The Tax Cut Deal

Filed in National by on December 6, 2010

The deal is not quite finalized but here are the details being announced:

1) The Bush tax cuts get extended for two years — with one ugly surprise: For the next two years, estates up to $5,000,000 will be protected from the estate tax, and the tax rate for the few estates that are taxed will be 35 percent. That’s worse than the 2009 estate tax ($3.5 million exemption, 45 percent rate), though better than this year’s “no estate tax at all.” The difference in expected revenue between the 2009 levels and the compromise levels is $10 billion or so.

2) The refundable tax credits are extended: The Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit and the American Opportunity Tax Credit were all pumped up in the stimulus, but set to expire this year. All of them will be extended. Price tag? $40 billion or so.

3) Unemployment insurance gets extended for 13 months: Most observers — myself included — thought the federal boost to unemployment insurance (which allowed jobless workers in states with high levels of unemployment to collect insurance for up to 99 weeks) would lapse. At best, there’d be another two- or three-month extension. In perhaps the most important part of the deal, there’s going to be a 13-month extension at a cost of $56 billion.

4) A 2 percent cut in the payroll taxes paid by employees: This is perhaps the most unexpected part of the compromise. Rather than extending the administration’s Making Work Pay tax credit for two years, which would’ve been worth about $60 billion a year, they’ve agreed to a one-year cut in the payroll taxes paid by employees, which’ll raise $120 billion in 2011. That’s a much stronger boost over the next year, and of course these tax cuts have a tendency to get extended …

5) Business expensing: Remember back in September, when the White House announced a proposal to give businesses two years in which they could deduct 100 percent of the cost of new investments? That’s in the deal, too. The cost of this is a bit complicated — it’s $30 billion over 10 years, but it works by offering huge tax cuts in the next two years and then paying that back over the next eight. So we’re basically trying to shift business investment forward to 2011 and 2012. Over those two years, the tax breaks should be around $200 billion, though because it’s a shift rather than a cut, it will have less than $200 billion in impact.

Tags: ,

About the Author ()

Opinionated chemist, troublemaker, blogger on national and Delaware politics.

Comments (33)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. This is good – Chris Bowers lays out the choices in the tax cut deal.

    So, tonight I am asking you to cast a vote about whether you think Democrats in Congress should go along with the pending tax cut deal, or whether you think they should block any deal and kick the fight into next year. Here are the basic arguments in support of each position, each of which have merit:

    Don’t make the deal

    It shows Republicans that Democrats, for once, are willing to play hardball in negotiations, thus improving their position for the epic fights of the next two years.
    It helps reduce the deficit, thus putting far less pressure on Social Security and Medicare.
    It dismantles George W. Bush’s central domestic policy, instead of ratifying it forever.

    Make the deal

    At least in the short term, it is much more economically stimulative than passing on any deal at all. A better economy means better Democratic electoral hopes.
    It’s a lot more popular in the abstract than allowing all tax cuts to expire, and will also be more popular in practice since virtually every American will take less of a hit in the pocketbook.
    In addition to helping the unemployed, it increases the possibility of repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and ratifying the START treaty during the lame duck session. Nothing will happen on those until this deal is done.

  2. a. price says:

    off the wagon.

  3. anonone says:

    No deal.

  4. jason330 says:

    Well is goes without saying that Obama and the Dems will agree to the terrorist demands. The question this raises is, are these enough to begin to build a re-election campaign on? Given this administration’s inability to claim a “win” – I doubt it.

  5. Polemical says:

    ‘What up, Dogz! errr, I mean ‘Blue Dogs.” I mean Progressives? Don’t cry into your latte!

  6. Polemical says:

    Sounds emmanating from the Democratic Caucus Room: Our president is a F$#@^&@% &*(-%$!!, no good, &^%$ #@!%^&* son of a…*&^%$!!!!! F#%$!@# inbred, D*&^%$#&!

  7. jason330 says:

    …but like Pricey, I can be won back (and cheaply).

  8. donviti says:

    I’m just happy my CEO has more money. I’ve noticed he only has 4 different cars he drives to work. He obviously only has one for every other day.

    With this tax cut “extension” employment should get down to 7% and corporate class will start hiring Americans at living wages again. At some point, they will have too much money and start showering their fellow citizens with their pennies.

    God Bless America

  9. jason330 says:

    Trickle down hasn’t failed. It just hasn’t been given long enough to work.

  10. donviti says:

    You know what’s really upsetting to me, and yes I mean upsetting?

    It’s upsetting to me that Obama is willing to be a one term President based on these fucking decisions and not the ones he got elected on.

  11. jason330 says:

    That’s an excellent point. Go back to the 60 minutes interview and he was making a lot of excuses for how difficult it was to do stuff. Well FUCKING TRY..and if you fail at least YOU FUCKING TRIED. You get points for that.

  12. donviti says:

    People and young people especially didn’t vote for this guy b/c they thought he was going to cave to the uber rich and corporations. They voted for the guy they thought understood the amazing divide going on in this country and b/c they thought he would right the ship.

