Tax-deductible to you, and by the time you're dead, they own it already and so no inheritance tax.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

41. Washington has applauded greed since Reagan....

Then there are those who act like the rich are closer to God.

I tell Republicans the rich got that way because they sold their soul to Satan for wealth and/or fame.

Make their veins pop.

[SoCalMusicLover]

32. And How Many Would Vote For That?

That's a nice fantasy, and would be wonderful in a perfect world. But they couldn't even get a majority of Democrats to vote for something like that.

The Congress does not work that way. Steps, not leaps.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

43. The Republicans worse nightmare is to have the American People see things get better,...

....after the rich get a tax hike.

They have been the NERVE to claim the ONLY reason things got better under Clinton is because Republicans controlled the purse strings.

....as if the House back then was focused on the economy.

They were focused on blow jobs in the White House.

Monica, Monica, Monica was the ONLY thing they talked about.

On the bright side, it distracted them from sabotaging the economy.

Anyway, once the American People notice things get better with a tax cut on the rich a LITTLE they will want to do it MORE to make things even better. Eventually, the Republicans will be seen as the fools they are for claiming the little guy benefits from giving the big guy more and more.

BTW: The Republicans are STILL claiming there is a "spending problem". The myth they're pushing is that Obama got in and increased Welfare for blacks and that's what crashed the economy. Just like they claim the Housing Crisis is because Liberals pushed the poor banks into lending money to blacks and Latinos so they could move into the lily white suburbs and they couldn't afford it and their failure caused the value of white folks homes to fall. EVERYTHING to them is about race under Obama.

Right now they're claiming Biden was someone they could talk to.

Well, DUH,....he's white.

What's going to be funny is when Biden runs they'll claim he's WORSE than Obama.

We can dig up the archives.

[FSogol]

35. K&R. n/t

[Egalitarian Thug]

38. You jumped the gun. No deal. n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

39. The top rate was 50% until 1988

[geek tragedy]

49. Top marginal rate for federal taxes was 28% in 1988.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/88-89inintxrts.pdf

[Motown_Johnny]

50. which is why I said "UNTIL"...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/until?s=t

^snip^

un·til [uhn-til] Show IPA
conjunction
1.
up to the time that or when; till: He read until his guests arrived.
2.
before (usually used in negative constructions): They did not come until the meeting was half over.

[W_HAMILTON]

42. Are you talking about after this bill has passed?

Because if so, the tax code is less progressive than it was at the stroke of midnight about 24 hours ago.

[geek tragedy]

48. How so?

Taxes stayed low on everyone but the rich.

[W_HAMILTON]

53. Because as of midnight on January 1, 2013, taxes went up steeply on the rich.

The bill that was passed lowered that steep tax hike.

If we had gone off the cliff:

- The estate tax would have a $1m exemption, not tied to inflation, with a tax rate of 55%. With this deal, the numbers are instead $5 million, tied to inflation, with a tax rate of 40%.

- Dividends would have been taxed at ordinary income tax rates. To me, this was probably the most important part of going over the cliff because it would have severely impacted how the rich earn their money. Along with the increase in taxes due to the ACA, the highest dividend tax rates would have been around 43%, whereas with the deal they are around 24%. That is a HUGE difference that mainly benefits the richest Americans.

These are just a couple of the big differences that resulted in a less progressive tax system at the end of the day on 1/1/2013 than we had when the clock struck midnight on 1/1/2013. Here's a chart that shows how going off the cliff (and staying there) would have impacted overall tax rates. As you can see, while everyone's taxes goes up, those at the top experience an even greater increase than everyone else, which would make "no deal" on the cliff more progressive than the deal we ended up with.

[img][/img]

[HiPointDem]

47. in 1993 the top rate on individuals was 39.6 & 1982-1986 it was 50%. and from 1985-2002

dividends were fully taxable.

1986-1989 capital gains tax = 33%, 1990-2000, 28%.

so no.

[NoOneMan]

51. So will this manifest in a "better country" or "better world"?

If so, how long will that take? How do we measure it? Why should we care? Are there any consequences? At what point does some promised Utopia ever materialize, after measure upon measure?

If not, why are people making such a deal out of such trivial shit? Are there any consequences?