Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on August 01, 2012, 02:10:29 PM
-
A new Brookings Institution/Tax Policy Center study finds Mitt Romney's plan to overhaul the tax code would produce cuts for the richest 5% of Americans -- and larger bills for everybody else.
The Washington Post notes the researchers seemed "to bend over backward to be fair to the Republican presidential candidate" but "none of it helped Romney."
"His rate-cutting plan for individuals would reduce tax collections by about $360 billion in 2015, the study says. To avoid increasing deficits -- as Romney has pledged -- the plan would have to generate an equivalent amount of revenue by slashing tax breaks for mortgage interest, employer-provided health care, education, medical expenses, state and local taxes, and child care -- all breaks that benefit the middle class."
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/08/01/romney_tax_plan_would_raise_taxes_on_95.html
-
A new Brookings Institution/Tax Policy Center study finds Mitt Romney's plan to overhaul the tax code would produce cuts for the richest 5% of Americans -- and larger bills for everybody else.
The Washington Post notes the researchers seemed "to bend over backward to be fair to the Republican presidential candidate" but "none of it helped Romney."
"His rate-cutting plan for individuals would reduce tax collections by about $360 billion in 2015, the study says. To avoid increasing deficits -- as Romney has pledged -- the plan would have to generate an equivalent amount of revenue by slashing tax breaks for mortgage interest, employer-provided health care, education, medical expenses, state and local taxes, and child care -- all breaks that benefit the middle class."
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/08/01/romney_tax_plan_would_raise_taxes_on_95.html
Removing tax expenditures is a good thing.
Lowering the overall rates is a good thing as well.
Also, it looks like the study took some liberties with their analysis..
- "(We do not score Governor Romney’s plan directly, as certain components of his plan are not specified in sufficient detail, nor do we make assumptions regarding what those components might be."
-
Obama Cites 'Independent, Non-Partisan Study' Written by Former Staffer, Close Ally
"This wasn’t my staff," Obama insists.
1:14 PM, Aug 1, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-cites-independent-non-partisan-study-written-former-staffer_649193.html
President Obama cited an "independent, non-partisan study" in Mansfield, Ohio earlier today:
"And you do not have to take my word for it," said Obama. "Just today, an independent, non-partisan organization ran all the numbers on Governor Romney’s plan. This wasn’t my staff. This wasn’t something we did. Independent group, ran the numbers."
The president is right, up to a point: The study was not written by an Obama staffer, but by a former Obama staffer--and a close ally.
The study, titled “On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform,” was written by Samuel Brown, William Gale, and Adam Looney.
As Looney's biography page at the Brookings Institution states, "Looney was the senior economist for public finance and tax policy with the President’s Council of Economic Advisers and has been an economist at the Federal Reserve Board."
-
But does it cost us 700K jobs?
Per one of the worlds most respected accounting/consulting firms obamas does.
You probably just missed my thread so here you go
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=431539.75
and since when did the left become opposed to middle class taxes?
I would think you guys wouldnt have any problem seeing how much obama care is going to raise taxes on everyone.
You must have missed that thread to so Ill kindly just give you the link to that one as well
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=431539.75
so the "rich" who already pay something like 90%+ of the federal income taxes collected dont pay enough blacken is that what youre saying?
while 50% dont pay any at all and in fact many get money back...
-
LOL what partisan BULLSHIT.
-
A new Brookings Institution/Tax Policy Center study finds Mitt Romney's plan to overhaul the tax code would produce cuts for the richest 5% of Americans -- and larger bills for everybody else.
The Washington Post notes the researchers seemed "to bend over backward to be fair to the Republican presidential candidate" but "none of it helped Romney."
"His rate-cutting plan for individuals would reduce tax collections by about $360 billion in 2015, the study says. To avoid increasing deficits -- as Romney has pledged -- the plan would have to generate an equivalent amount of revenue by slashing tax breaks for mortgage interest, employer-provided health care, education, medical expenses, state and local taxes, and child care -- all breaks that benefit the middle class."
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/08/01/romney_tax_plan_would_raise_taxes_on_95.html
guys, what part of their report is false?
-
guys, what part of their report is false?
