Fiscal Cliff

G

Grahambo

Guest
Another political thread you say? I don't mean for it to be one. I could Google the term but I've seen plenty of political debate in here to know that some of you are damn intelligent when it comes to this sort of thing.

Just looking at what is a fiscal cliff? The dangers of it? What happens if we go over it? What would you do to fix it?

Think of this as kind of a focus group and less political in nature.
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
It's a combination of tax cuts expiring and expiring gov't spending. The Bush Tax Cuts, Stimulus Tax Cuts of 09' and SS tax cuts of 10' are all expiring. And then stimulus funding is expiring as well. Sort of a Hurricane Sandy.

Basically the unemployment rate will jump to about 9% and everyone middle-incomed and up will see about $2,000+ or more less in take-home pay.
 

peoriairish

New member
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
350
It's a combination of tax cuts expiring and expiring gov't spending. The Bush Tax Cuts, Stimulus Tax Cuts of 09' and SS tax cuts of 10' are all expiring. And then stimulus funding is expiring as well. Sort of a Hurricane Sandy.

Basically the unemployment rate will jump to about 9% and everyone middle-incomed and up will see about $2,000+ or more less in take-home pay.

Define middle class. I know what it means in my mind, but what does it mean in the sense of this less $2000 less a month?
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
Define middle class. I know what it means in my mind, but what does it mean in the sense of this less $2000 less a month?

It's a bit hard b/c of the moving parts, but if you're making about $30,000/year, you're going to be taxed about $2,000 more per year.*

*This is just a very, very rough estimate.
 

Rizzophil

Well-known member
Messages
2,431
Reaction score
579
Also, there is a concern about the debt wall. Basically, there is only so much liquidity in the world and we are approaching the point where countries are going to start defaulting. When that happens, watch out.
 

peoriairish

New member
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
350
It's a bit hard b/c of the moving parts, but if you're making about $30,000/year, you're going to be taxed about $2,000 more per year.*

*This is just a very, very rough estimate.

Well gosh dang it to h e double hockey sticks.

I guess it won't really notice it's missing 'cause I won't get my first real, big boy paycheck till June. But knowing that I could have that extra $2,000 ($4,000 if you count mine and the ladyfriend's) for paying off my student loans sure will be a pain in the backside.

What is that extra $2,000 going towards?
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
Well gosh dang it to h e double hockey sticks.

I guess it won't really notice it's missing 'cause I won't get my first real, big boy paycheck till June. But knowing that I could have that extra $2,000 ($4,000 if you count mine and the ladyfriend's) for paying off my student loans sure will be a pain in the backside.

What is that extra $2,000 going towards?

Again, hard to say, but probably about $800 is going to Social Security. The rest is going to, for example, show prostitutes in China how to drink more responsibly.
 
G

Grahambo

Guest
Also, there is a concern about the debt wall. Basically, there is only so much liquidity in the world and we are approaching the point where countries are going to start defaulting. When that happens, watch out.

Is it a realistic possibility or is it one of those 'secede' situations?
 

peoriairish

New member
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
350
Ugh. Washington's a mess...

7006901660_877b234ea2_c.jpg
 

beryirish

Dry Land Is Not A Myth!
Messages
5,949
Reaction score
539
likely they will extend the cuts another 6 months to a year to give them time to do a major overhaul with the tax code and breaks
 

RallySonsOfND

All-Snub Team Snubbed
Messages
2,106
Reaction score
91
I've put my financial advisor on speed dial that if we go over the cliff to liquidate all my stock market holdings, stock market will plunge like no other.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
likely they will extend the cuts another 6 months to a year to give them time to do a major overhaul with the tax code and breaks

I wouldn't count on any extension of the social security tax cut. Neither party wants it to continue at this point.
 

IrishinSyria

In truth lies victory
Messages
6,043
Reaction score
1,920
Just keep pushing the problem away until the economy picks up....

This actually isn't a bad idea. The fiscal cliff presents a problem based on pure Keynesian logic... the time to cut government spending (and tax cuts are, for Macroeconomic purposes, basically government spending) is not during the recovery from a recession. It might not be the most elegant solution, but pushing this into the future and letting the various pieces of the cliff expire at different times might be an effective way to fuel the economy in the short run while addressing deficit issues in the long term
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
This actually isn't a bad idea. The fiscal cliff presents a problem based on pure Keynesian logic... the time to cut government spending (and tax cuts are, for Macroeconomic purposes, basically government spending) is not during the recovery from a recession. It might not be the most elegant solution, but pushing this into the future and letting the various pieces of the cliff expire at different times might be an effective way to fuel the economy in the short run while addressing deficit issues in the long term

Greece is trying this and it is not going well.
 

