Most in U.S. won't be able to escape 'fiscal cliff'

WASHINGTON (AP) - Everyone who pays income tax - and some who don't -will feel it.
So will doctors who accept Medicare, people who get unemployment aid, defense contractors, air traffic controllers, national park rangers and companies that do research and development.
The package of tax increases and spending cuts known as the "fiscal cliff" takes effect in January unless Congress passes a budget deal by then. The economy would be hit so hard that it would likely sink into recession in the first half of 2013, economists say.
And no matter who you are, it will be all but impossible to avoid the pain.
Middle income families would have to pay an average of about $2,000 more next year, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has calculated.
Up to 3.4 million jobs would be lost, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. The unemployment rate would reach 9.1 percent from the current 7.9 percent. Stocks could plunge. The nonpartisan CBO estimates the total cost of the cliff in 2013 at $671 billion.
Collectively, the tax increases would be the steepest to hit Americans in 60 years when measured as a percentage of the economy.
"There would be a huge shock effect to the U.S. economy," says Mark Vitner, an economist at Wells Fargo.
Most of the damage - roughly two-thirds - would come from the tax increases. But the spending cuts would cause pain, too.
The bleak scenario could push the White House and Congress to reach a deal before year's end. On Tuesday, Congress returns for a post-election session that could last through Dec. 31. At a minimum, analysts say some temporary compromise might be reached, allowing a final deal to be cut early next year.
Still, uncertainty about a final deal could cause many companies to further delay hiring and spend less. Already, many U.S. companies say anxiety about the fiscal cliff has led them to put off plans to expand or hire.
A breakdown in negotiations could also ignite turmoil in financial markets, Vitner said. It could resemble the 700-point fall in the Dow Jones industrial average in 2008 after the House initially rejected the $700 billion bailout of major banks.
Since President Barack Obama's re-election, nervous investors have sold stocks. The Standard & Poor's 500 index sank 2.3 percent last week, its worst weekly drop since June. The sell-off resulted in part from anxiety over higher tax rates on investment gains once the fiscal cliff kicks in.
Last week, Obama said he was open to compromise with Republican leaders. But the White House said he would veto any bill that would extend tax cuts on income above $250,000.
Republican House Speaker John Boehner countered that higher tax rates on upper-income Americans would slow job growth. Boehner argued that any deal must reduce tax rates, eliminate special-interest loopholes and rein in government benefits.
More than 50 percent of the tax increases would come from the expiration of tax cuts approved in 2001 and 2003 and from additional tax cuts in a 2009 economic stimulus law.
The first set of tax cuts reduced rates on income, investment gains, dividends and estates. They also boosted tax credits for families with children. Deductions for married couples also rose. The 2009 measure increased tax credits for low-income earners and college students.
About 20 percent of the tax increase would come from the expiration of a Social Security tax cut enacted in 2010. This change would cost someone making $50,000 about $1,000 a year, or nearly $20 a week, and a household with two high-paid workers up to $4,500, or nearly $87 a week.
The end of the Social Security tax cut isn't technically among the changes triggered by the fiscal cliff. But because it expires at the same time, it's included in most calculations of the fiscal cliff's effects.
And it could catch many people by surprise.
"Every worker in America is going to see a reduction in their paycheck in the first pay period of 2013," Vitner noted.
An additional 20 percent of the tax increase would come from the end of about 80 tax breaks, mostly for businesses. One is a tax credit for research and development. Another lets companies deduct from their income half the cost of large equipment or machinery.
Mark Bakko, a Minneapolis accountant, says many mid-size companies he advises are holding off on equipment purchases or hiring until the fate of those tax breaks becomes clear. Bakko noted that the research and development credit typically lets a company that hired an engineer at a $100,000 salary cut its tax bill by $10,000. The credit has been routinely extended since the 1980s.
The rest of the tax increase would come mainly from the alternative minimum tax, or AMT. It would hit 30 million Americans, up from 4 million now.