We make the following assumptions:
Any reductions in revenue due to the lower corporate rate would be offset by reducing corporate tax preferences. As a result, we examine only changes to the individual income tax, alternative minimum tax, payroll tax, and estate tax. We ignore the effect of the proposal to reduce the corporate rate to 25 percent.
The plan would not reduce tax expenditures that aim to promote saving and investment. That is consistent with Governor Romney’s plan (and statements made by proponents of similar plans).[4] These provisions include preferential rates on capital gains and dividends; exemption of income accrued in qualified retirement and other tax-favored accounts (e.g., traditional and Roth IRAs and 401(k)s and education and health saving accounts); exemption of interest on state and local bonds; the exclusion of capital gains on home sales; the step-up in basis of assets bequeathed to heirs; and the Saver’s Credit. We exclude these provisions because most plans that have proposed large reductions in individual rates have also proposed to retain or even expand tax incentives for saving and investment.
The tax expenditure for imputed rent on owner-occupied homes and certain smaller hard-to-eliminate exclusions from income cannot or will not be eliminated. This group includes provisions that many would not identify as tax breaks, that have rarely or never been identified by policymakers as “on the table”, or that would be difficult to administer in practice.[5] The largest of these provisions are the tax exclusion for “imputed rent,” (the value of the housing services that homeowners obtain from living in their own homes) and the exemption from tax on the increase in the value of life insurance policies as people age. Smaller provisions include the exclusion from taxable income of combat pay, veterans’ benefits, and benefits for low-income families; previous reform proposals have excluded most of these smaller items. Moreover, because they are small, and because many primarily benefit lower- and middle-income households, including them would not meaningfully affect the results.
Tax expenditures would be eliminated or reduced “starting at the top.” This assumption is perhaps most important for our distributional analysis. Specifically, we offset revenue losses from tax rate reductions by first eliminating tax expenditures for the highest-income groups. If--as it turns out--base-broadening at high-income levels does not recoup all lost revenue, we then limit tax expenditures for the next highest income group, and so on, until the overall plan is revenue neutral. This approach will likely (vastly) overstate the progressivity of any tax changes that could be pursued in practice, because it would be both administratively and politically impractical to completely eliminate all tax expenditures only above a given income threshold. (See further discussion on this point below.) Thus it serves as an upper bound on how progressive the reformed system could be relative to current policy.
Revenue and distributional effects are measured against the current policy baseline constructed by the Tax Policy Center. This baseline assumes permanent extension of the 2001, 2003, and 2010 tax cuts and certain other provisions (except the temporary payroll tax cut and a few temporary investment incentives) and the scheduled implementation of the ACA provisions. [6] (Using the current-law baseline would make the proposed tax changes look even more regressive—and they would no longer be revenue-neutral.)
Spending cuts are excluded from the analysis. As a result, tax rate reductions are wholly financed by the most progressive possible combination of cuts in available income tax expenditures. If spending cuts were used as a form of partial financing for the rate cuts listed above, the precise distributional effects would depend on the composition of the cuts and which programs and government functions were reduced. It is likely, however, that cutting spending would make the plan even more regressive because government spending tends to benefit low- and middle-income households more than tax preferences do
-
guys, what part of their report is false?
This part:
"We do not score Governor Romney’s plan directly, as certain components of his plan are not specified in sufficient detail, nor do we make assumptions regarding what those components might be."
-
Well.....I guess that's that.
Strange that this report on Mitt's tax plan really doesn't cover the tax plan.
Also interesting that the author of the article was linked closely with Obama.
Interesting.
-
-
oh there is a real good host! Another screamer
-
Nine takeaways on Romney’s tax plan
Posted by Ezra Klein
August 2, 2012
1) The Tax Policy Center bent over backwards to make Romney’s promises add up. They assumed a Romney administration wouldn’t cut a dollar of tax preferences for anyone making less than $200,000 until they had cut every dollar of tax preferences for everyone making over $200,000. They left all preferences for savings and investment untouched, as Romney has promised. They even tested the plan under a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that promises “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts. The fact that they couldn’t make Romney’s numbers work even when they stacked all these scenarios on top of one another shows just how impossible Romney’s promises are.
2) The reason Romney’s plan doesn’t work is very simple. The size of the tax cut he’s proposing for the rich is larger than all of the tax expenditures that go to the rich put together. As such, it is mathematically impossible for him to keep his promise to make sure the top one percent keeps paying the same or more.
