Breaking News

Capital Region announces $35 million expansion May 24, 2013

Obama urges tax cuts for families under $250,000

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama, eager to shift election-year attention away from the nation’s lackluster jobs market, called on Congress Monday to extend tax cuts for families earning less than $250,000 a year while allowing taxes to rise for households making more.

“Let’s not hold the vast majority of Americans and our economy hostage while we debate the merits of another tax cut for the wealthy,” said Obama, flanked by a dozen people the White House said would benefit from the tax cut extension advocated by the president.

Obama wants Congress to pass a one-year extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for households making less than $250,000 before they expire at the end of the year. He said the outcome of his November election contest with Republican rival Mitt Romney would then determine the fate of the tax cuts for higher income earners.

“My opponent will fight to keep them in place. I will fight to end them,” he said.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama “would not sign” a bill that extended the whole range of tax cuts in full.

Out of 118.7 million U.S. households in 2010, about 2.5 million had incomes of $250,000 or more, according to estimates by the Census Bureau. The median household income was $49,445, which means equal numbers of households earned less and more.

Obama has long supported ending the tax cuts for those making more than $250,000. But the White House and the president’s re-election team are reviving his arguments now as a way to paint congressional Republicans as obstructionists and Romney as a protector of the wealthy, suggesting the GOP push for an across-the-board extension of the tax cuts puts the middle class at risk.

Romney supports extending the tax cuts for all income earners. His campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said Monday that Obama’s proposal amounted to a “massive tax increase” and proved that the president “doesn’t have a clue how to get America working again and help the middle class.”

The contours of the tax debate are largely the same as they were when the cuts were due to expire at the end of 2010. While Obama opposed an extension for higher income earners then as well, he ultimately agreed to full two-year extension, in part to win concessions for other legislation.

Democrats see the tax debate as part of a larger coordinated attack on Romney.

The strategy is aimed at portraying Romney, whose personal wealth could exceed $250 million, as disconnected from middle-class voters.

Romney aides say the Democratic attacks on the presumptive GOP nominee’s wealth an “unfounded character assault.”

Republican lawmakers immediately balked at Obama’s call for a partial extension.

“No one should see an income tax hike next year — not families, not small businesses and other job creators,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

The president’s pitch may also face some opposition from congressional Democrats. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of his party’s Senate leadership, have both advocated denying the tax cut extension to those making above $1 million annually.

Extending the tax cuts only for households making below $250,000 costs the government about $800 billion less over 10 years than extending them for everyone. The full cuts cost the government about $4.5 trillion over a decade.

Obama was to continue the tax debate Tuesday during a campaign trip to Iowa. His re-election team was also promoting the president’s tax policy at a series of events this week in battleground states, including New Hampshire, Colorado and Nevada.

The Bush-era tax cuts are due to expire at the end of the year unless Congress votes to extend them. Economists worry that across-the-board tax increases, along with automatic spending cuts also scheduled to take hold at year’s end, could be a blow to the shaky U.S. economy.

Comments

JCLifer 10 months, 2 weeks ago

How is it a cut when he wants to make them pay the ObamaCare taxes? Liar liar pants on fire!!!

0

JCLifer 10 months, 2 weeks ago

But they will have to pay those folks premiums. How can they afford insurance premiums if they already can't afford healthcare? Add bloated government buracracies to administer ObamaCate, and costs continue to climb. Graceful is correct- this country is near collapse on itself because people cannot think or understand simple logic.

0

Littleinvestor 10 months, 2 weeks ago

Lifer, because I (and my employer) pay for my health insurance in a premium-sharing plan that has been in place for years, we both will get tax credits under ACA. Only those who have not been paying for insurance when they have enough income to do so get the penalty/tax and businesses with 49 or fewer employees are exempt. Argue about ACA all you want but please use correct facts. The law is a mess and needs to be changed at the very least but it is going to save me tax money if it remains in effect.

0

JCLifer 10 months, 2 weeks ago

Chances are that you have a "Cadillac Plan" and you will be paying a penalty since you are so spoiled rotten for having a good plan that actually covers things.

The goal of ObamaCare is to make everybody pay top dollar for a very minimal plan that covers a few things when you are healthy. When you are sick you will not be covered for good services, or else you will have to get your coverage approved by buracratic "death panels" who will determine if you are worthy of spending government money on for health care. Then you will have to wait in long lines to try to get these more expensive services. It will be just as horrible as Canada's system is for people who are truly ill. If you are healthy, it will be fine, expensive, but fine.

0

bluesfan13 10 months, 2 weeks ago

Guess what... If you have insurance now, your coverage already has to be approved by the company. You almost always have to be pre-approved before a medical procedure. "Death Panels" are a right-wing scare tactic. That being said, I am 100% against this whole ObamaCare plan. I'm just saying that your specific argument holds no real ground.

0

Littleinvestor 10 months, 2 weeks ago

Lifer, I have a Health Savings Account. I pay the first $5,950 every year in addition to my part of the premiums, but get the health insurance company's rates from providers. This is the first year I've hit the deductible since 1999. Basically what I have is coverage for catastrophic events, like falling down the stairs and breaking your leg like I did early this year.

0

JCLifer 10 months, 2 weeks ago

Ha! Under ObamaCare, the Health Savings accounts are being eliminated. The maximum contribution drops dramatically next year, and then it goes away.

"We have to pass it to find out what is in it" HA HA HA!!!

0

spelchek 10 months, 2 weeks ago

Let us remember that all the players of government, unions, and many cronies are exempt from the new taxes that rest of us will have to pay if we choose not to join government care. Good for us, not for them.

0

Littleinvestor 10 months, 2 weeks ago

They are not eliminated although there are some minimum requirements but there are minimum requirements now. ACA changes those. The annual contribution remains the same as it is this year and as far as I can tell will not increase each year as it has been, but I'm not sure about that. My insurance agent will have all of that information for me and my fellow employees by the end of the year, if ACA is still around. The rules are changed and the tax increase is on distributions from the accounts that are non-medical if the account is changed into an IRA at some point (the rules on that are really difficult, even now, and I would suggest having a CPA make sure it is done right.) Careful planning on withdrawl of IRA savings can help minimize the tax impact.

0

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting