Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush Tax Cuts: Poison Pill

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-10 04:13 PM
Original message
Bush Tax Cuts: Poison Pill
The most unusual aspect of the 2001 package was that the cuts were temporary, with some reductions phasing in as late as 2006, and all of them expiring by the end of 2010. Not only did the bill stipulate that some of the cuts would be good for only a year or two, it also left the task of ending or extending tax relief to whomever followed Bush in the White House...All together, the Bush tax cuts cost just north of $2 trillion.

Income Taxes

-- Some taxpayers in the 10 percent bracket would go to the 15 percent bracket;
-- The 25 percent bracket would go to 28 percent;
-- The 28 percent bracket would become 31 percent;
-- The 33 percent bracket would go to 36 percent; and
-- People in the highest bracket -- 35 percent -- would see their rate go up to 39.6 percent.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/29/battle-looming-over-bush-tax-cuts-what-it-means-to-you/.



Summary:

Estate Tax:

This year = 0. In 2011 it would go to 55%/$1 mill exempted without the bush cuts.


Capital Gains and Dividends:

Currently = 5-15%, with some earners paying no dividend taxes at all. Cap gains will go to 20%, dividend taxes back to marginal income tax rates.


AMT:

Current cut-off is $46K for individuals, $70K for families. Would drop to $33K/$45K.

AMT also applies to corporations.


Child Tax Credit:

Currently $1000, would drop to $500.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-10 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. I believe they were temporary since they had to be
because they were passed using reconciliation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-10 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. i believe they were temporary because dems wouldn't sign on to *permanent* cuts because
of political ramifications.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 12:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC