Bipartisan tax plan will cost $857 billion over 10 years, say estimates

[cal04]

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/133227-bipartisan-tax-plan-will-cost-857-billion-over-10-years

The tax plan brokered between the White House and Senate Republicans will cost add $857.8 billion to the deficit over 10 years, according to the Joint Taxation Committee's and Congressional Budget Office's scores of the legislation.

The measure, which comes up in the Senate for its first vote Monday, would cost more than the $787 billion economic stimulus bill passed in February 2009.

The score of the bipartisan tax legislation shows a loss of $721 billion in revenue over the next decade.

(snip)

In addition, the two-year patch for the alternative minimum tax will cost $136 billion, the estate tax of a 35 percent rate with an exemption up to $5 million will cost $68 billion and the one-year two percentage points reduction of the payroll tax for employers has an estimated cost of $111.6 billion, the JCT estimates showed.

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. $87 billion per annum

in a $1.4 trillion budget is statistical noise.

The most remarkable thing about the last month or so is Herbert Hoover becoming a Democratic idol.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. 857 billion leading straight into the peak boomer retirement event

This is so totally fucked it is beyond comprehension.

[Creative]

3. How can that be when the tax deal is for two years and the SS deal

is for one year?

[emulatorloo]

4. It is a 2 year deal, not a ten year deal.

"I just know it will be made permanent" is not a justification.

[frazzled]

5. And liberals are supposed to want that

We are not supposed to be worrying about deficits in the short term: we believe in government spending in recessionary times as a way to support a flagging economy. We are not Republican deficit hawks.

Dean Baker, an extremely liberal economist, explained this to you Tuesday, so you should listen: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/07/in_defense_of_giving_money_to_rich_people/


We should not be "deficit hawks here. The preponderance of that money (more than $450 billion of it) goes to middle-class and poor people; $135 billion of it accounts for the tax cuts to the wealthy and the temporary estate tax modifications the Repubicans wanted. Overall: we win. But more important, the economy wins.

[Davis_X_Machina]

6. Borrowing notation from logic...

...DemocraticUnderground.com isn't actually DemocraticUnderground.com, it's ~RepublicanUnderground.com

[TheKentuckian]

7. Take away what the 75k and up crowd get and tell me again.

This bullshit is not for the poor and working class but for the rich and near rich.

The middle class is a fucking fig leaf. The idea that this is targeting most people with substantive relief is laughable.

[Davis_X_Machina]

9. In other words...

A cold, hard, small, disciplined, real Democratic party is the only thing that will save the country. And if failing to mitigate human suffering is the price, so be it.

Oh, sure, some people will carp, and point out that during this process real people will suffer real pain that could otherwise have been averted. When the historical necessity of their sacrifice is explained to them properly, however, they will come around.

Some day, when real progressives finally take power, we can recognize their sacrifice. A memorial, something tasteful, and not too grandiose on the Mall? Or a commemorative stamp...we could have Banksey do it; think how cool that would be.

Remind me again, when did Lenin die? Did Lenin die?

[TheKentuckian]

14. Nobody is suffering because of these fucking tax cuts.

If Democrats were concerned about the unemployed they would have indexed the extensions to the unemployment rate but instead they wanted people to slip off as "discouraged" to lower the number while they used the constant reauthorizations as a political attack.

[girl gone mad]

15. This deal raises taxes on the working poor.

[BzaDem]

16. It does not raise taxes on the working poor relative to no deal at all. A family of 4 at the poverty

line would be paying over 3k more with no deal than with a deal.

[inna]

17. that is factually incorrect.

[dkf]

8. 10 years doesn't make sense.

What in this agreement lasts 10 years?

[aquart]

10. And that money will come from........?

[Davis_X_Machina]

11. Herbert Hoover became a Democrat when....

John Maynard Keynes died for our sins, and in vain.

[Life Long Dem]

12. The tax plan will be good for the economy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010121006994.html

Economic forecasters are boosting their year-end and 2011 estimates for U.S. growth, prompted by a narrowing trade deficit, an unexpectedly large round of proposed tax cuts and an increase in consumer confidence

The revisions this week were substantial, as analysts took particular note of the tax deal struck between the White House and congressional Republicans.

The agreement included some provisions that were already expected and built into forecasts, such as an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts. But other elements of the deal, such as a proposed 2 percentage point reduction in the Social Security payroll tax, were not anticipated.

Analysts say the extra tens of billions of dollars that workers will find in their paychecks at the start of the year could add as much as a half of a percentage point or more to U.S. economic growth in 2011.

The tax package "injects meaningful extra stimulus into the economy," said Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist for the IHS Global Insight consulting firm, who raised his projection for growth next year from 2.4 percent to 3.0 percent.

[aquart]

13. Have we not yet learned that economists know nothing?

[inna]

18. class warfare in action.

there is no other explanation. this is a classic "starve the beast" strategy, btw. next step is drowning "the government" (code word for any public/social services/safety net for the workers, etc.) in a fucking bath tub.

:nuke: