Calculate Your Income

When the democrats try to blame republican obstructionism for this situation, everyone needs to remember the very reason for the expiration date on the tax cuts was because the democrats insisted on it. (How the democrats HATE the idea of people having their own money!)
 
Q: Will "the largest tax hikes in the history of America" take effect next year? Will ordinary taxpayers see taxes "skyrocket"?

A: That’s not likely. A scary e-mail lists "Tax hikes in 2011" that probably won’t take effect, or won’t apply to families making under $250,000 a year. One "tax hike" is pure fiction.

FULL ANSWER

We’ve been flooded with inquiries about various versions of this chain e-mail, which has been circulating since July. It grafts together a set of misleading claims issued by the conservative Americans for Tax Reform with a fictional claim about taxation on health insurance benefits.

The W-2 Fiction, Again

Let’s dispose of the bogus health insurance claim first. It’s not true that "you will be required to pay taxes" on the value of employer-paid health insurance benefits. This is a falsehood that circulated earlier as a separate chain e-mail. See our May 22 article, "Health Care Law and W-2 Forms," for full details.

It’s true that the new health care law requires employers to report the value of health insurance benefits on W-2 forms starting next year, but that’s for informational purposes only.

Bush Tax Cuts: Mostly Slated for Extension

Both the e-mail and the ATR document claim that all the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 and signed by President Bush "will all expire on January 1, 2011." Actually, that’s not what’s expected to happen at all. It’s true that the cuts are scheduled to expire, but they will expire only if Democrats who control the White House and Congress fail to do what they’ve promised.

Update, Sept. 28: We received a letter from ATR President Grover Norquist, who said:

Grover Norquist, Sept. 27: In our article, we repeatedly say that certain tax hikes “will” happen in January of 2011. The FactCheck.org article assumes that we mean this in a prescriptive or predictive sense. We do not. When we make the statement “this tax will rise in January of 2011” (or words to that effect), we mean it only in the sense that if Congress and the President continue to fail to act, current law does indeed call for this tax hike to occur.

As a courtesy to ATR we have posted Norquist’s letter so that readers may judge for themselves.

Particularly misleading are the claims that "[t]he child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child" and that "marriage penalty" relief will expire. As veteran congressional reporter David Rogers, who writes for Politico, put it back in July: What Democrats are debating is not whether, but "when — and for how long" to extend the Bush tax cuts that apply to lower and middle-income taxpayers.

Read entire article here.
 
I love this line right here because we all know politicians, be they Republican or Democrat, always follow through on what they promise.


""Both the e-mail and the ATR document claim that all the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 and signed by President Bush "will all expire on January 1, 2011." Actually, that’s not what’s expected to happen at all. It’s true that the cuts are scheduled to expire, but they will expire only if Democrats who control the White House and Congress fail to do what they’ve promised.""
 
Good Luck said:
When the democrats try to blame republican obstructionism for this situation, everyone needs to remember the very reason for the expiration date on the tax cuts was because the democrats insisted on it. (How the democrats HATE the idea of people having their own money!)
Click to expand...


That's just not true. The very reason for the expiration date was two fold: (1) since the Republicans utilized reconciliation procedures to pass the tax cuts, according to the Byrd Rule, because the tax cuts increased the deficit, they were required to sunset after 10 years and (2) because the deficit projections beyond the ten year window showed ballooning deficits, the Republicans like the sunset provision because it hid the ginormous deficits projected to result from the cuts.

I know it's popular in Republican circles to blame the sunset provision on the Democrats, but it just isn't true.
 
NigelTufnel said:
That's just not true. The very reason for the expiration date was two fold: (1) since the Republicans utilized reconciliation procedures to pass the tax cuts, according to the Byrd Rule, because the tax cuts increased the deficit, they were required to sunset after 10 years and (2) because the deficit projections beyond the ten year window showed ballooning deficits, the Republicans like the sunset provision because it hid the ginormous deficits projected to result from the cuts.

I know it's popular in Republican circles to blame the sunset provision on the Democrats, but it just isn't true.
Click to expand...

So you're saying the Republicans still would have used reconcilliation even if they had 60 or 65 votes in the Senate?
 
Hmm.. the treasury/IRS set up the pay withholding to be higher for 2011. if they wait until after election to act on this its already to late to change the pay withhold by January.

