Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 passes
(Dan here: I am traveling right now and am posting things late or maybe not as tidy as I would like. But posts are coming.)
by Linda Beale
Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 passes
crossposted with Ataxingmatter
No big surprise here. The House on December 16 passed the Senate-approved TRA by a vote of 277-148, clearing it for the President’s signature. The bill extends the Bush tax cuts for two years and reduces the number of estates subject to the estate tax, and the rate of tax when they are taxed, even below the number subject to the tax in 2009. It includes the usual “patch” for the AMT for two years, and various tax breaks for businesses–especially expensing provisions that will likely merely result in more pay to managers and more payouts to mostly wealthy shareholders.
Those most vulnerable get the relief from the lower rates (not many dollars for them, of course), the 2% cut in the payroll taxes, and the extension of unemployment compensation.
Those at the top of the wealth and income heap who have garnered almost all the benefits of productivity gains in the economy over the last few decades get most of the benefit of the bill–tens of thousands of dollars of tax relief for the top 20% of the income distribution, substantial estate tax reductions, and none of the burden-sharing that progressives had advocated (such as the carried interest treatment as ordinary income). The bill even provides what amounts to an interest-free loan to the wealthy who convert regular IRAs to Roth IRAs–the “deal of the century” according to one CPA who services the wealthy. See Leondis, Tax Measure Gives Deal to Wealthy Roth IRA Converters, Bloomberg.com, Dec. 17, 2010. And of course, the bill also lets the wealthy transfer up to $100,000 from regular IRAs to charities without paying the income tax they should have to pay on the appreciation.
All in all, the wealthy made out like bandits in the tax bill. And in many ways, that is the appropriate way to view them–they have stolen the sustainable livelihood of the middle and lower classes for two decades and are rapidly moving into position to become a ruling oligarchy. The bill was a big win for corporatism and the wealthy on the right.
I finally figured out why Libs hate the rich (not themselves, the other “greedy” rich) so much.
1) They are the Enlightened Ones who know how best to organize society
2) Poor, dependent people have to listen to them
3) Rich, independent people can say “go to hell”
That the Babbitts of the world can tell the Enlightened Ones to “go to hell” is very disconcerting to the Libs. They must be taken down quite a few notches. Of course, as the Enlightened Ones, they will always be able to skim off a nice living from a populace grateful for their service and guidance.
Sammy, if you are among the lucky few who benefit from this bill, good for you. If you aren’t, be assured that liberals know who to believe. As between you and their lying eyes, they’re going with their eyes every time. NancyO
Well I think Linda has summed things up accurately. It is a shame that 75% of the country does not get it according to the polling.
sammy,
Happy Holidays!
a little mod to your list:
1) They are the Enlightened Ones who organize the serfs and the crooks in society, if they knew how to organize the serfs the Enlightened Ones would not have to organize depressions and starve the serfs every ten years.
2) Poor, dependent people have to listen to them, as long as the Enlightened Ones control the police power
3) Rich, independent people can say “go to hell” , as long as the Enlightened Ones control the police power
This is why the Enlightened Ones fear ‘power to the people’, control the media and deliver beer and football, not necessarily in that order.
Thanks for the entertainment over the year.
Looking forward to some more in the Happy New Year!!!
Sammy’s response is worth trying to understand, as difficult as that may be. Fisrt, we need to know where Sammy is coming from. What is his station in life? What does he do to earn his living? What makes him so enamored of significant wealth? And finally, why does Sammy address those who differ with his own ideas in such an aderserial manner?
I don’t think that Sammy is, himself, very wealthy. Wealthy people seem very unlikely to be engaging in Sammy’s manner of adverserial debate. And wealthy individuals would, I think, bring more facts to the table in defense of their own ideology.
Does Sammy work closely with some very wealthy people? That is difficult to tell. If so, the question comes up as to why he holds the very wealthy in such high regard? Note that this is an effort to understand the acceptance by the unrich and the piddling rich of the many significant benefits provided by the government to the very rich. What is it that forms the basis of such a perception that the very rich deserve more than others? What is it that brings about the acceptance by the unrich and the piddling rich the idea that the government should benefit the very rich to a far greater extent than it seeks to do the rest of its citizens, the very citizens who form the vast majority by an over whelming margin?
I’m not questioning why our elected congressional corps acts the way it does with so few exceptions. They are the vassals in our feudal society. They are paid prestige and tribute to fawn over the needs of the very rich. They are clever in their deceptions. They take divergent points of view on the far side of political/economic ideology with the goal of forming a consensus of opinion that represents an extreme position of that ideology. They play that game well enough to disorient the unrich and the piddling rich. No, the members of the government are not the mystery.
It is the Sammy’s of our society that are the perplexing and vexing group. They see themselves inn some way beneficiaries of the very rich. I don’t see how that perception is developed so I throw out this question. How do so many working class, middle class and only slightly well off professionals identify with those policies that so significantly do not benefit them in any way. Worse yet, how do they cheer those policies that benefit so small a number at their own expense?
“Worse yet, how do they cheer those policies that benefit so small a number at their own expense?”
Fear of change, status quo ante is always good for the “comfortable” serf.
Or, change to status quo ante might make sammy worse off, whether or not the uber rich would be fine.
Or, a succinct presentation of the Melian dialog may be answer: the path of justice and honor is dangerous while accomodating the powerful is secure, “might makes right”, so go with the flow.
I do not think it is Zen/Buddhism because he would not say much, meditate and post haiku.
In my experience some of the staunchest defenders of the uberrich work with the near rich and may themselves be near rich. They really have no idea what it means to be uberrich, but think they do because of their proximity to being rich. hence their view that Dumbya’s tax cuts should be extended to all despite the fact that they do not make over $200K a year or at least not much over $200K per year and neither benefitted from nor will leave an estate that will be subject to any estate tax. In addition while not rich, they recognize that they are better off than most people their biggest concern is not for those wealthier than they are, but that the people who are poorer than them do not catch up, particularly not with government assistance because that would be socialism and they now socialism is bad even if they would personally benefit from it.
Jack.
How do so many working class, middle class and only slightly well off professionals identify with those policies that so significantly do not benefit them in any way. Worse yet, how do they cheer those policies that benefit so small a number at their own expense?
We don’t look at it that way. Wealthy people sign most of our paychecks, so it does benefit us. We don’t ask for, nor get, anything similar from the government.
We look at the how the top 5% of the taxpayers pay 60% of the income taxes and figure that they’re pulling at least their fair share.
We don’t operate under the magical illusion that money sent to the federal government will be put to amazing use.
That’s not all, but it might be a start, to your understanding perplexing Conservatism. 🙂 Merry Xmas to all of you too.
Sammy, “ Wealthy people sign most of our paychecks, so it does benefit us.”
Sammy, your ignorance knows no bounds. Or you are a duplicitous snake.
Jack, well said!