The costly AMT was designed to prevent rich people from exploiting loopholes and deductions to avoid any income tax. But the AMT wasn't indexed for inflation, so it's increasingly threatened middle-income taxpayers. Congress has acted each year to prevent the AMT from hitting many more people.
Under the fiscal cliff, households in the lowest 20 percent of earners would pay an average of $412 more, the Tax Policy Center calculates. The top 20 percent would pay an average $14,000 more, the top 1 percent $121,000 more.
All this would lead many consumers to spend less. Anticipating reduced sales and profits, businesses would likely cut jobs. Others would delay hiring.
Another part of the cliff is a package of across-the-board spending cuts to defense and domestic programs - cuts the CBO says would total about $85 billion. Congress and the Obama administration agreed last year that these cuts would kick in if a congressional panel couldn't agree on a deficit-reduction plan. The magnitude of the cuts was intended to force agreement. It didn't.
Defense spending would shrink 10 percent. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said those cuts would cause temporary job losses among civilian Pentagon employees and major defense contractors. Spending on weapons programs would be cut.
For domestic programs, like highway funding, aid to state and local governments and health research, spending would drop about 8 percent. Education grants to states and localities; the FBI and other law enforcement; environmental protection; and air traffic controllers, among others, would also be affected, the White House says.
Hospitals and doctors' offices could also cut jobs if an $11 billion cut in Medicare payments isn't reversed.
Extended unemployment benefits for about 2 million people would end. The extra benefits provide up to 73 weeks of aid.
"It would be nice if we could ... address these issues before the very last moment," said Donald Marron, the Tax Policy Center's director.
So will doctors who accept Medicare, people who get unemployment aid, defense contractors, air traffic controllers, national park rangers and companies that do research and development.
The package of tax increases and spending cuts known as the "fiscal cliff" takes effect in January unless Congress passes a budget deal by then. The economy would be hit so hard that it would likely sink into recession in the first half of 2013, economists say.
And no matter who you are, it will be all but impossible to avoid the pain.
Middle income families would have to pay an average of about $2,000 more next year, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has calculated.
Up to 3.4 million jobs would be lost, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. The unemployment rate would reach 9.1 percent from the current 7.9 percent. Stocks could plunge. The nonpartisan CBO estimates the total cost of the cliff in 2013 at $671 billion.
Collectively, the tax increases would be the steepest to hit Americans in 60 years when measured as a percentage of the economy.
"There would be a huge shock effect to the U.S. economy," says Mark Vitner, an economist at Wells Fargo.
Most of the damage - roughly two-thirds - would come from the tax increases. But the spending cuts would cause pain, too.
The bleak scenario could push the White House and Congress to reach a deal before year's end. On Tuesday, Congress returns for a post-election session that could last through Dec. 31. At a minimum, analysts say some temporary compromise might be reached, allowing a final deal to be cut early next year.
Still, uncertainty about a final deal could cause many companies to further delay hiring and spend less. Already, many U.S. companies say anxiety about the fiscal cliff has led them to put off plans to expand or hire.
A breakdown in negotiations could also ignite turmoil in financial markets, Vitner said. It could resemble the 700-point fall in the Dow Jones industrial average in 2008 after the House initially rejected the $700 billion bailout of major banks.
Since President Barack Obama's re-election, nervous investors have sold stocks. The Standard & Poor's 500 index sank 2.3 percent last week, its worst weekly drop since June. The sell-off resulted in part from anxiety over higher tax rates on investment gains once the fiscal cliff kicks in.
Last week, Obama said he was open to compromise with Republican leaders. But the White House said he would veto any bill that would extend tax cuts on income above $250,000.
Republican House Speaker John Boehner countered that higher tax rates on upper-income Americans would slow job growth. Boehner argued that any deal must reduce tax rates, eliminate special-interest loopholes and rein in government benefits.
More than 50 percent of the tax increases would come from the expiration of tax cuts approved in 2001 and 2003 and from additional tax cuts in a 2009 economic stimulus law.
