I don't know about you, but I'm not one of those folks worrying about the "tax increase for the rich" that was conceived in the fiscal cliff deal lawmakers finally approved on Day 2 of the new year.
I'm not making $400,000 a year. Combined, my wife and I are nowhere near $450,000 a year. So, no worries.
But for all the talk about "protecting the middle class," I'm apparently about to see a change in my take-home pay, thanks to the Jan. 2 deal that averted large across-the-board spending cuts and automatic reversal of some tax cuts.
"Technically, income tax rates that were set to go up were actually left alone, except for individuals and couples earning more than $400,000 and $450,000 respectively," according to this Yahoo! Finance article about three landmines in the fiscal cliff deal. One of those landmines: "Especially of note is a 2 percent bump in the payroll tax that will hit every taxpayer — not just the high-income households."
Another article, from Business Insider published on Yahoo! Finance, notes that the 2 percent (actually, it's 2 percentage points) come because Congress and the White House cut the payroll tax from 6.2 percent for all workers to 4.2 percent for all workers effective 2011.
But the fiscal cliff deal didn't renew that, so everyone's taxes are going up. Find out how you'll fare by reading the chart on the Business Insider article.
"According to the Tax Policy Center, the American Taxpayer Relief Act will mean that the average federal effective tax rate will be 21.7 percent and the average increase is $1,257," the article says.
I consider myself middle class. And this doesn't sound like "protection" to me. But both Missouri senators used that word when talking about their vote for the package.
"I'm glad this vote protects middle class families & #smallbiz owners from tax hikes," said Republican Sen. Roy Blunt. And from Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill: “This deal isn’t perfect, but it achieves what’s most important here by protecting middle class families."
Are you feeling protected? What could have been done better? Should there have been more spending cuts in this package? Do you expect to pay more or less to the federal government under this deal?
And you are a CPA?
Were you asleep from 2001-2008, Carol? Was Marc? (BTW, did you miss also that under Republican George Walker Bush we had the worst domestic terror attack in US history?) That's why we have the exploding debt. Bush and the GOP borrowed like there was no tomorrow, which, if we'd continued with his disastrous policies domestically and globally, there wouldn't be!
As for the education system, I'm not saying it is perfect or without significant issues. I am saying it is better than *nothing* and I see no first-world countries with a completely private educational system., where access to education is solely determined by inherited wealth and class systems based on finances.
Perhaps our problems are just a little more complicated than we want to think and that the best path out is to stop calling each other names and to work together? Naive thinking perhaps, but maybe we could tone down our certainty just a tad and focus on solving the problems instead of pointing fingers. "If I am fool, it is, at least, a doubting one; and I envy no one the certainty of his self-approved wisdom. " George Byron
"From '95 to '08 (14 years) the Dems were in control of both houses of Congress a total of 2 years: '07-'08 - the last two years of Bush's presidency. Since 1995, there have only been 4 years total of Democratic House majorities in 18 years."