How much the fiscal cliff will cost you

To descend from the theoretical to the tangible, here is how much your taxes will increase once the Bush tax cuts expire on Tuesday, unless Congress cuts a deal to extend them:

Annual income of $20,000 to $30,000: $1,064 average tax increase

Annual income of $40,000 to $50,000: $1,729 average tax increase. . . .

Annual income of $50,000 to $75,000: $2,399 average tax increase

Annual income of $75,000 to $100,000: $3,688 average tax increase

Annual income of $100,000 to $200,000: $6,662 average tax increase. . . .

Annual income of $200,000 to $500,000: $14,643 average tax increase

Annual income of $500,000 to $1 million: $38,969 average tax increase

Annual income of more than $1 million: $254,637 average tax increase

via What falling off the “fiscal cliff” means for you – CBS News.

If these expire, the much-reviled George W. Bush will surge in popularity once people realize how much money he kept in their pockets.  But the popularity of the president and especially Republicans will plummet.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Larry

    It’s even more stunning when you calculate the monthly loss, where real family budgets will feels it. For example the middle ranges will feel a nice 200 to 300 dollar loss of income. And by the way that’s real counting money one will feel. Not even an all of a sudden 1 dollar rise in gas would, for most people, shift their monthly budget that much. Not even, for most, would a winter blast and heating cost rise that much that suddenly.

    You add this into the fact that most peoples annual health insurance, if they kept the same level and no changes will add to that bill 30 to 50 dollars, and a few other state taxes that go up (depends on your state) and those low end averages will 400 dollars or more on the monthly budget. And that will hit at the grocery store, the gasoline and other normal monthly bills Americans of very average living feel. Real counting money, not just that sneaky tax and fee set you don’t count through your fingers every month on bills and such.

  • Larry

    It’s even more stunning when you calculate the monthly loss, where real family budgets will feels it. For example the middle ranges will feel a nice 200 to 300 dollar loss of income. And by the way that’s real counting money one will feel. Not even an all of a sudden 1 dollar rise in gas would, for most people, shift their monthly budget that much. Not even, for most, would a winter blast and heating cost rise that much that suddenly.

    You add this into the fact that most peoples annual health insurance, if they kept the same level and no changes will add to that bill 30 to 50 dollars, and a few other state taxes that go up (depends on your state) and those low end averages will 400 dollars or more on the monthly budget. And that will hit at the grocery store, the gasoline and other normal monthly bills Americans of very average living feel. Real counting money, not just that sneaky tax and fee set you don’t count through your fingers every month on bills and such.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    That’s ok.

    Just keep voting for Democrats.

    Or just keep saying that politics is unimportant.

    We certainly do get what we deserve (in this life).

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    That’s ok.

    Just keep voting for Democrats.

    Or just keep saying that politics is unimportant.

    We certainly do get what we deserve (in this life).

  • rlewer

    Maybe then we will realize how much the government is spending of our money. Even that general raise in taxes will not cover the deficit.

    The “fiscal cliff” also includes cuts in spending. However, this will probably end up only being the usual federal bookkeeping scam of cutting the amount of increase in spending instead of an actual cut from the year before in the amount spent.

  • rlewer

    Maybe then we will realize how much the government is spending of our money. Even that general raise in taxes will not cover the deficit.

    The “fiscal cliff” also includes cuts in spending. However, this will probably end up only being the usual federal bookkeeping scam of cutting the amount of increase in spending instead of an actual cut from the year before in the amount spent.

  • Steve Bauer

    I fail to see how a president who engineered these tax cuts but then failed to cut government spending commensurate with those tax cuts thus plunging the nation into an ever deepening sea of debt should surge in popularity, no matter how much I may have profited personally by being able to spend more on myself. As far as representing the belief that government is nothing more than a big Sugar Daddy goes, G. W. Bush takes the cake.

  • Steve Bauer

    I fail to see how a president who engineered these tax cuts but then failed to cut government spending commensurate with those tax cuts thus plunging the nation into an ever deepening sea of debt should surge in popularity, no matter how much I may have profited personally by being able to spend more on myself. As far as representing the belief that government is nothing more than a big Sugar Daddy goes, G. W. Bush takes the cake.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    I don’t know why Republicans should lose popularity. They’re the ones trying to make the tax cuts permanent. It’s the obstinate pandering-to-the-envious democrats and their dear leader Obama who would take us all over the cliff just to be spiteful, while throwing a tantrum about making “the rich” pay their “fair share.”

