OMG! It's the Fiscal Cliff!
 

In case you've been wondering, this story in Forbes gives a pretty good explanation of what the fiscal cliff is all about:

There is some speculation that each side may play a game of “chicken” with the other. The lame duck Congress (to continue with bird analogies) will do a lot of posturing and blustering along the standard party lines then go home without resolving anything. Happy New Year, everybody.

The major sticking point seems to be the extension of the Bush tax cuts for those with incomes over $250,000. Republicans become hysterical at the very thought of this and the Republican propaganda machine is already working over time. If those in the $250,000 plus tax bracket have to pay higher taxes, this will adversely impact “small businesses” and the “job creators.” These people will take their toys and go home and pout if forced to pay the same amount in taxes as they did in the Clinton era. No jobs for YOU, America! Take that!

But wait? Small business? “Job creators”? George Orwell would have been proud. By the Republican definition, Mitt Romney is a “small businessman.” As a matter of fact, so is Barack Obama. Say what? And what’s all this about "job creation"?

Again I turned to Forbes, hardly a bastion of liberal progressivism, and read their well-researched historical analysis of tax cuts and jobs creation. Jobs growth under the George W. Bush administration with its tax cuts averaged from 4.5% to 7%. Sounds good? Well, not really. Since 1950, with the exception of the Eisenhower administration, EVERY president who served two terms saw job growth during his tenure. And it was DOUBLE DIGIT job growth, not the anemic numbers W. managed to achieve with his tax cuts for the wealthy.

What we have here are a bunch of tea party inspired lemmings who will rush us over that “fiscal cliff” as a matter of political ideology, NOT what is good for the Country.

I'm with Lawrence O'Donnell on this one. It's not a cliff - it's a curb. If we step off, it'll be to the democrats' advantage - and then we can strike a deal that favors the left, and retroactively apply it back to the first of the year. Bam. Problem solved. Make the defense cuts, fix the other spending cuts, retroactively fix the taxes for the poor and middle-class but don't fix them for $250k+. Twist republican arms and we can make this work.

Here is another article explaining who will get hit and the possible effects on the economy:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...atters/264990/


I'm support Obama right now with this. Extend the tax cuts for people who are more likely to spend the money (under $250,000) and make appropriate spending cuts. Nothing too extreme, I really don't want another recession, but enough to get momentum going on budget issues.

I've always wondered what sort of buying spree the $250,000 plus gang are supposed to go on. Since the US doesn't make anything anymore, the wealthy are not going to help things by buying expensive trinkets from their homeland. I think they buy their expensive trinkets from foreign countries, anyway. Art? Maybe they'd buy a bunch of stuff created by American artists, and the money from the art community would trickle down to the rest of us. Nah, I bet the uber rich consider it gauche to have a bunch of American art cluttering up the mansion.

I know! Learjets! Who couldn't always use another Learjet? Are those made in the US? OK, never mind. I just checked and the Canadians took over making the Learjet. Well, I'm sure the wealthy will do SOMETHING to help the US economy out, right? Especially if we all have to go over some financial cliff on their behalf. :rolleyes:

The rich throw a lot of parties. So they do pump money into the catering and rented entertainment industries. Also, they consume a fair amount of domestic wine mixed in with their foreign wine. So hey, that's practically like paying the migrant grape-pickers directly!

Uh huh, especially art purchased directly from artists. If the uber-rich deign to buy art made by living American artists, it is most likely through dealers and galleries (also very wealthy people) that take a 50% commission. None of those big-money art auction sales we see on the news benefit any artists.

BayPop Mag

Here is what the rich in my area splurges on...

Note the cufflinks on page 100 for $40k and the cell phone on page 107 for $179k. I would think you could blow a hell of a lot of money very easily.

Yeah, I know someone featured in this magazine, which is what brought it to my attention.

1) we know jobs were created and the economy boomed when taxes made sense. To create a recession, George Jr, et al created welfare for the rich. Selling that lie as a job creator. We know that welfare contributed to a massive recession. Why then continue what has a long history of creating recessions? Instead, restore taxes to levels that once made a booming American economy in the 1990s.

2) economics is now taking revenge. No money game that can avert that economic revenge. Remaining question: who will pay the most for the fiscal mismanagement in the 2000s? Those bills must be paid no matter what money game is played.

