Reuters reporting all tax cuts extended 2 years, Unemployment extended for 13 months.
- Thread starter MadJack
- Start date
I am glad my taxes are not going up for 2 more years then we will have a republican control again:00hour
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
All Obama wants is to get re-elected. he wanted to tax my investments at 20%, fuck him...thank GOD we had a President that understood economics, Mr. George W. Bush
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Obama is a flip flopper, if you believe it stick to it, don't change your mind, fucking politicians. And estate tax should be 0, 35% tax after your dead is robbery.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON?President Barack Obama reached agreement Monday with Republican leaders in Congress on a broad tax package that would extend the Bush-era income tax cuts for two years, reduce worker payroll taxes for one year and give more favorable treatment to business investments.
Other elements of the deal include a temporary reinstatement of the estate tax at 35%?the level favored by most Republican lawmakers?as well as an extension of jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed.
"We have arrived at a framework for a bipartisan agreement,'' Mr. Obama said on Monday night, capping weeks of negotiations with leaders in Congress.
The outcome of the negotiations is vital, because the current tax levels signed into law by President George W. Bush expire on Dec. 31. Unless Congress acts, tax rates on virtually all Americans who pay income taxes will rise on Jan. 1. That could affect economic growth and even holiday sales.
In reaching the deal, whose details still need to be worked out, Mr. Obama brushed past the demands of many in his own party to curb tax cuts for the wealthy. Some liberal lawmakers and activists were left seething, particularly over last-minute concessions to Republicans on the estate tax. Democratic leaders didn't agree to the deal during meetings on Monday with Mr. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, according to a House aide.
"I can tell you with certainty that legislative blackmail of this kind by the Republicans will be vehemently opposed by many, if not most, Democrats," said Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.).
In the Senate, Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) called it "an understatement'' to say he was disappointed.
How the Senate Voted
See how each senator voted; compare with 2001 and 2003 votes, when the tax cuts were enacted.
* Table: How the Senate Voted
White House officials will now try to persuade Democrats to back the agreement, but anger on the left suggests that Mr. Obama might need to rely heavily on Republican support to move legislation through Congress.
Republican leaders spoke highly of the agreement. In a statement, House Republican Whip Eric Cantor said, "No one gets everything they want in a deal, but our top priority is to restore certainty to the private sector so that businesses small and large can start hiring again."
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell also praised the deal and asked that Democrats in Congress now "show the same openness to preventing tax hikes the administration has already shown.''
Mr. Obama acknowledged that the agreement marked a significant reversal for him, as he has long argued that income tax cuts for couples earning more than $250,000 should expire. If the political stalemate continued and led to a broad tax increase, Mr. Obama said, "that could cost our economy well over a million jobs.''
The deal would extend a raft of business tax breaks, including credit for spending on research. It would extend current tax rates on capital gains and dividends for two years, including for higher earners. It would also maintain protection for middle-class families from the alternative minimum tax.
As part of the deal, the White House is proposing a provision to encourage more investment in plant and equipment, by letting companies claim deductions on 100% of most kinds of investment.
Under the agreement between the White House and congressional Republicans, the estate tax rate would be set at 35% for two years and would apply only to estates over $5 million. Under current law, the estate tax has lapsed for 2010 and is set to spring next year to 55%.
Journal Community
A program of extended benefits for the long-term unemployed, which lapsed last month, would be revived for 13 months, the White House said. The jobless benefits would be financed by federal borrowing rather than by spending cuts.
For Mr. Obama, reaching a deal with the GOP on taxes could help him score points with moderates and independents, an increasingly important constituency, by underscoring his ability to work with newly empowered Republicans. But the discussions have angered some liberal groups, who say Democrats should engage the GOP in a showdown, even if that risks letting the tax cuts expire for all income levels. In an email to its members, the liberal Moveon.org said, "They've given up on this critical issue without a fight."
The payroll-tax reduction under discussion now would cut the 6.2% Social Security tax levied on a worker's wages to 4.2%. A worker making $40,000 a year would save $800, and some economists say that could help stimulate demand at a time when the economy remains relatively weak.
Earlier
As the White House and Republican leaders try to reach a deal to extend cuts, one idea that could gain traction is a temporary payroll-tax holiday. Jerry Seib has details. Plus, T. Boone Pickens' wife says 'nay' to Nevada ranchers.
* Tax Deal Within Reach
The employer's half of the tax?also 6.2%?wouldn't be affected under the White House proposal, and thus the cost of hiring new workers wouldn't be directly affected.
The payroll tax reduction would take the place of a $400-per-worker income-tax break that Mr. Obama included in the 2009 stimulus bill. That break, known as Making Work Pay, provides a tax credit of 6.2% on the first $6,450 of a worker's wages. It phases out for workers making more than $75,000.
Some Republicans prefer the payroll tax reduction to the Making Work Pay program because it goes to everyone who works, regardless of income. A senior administration official said that the payroll tax cut would cost $120 billion, twice that of Making Work Pay, and would give bigger benefits to some low-income workers.
