Quantcast
  

Wednesday, April 23, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 16 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

White House: Families' taxes could go up $1,600

By Alan Fram

Associated Press

POSTED:



WASHINGTON >> A standoff with Congress that results in the January expiration of wide-ranging tax cuts would mean 114 million families would see average tax increases of $1,600 next year, the White House says.

In a report Tuesday on the tax standoff with Republicans, the White House tried putting a human face on the showdown and shifting the blame to the GOP.

"So far, the only reason the middle-class tax cuts have not been extended is that Republicans in Congress continue to insist on cutting taxes once again for the wealthiest few," the report said.

Republicans want to renew all the tax cuts for one year to give the two sides time to negotiate permanent tax changes. President Barack Obama and Democrats also want a yearlong extension, but insist they will only extend the reductions for households earning below $250,000.

Last week Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., a member of her party's leadership, said if there was no deal by January, her party would be willing to let all the tax cuts expire to pressure Republicans to give ground. Republicans immediately accused Democrats of being willing to raise taxes on everyone as the price for prevailing.

"They're ready and willing to go right off the fiscal cliff if they don't get their way," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said. He cited the frequently used term "fiscal cliff" to describe the economy-rattling tax increases and spending cuts that will automatically take effect when 2013 begins unless lawmakers reach a compromise for avoiding them.

The $1,600 average tax increase is for all families earning under $250,000, White House officials said. The numbers of families from this group would range from 13.2 million in California to 200,000 in Wyoming, the report said.

The exact size of a family's tax cut would depend on its size, income and other characteristics.

A married couple earning $50,000 to $80,000 with two children would see a tax increase of $2,200, the paper said. A childless couple making $200,000, including $20,000 of capital gains income, would see their tax bill grow by $5,540.

The report did not include a figure showing the average tax increases that wealthier earners would face, but they would be substantially higher.

It included one example for a couple making $2 million in salaries and bonuses plus $500,000 from capital gains. They would get $7,080 in tax cuts under Obama's plan, which allows a tax cut to all families for the first $250,000, and $124,000 under GOP proposals, the report said.

The partisan conflict will intensify this week when the Senate votes on a Democratic plan that denies tax cuts to higher earners, and perhaps on a GOP proposal extending tax cuts for all. Both are certain to fail.