3) This is going to be a huge problem for the Romney campaign. The Romney team has tried to paper over the fact that its policy promises don’t add up by withholding the crucial details that independent analysts need to do the math. But now independent analysts are filling in those details for them (the Tax Policy Center’s look at Romney’s tax plan should be read in tandem with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities effort to flesh out his spending promises). And, ultimately, that’s worse, as actors with more credibility than the Romney campaign are showing what the Romney campaign was trying to hide.
4) Evidence the Romney campaign does not have a good counterargument, part one: If they thought releasing more details would make the plan look better rather than worse, they would have released them rather than letting outside organizations fill in the blanks. It’s essentially the same theory as refusing to release the tax returns. But now the Romney campaign is receiving pressure — including from conservatives — to release those details, which they know they can’t do. And unlike on the tax returns, no one can say that the details of Romney’s plans for governing the country are irrelevant to this campaign.
-
Nine takeaways on Romney’s tax plan
Posted by Ezra Klein
August 2, 2012
1) The Tax Policy Center bent over backwards to make Romney’s promises add up. They assumed a Romney administration wouldn’t cut a dollar of tax preferences for anyone making less than $200,000 until they had cut every dollar of tax preferences for everyone making over $200,000. They left all preferences for savings and investment untouched, as Romney has promised. They even tested the plan under a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that promises “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts. The fact that they couldn’t make Romney’s numbers work even when they stacked all these scenarios on top of one another shows just how impossible Romney’s promises are.
2) The reason Romney’s plan doesn’t work is very simple. The size of the tax cut he’s proposing for the rich is larger than all of the tax expenditures that go to the rich put together. As such, it is mathematically impossible for him to keep his promise to make sure the top one percent keeps paying the same or more.
3) This is going to be a huge problem for the Romney campaign. The Romney team has tried to paper over the fact that its policy promises don’t add up by withholding the crucial details that independent analysts need to do the math. But now independent analysts are filling in those details for them (the Tax Policy Center’s look at Romney’s tax plan should be read in tandem with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities effort to flesh out his spending promises). And, ultimately, that’s worse, as actors with more credibility than the Romney campaign are showing what the Romney campaign was trying to hide.
4) Evidence the Romney campaign does not have a good counterargument, part one: If they thought releasing more details would make the plan look better rather than worse, they would have released them rather than letting outside organizations fill in the blanks. It’s essentially the same theory as refusing to release the tax returns. But now the Romney campaign is receiving pressure — including from conservatives — to release those details, which they know they can’t do. And unlike on the tax returns, no one can say that the details of Romney’s plans for governing the country are irrelevant to this campaign.
Can't flop any worse than this.
-
stay on topic
-
stay on topic
The authors of your study couldn't stay on topic:
"We do not score Governor Romney’s plan directly, as certain components of his plan are not specified in sufficient detail, nor do we make assumptions regarding what those components might be."
-
We make the following assumptions:
Any reductions in revenue due to the lower corporate rate would be offset by reducing corporate tax preferences. As a result, we examine only changes to the individual income tax, alternative minimum tax, payroll tax, and estate tax. We ignore the effect of the proposal to reduce the corporate rate to 25 percent.
The plan would not reduce tax expenditures that aim to promote saving and investment. That is consistent with Governor Romney’s plan (and statements made by proponents of similar plans).[4] These provisions include preferential rates on capital gains and dividends; exemption of income accrued in qualified retirement and other tax-favored accounts (e.g., traditional and Roth IRAs and 401(k)s and education and health saving accounts); exemption of interest on state and local bonds; the exclusion of capital gains on home sales; the step-up in basis of assets bequeathed to heirs; and the Saver’s Credit. We exclude these provisions because most plans that have proposed large reductions in individual rates have also proposed to retain or even expand tax incentives for saving and investment.
The tax expenditure for imputed rent on owner-occupied homes and certain smaller hard-to-eliminate exclusions from income cannot or will not be eliminated. This group includes provisions that many would not identify as tax breaks, that have rarely or never been identified by policymakers as “on the table”, or that would be difficult to administer in practice.[5] The largest of these provisions are the tax exclusion for “imputed rent,” (the value of the housing services that homeowners obtain from living in their own homes) and the exemption from tax on the increase in the value of life insurance policies as people age. Smaller provisions include the exclusion from taxable income of combat pay, veterans’ benefits, and benefits for low-income families; previous reform proposals have excluded most of these smaller items. Moreover, because they are small, and because many primarily benefit lower- and middle-income households, including them would not meaningfully affect the results.