The first set of tax cuts reduced rates on income, investment gains, dividends and estates. They also boosted tax credits for families with children. Deductions for married couples also rose. The 2009 measure increased tax credits for low-income earners and college students.
About 20 percent of the tax increase would come from the expiration of a Social Security tax cut enacted in 2010. This change would cost someone making $50,000 about $1,000 a year, or nearly $20 a week, and a household with two high-paid workers up to $4,500, or nearly $87 a week.
The end of the Social Security tax cut isn't technically among the changes triggered by the fiscal cliff. But because it expires at the same time, it's included in most calculations of the fiscal cliff's effects.
And it could catch many people by surprise.
"Every worker in America is going to see a reduction in their paycheck in the first pay period of 2013," Vitner noted.
An additional 20 percent of the tax increase would come from the end of about 80 tax breaks, mostly for businesses. One is a tax credit for research and development. Another lets companies deduct from their income half the cost of large equipment or machinery.
Mark Bakko, a Minneapolis accountant, says many mid-size companies he advises are holding off on equipment purchases or hiring until the fate of those tax breaks becomes clear. Bakko noted that the research and development credit typically lets a company that hired an engineer at a $100,000 salary cut its tax bill by $10,000. The credit has been routinely extended since the 1980s.
The rest of the tax increase would come mainly from the alternative minimum tax, or AMT. It would hit 30 million Americans, up from 4 million now.
The costly AMT was designed to prevent rich people from exploiting loopholes and deductions to avoid any income tax. But the AMT wasn't indexed for inflation, so it's increasingly threatened middle-income taxpayers. Congress has acted each year to prevent the AMT from hitting many more people.
Under the fiscal cliff, households in the lowest 20 percent of earners would pay an average of $412 more, the Tax Policy Center calculates. The top 20 percent would pay an average $14,000 more, the top 1 percent $121,000 more.
All this would lead many consumers to spend less. Anticipating reduced sales and profits, businesses would likely cut jobs. Others would delay hiring.
Another part of the cliff is a package of across-the-board spending cuts to defense and domestic programs - cuts the CBO says would total about $85 billion. Congress and the Obama administration agreed last year that these cuts would kick in if a congressional panel couldn't agree on a deficit-reduction plan. The magnitude of the cuts was intended to force agreement. It didn't.
Defense spending would shrink 10 percent. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said those cuts would cause temporary job losses among civilian Pentagon employees and major defense contractors. Spending on weapons programs would be cut.
For domestic programs, like highway funding, aid to state and local governments and health research, spending would drop about 8 percent. Education grants to states and localities; the FBI and other law enforcement; environmental protection; and air traffic controllers, among others, would also be affected, the White House says.
Hospitals and doctors' offices could also cut jobs if an $11 billion cut in Medicare payments isn't reversed.
Extended unemployment benefits for about 2 million people would end. The extra benefits provide up to 73 weeks of aid.
"It would be nice if we could ... address these issues before the very last moment," said Donald Marron, the Tax Policy Center's director.
I am going to jump all over the place for a moment. First my icon, if you can enlarge it, that is me standing in the "soup line" from the depression memorial in D.C. I am wearing a $300.00 jacket and these poor people were in rags. It reminds me of how good we have it. I am wondering if we are being lied to by omission? I will explain. The state, counties and cities all cut positions on the last budget. Then they went to part time in most departments calling it furlough days. The government says that they have made 12 million new jobs but the furlough people are not figured in the job report. If you know someone in city, state or government work ask them about furloughs. Lieing by omission?
You all wanted four more and the media painted it all with the rose colored lens. Now it is time to pay up. Thank you all for the tax and pillage government we have in place. As Burger King says you get it your way.
@bustedupredneck Sorry but mittens would be doing the same thing.
Â
I think it's funny how the candidates and campaigns paint the opponents as though they've run the place into the ground, so vote for me or we will all watch the place burn. Get real. If one person, one politician could do everything from lower taxes, lower the price of gas, raise wages, and lower unemployment, knowing full well it would lock in a re-election, why wouldn't they? So no, this isn't specifically Obama's fault. This doesn't rest solely on one individual or one party. The problem is far more complex than that and the solution involves a lot of people who are actively attempting to shut down their political rivals, that nothing gets done. You want to see a solution, it's the opposite of what has been going on in congress and in the house of reps. Get those mor0ns working together for a common good instead of stalemating their opposing party, and yes good things will happen.
 @what?  @bustedupredneck OMG, some one can FINALLY speak the truth! Thanks!
OH NO, you mean the lazy wont get their free cell phones ?? Oh darn...Â
Rein in government benefits, huh? I got an idea. How about eliminating that bloated healthcare plan and lifetime pension all senators and congressmen receive, even if they only serve a single term? That would save billions annually. But I'm sure that's not what the Speaker had in mind at all.
America is going to get what it voted for. You cannot spend your way out of debt. People just want more "free" stuff and the bill is coming......
 @dg54321 What free stuff? Can you define what it is you're talking about please? I have been working since I was eleven and paid my way til well after retirement. Can I have some free stuff now? If not now, when?
I have a question...
Â
 Why can't the the Federal Government scrap the entire current tax system and impose a flat tax on everyone from the very top all the way to the bottom? No more big income tax checks, no more IRS, no more BS.
Â
It would be fair straight across the board and effect everyone equally
@Handsup70
Â
I'm thinking Taxes would go down on the middle class. I look at what I'm paying now and its considerably more than what i would be paying if a such a flat tax were imposed. I also think we would have budget surpluses to handle the SS issue, medicare, and things like Katrina or Sandy.
Â
Just my 2 cents
And before I'm trampled on by the grammer nazis.. sorry for the extra "a"
Â
 @Handsup70 It is done in Europe, Sweden I believe, then they dole it out by population. No sales tax, no extra tax, but the tax is 40%. However have you ever figured out how much you pay in tax? Tobacco, alcohol and gas tax then add back in income tax etc.
@Handsup70 While the idea sounds good, some people's taxes would end up going up quite a bit (assuming that all deductions would be eliminated)
 @choliscott  @Handsup70 You mean those who pay NO federal income tax at all,but get a "refund" anyway ?
This calculation was based on the elimination of all deductions, child credits, mortgage credits & strictly 15% of income
@Maynard G Krebbs @Handsup70  You make a good point, but I was referring to the people that do work.    I was thinking along the lines of if someone claimed single & 0 on their payroll taxes, & they implemented a 15% flat tax, would claiming 0 & single be enough to cover the 15% without owing anything at the end of the year.
Â
I did the calculation for myself & it would not. I would have to pay an extra $40 per check, so what came due was around 0 (give or take a few dollars)
@Handsup70  You will never get the democrats to go along with that. They want the poor to not only pay nothing but also get everything given to them. They also want the wealthy to pay more than a flat tax (sliding scale). Its called the "re-distribution" of wealth.Â
 @scared_citizen Tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are no rich no more!
@Paul   "I'd love to change to world" -- Ten years after
 @scared_citizen What about the trillions the dems gave in bailouts and CEO bonuses. The poor lost 39% of their wealth over the last 3 years and 8.2% of their wages since '07. You are abosutely right, it is called redistribution of wealth, my wealth transferred to the rich who BTW gained 46% in wealth during the same time frame.
 @scared_citizen I am sorry I didnt see your response til right now but, lets try and be honest here. Your blind loyalty to your party wont allow you to accept anything that doesnt fit with your adopted view or you simply could have googled several sources of this information.