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    I don’t know why Republicans should lose popularity. They’re the ones trying to make the tax cuts permanent. It’s the obstinate pandering-to-the-envious democrats and their dear leader Obama who would take us all over the cliff just to be spiteful, while throwing a tantrum about making “the rich” pay their “fair share.”

  • SKPeterson

    Well, I decided to give up paying taxes for the New Year, so it’s all good.

  • SKPeterson

    Well, I decided to give up paying taxes for the New Year, so it’s all good.

  • Larry

    Oh no, this is good. People need to feel their taxes rather than their invisibility on their net versus gross paychecks in which they’ve grown sleepy to. They/we need to feel the counting money slip from our fingers not the hypothetical gross versus net wages that numbs one to it.

    That way we won’t have two liberals, maybe, next time to choose from one called a democrat and the other called a republican.

  • Larry

    Oh no, this is good. People need to feel their taxes rather than their invisibility on their net versus gross paychecks in which they’ve grown sleepy to. They/we need to feel the counting money slip from our fingers not the hypothetical gross versus net wages that numbs one to it.

    That way we won’t have two liberals, maybe, next time to choose from one called a democrat and the other called a republican.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    Yes. It’s good. Maybe next time people will vote for the one who is not perfect, but much better than the other one.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    Yes. It’s good. Maybe next time people will vote for the one who is not perfect, but much better than the other one.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    Who am I tryin’ to kid.

    People will vote for the one who promises the most free stuff.

    That’s where we are.

    People who don’t pay taxes should NEVER be allowed to vote.

    We are pretty much toast. Thanks be to God that we don’t live forever down here.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    Who am I tryin’ to kid.

    People will vote for the one who promises the most free stuff.

    That’s where we are.

    People who don’t pay taxes should NEVER be allowed to vote.

    We are pretty much toast. Thanks be to God that we don’t live forever down here.

  • Larry

    Steve @ 4, you are putting your finger on the problem. The so called “right” NEVER fully implements the doctrine for which it speaks, only half assed measures that are a mixture of a tad of conservativism and a dollop of liberalism. Bush didn’t cut spending, but increased it, and let’s be quite honest, better than nothing given, but those “tax cuts” where really little more than some “tip money” stuffed in our shirt pockets.

    Juxtaposition these pseudo conservatives with the left who have their guy who is a dogmatic liberal not a pandering liberal like Clinton. Though opposite in every way to true conservative doctrinal principles, is willing to implement full unabashed left doctrine and principles.

    The left is eating a liberal feast while the republican party is serving up to its folks some food mixed with feces and saying, “Well at least its not full blown liberalism”. Is it any wonder there is little fervor in the republican party? It was not in principle that the democrats had a Jimmy Carter in Obama during the election. Republicans did.

  • Larry

    Steve @ 4, you are putting your finger on the problem. The so called “right” NEVER fully implements the doctrine for which it speaks, only half assed measures that are a mixture of a tad of conservativism and a dollop of liberalism. Bush didn’t cut spending, but increased it, and let’s be quite honest, better than nothing given, but those “tax cuts” where really little more than some “tip money” stuffed in our shirt pockets.

    Juxtaposition these pseudo conservatives with the left who have their guy who is a dogmatic liberal not a pandering liberal like Clinton. Though opposite in every way to true conservative doctrinal principles, is willing to implement full unabashed left doctrine and principles.

    The left is eating a liberal feast while the republican party is serving up to its folks some food mixed with feces and saying, “Well at least its not full blown liberalism”. Is it any wonder there is little fervor in the republican party? It was not in principle that the democrats had a Jimmy Carter in Obama during the election. Republicans did.

  • Larry

    Steve @ 8, its compromisers for the “well its at least not perfect” that caused the defeat last time around. Throw out another McCain or Romney, eventually you will “get it”. Sometimes one has to learn the hard way as my dad always use to say. Spankings never feel good, but they eventually teach.

  • Larry

    Steve @ 8, its compromisers for the “well its at least not perfect” that caused the defeat last time around. Throw out another McCain or Romney, eventually you will “get it”. Sometimes one has to learn the hard way as my dad always use to say. Spankings never feel good, but they eventually teach.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    These increases must assume very little charitable giving. Anyway, this will motivate me to give more to charity so that the extra $$ will go to missions etc., rather than to Uncle Sam’s pet projects.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    These increases must assume very little charitable giving. Anyway, this will motivate me to give more to charity so that the extra $$ will go to missions etc., rather than to Uncle Sam’s pet projects.

