Talk:American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

The article is good.
I looked all over for the names of 'Yea' and 'Nay' voters in the House, finding nothing, not even in the congressional website (buried) until I came to Wikipedia for the buried link. Thanks!—Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK nom
FYI now that the law has been signed, I've put the article up at Template:Did you know nominations/American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. I wish they allowed more than four slots for authors, because I counted as many as nine editors who have made significant contributions here. There are a lot of possible hooks, but in the end I decided that the most different thing about this law from the hooky-interest point of view is that it was passed at both ends of New Year's Day, so I used that. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I added another hook that I had had in mind, that I think is a bit more attention-grabbing. Also, even though the template only listed four spots, you can add extra authors by editing the page directly. I'm sure the four author limit was due to technical considerations rather than being a DYK rule. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for the tip on direct editing - I've added the additional five. As for the hook, I get where you're coming from, but to me it's kind of obvious - depending upon which baseline you consider, it's either a hike or a cut. But we'll see what the DYK reviewer(s) think. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Debt ceiling
The article could probably use some mention of the US debt ceiling, given that it's both important context and an important part of the final analysis (i.e. that the act is a stopgap). Indeed, a context section (cuts, recession, debt problems, divided congress) is vital really, for future and/or international audiences. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 13:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * the United States fiscal cliff page has the big picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.114.0 (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Legislative history
I appreciate all the work folks have done in a short amount of time. I just stop to note that the Legislative History section needs to be expanded greatly. It should at least briefly explain the Bush tax cuts, the fiscal cliff, and debate that raged through 2012. It should at least touch on the November election, which played a huge role in this legislation. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said over at that talk page, I'd rather let the United States fiscal cliff article contain all the history, since that can address a fuller context (the debt, the 'grand bargain' proposals, etc). Wasted Time R (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Whatever the fate of the fiscal cliff article, how can we have a section called "legislative history" that doesn't address these issues? Legislative history doesn't start the moment a bill is passed. --Nstrauss (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Cuts taxes on the rich?
Since this bill was passed after congress went over the cliff, doesn't this actually cut taxes on the wealthy? Without this bill rates would be at Clinton levels for all income above $250,000; with it, rates only go up after $450,000 (so taxes were higher for the couple days between midnight Jan 1 and when Obama signed the bill, thus taxes on the rich). --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 18:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Jatkins: You are correct. The 2012 Act actually cuts most of the tax rates. Under the 2012 Act, there was an adjustment on the level of income to which the 39.6% rate is applied, but technically, the highest rate went up to 39.6% exactly 60 seconds after 11:59 pm on December 31, 2012 -- not as a result of this Act, but as a result of section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush back in June of 2001. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 is, as I believe Grover Norquist has pointed out, actually a tax decrease for most taxpayers. Indeed, it can be considered a tax decrease EVEN FOR THOSE WITH TAXABLE INCOME OVER $450,000, since the tax rates in the lower brackets (which had increased on January 1st as a result of the 2001 Act) were actually lowered when President Obama signed the 2012 Act on January 2, 2013. Famspear (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have made some clarifying edits to the article on this point. Famspear (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I tried to further clarify it in places. Also note that I changed your "Tax effects" subheading back to "Tax provisions". That's for better parallelism with the rest of the section, but also because that actual text of the bill does explicitly talk about making permanent the 2001 and 2003 laws [see Section 101 (a) and Section 102 (a)] and does explicitly mention the 39.6 rate [see Section 101 (b)(3)(A)(ii)]. So I think it's fair to say that these are provisions of the law, not just effects from it. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing it up. I had a hard time finding references for it because most news outlets are describing it as a tax cut, and I tried and quickly gave up understanding the actual text of the legislation. There is still one line that confused me: in the lede it says, "...while retaining the higher tax rate at upper income levels that became effective" -- but did the law really include any provision to retain the higher rates, or did it simply not eliminate the higher rates that had already taken effect? It seems that income from $250k to $450k is being taxed lower because of the new bill than it would have been if the fiscal cliff had been totally unremedied. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 16:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Wasted Time R: We still haven't solved the problem. The article incorrectly implies that the provisions you cited increased the tax rate. They did not. A "change" from 39.6% to 39.6% is not an "increase." And, as Jatkins pointed out, some news outlets are making the same mistake, perhaps because the reporters don't understand the whole "fiscal cliff" problem in terms of what the 2001 Act did.

The increase in the highest marginal rate -- from 35% to 39.6% -- is not imposed under the 2012 Act signed by the President on January 2, 2013. It was imposed under the 2001 Act.

Dear Jatkins, the statement in the lead that says "retaining" the higher tax rate is correct. Yes, the law does retain the higher rate, the 39.6% rate. What the law does is change the income levels to which the 39.6% rate applies. So, you are correct when you say that the income from $250K (or whatever it was before) to $450K (in the case of married filing joint returns) is indeed being taxed at a lower rate than would otherwise have been the case without the 2012 Act (that is, some income levels that would otherwise have been taxed at 39.6% are being taxed at a lower rate).

There is something about section 901 of the 2001 Act -- the sunset provision that made the top rate go up to 39.6% on January 1st -- which engenders confusion in the news media about the effect of the 2012 Act. I think people are conflating the effect of the 2001 Act and the effect of the 2012 Act.

Again, the provision -- the actual statutory text -- that increases the top tax rate is found in the 2001 Act, not in the 2012 Act.