ND NYC

New member
Messages
3,571
Reaction score
209
What is the Fiscal Cliff?

The Fiscal Cliff Explained

“Fiscal cliff” is the popular shorthand term used to describe the conundrum that the U.S. government will face at the end of 2012, when the terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011 are scheduled to go into effect.

Among the laws set to change at midnight on December 31, 2012, are the end of last year’s temporary payroll tax cuts (resulting in a 2% tax increase for workers), the end of certain tax breaks for businesses, shifts in the alternative minimum tax that would take a larger bite, the end of the tax cuts from 2001-2003, and the beginning of taxes related to President Obama’s health care law. At the same time, the spending cuts agreed upon as part of the debt ceiling deal of 2011 will begin to go into effect. According to Barron's, over 1,000 government programs - including the defense budget and Medicare are in line for "deep, automatic cuts."

In dealing with the fiscal cliff, U.S. lawmakers have a choice among three options, none of which are particularly attractive:

•They can let the current policy scheduled for the beginning of 2013 – which features a number of tax increases and spending cuts that are expected to weigh heavily on growth and possibly drive the economy back into a recession – go into effect. The plus side: the deficit, as a percentage of GDP, would be cut in half.
•They can cancel some or all of the scheduled tax increases and spending cuts, which would add to the deficit and increase the odds that the United States could face a crisis similar to that which is occurring in Europe. The flip side of this, of course, is that the United States' debt will continue to grow.
•They could take a middle course, opting for an approach that would address the budget issues to a limited extent, but that would have a more modest impact on growth.
Can a Compromise be Reached?

The oncoming fiscal cliff is a concern for investors since the highly partisan nature of the current political environment could make a compromise difficult to reach. This problem isn’t new, after all: lawmakers have had three years to address this issue, but Congress – mired in political gridlock – has largely put off the search for a solution rather than seeking to solve the problem directly. Republicans want to cut spending and avoid raising taxes, while Democrats are looking for a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. Although both parties want to avoid the fiscal cliff, compromise is seen as being difficult to achieve – particularly in an election year. There's a strong possibility that Congress won't act until the eleventh hour. Another potential obstacle is that the next Congress won't be sworn in until January 3, after the deadline.

The most likely outcome is another set of stop-gap measures that would delay a more permanent policy change until 2013 or later. Still, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that if Congress takes the middle ground – extending the Bush-era tax cuts but cancelling the automatic spending cuts – the result, in the short term, would be modest growth but no major economic hit.

Possible Effects of the Fiscal Cliff

If the current laws slated for 2013 go into effect, the impact on the economy could be dramatic. While the combination of higher taxes and spending cuts would reduce the deficit by an estimated $560 billion, the CBO estimates that the policies set to go into effect would cut gross domestic product (GDP) by four percentage points in 2013, sending the economy into a recession (i.e., negative growth). At the same time, it predicts unemployment would rise by almost a full percentage point, with a loss of about two million jobs. A Wall St. Journal article from May 16, 2012 estimates the following impact in dollar terms: “In all, according to an analysis by J.P. Morgan economist Michael Feroli, $280 billion would be pulled out of the economy by the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts; $125 million from the expiration of the Obama payroll-tax holiday; $40 million from the expiration of emergency unemployment benefits; and $98 billion from Budget Control Act spending cuts. In all, the tax increases and spending cuts make up about 3.5% of GDP, with the Bush tax cuts making up about half of that, according to the J.P. Morgan report.” Amid an already-fragile recovery and elevated unemployment, the economy is not in a position to avoid this type of shock.

The cost of indecision is likely to have an effect on the economy before 2013 even begins. The CBO anticipates that a lack of resolution will cause households and businesses to begin changing their spending in anticipation of the changes, possible reducing GDP before 2012 is even over.

Having said this, it's important to keep in mind that while the term “cliff” indicates an immediate disaster at the beginning of 2013, the impact of the changes - while destructive over a full year - will be gradual at first. What's more, Congress can act to change laws retroactively after the deadline. As a result, the fiscal cliff won't necessarily be an impediment to growth even if Congress doesn't address the issue until after 2013 has already begun.
 
Last edited:

NDFANnSouthWest

We are ND!
Messages
4,806
Reaction score
199
What is the Fiscal Cliff?

The Fiscal Cliff Explained

“Fiscal cliff” is the popular shorthand term used to describe the conundrum that the U.S. government will face at the end of 2012, when the terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011 are scheduled to go into effect.

