Bill Kristol tells GOP to come back to the table.

This is why "deigned" needs to make a comeback. Let them eat cake.

clover wrote:

This is why "deigned" needs to make a comeback. Let them eat cake.

I use that all the time - did it go away?

SallyNasty wrote:
clover wrote:

This is why "deigned" needs to make a comeback. Let them eat cake.

I use that all the time - did it go away?

Ditto. I thought that word was still used that way rather commonly.

Farscry wrote:

SallyNasty wrote:

clover wrote:

This is why "deigned" needs to make a comeback. Let them eat cake.

I use that all the time - did it go away?

Ditto. I thought that word was still used that way rather commonly.

It's a perfectly cromulent word...

Even I use 'deigned' on occasion, and I'm a filthy foreigner. Surely the native English speaking population can deign -aha - to incorporate it into their vocabulary?

There's nothing stopping Obama from ordering the treasury to use the 2012 tax tables for 2013 until this is resolved. In fact, if he does then he will get to dictate the tax policy because the republicans by not caving would be raising taxes. He'll destroy them in the media.

bandit0013 wrote:

There's nothing stopping Obama from ordering the treasury to use the 2012 tax tables for 2013 until this is resolved. In fact, if he does then he will get to dictate the tax policy because the republicans by not caving would be raising taxes. He'll destroy them in the media.

Can you explain how that would not be an impeachable offense of the executive branch failing to levy the taxes dictated by the legislative branch?

Yeah, I wasn't punning, I was implying that Boehner couldn't really be arsed to go to work, and the closest he was willing to get was a call with his buddies. He's above all this petty politics stuff, being Speaker of the House and all.

'Deigned' would, indeed, have been a better choice.

Yonder wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

There's nothing stopping Obama from ordering the treasury to use the 2012 tax tables for 2013 until this is resolved. In fact, if he does then he will get to dictate the tax policy because the republicans by not caving would be raising taxes. He'll destroy them in the media.

Can you explain how that would not be an impeachable offense of the executive branch failing to levy the taxes dictated by the legislative branch?

Well, you know, he might be able to do that. Congress authorizes the spending of money and the collection of taxes, but I'm pretty sure that prior Presidents have occasionally put the screws to Congresscritters they didn't like, by refusing to spend money that had been authorized to be spent in their districts. (I have the idea that FDR did this a few times, and maybe LBJ -- LBJ was a truly serious scumbag.)

I'm not aware that any haven't collected taxes that Congress authorized, but I'm pretty sure that authorizing is all Congress can do, and that actually undertaking the action is purely Executive.

We'd end up in Constitutional crisis mode, of course, but I think Congress might lose.

edit: And, yes, the President could be impeached, but that doesn't mean his successor would necessarily do what Congress wanted, either.

Bandit wrote:

There's nothing stopping Obama from ordering the treasury to use the 2012 tax tables for 2013 until this is resolved.

What's the evidence for this? I'm curious what the precedent and legal basis are.

What they said above. The department of the Treasury is run by the executive branch, and they don't have to collect taxes that congress authorizes. Just like the DoD doesn't have to spend money authorized, and why the justice department can look the other way at marijuana if they want to.

More specifically, the Sec/Treasury gets to set the witholding tables. This is codified in tax law.

There’s also a precedent for changing withholding tables independent of a revision in rates. In 1992, in his State of the Union address, President George H.W. Bush announced that he was ordering lower tax withholding and said it would put $25 billion into the economy.

Changing witholding tables just puts off tax collection, it doesn't change the rates. Right? Is that what you meant by "tax tables"? Because I understood that to mean rate tables, not witholding tables. The Constitution gives *Congress*, not the Executive, the power to "lay and collect taxes", so the Treasury (Executive branch) does not have the ability to lower (or raise) taxes on it's own.

Bandit0013 wrote:

The department of the Treasury is run by the executive branch, and they don't have to collect taxes that congress authorizes.

This is what I think is incorrect in light of the above.

Robear wrote:

Changing witholding tables just puts off tax collection, it doesn't change the rates. Right? Is that what you meant by "tax tables"? Because I understood that to mean rate tables, not witholding tables. The Constitution gives *Congress*, not the Executive, the power to "lay and collect taxes", so the Treasury (Executive branch) does not have the ability to lower (or raise) taxes on it's own.