If they do change it between Nov and December expect to get a check in the mail for the difference or to have it be changed back to 2010 withholding for 6 months.
 
NigelTufnel said:
That's just not true. The very reason for the expiration date was two fold: (1) since the Republicans utilized reconciliation procedures to pass the tax cuts, according to the Byrd Rule, because the tax cuts increased the deficit, they were required to sunset after 10 years and (2) because the deficit projections beyond the ten year window showed ballooning deficits, the Republicans like the sunset provision because it hid the ginormous deficits projected to result from the cuts.

I know it's popular in Republican circles to blame the sunset provision on the Democrats, but it just isn't true.
Click to expand...

They were not "required" to sunset. They, republicans, agreed to that provision to get them passed.
 
one thing the dems and pubs can agree on here is if they let them expire we are in deep shit. So the question is.. what are they going to do to protect the economy between now and the end of the year.
 
Ice Dancer said:
They were not "required" to sunset. They, republicans, agreed to that provision to get them passed.
Click to expand...


The Republicans didn't "agree" to anything. The cuts had to sunset:

Why are the Bush tax cuts, which were passed primarily in 2001 and 2003, expiring at the end of this tax year? In other words, why weren't they made permanent?

During the legislative fight over tax cuts in 2001, Senate Republicans could not predict with certainty that they would reach the 60-vote threshold of support that would have enabled them to make the tax cuts permanent. As a result, when Congress passed the first of many tax cuts during the last decade in May 2001, it passed it as a reconciliation bill which needs only 51 votes. That was the so-called Bush tax cut, formally known as the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA, pronounced egg-tray).

Reconciliation was devised in 1974 as a way to for the Senate to deal more effectively with budget bills, but it soon became a technique to limit amendments and debate. In 1985, the Senate added the so-called Byrd rule to reconciliation. Named after Senator Robert Byrd, the rule forbids a bill passed under reconciliation from, among other things, altering federal revenue for more than 10 years. Any senator may object that a provision violates that stricture, and if the presiding officer agrees, a vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling.
Click to expand...


http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/26312.html
 
cawacko said:
Who cares? I obviously don't need to tell you the Senate rules. With 60 votes there is no fillibuster. So you don't think it mattered whether the Republicans had 55 or 60 votes?
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't matter. It's all hypothetical. There is simply no way to know whether they could have gotten 60 votes if they did not proceed through reconciliation. What matters is what they did and what they did is proceed under reconciliation rules.
 
NigelTufnel said:
No, it doesn't matter. It's all hypothetical. There is simply no way to know whether they could have gotten 60 votes if they did not proceed through reconciliation. What matters is what they did and what they did is proceed under reconciliation rules.
Click to expand...

Your own article states right here that they used reconcilliation because they couldn't get the 60 votes. How is that hypothetical?


""During the legislative fight over tax cuts in 2001, Senate Republicans could not predict with certainty that they would reach the 60-vote threshold of support that would have enabled them to make the tax cuts permanent. As a result, when Congress passed the first of many tax cuts during the last decade in May 2001, it passed it as a reconciliation bill which needs only 51 votes.""
 
cawacko said:
Your own article states right here that they used reconcilliation because they couldn't get the 60 votes. How is that hypothetical?


""During the legislative fight over tax cuts in 2001, Senate Republicans could not predict with certainty that they would reach the 60-vote threshold of support that would have enabled them to make the tax cuts permanent. As a result, when Congress passed the first of many tax cuts during the last decade in May 2001, it passed it as a reconciliation bill which needs only 51 votes.""
Click to expand...


The article states that the Republicans were not certain they could get 60. That's not a hypothetical. It simply points out the uncertainty of the matter. Asking me if the Republicans could have gotten 60 is a hypothetical question. The answer is "no one knows"
 
NigelTufnel said:
The article states that the Republicans were not certain they could get 60. That's not a hypothetical. It simply points out the uncertainty of the matter. Asking me if the Republicans could have gotten 60 is a hypothetical question. The answer is "no one knows"
Click to expand...

I'm not asking if the Republicans could have gotten 60. I'm saying if the Republicans DID get 60 would they have used reconcilliation and according to the article you posted they would not have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top