Extending temporary tax breaks passed
$238 billion to maintain very low capital gains and divdiends rates (mostly of value to wealthy who receive most of the capital income);
$359 billion for extension of the child tax credit, refundability and AMT rules
$359 billion for so-called “marriage penalty relief”
$18.4 billion for education incentives
The tax measures in the purported “temporary recovery measures” cost just less than $100 billion and include many provisions that are not going to do anything to stimulate the economy, in all likelihood, such as more expensing provisions for small businesses, more bonus depreciation for certain properties, and more tax credits for certain types of investments.
Additional “tax cuts” touted in the budget are similarly hard to justify since they increase the “consumption tax” features in the income tax–expanding the “saver’s credit” is a too costly $27 billion over ten years; and expanding the “american opportunity tax credit” is another $58 billion.
The “tax cuts for businesses” include two items that should hit the trash heap–hopefully Sandy Levin is going to toss these out:
almost $8 billion for eliminating capital gains taxation on investment in small business stock (this will be just another tax break to equity funds and all those hugely wealthy investors, not a break for little businesses or little guys)
$70.5 billion for making the research & experimentation credit permanent- (this is another item that doesn’t belong in an income tax–letting companies get a credit for R&D means that something that is just a normal cost of business is treated as reducing the tax owed on a dollar for dollar basis. That’s a nutty policy to put in place, but it is something that the corporations have lobbied for year after year after year, and Congress keeps giving it to them)
The biggest revenue raiser is capping itemized deductions, which would garner almost $300 billion over 10 years, but the Dems in Congress have practically rolled over on that one already.
[hat tip to taxprof]
Rdan here: Final vote passed the bill.
“Extending those tax cuts for ten years will cost a whopping $2.5 trillion.”
Oh, thank Goodness! With all the fear mongering about the debt, I was getting worried that we would not keep deficits up. The cost of bringing unemployment down to 4% will be chickenfeed by comparison. 🙂
I just got out my calculator. For $2.5 trillion we could employ 8,000,000 people for 10 years at an average wage (after taxes) of $31,250. Not bad. 🙂
(And we would not have to put them to work for 10 years, either.)
My, my, my,
I think the Dems just cut their throats. I can here the campaign spin now.
You really need to add a considerable amount (say double) for overhead if you want the emplyed to accomplish anything useful. Its the flip side of the guy complaining that it takes over $100K to provide a job that only pays $35K. Adding to infrastructure is not a labor-only proposition.
Min,
Why not cancel the tax and take it up 20 percent? Put that in your calculator. Try taking it up 40 percent. I’m sure those facing the high tax will whistle as they go to work and the fact that most of they money they earn will be taken away from them will have no affect on their willingness to work.
We dig dig dig dig dig dig dig
In a mine the whole day through
To dig dig dig dig dig dig dig
Is what we like to do
It ain’t no trick to get rich quick
If you dig dig dig with a shovel or a pick
In a mine, in a mine, in a mine, in a mine
Where a million diamonds shine
Min to dwarfs: Go screw youself little people, that diamond mostly belongs to uncle same, hi ho, hi ho.
Anna Lee,
How about this.
The democrats just spent over a trillion dollars, how much did you get?
Arne:
Which is why jobs are fleeing the US. Labor is the small portion of what is in the manufacture of the product and the easiset to eliminate.
I’m not sure all that is fairly presented. The AMT and estate taxes are very complex and were intended only to apply to the very rich. If the Republicans weren’t utterly worthless dimwitted, knavish, running dog capitalist lackie idiots, they would have fixed them on their watch. (I may be treating modern Republicans too gently here.) I’m in favor of eroding inhertied wealth in as few generations as possible. But I don’t think the merely well off should be singled out for special punishment.
I’d like to know a bit more about the Section 179 thing. I may be confused (I am not an accountant), but I think that reaches down to small business operators by allowing them to write off new equipment in the year of purchase instead of depreciating the stuff over its (often unrealistic) estimated lifetime. Anyone who has run a very small business knows that additional accounting complexity is the last thing that is needed. If I do understand this, I have trouble seeing why a company of any size that has paid an expense in year X is somehow ripping off society if they write off that expense in year X.