  • Larry

    Steve @ 8, you also, as you so very much love to do, confound the idea of “imperfect” with at least in principle a thing in which imperfection may deviate from to be imperfect. If anything, Romney was an imperfect liberal as opposed to Obama being a more or less perfect ideal liberal.

  • Larry

    Steve @ 8, you also, as you so very much love to do, confound the idea of “imperfect” with at least in principle a thing in which imperfection may deviate from to be imperfect. If anything, Romney was an imperfect liberal as opposed to Obama being a more or less perfect ideal liberal.

  • Larry

    Steve @ 4, you are putting your finger on the problem. The so called “right” NEVER fully implements the doctrine for which it speaks, only half assed measures that are a mixture of a tad of conservativism and a dollop of liberalism. Bush didn’t cut spending, but increased it, and let’s be quite honest, better than nothing given, but those “tax cuts” where really little more than some “tip money” stuffed in our shirt pockets.

    Juxtaposition these pseudo conservatives with the left who have their guy who is a dogmatic liberal not a pandering liberal like Clinton. Though opposite in every way to true conservative doctrinal principles, is willing to implement full unabashed left doctrine and principles.

    The left is eating a liberal feast while the republican party is serving up to its folks some food mixed with feces and saying, “Well at least its not full blown liberalism”. Is it any wonder there is little fervor in the republican party? It was not in principle that the democrats had a Jimmy Carter in Obama during the election. Republicans did.

  • Larry

    Steve @ 4, you are putting your finger on the problem. The so called “right” NEVER fully implements the doctrine for which it speaks, only half assed measures that are a mixture of a tad of conservativism and a dollop of liberalism. Bush didn’t cut spending, but increased it, and let’s be quite honest, better than nothing given, but those “tax cuts” where really little more than some “tip money” stuffed in our shirt pockets.

    Juxtaposition these pseudo conservatives with the left who have their guy who is a dogmatic liberal not a pandering liberal like Clinton. Though opposite in every way to true conservative doctrinal principles, is willing to implement full unabashed left doctrine and principles.

    The left is eating a liberal feast while the republican party is serving up to its folks some food mixed with feces and saying, “Well at least its not full blown liberalism”. Is it any wonder there is little fervor in the republican party? It was not in principle that the democrats had a Jimmy Carter in Obama during the election. Republicans did.

  • Larry

    I’m with you SG.

  • Larry

    I’m with you SG.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    Larry,

    When you have have two, you must pick one. (unless of course you don’t care about your neighbor)

    It’s nice to dream about another Ronald Reagan, but we have what we have.

    There’s no hope in these guys. But we still have a bit of living to do here.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    Larry,

    When you have have two, you must pick one. (unless of course you don’t care about your neighbor)

    It’s nice to dream about another Ronald Reagan, but we have what we have.

    There’s no hope in these guys. But we still have a bit of living to do here.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    All the complainers who did not vote for the better candidate, but would rather see their families suffer (more) with higher taxes and less freedoms are getting what they deserve.

    That’s just the ugly truth of it. You want to hang onto some moral high high ground? Well, there’s always a price to pay. The bill is due.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    All the complainers who did not vote for the better candidate, but would rather see their families suffer (more) with higher taxes and less freedoms are getting what they deserve.

    That’s just the ugly truth of it. You want to hang onto some moral high high ground? Well, there’s always a price to pay. The bill is due.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    LOL, according to philanthropy.com blue state rate payers will be hit pretty hard.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    LOL, according to philanthropy.com blue state rate payers will be hit pretty hard.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    2nd try to get link to work

    LOL, according to philanthropy.com blue state rate payers will be hit pretty hard.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    2nd try to get link to work

    LOL, according to philanthropy.com blue state rate payers will be hit pretty hard.

  • Larry

    There goes the great (faux) gosplier Steve claiming anyone not voting for his kool aid candidate is not “loving their neighbor”. Of course its not as if I’m not personally greatly affected by this too. But Steve you increasingly prove to me what happens to one when they turn away from the sound form of doctrine, your “arguments”, such as they are, boil down to this: “Well I can’t win on my arguments because they are such painfully obvious short sighted straw man, so I I’ll run real quick the law and bind their consciences via the law, and pretend that, in the play out of all this and by implication ‘I Steve am SOOOOO loving my neighbor’”.