Tax expenditures would be eliminated or reduced “starting at the top.” This assumption is perhaps most important for our distributional analysis. Specifically, we offset revenue losses from tax rate reductions by first eliminating tax expenditures for the highest-income groups. If--as it turns out--base-broadening at high-income levels does not recoup all lost revenue, we then limit tax expenditures for the next highest income group, and so on, until the overall plan is revenue neutral. This approach will likely (vastly) overstate the progressivity of any tax changes that could be pursued in practice, because it would be both administratively and politically impractical to completely eliminate all tax expenditures only above a given income threshold. (See further discussion on this point below.) Thus it serves as an upper bound on how progressive the reformed system could be relative to current policy.
Revenue and distributional effects are measured against the current policy baseline constructed by the Tax Policy Center. This baseline assumes permanent extension of the 2001, 2003, and 2010 tax cuts and certain other provisions (except the temporary payroll tax cut and a few temporary investment incentives) and the scheduled implementation of the ACA provisions. [6] (Using the current-law baseline would make the proposed tax changes look even more regressive—and they would no longer be revenue-neutral.)
Spending cuts are excluded from the analysis. As a result, tax rate reductions are wholly financed by the most progressive possible combination of cuts in available income tax expenditures. If spending cuts were used as a form of partial financing for the rate cuts listed above, the precise distributional effects would depend on the composition of the cuts and which programs and government functions were reduced. It is likely, however, that cutting spending would make the plan even more regressive because government spending tends to benefit low- and middle-income households more than tax preferences do
LMFAO if you give me the same number of assumptions I can create a study that shows youre actually intelligent...
-
Mitt Romney would cut millionaires’ taxes, Barack Obama says
Share this story:
This Obama campaign ad aired in August 2012.
You comparison shop for cans of tuna. Mitt Romney rides on Donald Trump’s jet.
A new Obama campaign ad shows those scenes to hammer at the lifestyle differences between struggling middle-class Americans and the Republican presidential candidate. Then it takes aim at Romney’s economic proposals.
"Now he has a plan," the ad says, "that would give millionaires another tax break and raises taxes on middle-class families by up to $2,000 a year."
We know from our previous reporting on Romney’s tax plan that it offers across-the-board cuts, including for the very wealthy. But a new independent study offers broader perspective on how taxpayers at all income levels would be affected by Romney’s plan.
So we decided to take a look.
Romney’s tax "plan"
We need to be clear from the start that the problem independent analysts, journalists and fact-checkers have with digging into Romney's tax plan is that much of the "plan" isn't yet known.
Romney has suggested general parameters:
• The rate cuts would be paid for without adding to the deficit.
• People at the high end "will still pay the same share of the tax burden they’re paying now."
• Everyone would see tax rate reductions.
He has outlined specific tax cuts on his campaign website. They include: cutting marginal rates by 20 percent on a permanent, across-the-board basis; eliminating interest, dividend and capital gains taxes for taxpayers earning less than $200,000; eliminating the estate tax; and repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Romney would also cut the corporate rate to 25 percent.
To offset those cuts, Romney has hinted that he would eliminate some common tax write-offs and deductions for people with high incomes.
The effect of Romney's plan
Knowing all that, the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution that evaluates tax proposals submitted by presidential candidates, examined the effect of Romney’s tax rate cuts combined with the elimination of several common tax deductions. Those include the mortgage interest deduction, charitable giving deduction and the exclusion for health insurance. The center published its findings on Aug. 1, 2012.
To try and keep with Romney's guiding principles, the authors eliminated deductions and write-offs -- starting with the deductions for top earners first -- until they came up with enough revenue to offset the $360 billion in tax cuts that are part of Romney's plan.
They determined that people who earn $1 million or more in taxable income would see an average net tax decrease of $87,117. They’d save $175,961 from Romney's tax cut, but lose $88,444 in deductions.
