Posts tagged as:

tax-relief

Vote on Stimulus Bill Expected on Monday

February 7, 2009 · 5 comments

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has indicated that the newly “trimmed” stimulus package will go to a vote in the Senate on Monday. The bill now costs approximately $827 billion.

You would have thought that the Senate had found the cure for cancer, as they congratulated each other for finally agreeing on something. They managed to cut nearly $100 billion in spending – a welcome step forward but it’s still a massive bill.

Not all of the Senators were pleased with the deal. Senator John Boehner (R-OH) commented, “Ultimately this bill should be judged on whether it works, and 90 percent of a bad idea is still a bad idea.”

What’s Boehner upset about? Spending. Here’s a brief look at some of the items cut or reduced in the bill:

  • $2 billion cut for energy-efficient federal buildings
  • $327 million cut for NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  • $300 million cut for federal fleet of hybrid vehicles
  • $300 million cut for FBI construction
  • $200 million cut for Superfund
  • $100 million cut for Law enforcement wireless
  • $75 million cut for Smithsonian
  • All funds cut for historic preservation
  • All funds cut for new Coast Guard polar icebreaker/cutters
  • All funds cut for pandemic flu prevention

Cuts were also made in educational assistance and new school construction.

The self-congratulatory smugness was nearly too much to take. When did Congress suddenly decide that we should watch our spending? It’s like watching a college student who maxed her credit cards out at Ann Taylor suddenly start caring about how much the cable bill costs. Yes, I’m glad that Congress is finally starting to *get* that we don’t have an unlimited amount of money to spend, but the attitude exhibited by folks like Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) who have talked themselves up by deciding that cutting spending is some how a remarkable feat is offputting.

Note to Congress: As taxpayers, we *get* it already. What has taken you so long?

So with all of the grandstanding and pruning, what stays? That, they didn’t talk about so much. It’s all in broad terms: “job creation”, tax incentives for small businesses, a once again pathetic one year band aid on the AMT (alternative minimum tax) and some variation on so-called “tax relief” for low income and middle income families. We’ll know the details on Monday and you can find it right here at taxgirl.

{ 5 comments }

The Mother of All Tax Bills

November 3, 2007 · 0 comments

carol.jpg

Rep. Charles Rangel (D – NY) has unveiled what he calls “the mother of all tax bills.”

The result would be a sizable “re-shifting” of the current tax burden which has been heavily criticized even among the wealthy as “tilted to the rich.”

According to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, the shift would mean that those making $500,000 or more would see an increase in their tax bills while those making less would see a reduction. The most significant reduction would affect families making between $10,000 and $20,000; those in the $100,000 to $200,000 range would also see relief, presumably because of changes to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Rangel has proposed repealing the AMT.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that 57% of tax filers (86 million households) would get a tax cut under Rangel’s bill in 2008, while 2.4% of filers (3.6 million households) would pay higher taxes.

The bill is not expected to pass (of course) but will serve as a platform for a debate on tax issues for 2008 and 2009.

Rangel has also offered a “patch” bill that would shield 21 million taxpayers from having to pay the AMT on their 2007 taxes. That bill passed the Ways and Means Committee but is expected to face stiff opposition from Republicans due to the offset measures to counter the $50 billion cost of the patch.

What do you think? Is a shift fair? Is Buffet right?

{ 0 comments }