Among the laws set to change at midnight on December 31, 2012, are the end of last year’s temporary payroll tax cuts (resulting in a 2% tax increase for workers), the end of certain tax breaks for businesses, shifts in the alternative minimum tax that would take a larger bite, the end of the tax cuts from 2001-2003, and the beginning of taxes related to President Obama’s health care law. At the same time, the spending cuts agreed upon as part of the debt ceiling deal of 2011 will begin to go into effect. According to Barron's, over 1,000 government programs - including the defense budget and Medicare are in line for "deep, automatic cuts."

In dealing with the fiscal cliff, U.S. lawmakers have a choice among three options, none of which are particularly attractive:

•They can let the current policy scheduled for the beginning of 2013 – which features a number of tax increases and spending cuts that are expected to weigh heavily on growth and possibly drive the economy back into a recession – go into effect. The plus side: the deficit, as a percentage of GDP, would be cut in half.
•They can cancel some or all of the scheduled tax increases and spending cuts, which would add to the deficit and increase the odds that the United States could face a crisis similar to that which is occurring in Europe. The flip side of this, of course, is that the United States' debt will continue to grow.
•They could take a middle course, opting for an approach that would address the budget issues to a limited extent, but that would have a more modest impact on growth.
Can a Compromise be Reached?

The oncoming fiscal cliff is a concern for investors since the highly partisan nature of the current political environment could make a compromise difficult to reach. This problem isn’t new, after all: lawmakers have had three years to address this issue, but Congress – mired in political gridlock – has largely put off the search for a solution rather than seeking to solve the problem directly. Republicans want to cut spending and avoid raising taxes, while Democrats are looking for a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. Although both parties want to avoid the fiscal cliff, compromise is seen as being difficult to achieve – particularly in an election year. There's a strong possibility that Congress won't act until the eleventh hour. Another potential obstacle is that the next Congress won't be sworn in until January 3, after the deadline.

The most likely outcome is another set of stop-gap measures that would delay a more permanent policy change until 2013 or later. Still, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that if Congress takes the middle ground – extending the Bush-era tax cuts but cancelling the automatic spending cuts – the result, in the short term, would be modest growth but no major economic hit.

Possible Effects of the Fiscal Cliff

If the current laws slated for 2013 go into effect, the impact on the economy could be dramatic. While the combination of higher taxes and spending cuts would reduce the deficit by an estimated $560 billion, the CBO estimates that the policies set to go into effect would cut gross domestic product (GDP) by four percentage points in 2013, sending the economy into a recession (i.e., negative growth). At the same time, it predicts unemployment would rise by almost a full percentage point, with a loss of about two million jobs. A Wall St. Journal article from May 16, 2012 estimates the following impact in dollar terms: “In all, according to an analysis by J.P. Morgan economist Michael Feroli, $280 billion would be pulled out of the economy by the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts; $125 million from the expiration of the Obama payroll-tax holiday; $40 million from the expiration of emergency unemployment benefits; and $98 billion from Budget Control Act spending cuts. In all, the tax increases and spending cuts make up about 3.5% of GDP, with the Bush tax cuts making up about half of that, according to the J.P. Morgan report.” Amid an already-fragile recovery and elevated unemployment, the economy is not in a position to avoid this type of shock.

The cost of indecision is likely to have an effect on the economy before 2013 even begins. The CBO anticipates that a lack of resolution will cause households and businesses to begin changing their spending in anticipation of the changes, possible reducing GDP before 2012 is even over.

Having said this, it's important to keep in mind that while the term “cliff” indicates an immediate disaster at the beginning of 2013, the impact of the changes - while destructive over a full year - will be gradual at first. What's more, Congress can act to change laws retroactively after the deadline. As a result, the fiscal cliff won't necessarily be an impediment to growth even if Congress doesn't address the issue until after 2013 has already begun.

Excellent and frightening info.

Yet Obama went oversees...why doesn't he stay home and hammer our a deal. SMH!
 

yankeehater

Well-known member
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
774
Any accountants on here? I heard once again that in Obamacare that 3.8% percent tax on real estate sales starts in January? I was planning on selling some property and want to know if I can wait. Also would the sell count this year or next year if escrow drags into 2013? Thanks
 

DSully1995

New member
Messages
1,103
Reaction score
74
Any accountants on here? I heard once again that in Obamacare that 3.8% percent tax on real estate sales starts in January? I was planning on selling some property and want to know if I can wait. Also would the sell count this year or next year if escrow drags into 2013? Thanks

I wanna here you source on this tax, ive never heard of anything like that.
 

yankeehater

Well-known member
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
774
I wanna here you source on this tax, ive never heard of anything like that.