Â
http://federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2012/PDF/scf12.pdf
Â
http://www.sentierresearch.com/reports/Sentier_Household_Income_Trends_Report_August2012_09_25_12.pdf
@T_BONE_WALKER   I cant believe your stats until you provide links to where you pulled that information (the tag to your jockey shorts is not an approved link). The "poor" I am referring to do not have any wealth so how could they "lose" 39% of it and minimum wage hasnt gone down (it has actually increased). I do disagree with the bailouts given. If we really are to have a "free market", businesses must have the opportunity to FAIL as well as succeed.Â
 @scared_citizen It's called 'building a constituency'. But understand, in DC both parties are in the pockets of the big banks. The big banks make money off debt. They make bigger money off of bigger debt. They make insane money off insane debt.
 @cheekygesturton  @scared_citizen The biggest buyer of debt has been the fedd. Nobody else wants it or will buy it.Â
The biggest thing right now is to permanently fix the AMT tax. The prior patch expired the end of 2011. Without a fix it will affect 35 million people. It has never been adjusted for inflation and will start affecting taxpayers who make $35,000 or more. I have taken 3 classes on AMT and I don't understand it even now. It is a tax that runs within our tax system always lurking. There is a list of 10 things that will trigger you into AMT but I have seen way to many people have to pay a higher tax because of it. For me it means that my tax rate will be twice as much as Romney's is. Trust me we work hard and don't make millions. To pay double the tax percent because I don't have off shore trust accounts is crazy.
 @taxpro That is not the reason some folks pay a lower rate. You pay income taxes,others pay capital gains.. Still others pay nothing but still get a "refund" check.
 @taxpro Just repeal all of them and close the doors to the IRS and go back to the system we use to have for funding the federal government. It use to be in the constitution. Just tax imports and drop all personal taxes. Lots of different ways to help stave off the inevitable for a while. But the truth is as long as you have currency there will always be corruption. In the end the only cure for our ills will be to put an end to currency and allow people to not live in debtor hell.
If the U.S is facing a fiscal cliff, I guess we are the Lemmings.
Yes, just like Lemmings who willfully jump off the cliff, we vote in the same useless career politicans over and over  who willing show  us the way off, but not before they drain the life blood from us. Â
 @dkgiovenco Just remember behind every rat trap there's free cheese..... Don't take the cheese or any wooden nickles. :D)
I personally would rather go through this and have our spending in check. We are living in a false economic situation and the longer that happens the bigger the fall.
As long as they give me my Obama- bucks, I don't care what they do to those rich folks who work for a living.
@DrAmerika  Dont forget your Obama phone.Â
The FBI, Â the CIA as you can tell from the latest allegations, Â has some immoral characters. Â Â The Patraeus case gets stranger all the time, but it is just a symptom of immorality. Â If we cannot trust the FBI, Â who can we trust? Â The answer: Â GOD
 @HullenbeckCowl Too bad God let's people, in the guise of religious leaders, corrupt his image.  Therefore, even God cannot be trusted. Â
 @MPS Yes, blame God for the evil deeds of mankind. That will fix it. There's only one King in my book and that's Jesus Christ. In addition if you studied the bible which you so obviously haven't you would find out the answer as to why.
 @Funky-Munky I am guessing you are not a fan of Nine Inch Nails.
 @DarkParty I care, and that comment was unnecessary pertaining to Hell. I don't wish that for myself, and I don't wish it for you. I only wish you to live a good life, die well and find peace where you can. Kind of will start resembling Hell on earth next year.... Good journey!  :D)
 @Funky-Munky  @MPS
Your God is dead And no one cares. If there is a hell I'll see you there.
This comment has been deleted
 @Unsalvageable It's nothing but the scraps for you and I. :(
The vast majority of our debt is in entitlement programs. If we want to maintain those entitlement programs to be on par with what they are today, we will have to raise taxes or make other changes to increase their solvency. Unfortunately, I don't think Congress or the president have a backbone to seriously fix this. People will freak if the government cuts entitlements, but they will also freak if they suddenly owe more taxes.