Bandit0013 wrote:

The department of the Treasury is run by the executive branch, and they don't have to collect taxes that congress authorizes.

This is what I think is incorrect in light of the above.

Poor wording on my part. Because they control the withholding tables, they can allow payroll companies etc to continue taking money out of your check at the 2012 rates. If towards the end of the year no deal would be reached then every worker would be hit with "super extra withholding". Naturally this would cause an outcry of epic proportions as workers would see their incomes dive the amount of the tax increase plus an additional amount to "catch up". So by doing this the administration could really turn the screws on congress. Sorry folks, your pay is going down 10% for the rest of the year because THEY didn't pass the bill.

I think I understand what you mean now, but here is an example to make sure.

Joe's 2012 taxes were $12k, the IRS withheld roughly $1000 a month so when he filed for his taxes he owed nothing. In 2013 Fiscal cliff mode Joe would owe roughly double, or $24k. However, instead of attempting for an even withholding Obama has the IRS take $1000 a month like in 2012. Then, towards the end of the fiscal year Congress will have a lot of pressure to make 2013 taxes equal to 2012 taxes after the fact, because otherwise Joe and all the other constituents will be very angry when they are told they owe $12k at the end of the year, apparently out of nowhere.

Yonder wrote:

I think I understand what you mean now, but here is an example to make sure.

Joe's 2012 taxes were $12k, the IRS withheld roughly $1000 a month so when he filed for his taxes he owed nothing. In 2013 Fiscal cliff mode Joe would owe roughly double, or $24k. However, instead of attempting for an even withholding Obama has the IRS take $1000 a month like in 2012. Then, towards the end of the fiscal year Congress will have a lot of pressure to make 2013 taxes equal to 2012 taxes after the fact, because otherwise Joe and all the other constituents will be very angry when they are told they owe $12k at the end of the year, apparently out of nowhere.

That's the gist of it.

So I'm wondering, has anyone seen any evidence that the Right is irritated at their people in the House for all this? Or it is just Obama's fault as usual?

Ok I'm a little confused at all the talk about taxes going up by 10 percent or more on Average Americans. This flies in the face of the arguments to raise money on the wealthy, namely:

1 Taxes would be going up only a few percentage points.
2 America's graduated tax rate means that only the most wealthy would see any huge tax increases. So if taxes were raised on everyone making $250k or more, the family that's arguably upper middle class in a HCOL area would not be paying that more out of pocket.
3 The Bush taxes didn't really benefit average Americans, as their overall tax rates were barely affected.

If all the above are true, then why would repealing those taxes hurt suddenly equal Joe Sixpack paying $24k instead of $12k (using the example stated above)? My apologies if these were just off- the-cuff examples, but they seem like gross misgeneralizations. Or what am I missing?

jdzappa wrote:

Ok I'm a little confused at all the talk about taxes going up by 10 percent or more on Average Americans. This flies in the face of the arguments to raise money on the wealthy, namely:

1 Taxes would be going up only a few percentage points.
2 America's graduated tax rate means that only the most wealthy would see any huge tax increases. So if taxes were raised on everyone making $250k or more, the family that's arguably upper middle class in a HCOL area would not be paying that more out of pocket.
3 The Bush taxes didn't really benefit average Americans, as their overall tax rates were barely affected.

If all the above are true, then why would repealing those taxes hurt suddenly equal Joe Sixpack paying $24k instead of $12k (using the example stated above)? My apologies if these were just off- the-cuff examples, but they seem like gross misgeneralizations. Or what am I missing?

I'd love to see the source of what you're talking about, jdzappa.

I know that everyone's tax bills will be higher next year; higher than just simply flipping back to the Clinton era income tax rates. That's because not only are the Bush era tax cuts ending, but there's also some fiscal stimulus tax cuts that are expiring as well. I believe the one that will most impact the middle class is that the 2% payroll tax holiday we've had for the past couple of years is going away.

