Fiscal Cliff Solved... Kind of

[JamesL1585]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Looks like they'll be putting an end to the fiscal cliff if everything runs smoothly, of course not everything is solved. Obama actually mentioned cutting spending isn't the only way he plans to cut down the deficit US has, he specifically mentioned he's going to try to cut down health care costs as well.

Believe they may settle @ 400k for individuals taxes being raised to 39.6 and also those with dual income making 450k for same. Forgive me if I'm wrong. Where they couldn't agree (as of yet) is where spending cuts will occur. So lots of cuts will occur automatically by tomorrow if they can't come to an agreement on that (which from what it sounds like isn't expected to happen in the next 8 hours). Here's a link
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/31/politics/fiscal-cliff/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


My take: I know you think this doesn't apply to pharmacy much, but actually it does. For instance, I remember during rotations I did one @ a PharmD/JD's (corporate) office for a large drug retailer. I remember they were lobbying to keep dispensing costs reimbursed by the state government from dropping b/c certain states were threatening to lower dispensing fees for pharmacist. Just so you guys know, Pharmacy is one of the weakest health care professions and because of that we're always susceptible to being affected where cost cutting is up for discussion. Gotta stay active in state organizations.

 

[Momus]

Bummer... With my selfish thought, I actually WANT fiscal cliff to happen so that DOW will roll over into 12,500 area (-500 points discount) before it gets resolved. Then, right when I get paid on Thursday I can buy stocks at discount =_=

 

[BidingMyTime]

Looks like they'll be putting an end to the fiscal cliff if everything runs smoothly, of course not everything is solved. Obama actually mentioned cutting spending isn't the only way he plans to cut down the deficit US has, he specifically mentioned he's going to try to cut down health care costs as well.

I really, really, hope you are right, but I am skeptical. I think Congress will end up doing too little, too late to do anything to stop the fiscal cliff.

 

[pezdispenser]

What a relief 🙂

It also looks like the sales tax deduction was extended for 2012 and 2013. Good if you're in a state with no income tax because you can only deduct one or the other.

 

[Momus]

Great... instead -500 point. Dow is up 500 points for the past 2 days and 70% my pay check will be deducted this Thursday to buy 401k 🙁

Hate payroll tax didn't get extended. That's roughly $2500 for every pharmacists. Gas money for the whole year went buh-bye...

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Yeah, turns out we have to actually pay for this ****. Total balls.

 

[rxlea]

Yeah, turns out we have to actually pay for this ****. Total balls.

Lulz

 

[rxlea]

You know, Obama did want to extend the payroll tax deduction. It was part of the first plan he put on the table. The Republicans didn't support that because they feared it added too much to the deficit. So, it amuses me to see all the Republicans commenting on the news websites that this is Obama's fault.

 

[pinipig523]

Interesting how the middle class gets to pay the most for the fiscal cliff deal and that Obama is such a poor negotiator... there were many times that Boehner presented him several opportunities for a larger tax revenue... but in the end, he made up a fiscal deal that generated a much lower tax revenue than any of those that Boehner came up with.

It was his ego that led to him to not compromise and then wait till the last minute to come up with a "something is better than nothing" scenario.

See the following graph - how did you go from declining Boehners first and second offers to this paltry fiscal deal?

And how exactly did Obama help the middle class?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/02/make-between-200000-and-500000-congrats-you-got-the-best-fiscal-cliff-deal/

And look at exactly what this "fiscal cliff deal" did to our deficit...

 

[rxlea]

Interesting how the middle class gets to pay the most for the fiscal cliff deal and that Obama is such a poor negotiator... there were many times that Boehner presented him several opportunities for a larger tax revenue... but in the end, he made up a fiscal deal that generated a much lower tax revenue than any of those that Boehner came up with.

It was his ego that led to him to not compromise and then wait till the last minute to come up with a "something is better than nothing" scenario.

See the following graph - how did you go from declining Boehners first and second offers to this paltry fiscal deal?

And how exactly did Obama help the middle class?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-congrats-you-got-the-best-fiscal-cliff-deal/

And look at exactly what this "fiscal cliff deal" did to our deficit...

I really doubt it was his "ego".

a washington post blog as a source?? C'mon.....

 

[pinipig523]

So you see, the fiscal cliff was not solved - we are still in deficit, the middle class (you pharmacists) have to pay an additional 50% in payroll taxes from 4.2 to 6.2% for anything below and up to $113,000 in gross income, and there has not been any change to entitlements, spending, and extra expenses.

I thought I was in trouble with the cliff... but it turns out that they really socked it to the middle class Americans while not really positively affecting our economy.