Â
If nothing is done about the fiscal cliff, we will end up just like Europe. More people will lose their jobs, which will lead to less revenue and then there will be more cuts followed by more layoffs, etc. etc. It seems best to add in cuts and tax increases gradually over a number of years until we begin reversing our debt. That way it's slightly painful, but in a way that doesn't send us back into a recession that's difficult to dig out of. Ending the social security tax break seems like a good starting point.
 @paddy:Â
Words are powerful. For you & others to call it "entitlelment programs" in the way it is normally used, like someone sitting with their handout waiting for money is wrong. They were established by FDR & others as a "social safety net", and for many (myself included), they are just that. I worked hard all my life, starting at age 14, earning money & paying into social security I still have my very first paystub - I was making a whopping $1.27 per hour, and it shows my FICA & Medicare being taken out, so I am someone who contributed to that social safety net, and now that I need it I should be able to count on it.Â
Â
I am now disabled - I should not be looked at as a person who feels "entitled" like they should have something given to them simply for waking up & breathing. I am "entitled" to collect SSI because I paid in to it all my working life.Â
Â
And trust me, It is not like I am getting rich on it - it is only about 1/3 of what I was making before I became disabled. Many complain about the COLA's for SSI - 1.5% this year. Trust me, I would be shouting with ecstatic joy if the cost of living only rose 1.5%. After my fixed expenses are paid (rent, utilities), I have less than $200 a month to live on. Nobody on SSI is getting rich on it, nor are they living the high life. That 1.5% increase is most likely going to be taken by the increase in Medicare premiums - the 2013 premiums have not yet been announced, but that is what I am planning on.
Â
Â
@Paddy  I agree with your points. Cuts must be made and taxes must be raised (hopefully for just a short time). We can not afford to keep borrowing from China to give money away to people who hate us (Pakistan, etc) and we can not afford to keep giving free stuff to illegal immigrants. Fixing those two things would go a long way toward fixing our broken economy.
 @Paddy In addition Paddy all of those things described and more are just around the corner. Next year you will see the reality of the inaction of Congress and the price of war(s) without end come to light. Our government is slowly dishing out the hard facts as to not upset "we the people" to the point of revolution. (my belief)
@Funky-Munky @Paddy Are you on drugs while you are talking?
 @justsayin Nope, I also don't appreciate the insult. Paddy has nothing to do with me or my comments either. So bring it on or sit down and be quite.
 @Paddy I fully believe America is on a collision course with reality...... Poo is going to hit the fan and small businesses, middle-class and poor will feel the full weight of an overinflated, abusive and out of control government.
If you run the numbers provided by the white house, there is absolutely no way (even by cutting the military and the federal government itself) for our country to balance the budget the way it is now. The total tax money we have coming in doesn't even cover our government's "Mandatory" Programs. (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, TARP, etc.) People need to wake up. It's going to take tax increases AND major spending cuts to fix the mess we're in. Does it suck? Yes. Am I angry that our elected officials have brought us to this point? Yes! But it's time we all step up and take a hit for the sake of our children. It scares me to think of what their life in America is going to be like if we don't make a change.Â
@LunchWithABear  If we dont fix it soon, 100% of income will be going just to service interest on our debt.Â
 @LunchWithABear I am only wondering how throwing good money after bad will fix this mess? It's apparent those very politicians have been feasting in the hen-house since its inception. War(s) on credit, increased size of government 3 fold pertaining to Homeland Security and corruption at the highest levels of government are destroying our nation. There's too much weight for Americans to support. It's just like a building with a weak foundation. :(
This comment has been deleted
 @Funky-Munky Unfortunately, you are correct. We need politicians who actually care more about the people they represent than themselves, their bank accounts, and the corporations funding them. I don't know, is that even possible? Is it possible to have a government filled with responsible and moral people? Or has greed, in all it's forms, corrupted us as a nation beyond repair? Babylon anyone? Looking back at some of the great civilizations throughout history, and what became of them, doesn't inspire much hope. It's still important to try, though. And a sustainable budget would be a definite step in the right direction.Â
Â