JD, according to the recent Tax Policy Center paper, the average taxpayer would see an increase of $2000 in taxes on wages, with higher earners seeing up to $3500. Low income and high income families would be hit disproportionately.

jdzappa wrote:

If all the above are true, then why would repealing those taxes hurt suddenly equal Joe Sixpack paying $24k instead of $12k (using the example stated above)?

Not sure how much Joe Sixpack is making, but it could range from Joe Sixpack not being able to afford HBO to Joe not being able to afford his mortgage. One takeaway that is important here is that when the middle class has more money they tend to spend it, which is good for our consumer based economy. Wealthy people aren't as likely or as in much of a hurry to spend it - and if they have 4% less to spend it doesn't hurt them like Joe.

I'm assuming that the spending habbits of the middle class is fairly well accepted here but just in case here is the first google search...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/08/01/157664524/how-the-poor-the-middle-class-and-the-rich-spend-their-money

OG_slinger wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

Ok I'm a little confused at all the talk about taxes going up by 10 percent or more on Average Americans. This flies in the face of the arguments to raise money on the wealthy, namely:

1 Taxes would be going up only a few percentage points.
2 America's graduated tax rate means that only the most wealthy would see any huge tax increases. So if taxes were raised on everyone making $250k or more, the family that's arguably upper middle class in a HCOL area would not be paying that more out of pocket.
3 The Bush taxes didn't really benefit average Americans, as their overall tax rates were barely affected.

If all the above are true, then why would repealing those taxes hurt suddenly equal Joe Sixpack paying $24k instead of $12k (using the example stated above)? My apologies if these were just off- the-cuff examples, but they seem like gross misgeneralizations. Or what am I missing?

I'd love to see the source of what you're talking about, jdzappa.

I know that everyone's tax bills will be higher next year; higher than just simply flipping back to the Clinton era income tax rates. That's because not only are the Bush era tax cuts ending, but there's also some fiscal stimulus tax cuts that are expiring as well. I believe the one that will most impact the middle class is that the 2% payroll tax holiday we've had for the past couple of years is going away.

I'm talking about some of the quotes earlier in this thread, specifically:

Joe's 2012 taxes were $12k, the IRS withheld roughly $1000 a month so when he filed for his taxes he owed nothing. In 2013 Fiscal cliff mode Joe would owe roughly double, or $24k.

AND

Naturally this would cause an outcry of epic proportions as workers would see their incomes dive the amount of the tax increase plus an additional amount to "catch up". So by doing this the administration could really turn the screws on congress. Sorry folks, your pay is going down 10% for the rest of the year because THEY didn't pass the bill.

I couldn't tell if these were generalizations or meant to be actual statements of what's going to happen.

jdzappa wrote:

I couldn't tell if these were generalizations or meant to be actual statements of what's going to happen.

I assumed they were just generalizations, because if that's how people understand tax brackets, I would've had a fatal stroke.

Bonus_Strokus wrote:

I assumed they were just generalizations, because if that's how people understand tax brackets, I would've had a fatal stroke.

How is tax bracelet formed? How government get texas?

Basically look at it like this. Given a standard biweekly pay schedule, if the treasury uses the existing withholding tables, a family of 50k income would owe about $2,000 more in taxes if the rates weren't adjusted before year end. So they're working, having withholding, etc for the first 6 months. The treasury realizes there will be no deal, so now there are two options:

1. Do nothing, at the end of the year all those people will get smacked with a $2,000 tax bill (for a family making $50k, that's about a month's pay after taxes).
2. Up the withholding amount, which given 12 pay periods would take an extra $166 per pay, or $332 per month, which for a family of four making 50k... is disastrous.

Thus, by exercising the treasury's power to set withholding rates Obama could put the republicans into a position where they MUST extend the middle class tax cuts or else face the wrath of tax payers.

Income tax is owed the moment that income is realized.

If the tax withholding tables are not adjusted, you will be required by law to make quarterly estimated tax payments. At the end of the year, you may be responsible for penalties and interest if you pay too little throughout the year.