"They would still get a tax cut," said Adam Looney, one of the authors. "The dollar value of the tax cuts is just way bigger than the mortgage interest and other deductions. There’s no way to implement this plan in a way that doesn’t result in a pretty big tax cut for that group (those making more than $1 million)."
People who earn between $500,000 and $1 million would see a cut of about $17,000, and taxes for people with incomes between $200,000 and $500,000 would decrease by about $1,800, the study found.
But to make Romney's plan revenue neutral, deductions would also have to be removed for people with incomes below $200,000, and the effects of that would be significant, the study found. In fact, the elimination of the deductions would mean outright tax increases for everyone with incomes below $200,000. People with taxable income between $50,000 and $75,000, for example, would see an average net tax increase of $641. They’d save $984 from Romney's rate cut, but lose $2,672 in write-offs.
The authors specifically noted that taxpayers with children whose income is below $200,000 would see their taxes go up by an average of $2,041 -- the figure highlighted in Obama’s ad.
The reason for the increase is that the most popular tax breaks heavily benefit middle- and lower-income families, the 95 percent of the population earning less than $200,000 who carry mortgage debt and use employer-provided health insurance.
And though Romney has suggested he would focus on taking the deductions away from the wealthy, the study concluded that alone would not make up the difference of the revenue sacrificed when rates are slashed.
"Somebody has to foot the bill for those tax cuts," Looney said. "You have to tap into middle- and lower-income households."
Bottom line: the study found that Romney couldn't keep all his goals based on what we know about his plan.
Romney campaign’s response
When the study appeared online, the Romney campaign posted a response on its website that did not specifically address the discrepancy.
"President Obama continues to tout liberal studies calling for more tax hikes and more government spending. We've been down that road before – and it's led us to 41 straight months of unemployment above 8 percent," said Romney spokesman Ryan Williams.
Looney is a senior fellow in economic studies at Brookings who has a Ph.D. from Harvard University. He served on Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers in 2009 and 2010. William Gale, another of the authors, is vice president of Brookings and director of its economic studies program. He served on President George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers.
Lanhee Chen, the Romney campaign’s policy director, later added in a press release that the study ignored the corporate tax rate cut Romney proposes and his deficit reduction plan.
"These glaring gaps invalidate the report’s conclusions," Chen said.
The Romney campaign said that the study ignored the assertion that lower tax rates will grow the economy -- which they say will translate into more tax revenues. That will help make the plan revenue neutral even with lower overall tax rates.
Spending cuts, likewise, could help balance the tax cuts without having to raise taxes on people making less than $200,000. The study, for the record, did consider that possibility but concluded it was impossible to evaluate the effect of spending cuts without knowing what would be cut. They also noted that "government spending tends to benefit low- and middle-income households."
We find nothing in the study that distorts Romney’s proposals. It makes assumptions favorable to Romney, namely that his plan would lead to greater economic growth and raise revenues. The Tax Policy Center, whose director is another former adviser to Bush, is well-respected for its unbiased work, and even the Romney campaign praised it in November 2011 for offering "objective, third-party analysis."
Our ruling
Obama said Romney is proposing a tax plan "that would give millionaires another tax break and raises taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 a year."
The claims are based on a study by the Tax Policy Center, which used what Romney has said about his tax plan and attempted to calculate outcomes for different groups of taxpayers.
The study prioritizes the idea that the plan would be revenue neutral. In that scenario, millionaires lose deductions, but the lower rates would still decrease their tax bill by an average of $87,000.
Middle-class taxpayers would see lower tax rates, too, but the loss of exemptions and deductions would hit them harder. People making $200,000 or less a year would see their taxes rise by an average of about $2,000.
The study is making the point that Romney’s plan is untenable: to cut rates that much without adding to the deficit, something has to give. It necessarily makes some assumptions, and therefore these conclusions are not definite as long as the details of the plan remain unknown. For that reason, people should be cautious in calling this Romney's plan.
We rate the claim Mostly True.
-
funny how the Romney campgain called the Tax Policy Center Objective when it put out an analysis of Rick Perrys Tax plan but now tries to call them biased when the scrutinize his plan
I understand that Romney has left out details in his plan which the TPC has stated but it seems disingenious to call them Objective when it serves your purpose and the totally biased when it does not
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/romney-camp-cited-same-think-tank-they-now
While the Romney campaign hasn’t rebutted the substance of the study, they claim the Tax Policy Center should be dismissed entirely as a biased source.
