NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- There probably aren't enough earbuds to go around to block out the confusing noise emanating from Washington over the expiring Bush tax cuts.
While we can't quiet the partisan shouting, we'll try to offer clarity on just what it is they're debating.
To start, here are answers to some basic questions about the Bush tax cuts.
What happens on Jan. 1 if Congress does nothing?
Everyone's federal income and investment tax rates will go back up to where they were before the 2001 tax cuts were passed. In other words, your tax bill next year would increase.
If the tax cuts do expire and tax rates go up, you may notice the difference in your wallet as early as January, when your employer starts to withhold more taxes from your paycheck.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that a married couple with two kids under 13 and a household income of roughly $75,000 could end up paying about $2,600 more in federal income taxes next year than they would if the tax cuts were extended.
But the likelihood of all the tax cuts expiring isn't high, since both Democrats and Republicans agree on one thing: They want to extend the tax cuts at least for folks making less than $200,000 ($250,000 for joint filers).
What's the economic argument for extending the tax cuts?
Here's the main concern of many economists and lawmakers: If Americans' tax bills go up next year, they will have less money to spend and invest in the economy, and that could erase whatever economic ground has been recovered since the housing crisis sent the country into a tailspin.
"The biggest argument for extending the tax cuts right now is our economy is very weak, and raising taxes during a recession, or the recent weak recovery from the recession, could reverse our economic growth," Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, noted in one of the group's videos.
If the tax cuts are extended, however, taxpayers won't really notice any change in their bottom line. So it's unlikely to create any new stimulus for the economy.
That's in part why some deficit hawks, like Diane Rogers of the Concord Coalition, say the Bush tax cuts should be compared in their effectiveness to other types of tax cuts to make sure the money is well spent.
Overall, extending the tax cuts may prove to be a mixed bag for the economy if they are extended permanently, according to a recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. In the short-run, making them permanent might help preserve the recovery, but may actually dampen economic growth in the long run because extending the cuts would add significantly to U.S. debt.
That's why many who don't want to let the tax cuts expire right away are only pushing for a one- to two-year extension.
What's the beef about extending them for the $250,000-and-up crowd?
President Obama and many Democrats have said they want the Bush tax cuts to expire for couples with incomes over $250,000 ($200,000 for individuals).
Their argument: wealthy taxpayers don't need the extra money, and if they get it they will probably save it and not spend it. That won't do much to help the economy. By contrast, they say, lower- and middle-income families are more strapped and would be more likely to spend any extra money from a tax cut.
If Obama gets his way, high-income households would see the top two income tax rates increase to 36% (from 33%) and 39.6% (from 35%). In addition, their investment tax rates would go up to 20% from 15%.
But high-income taxpayers would still benefit from the extension of tax cuts for the middle class. Among other things, that's because the changes made at the lower tax brackets would be preserved for everyone. Two examples: the creation of the 10% tax bracket and the reduced marriage penalty. The marriage penalty used to result in two-earner couples paying more than they would have as single filers.
And, ironically, if the Bush tax cuts do expire for top earners, some might actually find themselves with a somewhat smaller tax bill next year.
Republicans and a small but growing number of Democrats say the cuts should also be extended for high earners, at least temporarily because the economy is too fragile to raise anyone's taxes.
Republicans also contend that small business job growth could be hurt because some business owners file at the top two tax rates and they, while a very small minority, generate a lot of small business income. The tax statistics aren't very clear, however, on the job creation potential among those who report small business income at the top two income tax rates.
What's at stake for the deficit?
Treasury estimates the costs of making the tax cuts permanent for everyone is $3.7 trillion over 10 years.
Of that, $3 trillion accounts for the cost of extending them for the vast majority of Americans, as the president has proposed. The remaining $700 billion is the cost of extending them permanently for the high-income earners.
The cost would obviously be less if the cuts were extended for only one or two years. There are no formal estimates for a short-term extension, but based on Treasury Department estimates, the cost is likely to range anywhere from $200 billion to $500 billion, depending on whose cuts are extended and for how long.
Those who support extending the tax cuts note that if the cuts expire and the economy suffers as a result, the deficit will get worse because the government will have to borrow more.
So what's gonna happen?
Um, who knows?
The lack of consensus on the tax cuts isn't just between the Democrats and the Republicans. It's within each party as well. And with a midterm election at stake, there's no predicting yet what, if anything, will be extended, for how long and for whom.
But since both parties support extending the tax cuts at least for the lower- and middle-income families, chances are high that that will happen.
And given that a small but apparently growing number of Democrats now support extending the tax cuts for upper-income folks as well, there's some chance that could happen too, at least in part.
Investors are already sifting through the Brexit market rubble for opportunities. Morgan Stanley compiled a list of highly-rated stocks that have limited or no direct exposure to the situation in the U.K. More
In 1998, Ntsiki Biyela won a scholarship to study wine making. Now she's about to launch her own brand. More