Families are going to get crushed. My taxes will go up $2,000 just for having 4 dependents. This does not include my increased payroll or income taxes. It has been a long time since the Bush tax cuts were enacted, people forget how much their taxes went down.

bandit0013 wrote:

Basically look at it like this. Given a standard biweekly pay schedule, if the treasury uses the existing withholding tables, a family of 50k income would owe about $2,000 more in taxes if the rates weren't adjusted before year end. So they're working, having withholding, etc for the first 6 months. The treasury realizes there will be no deal, so now there are two options:

1. Do nothing, at the end of the year all those people will get smacked with a $2,000 tax bill (for a family making $50k, that's about a month's pay after taxes).
2. Up the withholding amount, which given 12 pay periods would take an extra $166 per pay, or $332 per month, which for a family of four making 50k... is disastrous.

Thus, by exercising the treasury's power to set withholding rates Obama could put the republicans into a position where they MUST extend the middle class tax cuts or else face the wrath of tax payers.

I believe you are making a slight miscalculation. The public will roast all of the politicians, not just the republicans. The public will also demand spending cuts. Right now, the public believes that taxing the rich will fix the problem. Once they see their new lower paychecks the problem will become real.

Best that I can tell, we will still have an $800 billion deficit after the fiscal cliff. That is how screwed we are.

Nothing got solved today... Senate due back tomorrow...

Ladies and Gentlemen, please return your seats to the upright position. Please remember that your seat cushion can be used for a flotation device.

Greg wrote:

It has been a long time since the Bush tax cuts were enacted, people forget how much their taxes went down.

Greg wrote:

Best that I can tell, we will still have an $800 billion deficit after the fiscal cliff. That is how screwed we are.

Huh. Who would have figured that we'd develop massive deficits if we slashed our taxes? Oh, that's right. We all did. That's why the Bush tax cuts were supposed to sunset in ten years. Every projection the CBO ran at the time had them adding to the deficit so the political compromise was to simply make them "temporary" rather than admit they were a f*cking stupid idea.

And that was before Bush tacked on the biggest giveaway to the drug companies with Medicare Part D and decided to fight two wars on Uncle Sam's Bank of China credit card.

And, no, we won't have an $800 billion deficit. We'll have a $641 billion deficit, which will be about half of the $1.1 trillion deficit we had this year.

Greg wrote:

I believe you are making a slight miscalculation. The public will roast all of the politicians, not just the republicans. The public will also demand spending cuts. Right now, the public believes that taxing the rich will fix the problem. Once they see their new lower paychecks the problem will become real.

No, the public won't roast all politicians, nor does the public think that taxing the rich will fix the problem.

The public thinks that the rich made out like bandits thanks to the Bush era tax cuts (which is true), that they were barely affected by the financial crisis (which is also true), and that making them pay what they paid in the late 90s isn't going to kill them or stop them from creating jobs (not that they've been doing that for years anyway).

People will grumble about their paychecks being a bit smaller, but there will be holy hell to pay the first month the jobs numbers slip into negative territory. And the blame for that will be laid solely at the feet of the GOP who will have to explain, once again, why they shot the US economy in the head rather extending the tax cuts for the middle class and raising taxes on people who, for the most part, wouldn't even feel the added burden.

jdzappa wrote:

I'm talking about some of the quotes earlier in this thread, specifically:

Joe's 2012 taxes were $12k, the IRS withheld roughly $1000 a month so when he filed for his taxes he owed nothing. In 2013 Fiscal cliff mode Joe would owe roughly double, or $24k.

Sorry, that example wasn't created to demonstrate the actual 2013 tax increase, but just as very simple numbers to make the whole "monthly witholdings" section more plain. I wanted round numbers for the monthly withholdings, hence $12k and $24k. Also Joe makes millions every year on the stock market, his taxes are only so low because he keeps his money in offshore accounts.

For actual numbers on how much taxes could be going up, this article Paleocon posted a couple weeks ago has a great breakdown on the Fiscal Cliff, Democratic, and Republican 2013 tax plans. In a perfect world the fact that it was 25 days old in a time where the Congress has been in crisis mode would mean that it is incredibly out of date, but in reality it is not. I believe that Boehner's new plan last week was a little less rich-friendly, but other than that it's all the same.

As an aside I found it... (hmm, is there a word for deeply depressing and incredibly funny at the same time?) How much the Republican plan slams poor people. Just another indication of how much the party is a parody of itself these days.