    Now, just like Clinton he is giving in to the rich and corporations. I should know…this is exactly why I hated Clinton. Gave away everything to the big donors and special interests….

    Sadly, I still think he would have been better then any other option on either side. I can’t imagine Hillary would have done any better

    I take that back…Kucinich would have been better….

  13. Polemical says:

    But didn’t Clinton create about 20 million jobs AND a budget surplus? What do you want? Socialism and a blowjob too?

  14. Polemical says:

    Cost of ‘refundable tax credits: ~ $40 Billion
    Cost of Unemployment Extension: $56 Billion
    Cost of extending tax cuts to ALL: ~ $700 Billion

    The look on Harry Reid’s and Nancy Peplosi’s faces: PRICELESS!

    😉

  15. anonone says:

    Perhaps our only hope is that the repubs kill it out of pure greediness and spite.

  16. a. price says:

    i think the republicans are going to let the defense bill die, and allow it to pass….. with a repeal of DADT when they are in power. They will take credit for it and say they stood up for equal rights when anti-gay socialist Eric HOlder and Secret muslim anti gay socialist Obama fought to keep it.

  17. Republican David says:

    House Republicans will never stand for the social experiments of the left. Repeal of DADT will be a dead letter if it waits to the next Congress.

  18. socialistic Ben says:

    work on your GOP mandated statements, tool. they are too obvious.
    you’re going to hell with McConnell and Beohner for schilling their crap.

  19. jason330 says:

    “House Republicans will never stand for the social experiments of the left.” Take it from a guy who knows a thing or two about social experimentation.

  20. Truth Teller says:

    Two years ago I took a beating on this site for supporting Hillary I told you folks that Obama was an empty suit and that under pressure from the Repuks he would fold. Well i am sorry to say that tonight he has proven me right. If he is unable to stand up to the likes of Mitch McConnell Boner and Canter we are in real trouble when it comes to Iran and North korea. As much as i hate to say it Bill Maher is correct we elected a Wimp and a Wuss

  21. a price says:

    i painfully agree, TT.

  22. jason330 says:

    I think the playground metaphors get stretched to the breaking point when you try to extend them beyond the Democratic/Republican confrontations to include international events. Other then that I agree with the gist of the comment and probably owe you an apology for the overheated Hilary trashing.

  23. a price says:

    I have no idea what happens in 2 years.
    IF he has been re-elected, he will be dealing with either a total republican majority…. all Teaed up from what they will claim is a mandate to dictate or an outgoing republican majority who has proven they are spiteful enough to hurt everyone just to make Obama look bad
    … Or he will not be re elected and the newly elected republican majority….. you get the idea.
    This next time, he will be forced to sign a tax cut for the rich ONLY.

  24. anonone says:

    TT, have you been reading the Wikileaks summaries? Clinton is as much of a dishonest corporatist criminal as Obomba.

    And we are in real trouble.

  25. Capt.Willard says:

    Things just seem to get uglier every day.
    What am I gonna DO?
    I’m too old, crippled, beat-up and scarred to be a performing CABANA BOY for some rich guy.
    Besides, those thongs are impossible to dance in.
    There’s no ballroom.

  26. Truth Teller says:

    Annonone learn to spell the Presidents name I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and look at it as a typo instead of a racial slur

  27. anonone says:

    Look at it any way you want, TT. It isn’t a typo and it has nothing to do with his race. As long as Obama continues to kill people by dropping bombs on them, I’ll spell his name “O-b-o-m-b-a” in protest.

  28. donviti says:

    We’ve been dealing with a Republican majority Since Obama got into office. If he gets re-elected, which I think he will, it will be no different then what we are getting now.

    With any luck, maybe people will start seeing that both sides are in this together. Christ, if this tax thing doesn’t shake you out of your coma nothing will.

  29. a. price says:

    despite my leaving the bandwagon, i still recognize it was the republicans that gave this ultimatum. “kick poor people out in to the cold unless our scum-sucking rich friends get a tax break”

    that is what you should remember every time you look at a republican. That is what they stand for.
    Obama messed up by letting them get bold enough to know that terrorist tactic would work. They know they can do whatever they want now. threaten any American the please and they will get their way. Obama may be a wimp, but the Repukes are sub-human shit stains.
    I hope those who may be (and rightfully) thinking “i told you so” would acknowledge who actually made the ultimatum. They were ready to put us at risk of nuclear war with Russia, continue to discriminate despite what the army wants, throw poor people out in to the cold….. all to make a point.
    It is Obama’s fault it got this far but this time he has no choice.

    To hell with the whole system.

  30. anon says:

    4) A 2 percent cut in the payroll taxes paid by employees

    You do realize this is an attack on Social Security beyond what Republicans ever hoped to achieve, making the Catfood Commission recommendations more likely to be implemented.

  31. Truth Teller says:

    Price you can only be blackmailed if you don’t fight back Obama should have called their bluff and told them he would not allow the unemployed to be held hostage and he would let the tax cuts expire according to the law that they passed.. So then the repuks would of either let the unemployed go broke at Christmas and face the wrath in the future or else they would have caved. my money would be on them caving.