Thanks for the link.
The amount you get from/give to the IRS for taxes in 2012 will not change one way or another. The tax increases will take effect on Jan. 01 for the year 2013. While they get most of the press, they will actually be the easiest to deal with in the long term. On the second day of the new session of congress, someone proposes a bill to lower tax rates on everyone below $250,000 to what they were and it will probably go right through. Will the GOP really vote against a tax cut?
The major immediate things are are the expiration of the payroll tax increases that were passed, plus the extended unemployment benefits that will end. The sequester taking effect on the 2nd will have a big effect, but it will be a bit more spread out for most of the population, mostly affecting the elderly, poor, and disabled, especially veterans.
Did you notice in that wikipedia article that the total US foreign aid amounts to 1.5% of the US budget. Total. That is all the military and economic aid we give to everyone in the world, including Afghanistan.$53 billion is a lot of money yes. But in comparison to our budget, it is nothing. And it isn’t wasteful. The economic aid, which is the majority given out, saves lives and helps the people in those countries survive. And it helps counteract some of the bad things those people hear about us doing in other places. In PR terms, as well as humanitarian terms, it is a useful investment in the future of both our country and theirs.
Ranting about how we are giving it all away is not productive. Neither is being paranoid about the border.
If you look at the bottom line my my post with the link to this same Wiki link, I state:
“While this alone would not fix the mess, it just 1 example of wasteful spending”
Regarding the PR benefits of giving aid to these nations, how is that working out for us in Egypt - where they just re-elected the Muslim Brotherhood to run the place. Or all of the years of aid to North Korea, and yet they consistently broke all promises, and developed a nuclear warhead, followed years later by a stage 3 missile system. Yet, 1 in 10 families have someone who has starved in NK.
cite:
NK months ago threatened retailation against the USA, for stopping US aid (due to the stage 3 missile launch)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/04/17/north-korea-rocket-reaction.html
look at Pakistan…2-3 billion a year in US aid, and they surprise everyone by secretly developing their own nuclear warhead and detonating it…and we still keep planting money trees in Karachi. Same PK whose own version of the CIA claims to have had no idea that OBL was hiding in a huge fortified compound that was located within eyesight of their CIA HQ. They also imprisoned the PK doctor who tipped the USA off.
Keep in mind these same countries receiving our aid, have secured their borders significantly more than we ever will our own.
PS BTW - its 72 billion when you count corporate foreign aid.
- You are complaining about US aid to NK that we have stopped?
- Yes someone that is part of the Muslim Brotherhood was elected President in Egypt. And he worked with the US to stop the latest Gaza/Israel conflict. As the President said, Egypt is not an ally, but they are also not an enemy. Stopping all foreign aid to them would be one way to push them toward the latter.
- The US agreed to pay Pakistan the billions in return for them allowing us to supply our military in Afghanistan. Supposedly to pay for road upkeep and security, really a big bribe. Cutting it off would mean cutting off those troops, which strikes me as a really shitty thing to do to them. YMMV.
No the money doesn’t make everyone look at us with sweetness and light. Plenty of people in this world hate us, some for no reason, too many for good reason. Stopping all of the aid will just add to the latter. And would not even be a good start to fixing what problems we have with our budget.
The corporate foreign aid doesn’t matter a bit one way or the other with regards to the US budget. Unless you are advocating the US govt tell private citizens, corporations, and foundations who they can and can’t give their money to, it is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
To be fair, this entire discussion is also irrelevant to the question in the OP.
Probably very little but even if our taxes go up I consider it a needed correction. Thanks to the Bush cuts, US tax rates are the lowest in nearly sixty years. I do not believe this is sustainable any more than I believe our expenditure levels are.
Both need to change - taxes up and spending down.
Last recession came on the heels of a huge tax break.
Have you seen any yet?
You know, we don’t own a caddy because we don’t feel we can afford to pay for a caddy. I would rather not have to lay out the money for a caddy if we are not actually getting to drive the fucking thing. [And besides if we were to buy a new vehicle, it would be a van set up for handicap use with a chair lift. I don’t particularly like caddys.]
I can afford one, and I don’t own one because they are butt ugly. 
…about 2.5 million folks on extended benefits are about to be unable to pay for fuel, food, rent, utilities, et al.
no big deal, probably…
This is not correct for everyone. Absent a deal, a significant segment of taxpayers (perhaps 25%) will be subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax for 2012. As a very rough generalization, I think that if you itemize deductions, you’re probably looking at a higher rate for this year.
I didn’t realize the AMT would take effect for 2012 taxes. Another example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
3% tax increases OMFG
That in and of itself would not be too bad. The problem is that most people it will effect are on the low end of the scale, and they will also be hit by their payroll taxes going up, the AMT hitting them, unemployment cutting off, increased cost of medical care, if they can get it, etc. Any one of these things by itself is not a bit deal. But if I was in the same position now that I was 3 years ago, I would have lost my house, and my sister probably would have done the same. It is a cascade that has the potential to be nasty. The idea is to avoid finding out how nasty.
We kind of all do own caddies, only they are actually armored vehicles driving around Iraq, or long since blown up, or an airstrip in Germany, or some other unneeded piece of military hardware you will never see.
Too bad the cuts in the military appear to be aimed at soldier pay and benefits rather than an actually more sensibly sized force.
That is t quite true for a lot of people. The effective tax rate I would pay would go up by about 5% of my income, or around $6,000 a year. Measured as an increase in the amount of taxes I pay, it would be about a 30% increase in my tax bill. For a median income family, 2% of their income will go to increased taxes, which is about $1,000. That is roughly an 18% increase in taxes paid. One can slice the numbers different ways, but it is a significant tax increase, and that’s coming from someone who thinks he should pay more in taxes. Just not that much more!
The impact of the fiscal cliff would probably be felt most immediately due to increased tax rates and loss of unemployment benefits. The longer it goes on, the spending cuts would become more and more real, but that effect won’t be immediately felt in January. Overall, the longer we keep falling over the cliff, the greater the impacts will be, primarily by reducing economic growth to negative rates in the first half of the year, and raising unemployment by about one point.
So, unless something is done, you might feel very little impact if you are not unemployed, you don’t mind paying extra taxes, and you weren’t worried about your job in 2010 when unemployment rates were higher than today. If the cliff persists and isn’t fixed, you may be fine if you also don’t think too much about almost one in ten air traffic controllers, prison guards, and FBI agents being laid off by summertime.