And so 3). Economists discuss two fundamental parameters that best define the resulting damage and recovery. The first is a Gini index. A relationship between the wealthiest and everyone else. Historically, when a Gini index falls, then a gap between the wealthiest and all others decreased. Then an economy booms. When the Gini index increases, then recessions tend to happen. Of course we are discussing short term economics - maybe a result in five or ten years. In the 2000s, America's Gini index has increased.

Second, is a variable called a "multiplier". A multiplier of 1.5 means that $1 in government spending cuts reduces the nation's GDP by $1.50. So does austerity create a multiplier greater than or less than 1? What is the economic harm in the next few years and much longer in the short term? Well, that multiplier varies between 0.9 and 1.7 when austerity is implemented during a recession. And that multiplier tends to be below 1 (better return on government dollars) when austerity is implemented during a booming economy - ie during Clinton's tenure.

These figures only summarize minor variations found in the money games. Because economics must still take revenge. We are discussing pain immediately or less pain over more years. Politicians have been preaching wild speculation without numbers. Also forget to mention that austerity today means different consequence in year one and in year eight. Moreso, the depth or a recession represent a shortage of innovation. Something that economists ignore because it cannot be quantified by economists.

Recessions are only solved by the resulting innovations in the economy. All towns suffer from a recession. Which ones in a nation, historically, recover from a recession faster and stronger? Those with innovative industries. Despite all that silly argument over austerity verses stimulus (or tax cuts), we know the only poeple who best solve a recession and debt crisis are the industries (and people) who innovate.

They tend to be people who are not rich (instead aspire to be rich). And tend to be stifled by rich who stifle innovation and harm economies to protect their wealth. None of that is discussed when the people are being fed sound bytes by extremist liberal and conservative politicians.

The fiscal cliff is about who gets punished most for George Jr's money games (and other fiascos including Mission Accomplished). Those who most deserve to be punished are those who got rich by playing money games. By not building productive industries.

How do we implement that solution? Good luck trying to punish those most responsible for this recession. Instead the economy must punish all workers. The people who did not get rich. No money game that can target the problem - ie MBAs. But we can try to reward those who create innovative products. That means nine totally defective and bankrupt investments only resulting in one product company.

Instead, we have politicians who said they want America to fail. Or who claim tax cuts create jobs (when history proves otherwise). So we have the fiscal cliff - that punishes the less guilty more and less punishes those who created this recession.

Anybody see Nardelli, Wagoner, Frazier, Perez, Cantor, etc complaining about pain from a recession they intentionally created? When we talk about the fiscal cliff, why are they not put forth as icons to this problem? Others who hype poltiical spin also do not discuss relevent numbers. Including a multiplier or a Gini Index. Liars and their deceieved victims routinely discuss solutions by ignoring such numbers. Note how many are outrightly lying (just like Rush Limbaugh). Note those with miracle solution never once discuss innovation or its sources. Instead they hype getting rich (the MBA solution) - as if money games solve problems or create innovation.

Well, y'all brought it on yourselves, Mitt would have fixed everything by now.:p:

Well, if they hadn't screwed up the primaries we'd have been enjoying some of Newt's $2.50/gal gas by now!;)

Or at the very least, I'd have one of Mitt's 12 million new jobs. :right:

Over the weekend I heard House Speaker John Boehner mention in passing that the tax cuts for the wealthy were important to help create a smaller government. At last, a politician speaking the truth if only accidently in passing. Dry up the funding in order to starve the beast.

Republicans have always wanted "small government." That means not only fewer taxes, but among other things, less government oversight in the form of regulatory agencies. I'm no big fan of government snooping, but on the other hand, lack of any sort of real outside regulation helped allow the boys on Wall Street to play fast and lose with the mortgage lending industry and other financial instruments for their own gain and to the nation's continuing sorrow.

It's like a teenager wanting his parents to trust him to be home alone next weekend when the last time they left him in the house by himself for a few days, he threw the biggest party evah for him and his friends. Kids were passed out on the front lawn, the furniture was destroyed, the police were called, and a good time was had by all. Except Mom and Dad who had to clean up the mess and bail Junior out of jail. Like Junior's Mom and Dad, I view Republican demands for "less government" with a jaundiced eye.

I think we've all been looking at this the wrong way. We've been looking at the financial meltdown and worldwide recession as a failure...but the very wealthy have increased their wealth. Maybe to them it doesn't seem like a failure.

I know that, for me, as an employed single childless white male with no mortgage who lives in an area whose housing prices never crashed, and who started investing* after the crash, it's been great!

I can only imagine what it's like for someone truly wealthy.

*not counting 401K

would you like to come over for dinner?

I would imagine that the very wealthy consider it a resounding victory. According to the Center for Tax Justice, the super rich have at least $21 trillion stashed away in offshore holdings around the world. They're doing quite well, thank you very much, and they don't need any official types poking around in their affairs. Did you know that the 6 members of the Walten Family (of WalMart fame) have as much wealth as 30% of the US population?

Abd I doubt very much if people like that are so much worried about higher taxes as they are by the thought of supporting a govenment which includes watch dog agencies with those taxes. I bet when the super rich hear that quote of President Kennedy's,"Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather ask what you can do for your country," they bend over with laughter.

What's a country good for if you can't use it to further your own ends without caring what this may do to everyone else?

The super-rich are definitely swinging farther in that direction. Almost makes those 250k "fat-cats" look like they're in the middle class, huh?

Not always, from Life magazine, June 21, 1954, The Republicans were gleefully screwing the free market with farm supports that were doing more harm than good.

Is a fiscal cliff destructive? If yes, then someone is saying why with specific numbers. Nobody is. Why so much fear? Businessmen do not like unknowns. Bottom line: nobody knows what the fiscal cliff will do. Nobody knows quite how to plan for it. That lack of prediction and planning - not the actual cliff - has created fear. The cliff itself is not that destructive. The need to adapt to change scares the shit out of finance people.

Some businesses must adapt accordingly. Others will see no change. But due to spread sheet models that cannot define change or innonvation, then many businessmen are hyping an end of the world. Ironically setting up Republicans to become scapegoats just like Newt Gringrich was when he foolishly tried to shutdown government.

The fiscal cliff means many companies living fat off government must become more productive, search for new markets, or be properly punished by bankruptcy (what destroys bad management). Since many business managers have no idea how the work gets done, then they will be exposed as incompetent by a need to change. That incompetence - not the actual cliff - is probably the source of much fear.

what a great find xoB.

I think the president is in the driver's seat right now for exactly the same reason. Do this the right way for the country, the bleatings of the tea partyers notwithstanding, with revenue increases, including from tax rate increases on the top 2% along with cuts, maybe even means testing medicare/medicaid/social security/schedule changes/rate changes/income limits/etc

or

don't.

then boom goes the dynamite.

and the president can now come to congress with this proposal, hey I have a package here that REDUCES TAXES for 98% of the citizens, y'all want in on this? Or, are you gonna fuck them just to hold out for that last two percent?

Come on cliff. Let's do this thing.

I'm with V. I'm disgusted with the way the Republican Party continues to cater to the extremely wealthy and the rest of the country be damned. I don't see how Republicans can continue to label the upper 2% as "job creators" while managing to keep their faces straight.

These "job creators" have had from the Bush administration to the present to expand the percentage of new jobs created in the US. To this day, there has been no significant increase in the number of jobs as a result of the upper 2% plowing their tax decrease bonanza back into American industry and business. Why should this change in 2014 and the years that follow?

During the election I was bemused to hear Romney and his Republican partners in crime talk about the 8 or 12 million or whatever fantastic number of new jobs it was that they were going to create. How? By getting rid of HUD and down sizing other government agencies? (Except for Defense, of course). By making deep cuts in or completely eliminating all programs which constitute the social safety net? By cutting discretionary spending and allowing the nation’s infrastructure to continue to deteriorate? HOW?

Now the greater good of the country is being held hostage for the benefit of a privileged few. Fuck that. I’ll go over the fiscal cliff just so those bastards will have to pay something approaching their fair share of the tax burden. If it’s the choice of a plutocracy versus the fiscal cliff, I’ll take the cliff every time.

Relevance at around 3mins

By waiting until 12 million jobs are created, and taking credit. Apparently, 12 million was the estimate for new jobs in that time frame if nothing more was done.

Some people pay good money just to ride a roller coaster. This one will be free? And no queueing.