Versions of a payroll tax cut have been considered before, and they enjoy a measure of support in Congress. But some Democrats are wary of any change to the payroll tax, which funds the Social Security program.
?Corey Boles and Martin Vaughan contributed to this article.
Write to Jonathan Weisman at jonathan.weisman@wsj.com and John D. McKinnon at john.mckinnon@wsj.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON?President Barack Obama reached agreement Monday with Republican leaders in Congress on a broad tax package that would extend the Bush-era income tax cuts for two years, reduce worker payroll taxes for one year and give more favorable treatment to business investments.
Other elements of the deal include a temporary reinstatement of the estate tax at 35%?the level favored by most Republican lawmakers?as well as an extension of jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed.
"We have arrived at a framework for a bipartisan agreement,'' Mr. Obama said on Monday night, capping weeks of negotiations with leaders in Congress.
The outcome of the negotiations is vital, because the current tax levels signed into law by President George W. Bush expire on Dec. 31. Unless Congress acts, tax rates on virtually all Americans who pay income taxes will rise on Jan. 1. That could affect economic growth and even holiday sales.
In reaching the deal, whose details still need to be worked out, Mr. Obama brushed past the demands of many in his own party to curb tax cuts for the wealthy. Some liberal lawmakers and activists were left seething, particularly over last-minute concessions to Republicans on the estate tax. Democratic leaders didn't agree to the deal during meetings on Monday with Mr. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, according to a House aide.
"I can tell you with certainty that legislative blackmail of this kind by the Republicans will be vehemently opposed by many, if not most, Democrats," said Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.).
In the Senate, Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) called it "an understatement'' to say he was disappointed.
How the Senate Voted
See how each senator voted; compare with 2001 and 2003 votes, when the tax cuts were enacted.
* Table: How the Senate Voted
White House officials will now try to persuade Democrats to back the agreement, but anger on the left suggests that Mr. Obama might need to rely heavily on Republican support to move legislation through Congress.
Republican leaders spoke highly of the agreement. In a statement, House Republican Whip Eric Cantor said, "No one gets everything they want in a deal, but our top priority is to restore certainty to the private sector so that businesses small and large can start hiring again."
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell also praised the deal and asked that Democrats in Congress now "show the same openness to preventing tax hikes the administration has already shown.''
Mr. Obama acknowledged that the agreement marked a significant reversal for him, as he has long argued that income tax cuts for couples earning more than $250,000 should expire. If the political stalemate continued and led to a broad tax increase, Mr. Obama said, "that could cost our economy well over a million jobs.''
The deal would extend a raft of business tax breaks, including credit for spending on research. It would extend current tax rates on capital gains and dividends for two years, including for higher earners. It would also maintain protection for middle-class families from the alternative minimum tax.
As part of the deal, the White House is proposing a provision to encourage more investment in plant and equipment, by letting companies claim deductions on 100% of most kinds of investment.
Under the agreement between the White House and congressional Republicans, the estate tax rate would be set at 35% for two years and would apply only to estates over $5 million. Under current law, the estate tax has lapsed for 2010 and is set to spring next year to 55%.
Journal Community
A program of extended benefits for the long-term unemployed, which lapsed last month, would be revived for 13 months, the White House said. The jobless benefits would be financed by federal borrowing rather than by spending cuts.
For Mr. Obama, reaching a deal with the GOP on taxes could help him score points with moderates and independents, an increasingly important constituency, by underscoring his ability to work with newly empowered Republicans. But the discussions have angered some liberal groups, who say Democrats should engage the GOP in a showdown, even if that risks letting the tax cuts expire for all income levels. In an email to its members, the liberal Moveon.org said, "They've given up on this critical issue without a fight."
The payroll-tax reduction under discussion now would cut the 6.2% Social Security tax levied on a worker's wages to 4.2%. A worker making $40,000 a year would save $800, and some economists say that could help stimulate demand at a time when the economy remains relatively weak.
Earlier
As the White House and Republican leaders try to reach a deal to extend cuts, one idea that could gain traction is a temporary payroll-tax holiday. Jerry Seib has details. Plus, T. Boone Pickens' wife says 'nay' to Nevada ranchers.
* Tax Deal Within Reach
The employer's half of the tax?also 6.2%?wouldn't be affected under the White House proposal, and thus the cost of hiring new workers wouldn't be directly affected.
The payroll tax reduction would take the place of a $400-per-worker income-tax break that Mr. Obama included in the 2009 stimulus bill. That break, known as Making Work Pay, provides a tax credit of 6.2% on the first $6,450 of a worker's wages. It phases out for workers making more than $75,000.
Some Republicans prefer the payroll tax reduction to the Making Work Pay program because it goes to everyone who works, regardless of income. A senior administration official said that the payroll tax cut would cost $120 billion, twice that of Making Work Pay, and would give bigger benefits to some low-income workers.
Versions of a payroll tax cut have been considered before, and they enjoy a measure of support in Congress. But some Democrats are wary of any change to the payroll tax, which funds the Social Security program.
?Corey Boles and Martin Vaughan contributed to this article.
