What is the fiscal cliff?
On New Year's Eve America was staring down the barrel of wide ranging spending cuts and tax hikes, if no deal could be done on imposing higher taxes on wealthy Americans.
Failure to agree a deal would have caused a recession.
The roots of the crisis date back to 2001, when President George W Bush passed a programme of tax cuts worth $1.7 billion. Separately, in 2011, President Barack Obama's administration tried to raise the US Government's borrowing limit – the "debt ceiling" set by statute – as part of a budget deal to tackle the US deficit.
But disagreements with Republicans over the government's borrowing levels led to a compromise that meant the debt ceiling was extended to December 31, 2012, the same day the Bush tax cuts expired.
What has been agreed?
The House of Representatives approved a Senate bill on Tuesday night to avert $600bn in automatic tax increases and spending cuts. The deal postpones the first automatic spending cuts for two months, while Congress works on a plan to replace them.
It raises $620bn in revenue over 10 years through tax increases on the wealthy.
It permanently extends tax cuts enacted in 2001 under George W Bush for income below $400,000 per individual, or $450,000 per family. Income above that level would be taxed at 39.6%, up from the current top rate of 35%.
Above that income threshold, capital gains and dividends tax rates would return to 20%, from 15%. It also caps personal exemptions and itemised deductions for income above $250,000, or $300,000 per household.
What happens next?
The agreement hands a clear victory to President Barack Obama, who won re-election on a promise to address budget woes in part by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans. The deal also resolves, for now, the question of whether Washington can overcome deep ideological differences to avoid harming the economy.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article