We go off the cliff, everyone gets a tax increase. In February Obama sponsors a retroactive tax cut for the middle class and let the Republicans try to vote against that with impunity.;)

Where is Adek when you need him ? Pls explain this to me...

Obama says...
The wealthy (>$250 k/yr) must pay higher tax rates

Republicans say...
"Revenue is on the table"
"Higher tax rates harm "job creators"
"New revenue can be found by eliminating business tax deductions and loopholes"
"Small business owners create more jobs that anyone else"

But, but, but...
Dun & Bradstreet
Scott Shane
5/3/12

Small Business Owners’ Earnings
So, are the Republicans knowingly proposing to eliminate deductions
that affect small business owners (earning less than $250 k/yr) ???

If your taxable income from a business is over $250,000, then either:
a) You're sucking the business dry before having it declare bankruptcy.
b) You have the worst accountant.
c) It's not a small business.

And most small businesses don't make enough revenue for a) or b).

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lv...aoq4o1_400.gif
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md...abqyo2_500.gif
http://3putt.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/applause.gif

The other day I heard "Papa" John Schnatter call Papa John's a "small business".

Uhm. No mate. No.

What Ibby said.

In my capacity as a US citizen, I have become increasingly disgusted with a government which does not work toward solving the serious issues facing our country, but instead continues to play party politics and the people be damned.

We do not live in a democracy when the interests of an elite 2% are upheld at the expense of the remaining 98% of the American people. Such a system can be called many things – a plutocracy, an oligarchy, even a dictatorship. What it cannot be called is a Democracy and certainly not a Republic.

Nor do we live in a Republic when Congress subscribes to the ideology of an extremist few such as the Tea Party, and in the name of that ideology enacts laws which are contrary to the greater good of the rest of the country. As Thomas Paine wrote,

(emphais my own)

What we have now is a government of smoke and mirrors where those in power tell cynical lies to the governed and expect us to believe (or at least accept) a strongly partisan view of reality which is patently false. The upper 2% in wealth are neither “small businessmen” nor are they “job creators.”

Rather, they are the CEOs who outsource American jobs to make the bottom line look good. They are the officers of large corporations who will declare the businesses they run (into the ground) bankrupt even as they award themselves 100’s of millions in annual pay and bonuses. They are members of the contingent of super rich who have hidden $21 TRILLION in offshore banks in order to avoid taxes.

It is high time that the Tea Party and its admirers be called on their outrageous ideologies and refusal to consider any other ideas except their own. Are we a nation of free people or are we a bunch of sheep too ignorant to realize we are being led to the slaughter?

Fiscal cliff indeed!

Forward ... lets hit that cliff with both feet on the accelerator!

That's what Thelma said.

It must be a good thing. She's famous.

OK, I have not thought this through, so maybe someone else can improve on my question...

Elsewhere I posted about a few Republicans changing their attitude
towards Grover Norquist's pledge to never raise taxes.
Those Republicans, and a few others, are saying that they are not willing to raise the tax rates,
but instead want to "raise revenues" by closing loopholes and "capping the deductibles".
One of them said that capping deductions at (maybe) $30K - $40K
might be acceptable, but only if the Democrats would cut entitlements.

So, my question is this:
Why are Republicans pushing the idea of capping deductions ?

My distrustful mind wanders through ideas like these...
If tax rates are generally around 28% on upper levels of taxable income,
a cap at $35K seems as though it would be equivalent to such a deduction on (only) $125K.

Why is that OK with Republicans ?
Is it because it is applied to "earned income",
as opposed not to income from "interest", "capital gains", "return of capital", etc.
Or, are the wealthy looking to remove all foreign income from their taxes completely.

I like xoB's current signature: "Everything is interesting... look closer"

I'm not sure. Maybe the ones changing their positions are not pure evil? Maybe they know we need to put taxes back to where they were. Maybe they figure that by reducing deductions for the rich they can raise taxes without "raising taxes."

Obviously, the devil is in the details.

1) There are only 824,584 tax filers making over $500,000 a year.
2) There are only 2,761,934 tax filers making over 250,000 a year.
Combined that's about 3.5 million taxpayers.
There is NO WAY we can solve anything by addressing only this group of "rich" people.

3) 142,892,051 - Total number of tax returns filed 2010.
Only 84,475,933 - Total number of TAXABLE returns.
Thats is under 60%. Conclusion - Its simple math. The tax revenue base must be broadened. There is no other way.

