House passes tax cuts for married couples

[drewshin]

House Tax Cuts

I wonder how much this will change, but it looks like what was passed was for $102 billion in cuts for married couples over the next decade.

A Democratic version of the bill wanted $206 billion in cuts over the next decade, however it was rejected.

What's going on here? Role reversal? Republicans wanting less tax cuts, and Democrats wanting more tax cuts?
It looks like the stickler for the Republicans was that the Democratic version wanted couples making over a million dollars to pay a 3.6% surtax.

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: drewshin
House Tax Cuts
What's going on here? Role reversal? Republicans wanting less tax cuts, and Democrats wanting more tax cuts?
It looks like the stickler for the Republicans was that the Democratic version wanted couples making over a million dollars to pay a 3.6% surtax.

Gotta protect that top 1%, at all costs!

 

[zephyrprime]

I'm annoyed at the special privileges married people get in the tax code. While doing taxes, I noticed that if your single, your income limit to qualify for IRA contribution tax deductions is $50K but if you're married, it's $160K ! Blatant discrimination. If they wanted to remove the "marriage penalty", they should have just gotten rid of joint returns.

 

[DanJ]

C'mon GOP supporters; where's your reply to this. I thought you were all about tax cuts? Can't help the middle-class if there is any possible risk of taxing people a bit more that make over $1 million a year aye?

 

[DanJ]

No Bush supporters want to defend this? Sad.

 

[DanJ]

One more bump to see if any Republicans will defend this over the Dem version of the bill that called for almost twice the tax relief....

 

[Crimson]

I think any tax cut is a good tax cut. The Democrats wanted a tax increase.. therefore, the Republican plan is better..

"But, but.. the tax increase was only for the rich"..

I don't care, tax cuts should apply to everyone who pays them. And married couples making over 1 million a year pay a hell of a lot more in taxes than I do.. they deserve it too.

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: Crimson
I think any tax cut is a good tax cut. The Democrats wanted a tax increase.. therefore, the Republican plan is better..

"But, but.. the tax increase was only for the rich"..

I don't care, tax cuts should apply to everyone who pays them. And married couples making over 1 million a year pay a hell of a lot more in taxes than I do.. they deserve it too.

So double the tax cut and the fixing of a tax problem is bad?

Alternnative minimum:

"That versoin [Dem] would have kept about 13 million couples from losing part or all of their tax cuts to the alternative minimum tax, a levy originally intended to keep wealthy individuals from sheltering their income but increasingly trapping middle-income families. "

and setting a surtax of 3.6% on those making over $1 million is a tax increase? How is it a tax increase if by not fixing the altnerative minimum tax keeps 13 million married people from losing all or part of their tax cuts. That's a tax increase.

Is it not??

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Crimson
I think any tax cut is a good tax cut. The Democrats wanted a tax increase.. therefore, the Republican plan is better..

"But, but.. the tax increase was only for the rich"..

I don't care, tax cuts should apply to everyone who pays them. And married couples making over 1 million a year pay a hell of a lot more in taxes than I do.. they deserve it too.

Bingo

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Crimson
I think any tax cut is a good tax cut. The Democrats wanted a tax increase.. therefore, the Republican plan is better..

"But, but.. the tax increase was only for the rich"..

I don't care, tax cuts should apply to everyone who pays them. And married couples making over 1 million a year pay a hell of a lot more in taxes than I do.. they deserve it too.

Bingo

How is not giving tax breaks to 13 million people because you refuse to fix an error in the tax code, a tax cut? 13 milion people is somehow less important then those couples making more then $1 million?

13 million > those couples making over $1 million a year therefore the Dem version is more of a tax cut then the rep version, a.k.a. all things being equal the Rep version would actually be a tax increase.

 

[EagleKeeper]

One:
This is just a lock in of what is already existing. The original was temporary and due to expire.
If it expired, the taxes on married couples would go up.

Two:
The Dem version was to again tax the "wealthy". They were trying to change what already exists by looking at the AMT. Again attempting to plan for tax/spend situation. Play the haves against the have-nots

Three:
This was just the House. Still have to get a Senate version and then combine it for a bill to be signed.

Democrats also proposed offsetting the cost of their tax cuts by imposing a 3.6 percent surtax on couples earning $1 million or more. Those couples would still pay less than they did before Bush's tax cuts, Democrats said.

Sounds like the Dems want to tax one group of people based on their status rather than try to reduce the spending that is causing the need for the tax levels

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Crimson
I think any tax cut is a good tax cut. The Democrats wanted a tax increase.. therefore, the Republican plan is better..

"But, but.. the tax increase was only for the rich"..