But the Obama campaign notes that Romney aides took a very different view of the group when they put out a similar analysis of Rick Perry’s tax plan during the Republican primaries. Here’s how a Romney press release in November described their work: Objective, Third-Party Analysis Showed Governor Perry’s Plan Would Raise Taxes On Millions Of American Families – But He Doesn’t Seem Interested In The Discussion
-
But does it cost us 700K jobs?
Per one of the worlds most respected accounting/consulting firms obamas does.
You probably just missed my thread so here you go
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=431539.75
and since when did the left become opposed to middle class taxes?
I would think you guys wouldnt have any problem seeing how much obama care is going to raise taxes on everyone.
You must have missed that thread to so Ill kindly just give you the link to that one as well
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=431539.75
so the "rich" who already pay something like 90%+ of the federal income taxes collected dont pay enough blacken is that what youre saying?
while 50% dont pay any at all and in fact many get money back...
-
Mitt Romney would cut millionaires’ taxes, Barack Obama says
Share this story:
This Obama campaign ad aired in August 2012.
You comparison shop for cans of tuna. Mitt Romney rides on Donald Trump’s jet.
A new Obama campaign ad shows those scenes to hammer at the lifestyle differences between struggling middle-class Americans and the Republican presidential candidate. Then it takes aim at Romney’s economic proposals.
"Now he has a plan," the ad says, "that would give millionaires another tax break and raises taxes on middle-class families by up to $2,000 a year."
We know from our previous reporting on Romney’s tax plan that it offers across-the-board cuts, including for the very wealthy. But a new independent study offers broader perspective on how taxpayers at all income levels would be affected by Romney’s plan.
So we decided to take a look.
Romney’s tax "plan"
We need to be clear from the start that the problem independent analysts, journalists and fact-checkers have with digging into Romney's tax plan is that much of the "plan" isn't yet known.
Romney has suggested general parameters:
• The rate cuts would be paid for without adding to the deficit.
• People at the high end "will still pay the same share of the tax burden they’re paying now."
• Everyone would see tax rate reductions.
He has outlined specific tax cuts on his campaign website. They include: cutting marginal rates by 20 percent on a permanent, across-the-board basis; eliminating interest, dividend and capital gains taxes for taxpayers earning less than $200,000; eliminating the estate tax; and repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Romney would also cut the corporate rate to 25 percent.
To offset those cuts, Romney has hinted that he would eliminate some common tax write-offs and deductions for people with high incomes.
The effect of Romney's plan
Knowing all that, the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution that evaluates tax proposals submitted by presidential candidates, examined the effect of Romney’s tax rate cuts combined with the elimination of several common tax deductions. Those include the mortgage interest deduction, charitable giving deduction and the exclusion for health insurance. The center published its findings on Aug. 1, 2012.
To try and keep with Romney's guiding principles, the authors eliminated deductions and write-offs -- starting with the deductions for top earners first -- until they came up with enough revenue to offset the $360 billion in tax cuts that are part of Romney's plan.
They determined that people who earn $1 million or more in taxable income would see an average net tax decrease of $87,117. They’d save $175,961 from Romney's tax cut, but lose $88,444 in deductions.
"They would still get a tax cut," said Adam Looney, one of the authors. "The dollar value of the tax cuts is just way bigger than the mortgage interest and other deductions. There’s no way to implement this plan in a way that doesn’t result in a pretty big tax cut for that group (those making more than $1 million)."
People who earn between $500,000 and $1 million would see a cut of about $17,000, and taxes for people with incomes between $200,000 and $500,000 would decrease by about $1,800, the study found.
But to make Romney's plan revenue neutral, deductions would also have to be removed for people with incomes below $200,000, and the effects of that would be significant, the study found. In fact, the elimination of the deductions would mean outright tax increases for everyone with incomes below $200,000. People with taxable income between $50,000 and $75,000, for example, would see an average net tax increase of $641. They’d save $984 from Romney's rate cut, but lose $2,672 in write-offs.
The authors specifically noted that taxpayers with children whose income is below $200,000 would see their taxes go up by an average of $2,041 -- the figure highlighted in Obama’s ad.