No one is seriously considering solving the deficit problem solely by taxing the rich. I think the "rich pay a little bit more" talk is just a reaction to the general feeling that the rich disproportionally benefit from the current tax code. I understand Republican fear that 'tax the rich' will become a scapegoat solution for future deficit problems and their belief that Obama is leading us towards that possible slippery slope but their current talk is just fueling that populist anger.

Our tax code needs to be simplified and I'm waiting for Republicans to propose a serious plan. A lot of independents and liberals would get behind that.

So what, just leave them paying at the current rate and just increase the burden on everybody earning below that amount?

Just because they cannot be the only solution doesn;t mean they shouldn't be a part of the overall solution. Redressing an imbalance is all that's being asked for.

The wealthy in America pay proportionately less tax than they have ever done. As a group, the highest earners have increased their share of the wealth as well as their wealth in real terms during a period which has seen everybody else's wealth stagnate. They have been the biggest beneficiaries of the financial meltdown and they have continued to reap benefits from the whirlwind that has swept so many of their countrymen to personal ruin.

As a class, the 'job creators' have changed the employment landscape to suit themselves at the cost of millions of lost / outsourced jobs and insecure employment at home.

The people scratching around in the fucking dust, desperate for work and living in temporary accomodation did not create the current economic crisis, they shouldn't be the ones who have to pay for it through the loss of yet more services and assistance and the creeping rise of less direct taxes, whilst the super rich squirrel away their ever-increasing piles of cash into off-shore tax havens, because they're too fucking selfish even to pay the minimal levels of tax currently expected of them.

Did I at ANY POINT say that? EVER?

What I did say was:
The only resolution to this problem if for EVERYONE to pay more. One party is implying that "taxing the rich" will solve the problem. MANY believe that. They are incorrect.
Nice rant though. :thumbsup:

No, you didn't. I am sorry I assumed. I think because I see that point made so often by right wing conservative peeps on Fox News as part of a general 'rich people are the real victims of class war' attitude. Usually before some enlightening little segment on how the poor aren't like the real poor of yesteryear.

Thanks, Dana. By the way - I AM the poor.

That doesn't always stop people making those arguments though :p

We know what works. Put taxes back the way they were in the 1990s. Unfortunately that contradicts pledges made by too many Republicans to Norquist, Limbaugh, et al. What works is evil - because it was done by Clinton.

What worked so well, before tax cuts destroyed jobs, is how we start fixing the economy again. By ignoring ideology preached on Fox News. By using well proven economics.

In your bubble perhaps. There were other factors besides the tax rates which impacted the state of the economy in the 90's.

So we should keep destroying jobs because Eric Cantor says making America fail is good? Patriotic Americans instead restore tax rates that created deficit reductions and more jobs.

George Jr tax cuts destroyed jobs and contributed to record deficits. Only fools still think tax cuts do anything good or useful. The educated can understand why predictions, based in history and economics, were so accurate. Tax cuts that create recesssions were predicted repeatedly in the Cellar including 2001 and 2004. Those predictions were spot on accurate.

Tax cuts were based in lies when implemented. Tax cuts destroy jobs; complete with reasons why tax cuts are destructive.

Money games (ie tax cuts) to make a productive economy only create less jobs. Nothing new: Economics will take revenge. So let's keep the tax cuts and destroy more jobs because extremists do not want to admit their mistake.

sadly, nothing new. Ignoring every other facet doesn't make them go away.

I'm in favor of taxing the rich because that's where the money is.

I heard recently that the 400 richest people in the US have as much wealth as the bottom (economically speaking) 185,000,000. Top four hundred same wealth as the bottom one hundred and eighty five million. You want more filers? What about redistributing the wealth of one of those 400. That translates into 462,500 po' folks.

When I hear the whining about how taxing the rich won't solve things, then I think the same logic applies to the bottom 185 million people too. They have the same amount of money, right? Except when you divide how much they have by the number of people you have to spread it all around to, it gets scraped pretty thinly.

I'm working out the math on the proposed changes to the tax code I've seen put forward by the President. When I have that math, I'll post it here.

Just sacrifice one of them, like in a volcano. They won't be missed. Of course we'll have to sacrifice one per year, but that's four centuries of purging... unless they figure it out first.