👎

 

[pinipig523]

I really doubt it was his "ego".

a washington post blog as a source?? C'mon.....

Find me a better source then - data is the same everywhere.

And if it was not his ego - what was it?

 

[pinipig523]

I really doubt it was his "ego".

a washington post blog as a source?? C'mon.....

Here - cnn... you like that source? It's a liberal media outlet.

Same as above. You pay more taxes per % than those who make 200-500K.

Source:
http://money.cnn.com/infographic/news/economy/fiscal-cliff-tax/?hpt=hp_t1

Think before you post.

 

[rxlea]

Find me a better source then - data is the same everywhere.

And if it was not his ego - what was it?

Hmmmm.... Lets see....maybe the 535 people in Congress all with their own interests?

You see, everyone thinks they know soooo much more than Obama and Congress and the economists. They say ths is stupid, that is stupid and OMG I have to pay an additional 2K a year to prevent our economy from going into a deeper **** pile. Why should I pay for THOSE things I do not use (yet)?

Quite frankly, the "economy" is all a bunch of made up figures pushed and pulled and manipulated by extremely wealthy individuals/companies who probably don't give a lick about the average pharmacist or physician or truck driver or taco bell burrito roller. One big fish can unload their stock and manipulate the economy in such a way that the fed ends up on their doorstep saying wtf.

And while the idiotic comments on news blogs are entertaining, the average tax payer knows maybe one iota of what is truly going on, and it gets kind of old/boring to hear the same drivel year after year while people STILL end up standing in line for five hours for an iphone, buy 10 guns because they're afraid of their current lot being pried from their finders, or fill their face with Big Macs because it's their "right" to do so.

Life goes on as it always does. The economy fluctuates and "corrects itself" in ethical and unethical ways. Maybe you pay an additional 2K for some time but eventually the pendulum will swing the other way.

Do your part. Pay your taxes. There are still plenty of ways to shelter money, whether they are the right ways or not.

But really, just how much will this affect you overall in your life? Will you be homeless? Without health care? Riding the bus everyday to get to work? Probably not.

The truth is, maybe you can't go on another Victoria's Secret shopping spree or put 24's on your Escalade. Such a loss 🙄

Things will get better. Most economists say we are past the worst.

 

[pinipig523]

Things will get better. Most economists say we are past the worst.

Orly? I'd like to get some data on this.

 

[rxlea]

Do you listen to NPR?

They interview some pretty interesting people.

 

[bob1234]

Hmmmm.... Lets see....maybe the 535 people in Congress all with their own interests?

You see, everyone thinks they know soooo much more than Obama and Congress and the economists. They say ths is stupid, that is stupid and OMG I have to pay an additional 2K a year to prevent our economy from going into a deeper **** pile. Why should I pay for THOSE things I do not use (yet)?

Quite frankly, the "economy" is all a bunch of made up figures pushed and pulled and manipulated by extremely wealthy individuals/companies who probably don't give a lick about the average pharmacist or physician or truck driver or taco bell burrito roller. One big fish can unload their stock and manipulate the economy in such a way that the fed ends up on their doorstep saying wtf.

And while the idiotic comments on news blogs are entertaining, the average tax payer knows maybe one iota of what is truly going on, and it gets kind of old/boring to hear the same drivel year after year while people STILL end up standing in line for five hours for an iphone, buy 10 guns because they're afraid of their current lot being pried from their finders, or fill their face with Big Macs because it's their "right" to do so.

Life goes on as it always does. The economy fluctuates and "corrects itself" in ethical and unethical ways. Maybe you pay an additional 2K for some time but eventually the pendulum will swing the other way.

Do your part. Pay your taxes. There are still plenty of ways to shelter money, whether they are the right ways or not.

But really, just how much will this affect you overall in your life? Will you be homeless? Without health care? Riding the bus everyday to get to work? Probably not.

The truth is, maybe you can't go on another Victoria's Secret shopping spree or put 24's on your Escalade. Such a loss 🙄

Things will get better. Most economists say we are past the worst.

"It's the spending stupid!" http://www.usdebtclock.org/. You can't tax your way out of this one.

Most economists were wrong on the housing crash[YOUTUBE]2I0QN-FYkpw[/YOUTUBE]
The free market isn't perfect, but when people try to monkey with markets, they cannot foresee every possible outcome and bubbles form. The taxpayers lose when they have to bail out companies for error in government policy, whether the bailouts were necessary or not.