 Print   Email   Comment | View 16 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(16)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
kgolfinghawaii wrote:
So funny with demoncrats...if they but the budget by 1 lousy percent that is 37 billion dollars, in one year no less. If they raise taxes on all those "rich" it wouldn't amount to squat comparatively speaking. And yet with more taxes coming from you, me and those rich folks...no one get hired, more get laid off or fired. Businesses will close. The problem with demoncrats is they think other people's money belongs to them. They continue to NOT acknowledge that small businesses with revenue, not profit, just revenue are part of the "rich" over 250K per year. And isn't it the demoncrats that always say it is small business that runs America, but they are more than willing to kill small business...oh wait..that's right they didn't do that themselves someone else made that business...what was I thinking???
on July 24,2012 | 04:33AM
kainalu wrote:
Ridiculous hogwash. Sourcing the IRS, less than 3% of those that filed in 2011 earned more than $200K individually, or $250K filed jointly. It begs to question: who are these ignorant 97%-of-the-rest-of-us that are opposed to reverting the tax-table back for that specific group back to what it was when Clinton was in office? The country had a huge surplus when he left office, which disappeared with the Bush tax-cuts. Those "small businesses" you reference, specifically as they're spelled out in the tax-code - less than 5% of those are impacted. It's not revenue - its profit. You can guzzle the poisoned-tea all you want, it's the spitting it back in our faces that's offensive.
on July 24,2012 | 08:10AM
Pacej001 wrote:
The country didn't have a "huge surplus" when Bill left office. Clinton had a "budget surplus" for a few years, but the national debt went up every year he was in office. The national debt was never paid off under Clinton. Right now all indicators are that we may well slip back into recession. For this reason alone, raising any taxes, in addition to the ones Oabma has already raised, is the height of stupidity. Higher taxes slow or reduce economic growth, at the very least, this is certain in the short term. So, if we want to risk another recession, fire away. The other reason against raising taxes, on anyone, is there isn't a glimmering of fiscal discipline in the Obama administration. No budget in three years. No effort at controlling entitlement costs. So, the tax on the "rich" would just be flushed down the drain with the rest of us taxpayer's wasted money. Finally, the tax Obama is talking about isn't even being considered by his senate. It's a gimmick, a trick, more of the same shibai, which would raise revenue amounting to about three tenths of a percent of this year's deficit. A laughable, panic driven move, that will do nothing but damage the economic recovery further, a last ditch desperate trick pulled our of a near empty trick bag.
on July 24,2012 | 12:28PM
Anonymous wrote:
Obamacare - is a tax - looks like the poor and the rich ( inouye, Akaka, Mazie Hanabusa) will pay $0.00 - the majority of Hawaii citizens will pay $1600.00 in additional taxes.
on July 24,2012 | 08:43AM
kgolfinghawaii wrote:
Typo...left out the word cut
on July 24,2012 | 04:34AM
serious wrote:
Correct, in most large cities $250,000 a year is minumum wages. That bill will never go since 90% of our legislators make more than that. Make it a million and then only 1/2 will qualify and it might fly. In any event we need adults.
on July 24,2012 | 06:54AM
cojef wrote:
Not a typo, it is demon, as the word implies, plus crat. You gotta go with the flo. Now! post on the "flo".
on July 24,2012 | 07:20AM
James_M wrote:
First the SA did that ABSURD endorsement of Mufi and now this. Could they show their bias anymore?
on July 24,2012 | 05:13AM
James_M wrote:
Ha ha - whoops too much multitasking. This is horrible. Cutting tax for the wealthy makes no sense. Unless of course they are funding your political campaign or paying for your seventh European vacation this year.
on July 24,2012 | 05:31AM
James_M wrote:
Ha ha - whoops too much multitasking. This is horrible. Cutting tax for the wealthy makes no sense. Unless of course they are funding your political campaign or paying for your seventh European vacation this year.
on July 24,2012 | 05:31AM
allie wrote:
Taxes on the rich are at an 80 year low. Bush was incompetent and lowered taxes in the middle of two warsd. It has caused huge deficits.
on July 24,2012 | 07:28AM
lee1957 wrote:
The first tax cut was in 2001, not the middle of two wars, hon.
on July 24,2012 | 11:51AM
timtower wrote:
You guys are all idiots, which makes it fun to read the comments section.
on July 24,2012 | 07:50AM
serious wrote:
Agreed, some have a feeling of adequacy!
on July 24,2012 | 09:02AM
AhiPoke wrote:
Raising taxes on the "rich" on its own will not solve our country's fiscal problems. In fact, the amount that the democrats are talking about will be spent in only a few weeks and not balance the budget. While I'm in the group that is being targeted for more taxes I don't consider myself "rich" but I'd be willing to have my taxes raised if they'd also start the process to cut spending. Much of what our governments spends could be categorized as ridiculous. As an example, the GSA (the federal agency that's suppose to regulate spending) controls hundreds of empty buildings yet they have just committed to lease space in the new World Trade Center for hundreds of millions of $'s, without asking for or receiving congressional approval as required by law. Then you have the real problem, government pensions. Beside being excessively generous, most plans are underfunded by $B's. Hawaii's ERS is reportedly underfunded by more than $8B, yet our legislature did nothing about it during the last session. Eventually we'll become like Greece and Spain and other European countries who can't fund their pensions and there will be rioting in the streets. Our politicians are worthless when it comes to solving these problems. BTW, I don't think the republicans are faultless in this fiscal mess. In fact, I think Bush2 greatly contributed to this over spending.
on July 24,2012 | 08:43AM
frontman wrote:
Hope and Change.............Don't You Love It
on July 24,2012 | 12:04PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News