Two-thirds of millionaires left Britain to avoid 50p tax rate

ha ha.

From your link:
Some observations.

There definitely were more dollars and pounds floating around in 2009-2010 than there were afterward, so the direct cause of the change in the number of rich people and the change in the tax law is unknown, but certainly not complete.

There's a big difference between driving rich people out of the country and people manipulating their income so that they're under some threshold. I don't recall the name (jimmy somebody), some acerbic comedian who paid minimal taxes by such manipulations and had a public mea culpa on the subject. Once again, saying the tax rate change caused the number of millionaires to drop from 16000 to 6000 isn't easy to support without a lot more evidence.

Then the last bolded section, I find interesting. The tax rate is still 50p, it won't change until next year, but the number of millionaires has risen to 10000. Why? Surely it isn't the tax rate, since it's unchanged. Claiming, suggesting that the change in the tax rate drives millionaires out of the country is not believable.

Jimmy Carr :)

Whatever. Just purge one of them, man, and see how many are left in the country a year later to play that lottery.

Why purge them? Why not just expect them to pay a fair rate of tax?

Ask biggie, he put the idea up.

I put the idea up?

I don't think so. You might have mistaken a fart for a trial balloon.

What is "50p", 50%?

yes

I'll tell you what. The taxes paid by those poor babies in the $250,000 plus gang DO make a major difference. Why do you think the Tea Party members in the House have been so intransigent and refused even the most reasonable of compromises - keep the tax cuts for 98% of the people in the country and fight over the upper 2% tax rate come January? Surely, that would be simple common sense to the Right and the Left both.

The Tea Party wants small government, and they don't care what they do to the country in order to achieve this goal. Choke government revenues by keeping the tax rates for the wealthy artificially low. Tah dah! Small government. Put our disabled vets out on the streets, send the country back into an economic tail spin, let unemployment rise to 9% or more, etc., etc., etc. Who cares? We will have SMALL GOVERNMENT at last.

The Tea Party LOST some seats in Congress. The DEMOCRAT nominee for President won. The Tea Party does not represent the will of the majority of the people in the U.S. And just what office was Grover Norquist elected to again? Don't everybody all answer at once. :eyebrow:

Today the Republicans have made public their budget proposal...

L.A. Times
Lisa Mascaro and Michael A. Memoli
12/12/03
Republicans counter with their own 'fiscal cliff' plan
So is this last bit the real answer to my questions ?

They consider lower tax rates and closing loopholes pro-growth revenue increases. I don't know any details of why.

The closing loopholes thing is a mixed bag, but overall, I think it would hurt Democrats the most. So that's part of the reason Republicans are pushing for it.

What are the biggest itemized deductions? There are three. State and local taxes, mortgage interest, and charities. And they are pretty much in that order of importance for most people.

If you can't deduct state and local taxes any more, who is going to be hurt the most? People in the states and localities that have the highest taxes. Typically, tax rates are higher in liberal leaning states like Massachusetts and California, and lower in conservative states like Texas. Also, taxes in urban areas are generally higher than in rural areas because property values are greater in urban areas. Urban areas are also generally more liberal. So eliminating the deductions for these taxes will hurt Democrats much more than Republicans.

For mortgage interest, it is pretty mixed. You're hitting much of the middle class if you eliminate this deduction. At the two extreme ends of the spectrum you have rich Republicans in mansions losing pretty nice deductions, and poor Democrats in apartments not being touched at all, but in the middle, it's completely mixed.

And finally, for charitable giving, it's also pretty mixed, but Republicans give slightly more to charity, so this would hurt Republicans a little bit more. Really, though, eliminating charitable deductions would decimate the work charities do, and that would be terrible at a time when the government is cutting back the work they do for the needy. The people hurt most by eliminating charitable deductions would overwhelmingly be the needy.

My dad was on CSPAN talking about the AMT portion of the fiscal cliff. It's the only part of the cliff that actually takes effect immediately, because it's the AMT adjustment for tax year 2012, not 2013, and you really don't want to be changing 2012 tax policy while people are filling out their returns. All the rest can be fixed retroactively later in the year.

What I found most interesting was that the AMT actually kept lots of people in the $200,000-$500,000 from getting the Bush tax cuts, so letting them expire for people making over $250,000 may only actually raise taxes on people making over half a million.