I would prefer to give less money to the government because they waste most of it. They cannot be trusted to use the money effectively and there isn't a possibility for correction because majority of the voters get their information on the candidates from CNN news-bites so we can't vote them out.

 

[rxlea]

"It's the spending stupid!" http://www.usdebtclock.org/. You can't tax your way out of this one.

Most economists were wrong on the housing crash[YOUTUBE]2I0QN-FYkpw[/YOUTUBE]
The free market isn't perfect, but when people try to monkey with markets, they cannot foresee every possible outcome and bubbles form. The taxpayers lose when they have to bail out companies for error in government policy, whether the bailouts were necessary or not.

I would prefer to give less money to the government because they waste most of it. They cannot be trusted to use the money effectively and there isn't a possibility for correction because majority of the voters get their information on the candidates from CNN news-bites so we can't vote them out.

As I pretty much said, we all pay.

I'm not sure what you mean by your statement "there isn't a possibility for correction because [blah blah]"

The crash of 2008 was a perfect storm of sorts. I remember that day when I was at work and went out to the cafe for a break. CNN was on with the little ticker in the red as the number continued to drop. The normally boisterous cafe was so silent aside from the news anchor that you could hear a pin drop. Then everyone pulled out their cell phones and laptops and pretty much freaked right the **** out.

You're probably right-economists didn't predict that one. I hope they don't make that same mistake again! 😛

The thing is, it's not really a free market when the government doesn't let businesses, including banks, fail. They don't let auto companies fail. In fact, uncle sam has saved us quite a few times. That's a pretty big waste if you ask me.

Question is, who would you give your money to instead of the government?

You gonna pay Juan to maintain your city's infrastructure (oh wait...), fund the police/fire department, provide medical care to millions of poor, elderly, and disabled people, and what else? Public transit. Disaster relief. Subsidies to farmers to grow (or not grow) certain crops so you can eat what you want. Public schools. FDA. DEA. CDC. Blah blah blah.

Really...who would you give your money to?

 

[pezdispenser]

the middle class (you pharmacists) have to pay an additional 50% in payroll taxes from 4.2 to 6.2% for anything below and up to $113,000 in gross income

Depends on your point of view. I saw it as just a TEMPORARY 2% payroll tax cut in 2011 and 2012 to stimulate the economy. So now that it is gone, we are back to the normal 6.2% tax rate. I don't count it as a tax increase. For me, it's just the same as 2010 and earlier.

 

[bob1234]

As I pretty much said, we all pay.

I'm not sure what you mean by your statement "there isn't a possibility for correction because [blah blah]"

The crash of 2008 was a perfect storm of sorts. I remember that day when I was at work and went out to the cafe for a break. CNN was on with the little ticker in the red as the number continued to drop. The normally boisterous cafe was so silent aside from the news anchor that you could hear a pin drop. Then everyone pulled out their cell phones and laptops and pretty much freaked right the **** out.

You're probably right-economists didn't predict that one. I hope they don't make that same mistake again! 😛

The thing is, it's not really a free market when the government doesn't let businesses, including banks, fail. They don't let auto companies fail. In fact, uncle sam has saved us quite a few times. That's a pretty big waste if you ask me.

Question is, who would you give your money to instead of the government?

You gonna pay Juan to maintain your city's infrastructure (oh wait...), fund the police/fire department, provide medical care to millions of poor, elderly, and disabled people, and what else? Public transit. Disaster relief. Subsidies to farmers to grow (or not grow) certain crops so you can eat what you want. Public schools. FDA. DEA. CDC. Blah blah blah.

Really...who would you give your money to?

It is mine to do what I wish. Come down to the homeless shelter, there are people in real need down here whether it be clothing, food, counseling etc. I can donate my time, money or neither if I choose. When the gov't sets up certain programs, there will always be waste/fraud/abuse etc. When people give money directly to others or private charities, they are more selective. I'm not going to give money to people smoking crack on the street corner unless they are trying to get their **** together. Some people are good liars, but you can tell who is trying and who is really in need.

If you want to take it to the deepest level, you can privatize everything you mentioned above or incorporate it into the cost of use (ie: each prescription has a $1 fee to fund FDA inspection, so only people who want and buy FDA approved and monitored medicine will be paying for it. If you don't want the FDA to regulate your medicine, get it elsewhere).

When I said we don't have recourse over bad politicians (blah, blah blah?) I meant that the amount of stupid voters are greater than the amount of informed voters. Most voters get their info from sound bites on the news and make an emotional decision on who they vote for. Greater than 98% of the voting public voted for D or R, meaning 98% of the voting public are not informed on the issues. How many of your elders are talking about FISA, drone strikes on civilians, keeping the internet free, executing Americans without trial, undeclared wars, etc. Not a single one most likely.

