It's been an interesting day in the tax world. As soon as the president announced Monday evening that he had reached a deal on extending the expiring Bush-era tax provisions, reaction was swift and in most cases harsh.
That hasn't stopped.
The White House is still pushing for quick Congressional approval of the deal. But some members are pushing back.
As you might expect, most of the anger is coming from the Democrats. Many feel that the prez gave up way too much to the Republicans. To that point, the White House made its economic folks available today to the press to note that in sheer dollars, Obama got more than the GOP.
The final numbers, pending Joint Committee on Taxation analysis, says the White House, are $245 billion in Obama supported tax breaks vs. $125 billion for Republican tax favorites of a more favorable estate tax and continued tax cuts for the rich.
Of course, that's not necessarily the point to many on Capitol Hill. Some lawmakers plan to fight the estate tax changes and there are plans afoot to stop the measure from coming to the House floor at all.
The Senate seems to be more receptive, with momentum starting to build in that body for the deal.
As for you and me, polls show public opinion is mixed when it comes to the tax proposal.
A Gallup poll released Wednesday shows 66 percent favor extending unemployment benefits and Bush-era tax cuts for two years across all income brackets.
But a Bloomberg National Poll finds that many Americans don't approve of keeping the cuts for upper-income taxpayers.
Did a pollster call you? Me neither. But here's your chance to sound off on the tax deal. Feel free to choose as many opinions as you like. And of course, comments are more than welcome.
Related posts:
- Obama, GOP strike deal to extend tax cuts
- House approves extension of middle-class tax cuts in symbolic vote
- Tax cuts task force to hammer out deal
- IRS commissioner chides Congress for its delay
in dealing with expired taxes - Democrats who support Bush tax cuts
Want to tell your friends about this blog post? Click the Tweet This or Digg This buttons below or use the Share This icon to spread the word via e-mail, Facebook and other popular applications. Thanks!
G.H.
Just remember it’s always easier to spend someone’s else money on some program that you may Fancy
its the rich Person’s money not yours!
Stop playing Robin Hood he was still a thief !!!! a thief is still a thief even if its the Government
spend only on what benifits all of society not some select group
and just because you claim it’s the right thing to do Dosen’t make it true a lie told over enought times unchallenged will eventuly be accepted as a truth that was unchallanged
Jim Plate
For those of us who care about Social Security, reducung the withholdings for it is a big mistake and only puts more pressure on the program……..and the politician more ammo for messin’ with it.
The rate should be slightly increased from the 6.2% and the salary cap taken off…so you pay on all your earnings….no matter how much you make. It’s one of the few Gov.t programs that needs to stick around.
Elizabeth R.
I understand he had to compromise in order to get anything completed in a timely fashion. (Here it is 12/9 and nothing is official yet!). So while it’s not perfect, I do applaud him for making some hard compromises in order to reach a deal.
Really, I’m just sick of the overall process. It appears that our government is not capable of getting things done in a timely fashion and when they do finally do something, it is short lived, reworked, tweaked and confusing for the rest of us who just want stability in our lives.
Finance Diva
I wrote about this issue on my own blog a full 24 hours BEFORE Pres. Obama announced an agreement.
I use the word agreement very loosely as its still not passed/signed. Until both parts of Congress adopts the proposal and the President signs it, then its premature to celebrate.
I could announce that I found the key to World Peace, but no one sing my praises until I actually delivery World Peace.
I want results, not empty promises.
Ray in MD
Making work pay credit was more progressive & less punative to low income persons than the 2% cut in the F.I.C.A. tax rate, which is only defensible if it stimulates job growth (but do we really think a 2-year employer/employee 2% F.I.C.A. cut is unlikely to do anything to create jobs?).
Comments are closed.