Write to Jonathan Weisman at jonathan.weisman@wsj.com and John D. McKinnon at john.mckinnon@wsj.com
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Maybe if the GOP wouldn't have been willing to have people go without food over the holidays we could have gotten something done. Its BS that unemployment can only be approved when tax cuts to the rich are approved. Fucking joke.
Wesley Snipes is so tight he squeaks. It is true most all of the wealthier Hollywood types who preach liberal tax and spend politics also happen to pay little to no taxes themselves. Accountants do all their heavy lifting for them.
They set up offshore shell corporation accounts in low to no tax countries that have an exemplary record of hiding assets. Its a long tradition in Hollywood. But Wesley didn't want to pay the upfront to hire such an accountant.
what happened to Wesley :facepalm:
They set up offshore shell corporation accounts in low to no tax countries that have an exemplary record of hiding assets. Its a long tradition in Hollywood. But Wesley didn't want to pay the upfront to hire such an accountant.
what happened to Wesley :facepalm:
Never ceases to amaze me how those (Da Base) socialists- who are for every tax increase and entitlement known to man-- equate the deficit with taxes and while totally ignoring spending.
Those whose livelyhood depends on redistribution- just can't hide it.
I'll side with Thomas
Those whose livelyhood depends on redistribution- just can't hide it.
I'll side with Thomas
Quotes - Thomas Jefferson
Last edited:
i agree with this Dogs. Did Tommy have any comments about guys who steal tho? Greed from thievery? Or does he like u think any way u make ur money is simply fine as long as u are making it.
BOHICA
First off,
We need a solid definition of what is wealthy?
Wealthy in Iowa is not wealthy in Orange County California.
Not decided by the trolls in DC or some egg head at some State Run University.
We really do need to fix this unemployment issue.
I can ONLY speak for my bussiness that these tax cuts will allow us to expand more to hire more workers.
Third warehouse and X more salesmen.
In the healthcare field, we are pretty much recession proof, but with that it still does not mean we do not see the effects of the recession.
Unemployment is at 12% in California and at 14.7%in the Coachella Valley. The highest being 28.2 % in Mecca.
Unemployment rate dips in county
Really not much to be excited about based on the headline. :shrug:
First off,
We need a solid definition of what is wealthy?
Wealthy in Iowa is not wealthy in Orange County California.
Not decided by the trolls in DC or some egg head at some State Run University.
We really do need to fix this unemployment issue.
I can ONLY speak for my bussiness that these tax cuts will allow us to expand more to hire more workers.
Third warehouse and X more salesmen.
In the healthcare field, we are pretty much recession proof, but with that it still does not mean we do not see the effects of the recession.
Unemployment is at 12% in California and at 14.7%in the Coachella Valley. The highest being 28.2 % in Mecca.
Unemployment rate dips in county
Really not much to be excited about based on the headline. :shrug:
I'm not so sure too many people know what BOHICA means? :shrug:
Those who do know what BOHICA means, have certainly done the DOTFA, they know when things are FUBAR and have escalated to TARFU status.
Not sure how taxing those who make more than a million bucks a year means a company can hire more workers? We are talking personal tax rate vs a business tax rate. Now, I worked for a guy. A millionaire, whose business never made a penny. This guy even paid for his groceries with company checks. Oh yes, I forgot, a big Republican! Hates those handouts.
One brief thing that comes to mind. We've had these lower income tax rates for many years now. We are in the situation we are in now financially and personally with these lower income tax rates in place. Clearly, keeping the taxes lower on a very small percentage of Americans has not prevented our economic malaise, nor has caused those small percentage of Americans to hire people, create jobs, and spend money. The small percentage of wealthy people that would continue to receive a lower tax rate will not change their spending habits, hiring habits, or whatever habits you choose to select, based on a difference in tax on their personal income. If it were that simple, they would already be doing it.
It's tax on personal income for the individual. The people in question already have plenty of money to do with what they want. They have not sustained or improved our economy WITH these lower rates.
I know a lot of people who might be in position to do some of the things that have been suggested they would do with keeping the things the same (still doesn't make sense to me...) lost a lot of their elective INVESTMENT money over the past few years. Their expensive homes lost plenty of value, which again, is an investment. Many who bought a lot on CREDIT during the Bush years during the explosion in that sector have had to try to pay that off - again - elective purchases. There has been no difference in the tax responsibilities, so to say that all of a sudden they'll START doing something new when their income tax remains the same doesn't hold much water, IMO.
It's tax on personal income for the individual. The people in question already have plenty of money to do with what they want. They have not sustained or improved our economy WITH these lower rates.
I know a lot of people who might be in position to do some of the things that have been suggested they would do with keeping the things the same (still doesn't make sense to me...) lost a lot of their elective INVESTMENT money over the past few years. Their expensive homes lost plenty of value, which again, is an investment. Many who bought a lot on CREDIT during the Bush years during the explosion in that sector have had to try to pay that off - again - elective purchases. There has been no difference in the tax responsibilities, so to say that all of a sudden they'll START doing something new when their income tax remains the same doesn't hold much water, IMO.