 

[bob1234]

Banks are getting money from the FED at a 0% interest rate and then loaning out to us! How can they lose!? Why must I pay 6.2% on my loans when the banks get it free. Get the gov't out of education and banking, these unfair practices create bubbles and the tax payer is left with the bill when they burst

 

[pinipig523]

Depends on your point of view. I saw it as just a TEMPORARY 2% payroll tax cut in 2011 and 2012 to stimulate the economy. So now that it is gone, we are back to the normal 6.2% tax rate. I don't count it as a tax increase. For me, it's just the same as 2010 and earlier.

I suppose going back to Reagan taxes would be ok too? I mean, we were paying that rate before... you want to volunteer yourself for that bracket? Seems like you have oodles of cash.

 

[rxlea]

I suppose going back to Reagan taxes would be ok too? I mean, we were paying that rate before... you want to volunteer yourself for that bracket? Seems like you have oodles of cash.

I don't think that's fair. The payroll tax deductions that began in 2011 were intended to be temporary.

 

[pinipig523]

I don't think that's fair. The payroll tax deductions that began in 2011 were intended to be temporary.

Interestingly enough, our most recent tax brackets were also meant to be temporary as well.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Honestly, we haven't been taxed enough since like the 1970s.

It's all about the baby boomers. Those ****ers need to die off. There's this great system we had in place that spread out power and resources out wide as hell. Starting with the Reagan years, they used a huge debt fueled stimulus to get out of a recession in the 80s because it served their purposes...THEN THE ****S NEVER PAID IT BACK because those *******s wanted to cut taxes while in their working primes. ...fast forward to 2006, their crap crashed the economy...now we inherit this bull**** economy...and now that they are retiring, they are going to demand their strong elderly safety net and strong dollar policies (which is bad for jobs/manufacturing) to protect their accumulated wealth.

So they were handed the greatest and most stable economy in the history of the world from the generation that fought in WWII, ****ed it up, got in high levels of debt, shipped all the jobs to the third world (thus beginning a swift race to he bottom in domestic labor markets), left a service economy with low levels of high paying jobs, and are retiring like kings as their children will suffer.

**** this liberal vs conservative bull****. It's the old peoples' fault.

 

[bob1234]

Honestly, we haven't been taxed enough since like the 1970s.

It's all about the baby boomers. Those ****ers need to die off. There's this great system we had in place that spread out power and resources out wide as hell. Starting with the Reagan years, they used a huge debt fueled stimulus to get out of a recession in the 80s because it served their purposes...THEN THE ****S NEVER PAID IT BACK because those *******s wanted to cut taxes while in their working primes. ...fast forward to 2006, their crap crashed the economy...now we inherit this bull**** economy...and now that they are retiring, they are going to demand their strong elderly safety net and strong dollar policies (which is bad for jobs/manufacturing) to protect their accumulated wealth.

So they were handed the greatest and most stable economy in the history of the world from the generation that fought in WWII, ****ed it up, got in high levels of debt, shipped all the jobs to the third world (thus beginning a swift race to he bottom in domestic labor markets), left a service economy with low levels of high paying jobs, and are retiring like kings as their children will suffer.

**** this liberal vs conservative bull****. It's the old peoples' fault.

I thoroughly enjoyed this rant. 😀

 

[browneyes021]

Honestly, we haven't been taxed enough since like the 1970s.

It's all about the baby boomers. Those ****ers need to die off. There's this great system we had in place that spread out power and resources out wide as hell. Starting with the Reagan years, they used a huge debt fueled stimulus to get out of a recession in the 80s because it served their purposes...THEN THE ****S NEVER PAID IT BACK because those *******s wanted to cut taxes while in their working primes. ...fast forward to 2006, their crap crashed the economy...now we inherit this bull**** economy...and now that they are retiring, they are going to demand their strong elderly safety net and strong dollar policies (which is bad for jobs/manufacturing) to protect their accumulated wealth.

So they were handed the greatest and most stable economy in the history of the world from the generation that fought in WWII, ****ed it up, got in high levels of debt, shipped all the jobs to the third world (thus beginning a swift race to he bottom in domestic labor markets), left a service economy with low levels of high paying jobs, and are retiring like kings as their children will suffer.

**** this liberal vs conservative bull****. It's the old peoples' fault.

Your rant made ma laugh. I am all for cutting social security and Medicare for these people as they don't care about our generation. They always talk about giving future generations debt, but do they really care? NO. I wanna keep more of my money like they wanna keep theirs.