I don't care, tax cuts should apply to everyone who pays them. And married couples making over 1 million a year pay a hell of a lot more in taxes than I do.. they deserve it too.

Bingo

How is not giving tax breaks to 13 million people because you refuse to fix an error in the tax code, a tax cut? 13 milion people is somehow less important then those couples making more then $1 million?

13 million > those couples making over $1 million a year therefore the Dem version is more of a tax cut then the rep version, a.k.a. all things being equal the Rep version would actually be a tax increase.

Read what you said. You said the Republican plan would make some people lose all or part of their tax cut... So, many of those 13 million will still probably get a tax cut, just not as much as intended. But, overall, everyones taxes will either stay the same or go down.

The Democratic plan increases taxes for those couples making over 1 million a year.

Therefor, I stick to what I said earlier. The Republican plan will increase taxes on nobody.

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: DanJ
How is not giving tax breaks to 13 million people because you refuse to fix an error in the tax code, a tax cut? 13 milion people is somehow less important then those couples making more then $1 million?

13 million > those couples making over $1 million a year therefore the Dem version is more of a tax cut then the rep version, a.k.a. all things being equal the Rep version would actually be a tax increase.

Read what you said. You said the Republican plan would make some people lose all or part of their tax cut... So, many of those 13 million will still probably get a tax cut, just not as much as intended. But, overall, everyones taxes will either stay the same or go down.

The Democratic plan increases taxes for those couples making over 1 million a year.

Therefor, I stick to what I said earlier. The Republican plan will increase taxes on nobody.

Maybe I mis-spoke. What I'm saying is right there is a thing called the alternative minimum tax which was put in place a while back to affect the more wealthy; with growing annual salaries this now affects the middle-class, something it wasn't intended to do. The Dem version of this bill was going to do away with the alternative minimum tax thus helping the middle-class by removing part of the tax code that was essentially broken. This is where the 13 million people come in; they would no longer be affected by this old-code thereby getting greater tax relief. Here's a backgrounder on the AMT: http://www.fairmark.com/amt/amt101.htm

So, no, those 13 million would get more relief, not less. On top of that their'd be more tax relief overall for the general population. To offset this fixing of the tax code and overall more tax relieft, those making over $1 million would simply have 3.6% taken off their tax cut. Implying that this 3.6% is an increase when some 13 million are affected by the old tax code that shouldn't affect them (the AMT) is close-minded. How can taking 3.6% away from the uber-rich be in some way an overall tax increase if you're taking the ENTIRE tax cut away from some of the middle-class because of outdated tax code problem?

Honestly?

 

[EagleKeeper]

I would be very suspicious of numbers stating 13M people paying the AMT.

I think that it may be 13M people could be subject to the AMT.

Single or head of household?$40,250

Married filing jointly or qualifying widow(er)?$58,000

Married filing separately?$29,000

The AMT probably will not impact taxpayers that have a gross income under $100K unless they have a lot of special circumstances. The big problem is that the AMT limits where one should look at the AMT is not being adjusted. Fault of congress.

The AMT was intended to catch people that slipped through the tax system via loopholes.

Definition of the AMT

The tax laws give special treatment to some types of income, allow special deductions for some types of expenses, and allow credits for certain taxpayers. These laws enable some taxpayers with substantial economic income to significantly reduce their regular tax. The alternative minimum tax (AMT) ensures that these taxpayers pay at least a minimum amount of tax on their economic income.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
I'm annoyed at the special privileges married people get in the tax code. While doing taxes, I noticed that if your single, your income limit to qualify for IRA contribution tax deductions is $50K but if you're married, it's $160K ! Blatant discrimination. If they wanted to remove the "marriage penalty", they should have just gotten rid of joint returns.

Your not the sharpest knife in the drawer I can see. Married couples for decades paid more in taxes than single folks. Even the allowances for tuition and the like were even higher for married people. Single folks hugely benefited under the tax code vs married couples. Its about time that married people not be penalized. I would like to know what privileges you were looking at? Maybe you need glasses :laugh:

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
I'm annoyed at the special privileges married people get in the tax code. While doing taxes, I noticed that if your single, your income limit to qualify for IRA contribution tax deductions is $50K but if you're married, it's $160K ! Blatant discrimination. If they wanted to remove the "marriage penalty", they should have just gotten rid of joint returns.

Your not the sharpest knife in the drawer I can see. Married couples for decades paid more in taxes than single folks. Even the allowances for tuition and the like were even higher for married people. Single folks hugely benefited under the tax code vs married couples. Its about time that married people not be penalized. I would like to know what privileges you were looking at? Maybe you need glasses :laugh:

exactly!