Heard it pre-election and now again on a financial show today. I googled it, but if I remember correctly the explanation was as crazy as the bill itself.
 

yankeehater

Well-known member
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
774
Here is what I found right now. Not sure if the source is credible.


"Under the new health care bill — did you know that all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax? The bulk of these new taxes don’t kick in until 2013 (presumably after Obama’s re-election). You can thank Nancy, Harry and Barack and your local Democrat Congressman for this one. If you sell your $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax. This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who often downsize their homes. Is this Hope & Change great or what? …

"Oh, you weren’t aware this was in the Obamacare bill? Guess what, you aren’t alone. There are more than a few members of Congress that aren’t aware of it either (result of clandestine midnight voting for huge bills they’ve never read). AND, there are a few other surprises lurking."

The email’s claims are wrong, but that hasn’t stopped people from pressing the forward button. We’ve received copies of this email regularly since 2010. We’ve debunked it before, but since it’s still out there, we’re going to review the facts again now.

The distortion sprouted from Section 1402 of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, titled "Unearned income Medicare contribution." Legislative wonks might remember that this was the second part of the health care bill, passed via reconciliation so that it only required 50 votes. Democrats had to do it that way after they lost their 60-seat majority due to a special election for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts.

It is a new tax, but it’s not on real estate transactions. Let us explain.

Right now, workers pay Medicare hospital taxes on wages. Workers and employers split a 2.9 percent tax; the self-employed pay all of it.

The health care law imposes a new 3.8 percent tax on investment income, but it only applies to couples who make more than $250,000 or individuals who make more than $200,000. That investment income could include the profits from real estate transactions.

But it would only apply to those high earners, who make up less than 5 percent of all taxpayers.
The new tax marks the first time investment income will be subject to Medicare taxes, said Clint Stretch, the managing principal for tax policy at Deloitte Tax LLP, when we asked him about in 2010.

We should point out that the government currently taxes investment income in various ways and could have simply raised current rates.

But lawmakers wanted to link the new revenues to health care, Stretch said. "The point of doing it as a Medicare tax was to have the money go to the Medicare trust fund and have it act like a tax that is paying for health care. So there is additional complexity," he said.

We’re not sure why the email extrapolates this tax to all real estate transactions, but that’s the only 3.8 percent tax we could find in the new law. We ran this by two tax policy experts who confirmed our analysis.

If you’re an empty-nester of any means, and you’re thinking of downsizing, part of your profits are already tax-free thanks to long-standing tax exemptions on the profits from home sales.

In general, if you sell your own home, individuals are not taxed on the first $250,000 of profit and married couples are not taxed on the first $500,000 of profit. Again, that’s profit, not the sales price.

If you’re wealthy and sell your home at a substantial profit, it’s possible you might get hit with the new 3.8 percent tax on investment income. Most Americans won’t have to worry about this, though.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
Heard it pre-election and now again on a financial show today. I googled it, but if I remember correctly the explanation was as crazy as the bill itself.

Yes the tax is part of Obamacare. The tax applies to capital gains, if your income is above 200/250k. Real estate gains can count as capital gains.

You need to meed the income requirement and, if this is your primary residence, you need to have a gain over and above the allowed amount 250/500k.
 

yankeehater

Well-known member
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
774
Yes the tax is part of Obamacare. The tax applies to capital gains, if your income is above 200/250k. Real estate gains can count as capital gains.

You need to meed the income requirement and, if this is your primary residence, you need to have a gain over and above the allowed amount 250/500k.

Thank you. It sounds like that article I posted then is pretty accurate.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
Thank you. It sounds like that article I posted then is pretty accurate.

Yea. It was advertised as only applying to the wealthy.

However, as far as I have seen, the tax is not pegged to inflation. Get ready, because in time this tax will be hitting people it shouldn't be, much like the AMT.
 

yankeehater

Well-known member
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
774
Yea. It was advertised as only applying to the wealthy.

However, as far as I have seen, the tax is not pegged to inflation. Get ready, because in time this tax will be hitting people it shouldn't be, much like the AMT.

I am finding that out. I am definitely not a 1%'er and have been hit by several things. I find it ironic also that they make generalities about income when 250K goes a lot farther in Wyoming than it does in So Cal.
 

ND NYC

New member
Messages
3,571
Reaction score
209
yankeehater:
the post you found is, as i understand it accurate.
especially the part about debunking that chain email that made its way around the globe it seemed.
the key explanation is everything AFTER the line "we are going to review the facts again now"
 
Top