Apparently this REALLY IS a well disguised tax hike.
No one not familiar with the way Washington “works” would be able to spot it, but the key is that it uses the existing tax laws as the base. The Bush tax hikes expire at the end of 2012, and this makes sure they do, in fact expire.
In other words, since Obama will be the President at the end of 2012, and until January 20th, 2013, he will be the President at the time this would kick into effect even if he is not re-elected. He would certainly veto any attempt to repeal this.
The only way to stop the tax hike would be to retroactively repeal the hike after the new President and Congress was sworn in. If the dems retain 41 seats or more in the Senate, which is likely, they would be able to block any repeal.
It also messes with the AMT, making it much worse. I haven’t had time to get the details on that.
In other words, this thing raises taxes A LOT. It is, indeed, a very clever trap.
Thanks for posting this. I also saw what you did.
There is no budget for 2012
Therefore, there is no realistic baseline. The change will occur within 60 days when the government really runs out of money for real
The House passed a budget. The Senate let it lay. No budget, no money
I’m sure my 2 moderate R’s will cave. TN, Corker is up in ‘12, the old fart Alexander in ‘14 he is 70 at least, past time to retire.
Knock it down, House.
an economy stalled on the precipice of depression NEEDS big tax hikes, don’cha know
it’s progressive economics 101 - when the cow stops giving milk you withold food until its milk production increases
sarc
besides, europe is almost out of money again, too and they need a big TARP 2.0 from American taxpayers
The Bush tax cut extension will be fought at a later date so gird your loins for that one.
Obama wanted two things in this deal:
1. To extend the debt limit debate past the 2012 elections. He got that.
2. To get the congress to kill the Bush tax cuts. He didn’t get that.
He’s now faced with the prospect of raising taxes in an election year - by his own pen. That is a big loser for him and I doubt he’ll do it. He didn’t last time, earning him ongoing derision from the left.
Every time he gets on TV now he mentions the “balanced approach” blah, blah, blah, as if he was successful in getting a tax increase into this deal.
He didn’t and his party knows it.
He failed and he knows he’s up a creek.
It doesn’t matter who is on the commission. One liberal member will make a feeble attempt to float a tax increase and it will fail.
THIS STORY IS FALSE, I ASKED THE MODS TO PULL IT BUT THEY DIDN’T, THERE IS NO TRUTH TO THIS POST, OR THIS STORY.
* Please Read Before Posting * - Rules Apply!
In an attempt to bring some organization to our Activism -
See @Anchor Posts, each for a specfic subject or type of information.
If you have the latest info on the Schedule, Contact Info, or Advice about Activism; and or to comment on several subjects concerning the US budget, - please post here to the specific anchor post. Then we can click on "View Replies" to find specific info more quickly.
Requesting your input and opinions:
Filibuster w/ Lee, West Needs TEA, Rubio Quote, Expose Default Scare Fraud, End Dems Ponzi Economics
http://keithhennessey.com/2011/08/01/bca-understanding/
This bill does not raise taxes.
The $917 B of spending cuts that immediately take effect are just that, spending cuts. No tax increases there.
It gets complex when you look at the new Joint Committee. I think it’s easier if I break it into four questions:
If the Joint Committee process fails, could the automatic sequester mechanism raise taxes?
Is the Joint Committee allowed to raise taxes?
Can the Joint Committee count tax increases toward hitting its deficit reduction target?
What does the bill do to efforts to raise taxes outside of this process?
As I read the bill text, the answers are:
No. The automatic triggered sequester cuts spending. It cannot raise taxes.
Yes, the Joint Committee is allowed to raise taxes. Nothing forbids the Committee from including any tax increase they like, if they have 7 or more votes to do so. But to become law that bill would also need the support of a majority of the House.
No for any taxes already scheduled to increase in the next 10 years under current law (e.g., the Bush-Obama tax rates, AMT, or any expiring tax extenders). Yes for any other proposed tax increase (e.g., corporate jets, Big Oil, carried interest, LIFO, capping itemized deductions for high income tax filers, or any other “new” tax increase). See below for more details.
The bill creates a 60 vote Senate budget point of order against legislation that would extend any of the Bush-Obama tax rates or patch the Alternative Minimum Tax. Then again, those bills already face a 60 vote filibuster threshold, and last year such a point of order existed against extending the top tax rates, so practically speaking, this isn’t a new or higher hurdle.
Hmm
No shit Little Beaver!
yo. Boehner sux.
I understand that any tax hike is not now a part of the plan, but that the “super committee” could approve a tax hike. The committee has 6 pubs and 6 dems. To pass the committee, a tax hike must have 7 of 12 votes, so one of them must be a pub.
Then it must pass both House and Senate with a majority vote in each house.
That makes it seem remote, but it isn’t impossible, either.
Rush clearly explained why it is a guaranteed tax hike no matte what. Since all the assumptions and calculations are based on the Bush tax cuts going away, increased taxes will have to come either via the Bush tax cuts not being renewed or the equivalent of those “lost monies” having to be obtained via other increased taxes (i.e., call it what you want, taxes will be increased under this bill).
This is a sham.
I don’t trust Dems to the point I’ve been worrying that they are pretending to hate this “deal” because they have already figured out how to use it to their advantage...to raise taxes and/or spendmore.
Why would we want it passed anyway?
No debt ceiling increase means an instantly ‘balanced budget’.
raising the debt limit in itself is a tax. It equals more money, products and services for our government, thus you and I have to pay more to get the same as before!
T.S. Eliot described the Republicans very well in the last section of “The Waste Land”, “What the Thunder Said”:
The awful daring of a moment’s surrender
Which an age of prudence can never retract
By this, and this only, we have existed