The reason for the increase is that the most popular tax breaks heavily benefit middle- and lower-income families, the 95 percent of the population earning less than $200,000 who carry mortgage debt and use employer-provided health insurance.
And though Romney has suggested he would focus on taking the deductions away from the wealthy, the study concluded that alone would not make up the difference of the revenue sacrificed when rates are slashed.
"Somebody has to foot the bill for those tax cuts," Looney said. "You have to tap into middle- and lower-income households."
Bottom line: the study found that Romney couldn't keep all his goals based on what we know about his plan.
Romney campaign’s response
When the study appeared online, the Romney campaign posted a response on its website that did not specifically address the discrepancy.
"President Obama continues to tout liberal studies calling for more tax hikes and more government spending. We've been down that road before – and it's led us to 41 straight months of unemployment above 8 percent," said Romney spokesman Ryan Williams.
Looney is a senior fellow in economic studies at Brookings who has a Ph.D. from Harvard University. He served on Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers in 2009 and 2010. William Gale, another of the authors, is vice president of Brookings and director of its economic studies program. He served on President George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers.
Lanhee Chen, the Romney campaign’s policy director, later added in a press release that the study ignored the corporate tax rate cut Romney proposes and his deficit reduction plan.
"These glaring gaps invalidate the report’s conclusions," Chen said.
The Romney campaign said that the study ignored the assertion that lower tax rates will grow the economy -- which they say will translate into more tax revenues. That will help make the plan revenue neutral even with lower overall tax rates.
Spending cuts, likewise, could help balance the tax cuts without having to raise taxes on people making less than $200,000. The study, for the record, did consider that possibility but concluded it was impossible to evaluate the effect of spending cuts without knowing what would be cut. They also noted that "government spending tends to benefit low- and middle-income households."
We find nothing in the study that distorts Romney’s proposals. It makes assumptions favorable to Romney, namely that his plan would lead to greater economic growth and raise revenues. The Tax Policy Center, whose director is another former adviser to Bush, is well-respected for its unbiased work, and even the Romney campaign praised it in November 2011 for offering "objective, third-party analysis."
Our ruling
Obama said Romney is proposing a tax plan "that would give millionaires another tax break and raises taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 a year."
The claims are based on a study by the Tax Policy Center, which used what Romney has said about his tax plan and attempted to calculate outcomes for different groups of taxpayers.
The study prioritizes the idea that the plan would be revenue neutral. In that scenario, millionaires lose deductions, but the lower rates would still decrease their tax bill by an average of $87,000.
Middle-class taxpayers would see lower tax rates, too, but the loss of exemptions and deductions would hit them harder. People making $200,000 or less a year would see their taxes rise by an average of about $2,000.
The study is making the point that Romney’s plan is untenable: to cut rates that much without adding to the deficit, something has to give. It necessarily makes some assumptions, and therefore these conclusions are not definite as long as the details of the plan remain unknown. For that reason, people should be cautious in calling this Romney's plan.
We rate the claim Mostly True.
-
But does it cost us 700K jobs?
Per one of the worlds most respected accounting/consulting firms obamas does.
You probably just missed my thread so here you go
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=431539.75
and since when did the left become opposed to middle class taxes?
I would think you guys wouldnt have any problem seeing how much obama care is going to raise taxes on everyone.
You must have missed that thread to so Ill kindly just give you the link to that one as well
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=431539.75
so the "rich" who already pay something like 90%+ of the federal income taxes collected dont pay enough blacken is that what youre saying?
while 50% dont pay any at all and in fact many get money back...
-
People making $200,000 or less a year would see their taxes rise by an average of about $2,000.
i can see where he's for the average guy
-
-
People making $200,000 or less a year would see their taxes rise by an average of about $2,000.
i can see where he's for the average guy
LOL so when did democrats become so opposed to middle class tax hikes?
-
LOL so when did democrats become so opposed to middle class tax hikes?
Obama had been saying he was against them since the time he was on the campaign trail in 2008
I'm in favor of letting all the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year and let Congress work out a new tax cut (if they want to) in 2013
I think that the totally fair way to go - all income tax brackets get reset to pre-Bush levels and the current Congress can work on a new agreement going foward
-
Obama had been saying he was against them since the time he was on the campaign trail in 2008
I'm in favor of letting all the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year and let Congress work out a new tax cut (if they want to) in 2013
I think that the totally fair way to go - all income tax brackets get reset to pre-Bush levels and the current Congress can work on a new agreement going foward
LOL but he was completely ok with the taxes that will hit the middle class in obamacare, or maybe he had to pass it before he knew what was in it?