    All this to buttress foolish arguments in the first place. Let’s see if we can boil Steve’s “argument” down to its essence”

    1. You MUST pick a flower.
    2. The only two flower stores offer up a gray rock and a black rock.
    3. People dare to identify, “Hey, these are not flowers”.
    4. Steve becoming enthuised, “You need to pick one of the two flowers, the good one (my guy) or the bad one (their guy).”
    5. The people reply, “Yes Steve but these are rocks.”
    6. Steve rages, “YOU PERFECTIONIST JUST WANT A PERFECT FLOWER. THERE IS NO PERFECT FLOWER JUST THESE TWO GRAY AND BLACK ONES.”
    7. The people reply again, “Steve these are rocks not flowers, picking one is not picking a flower but a rock.”
    8. With inane argument flopping on the floor Steve’s desperately grasps for the Law to induce the theological conscience binding and accusation, “I guess you don’t want to love your neighbor”. Implication of course that Steve is, never mind his blatant and continued double false accusation.

    That about sums your “argument” up.

    Assuming this spanking won’t work and the Republicans are going to offer another McCain or Romney up with their “imperfect candidate Vs. the devil and you don’t love your neighbor straw man argument”, for some of you more liberal leaning folks out there; who might you like to be elected in the WH in 2016. Its still 4 years away and sometimes a spanking takes time to sink in, but in case it doesn’t who might you all like to win the WH should a McRomney be offered up? More curiosity at this point than anything else.

  • Larry

    There goes the great (faux) gosplier Steve claiming anyone not voting for his kool aid candidate is not “loving their neighbor”. Of course its not as if I’m not personally greatly affected by this too. But Steve you increasingly prove to me what happens to one when they turn away from the sound form of doctrine, your “arguments”, such as they are, boil down to this: “Well I can’t win on my arguments because they are such painfully obvious short sighted straw man, so I I’ll run real quick the law and bind their consciences via the law, and pretend that, in the play out of all this and by implication ‘I Steve am SOOOOO loving my neighbor’”.

    All this to buttress foolish arguments in the first place. Let’s see if we can boil Steve’s “argument” down to its essence”

    1. You MUST pick a flower.
    2. The only two flower stores offer up a gray rock and a black rock.
    3. People dare to identify, “Hey, these are not flowers”.
    4. Steve becoming enthuised, “You need to pick one of the two flowers, the good one (my guy) or the bad one (their guy).”
    5. The people reply, “Yes Steve but these are rocks.”
    6. Steve rages, “YOU PERFECTIONIST JUST WANT A PERFECT FLOWER. THERE IS NO PERFECT FLOWER JUST THESE TWO GRAY AND BLACK ONES.”
    7. The people reply again, “Steve these are rocks not flowers, picking one is not picking a flower but a rock.”
    8. With inane argument flopping on the floor Steve’s desperately grasps for the Law to induce the theological conscience binding and accusation, “I guess you don’t want to love your neighbor”. Implication of course that Steve is, never mind his blatant and continued double false accusation.

    That about sums your “argument” up.

    Assuming this spanking won’t work and the Republicans are going to offer another McCain or Romney up with their “imperfect candidate Vs. the devil and you don’t love your neighbor straw man argument”, for some of you more liberal leaning folks out there; who might you like to be elected in the WH in 2016. Its still 4 years away and sometimes a spanking takes time to sink in, but in case it doesn’t who might you all like to win the WH should a McRomney be offered up? More curiosity at this point than anything else.

  • Larry

    Oh, and I forgot to add line 9, Steve then accuses, only after using the Law that such is “not loving the neighbor” with the implication that what he’s doing is, that everybody else is “standing their moral high ground”.

    The irony is so rich a knife cannot begin to cut it.

  • Larry

    Oh, and I forgot to add line 9, Steve then accuses, only after using the Law that such is “not loving the neighbor” with the implication that what he’s doing is, that everybody else is “standing their moral high ground”.

    The irony is so rich a knife cannot begin to cut it.

  • larry

    Steve,

    I’d like to offer you a little help. Seriously. Because an amusing tit for tat is always fun and if we could do it over some beers that be great. I never get angry on these. But here’s a good help, “one cannot argue dogmatically for a relative position”.

  • larry

    Steve,

    I’d like to offer you a little help. Seriously. Because an amusing tit for tat is always fun and if we could do it over some beers that be great. I never get angry on these. But here’s a good help, “one cannot argue dogmatically for a relative position”.

  • http://bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    The cost of going over the fiscal cliff pales before the cost of Barack Obama unrestrained by the patriotic opposition.

  • http://bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    The cost of going over the fiscal cliff pales before the cost of Barack Obama unrestrained by the patriotic opposition.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X