 

[lorain]

the problem with cutting spending is that no matter where you do it, its gonna hurt a large section of the people

cut medicare and medicaid? so many docs and hospitals see these patients, how will they make up that revenue?

cut defense? what happens to all the defense companies? they will have to layoff workers

cut SS? thats less money people get per month = less they spend = less money back in the economy

there is no easy solution, and raising taxes on even everyone wont close the deficit

 

[xiphoid2010]

Of course balancing the budget is a complex issues. That's why you should put the best minds on it and have them make the best calculated solution together and make it in happen. Screw the "democratic process" which in this case becomes a political bazaar where 500 "representatives" all try to maximize benefit themselves at other people 's expense. It's just a giant political circus and ineffectiveness. Drastic times calls for draconian measures. You need problem solvers, and force down bitter medicine even if it means losing votes From the ignorant masses.

When faced with danger that threatened their society, Romans would appoint a dictator and empower him to all the power needed to end the crisis. Of course the downside is the possibility of a single dictator that won't step down... however, a select panel of tour best economists/finance guru roughly the size of the supreme court be empowered to this end. Their position maybe appointed by the president with approval by the congress annually or biannally. Once they are in positions, they should be able to make the decision amongst these meritorious few, and if people don't know like it they can elect a house that appoint a different set at the next election.

 

[pezdispenser]

I suppose going back to Reagan taxes would be ok too? I mean, we were paying that rate before... you want to volunteer yourself for that bracket? Seems like you have oodles of cash.

Now you're just going way off track sprouting random stuff off the internet. I don't see what losing a temporary stimulus tax cut that was given a mere two years ago by the same president who is still in office has to do with the tax rates thirty years ago without accounting for inflation, or the change in average wages, and four presidents ago, who happened to be a Republican. Well I was just a young boy at the time and I didn't even live in the US, so correct if I'm wrong, but didn't Reagan REDUCE income tax rates?

But honestly, I don't want to take political sides in this debate. I just hate it when people sprout off one-sided 'facts' and biased charts to serve their argument. For example, in the table with "Drop in after-tax income", if you change the baseline to 2010 or any year from 2001 with the Bush tax cuts and standard 6.2% Social Security it will show a very different picture. Something like:

- no change with income up to $200k single/$250k married

- $200k/$250k+: +0.9% Medicare/Obamacare surtax on wages
+3.8% Medicare/Obamacare surtax on investment income

- $250k/$300k: phase out of $3,900 personal exemptions and limits on itemized deductions

- $400k/$450k: 35% -> 39.6% tax bracket
15% -> 20% tax on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends

Work it out for your own situation, but I see most pharmacists will not be affected by these new taxes.

In fact, I made a spreadsheet for my 2013 taxes and was surprised to see that I'll be in the 25% tax bracket, not even 28%! Don't know if I should be happy about the low tax bracket or sad about my dwindling income... 🙁

 

[owlegrad]

When faced with danger that threatened their society, Romans would appoint a dictator and empower him to all the power needed to end the crisis. Of course the downside is the possibility of a single dictator that won't step down... however, a select panel of tour best economists/finance guru roughly the size of the supreme court be empowered to this end. Their position maybe appointed by the president with approval by the congress annually or biannally. Once they are in positions, they should be able to make the decision amongst these meritorious few, and if people don't know like it they can elect a house that appoint a different set at the next election.

Didn't the Roman empire fall under a dictator? Not a history expert, but I am not sure what lesson you think we should learn from them exactly...

 

[xiphoid2010]

Didn't the Roman empire fall under a dictator? Not a history expert, but I am not sure what lesson you think we should learn from them exactly...

which why I preferred it not to be a dictator that answered to no-one, rather than an oligarchy of meritorious individuals subject to a 2 years appointment approved by the house.

Actually, back to the history. If you look at the roman empire, it rose because of a dictatorship and also fell because of it. Tthe republic lasted 500 years and the empire lasted just as long, one can't really say one is better than the other. Well, let me correct one more time, that if you consider the Byzantine empire as the continuation of at least the eastern roman empire, then you could say that Roman dictatorship lasted 1500 years compared to 500 years of republic.

The other example of democracy in classical era is the greek city-states, which didn't last very long either when compared to all the kingdoms/empires that replaced them. A flaw in the democratic system is that the majority lacks the knowledge to make the informed decision, and yet the country is depending on choice based on ignorance to lead. The current democracy is a relatively new pheromone that only history will tell if is just a hickup or a lasting change.