We still need a way to clarify all this in the article. Let me look at this later today. Yours, Famspear (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I see what you've done, but if we give this kind of treatment to income, we also have to give it to dividends and capital gains, and we can't lump those two together either, since the story with them is slightly different (even in the upper bracket, dividends are a decrease relative to the Clinton rates, while cap gains are a restoration). So I've done that, but the phrasing is now convoluted enough that I fear nobody's going to be able to understand the first three bullets in "Tax provisions" unless they already know what the law does. Maybe we need a table with four columns: Clinton era rates, Bush era rates, Momentary restoration of Clinton era rates, New law. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting point. If we do a table, we would have to keep it simple, I guess. Maybe just compare one set of rates, such as just those for single filers, or just those for married filing jointly filers? Famspear (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that it was a tax cut instead of a tax increase is a technicality. Our readers are laypeople, not parliamentarians. The article should explain the history very briefly and then move on to the bigger picture, e.g. talk about the "effective" tax increase. No need to miss the forest through the trees. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a table in Capital gains tax in the United States but it needs to be updated based on this new legislation. I think for the sake of neutrality we need to mention both the relationship to the 2012 rates and the pre-Bush rates that would have been imposed, but I agree with Nstrauss that we shouldn't dwell on it too much. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Nstrauss: With all due respect, if our readers do not understand what actually happened, they will be missing both the forest and the trees. Several media sources have not made this any easier. Wikipedia has the space and the ability to do this fairly easily.


 * Almost everything in federal income tax law is a "technicality." The issue is: Is this relationship between the Bush tax cuts and the 2012 Act an important technicality -- or an inconsequential one?


 * The answer is that it is an important technicality. Indeed, our political leaders (especially Republicans) and countless members of the national news media just went through several weeks of agony over what to do about tax rate increases that were scheduled to occur under existing law (and which did occur under existing law until the 2012 Act was signed). This tax situation was an important part of the "fiscal cliff" phenomenon, and was in the news constantly. There is nothing inconsequential about the "technicality" that the Bush tax cuts expired by the very terms of the legislation (the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001) that created those tax cuts. There is nothing inconsequential about the "technicality" that the tax rates imposed under the 2012 Act (just signed into law on January 2, 2013) represent tax rate cuts, not tax rate increases.


 * No, this is not a question of parliamentary procedure for "parliamentarians." It's a questions of substantive tax law that affects millions of American taxpayers.


 * I do agree with you (and with Antony-22), though, that the article needs only to explain this important matter relatively briefly but clearly. I agree with Wasted Time R that a table might be appropriate and helpful for readers. Famspear (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that this issue is an "important" technicality only to the far-right WP:FRINGE and a handful of Republican operatives who are trying to decide whether their bosses can say certain things with straight faces. I don't mean to blow you off or anything, but that's my honest view. And, I should add, there's a reason this subject hasn't gotten a lot of press. --Nstrauss (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Congress had a chance to extend the Bush tax cuts permanently for everyone, but decided not to do so. Thus the legislation can be viewed both as a tax increase (relative to what people as a whole paid in 2012 and the years immediately preceding) and as a tax decrease (relative to what they would have paid if no new law had been passed at all). It all depends upon the frame of reference, and both frames of reference are valid ways of looking at it. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and both views are quite reasonable. It's just that calling it a tax cut merely because it was signed on January 2 instead of two days earlier is relying on a technicality. It should be explained very briefly, probably in the legislative history section. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Tax cuts on the lower/middle class?
The tax provisions list currently states that the rates "reverted from higher rates imposed under the expiration provision of the Bush tax cuts". Are the higher rates for income and capital gains going to be imposed for transactions that actually occurred on January 1, or are the provisions retroactive to the beginning of the year? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Antony-22: Good question. The answer is no. The relevant provisions of the 2012 Act are effective retroactively to the beginning of the year 2013, which means that the rates imposed under the 2012 Act are effective for the entire year 2013. Famspear (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hm, so in that case the tax rates didn't really "revert" so much as they were (retroactively) retained at their 2012 rates. I'll edit those items to make that point clearer. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Map errors
Good article, but the map linked showing Senate votes has a few inaccuracies. There are not two Republican senators from the state of Colorado. Nor, as another user noted, are there two democratic senators from Wyoming. -- ToppyT (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Cebula's comment on this article
Dr. Cebula has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"A summary of certain findings in Cebula, Boylan, Foley and Isard, which has just appeared in the William & Mary Policy Review (2015), provides estimates of the inaccurate, i.e., exaggerated, revenue benefits of the tax increase in question/ The forecast argues that the government estimates overlook the incentives to evade taxes created by higher maximum marhinal tax rates and other provisions of this statute."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Cebula has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


 * Reference : Cebula, Richard & Boylan, Robert & Foley, Maggie & Isard, Douglass, 2014. "Implications of Recent Federal Personal Income Tax Increases for Income Tax Evasion, Tax Revenues, and Budget Deficits," MPRA Paper 55308, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130105025750/http://news.sciencemag.org:80/scienceinsider/2013/01/fiscal-cliff-deal-delays-major-b.html? to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/01/fiscal-cliff-deal-delays-major-b.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131129095014/http://www.bakerlaw.com/alerts/new-markets-tax-credit-program-extended-for-two-years-by-american-taxpayer-relief-act-of-2012-1-3-2013/ to http://www.bakerlaw.com/alerts/new-markets-tax-credit-program-extended-for-two-years-by-american-taxpayer-relief-act-of-2012-1-3-2013/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/01/fiscal-cliff-deal-delays-major-b.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130105020524/http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/185276422.html?refer=y to http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/185276422.html?refer=y
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130115174844/http://beta.congress.gov/112/bills/hr8/112hr8pcs_pdf.pdf to http://beta.congress.gov/112/bills/hr8/112hr8pcs_pdf.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)