Skip to main content

View Diary: Actual Fiscal Curb Deal #'s - or - Why the angst re: $400K/$450K when the CED rates are ~600% worse? (33 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I am confused. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sewaneepat, Cedwyn, Lujane

    The ced stuff generates 660M of new revenues, correct? So why would you add that number to the cost to Treasury of the retention of lower rates to the $450k crowd? How are these all "costs"?

    •  Sorry, was away for a bit (7+ / 0-)

      It's not $660 billion in new revenue. Exactly the opposite, actually. So obviously I needed to explain that better.

      As of the new year, there was a very brief moment when the Bush tax cuts had expired but no new law had been passed. In that moment, there was a large amount of new revenue from CED stuff on the books as compared to the tax laws in 2012. Then, in the deal, the Democrats chose to give up $660 billion of that new revenue in exchange for passing the deal.

      Every deal has its cost, of course, but I wanted to see what we actually got out of the deal in real dollar figures. And while it wasn't as bad as I initially thought, I'm still not sure it's very good.

      Does that make sense? Anything else I should clarify?

      •  Okay, can you explain this: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lujane, caul

        How do you compare the new policies on capital gains, estate and dividend taxes compared, not to what was the case on 1/1/13, but what was the case on 12/31/12.  I mean, if you look at it that way it is better, right?

        "A developed country is not where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation." - Mayor of Bogota

        by Time Waits for no Woman on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:42:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It sounds like you pretty much got it (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lujane, Odysseus, Aspe4, caul

          For instance, I viewed the Bush rates for people making less than $250K as pretty much a certainty to remain where they were. But I thought and hoped the CED rates had a real chance of going way way up.

          So yes, since the Bush tax cuts were set to expire as of 1/1/13, I viewed everything that was set to expire on 1/1/13 -- especially the CED rates -- as being fair game for negotiation.

          Thus, as far as I'm concerned, it didn't actually matter when the deal was passed. I would have said "That's a tax cut" on anything that lowered CED rates from what they would have reverted to on 1/1/13 based on the Bush cuts/Obama extensions thereof. It just seems like the most logical way to consider it.

          Does that make sense?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site