I say we make the govt get their fiscal house in order before they start raising taxes and taking rightfully and hard earned money away from anyone.
Doesnt that sound like a common sense approach straw?
-
LOL but he was completely ok with the taxes that will hit the middle class in obamacare, or maybe he had to pass it before he knew what was in it?
I say we make the govt get their fiscal house in order before they start raising taxes and taking rightfully and hard earned money away from anyone.
Doesnt that sound like a common sense approach straw?
This is just crazy talk ;D
-
LOL but he was completely ok with the taxes that will hit the middle class in obamacare, or maybe he had to pass it before he knew what was in it?
I say we make the govt get their fiscal house in order before they start raising taxes and taking rightfully and hard earned money away from anyone.
Doesnt that sound like a common sense approach straw?
he called it a penalty
the SC called it a tax and as you know, most people in the middle class don't have a large enough income for them to even be required to pay a penalty/tax
the so called tax would only hit wealthy people who for some reason choose not to have health insurance
-
he called it a penalty
the SC called it a tax and as you know, most people in the middle class don't have a large enough income for them to even be required to pay a penalty/tax
the so called tax would only hit wealthy people who for some reason choose not to have health insurance
he called the mandate a penalty, but there are plenty of other taxes in the health care bill....
-
he called the mandate a penalty, but there are plenty of other taxes in the health care bill....
such as and are they offset with other saving to have net positive ?
-
such as and are they offset with other saving to have net positive ?
guess you missed this thread...
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=431195.0
Probably missed this one too about obamas tax plan set to cost us 700K jobs so Ill just link it here as well.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=431539.75
-
guess you missed this thread...
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=431195.0
Probably missed this one too about obamas tax plan set to cost us 700K jobs so Ill just link it here as well.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=431539.75
I saw them both and both include lots of nonsense
you were speaking specifically about taxes in the health care legislation and I asked you to name some
define what you're talking about
-
he called it a penalty
the SC called it a tax and as you know, most people in the middle class don't have a large enough income for them to even be required to pay a penalty/tax
the so called tax would only hit wealthy people who for some reason choose not to have health insurance
If it was actually a penalty the fucking bill would have been ruled unconstitutional and that would be that. But since the SC saw fit to call it what it is, here we are. Plus I find it very unsettling that the government can "tax" someone for inactivity
-
If it was actually a penalty the fucking bill would have been ruled unconstitutional and that would be that. But since the SC saw fit to call it what it is, here we are. Plus I find it very unsettling that the government can "tax" someone for inactivity
I'd be fine if the people who refused to buy insurance did not then require at some point "activity" by someone in the future
said person doesn't want to take care of their health but wants emergency services when their personal neglect becomes a crisis
or forgot the personal neglect part, let's say they get in a serious accident and need hundreds of thousands of dollars in immediate medical care
why should we as a society have to provide those services
shouldn't we create an opt out where you choose ahead of time that we should let you die ?
-
I'd be fine if the people who refused to buy insurance did not then require at some point "activity" by someone in the future
said person doesn't want to take care of their health but wants emergency services when their personal neglect becomes a crisis
or forgot the personal neglect part, let's say they get in a serious accident and need hundreds of thousands of dollars in immediate medical care
why should we as a society have to provide those services
shouldn't we create an opt out where you choose ahead of time that we should let you die ?
Absolutely, It is not mine, yours, or anyone else's responsibility. I would much prefer that over the alternative of the government getting their hooks into every aspect of life
-
Absolutely, It is not mine, yours, or anyone else's responsibility. I would much prefer that over the alternative of the government getting their hooks into every aspect of life
well I'm not sure the govt is getting their hooks in every aspect of life but let's stay on point
if someone is critically injured in a car accident and we discover they don't have insurance or the means to pay for their care what should we do
what's the best way to proceed at that point
let's say for example we discover this at the scene or in the emergency room or the next day after we've saved their life but they are still is critical condition
pick any one of those and tell me how we should proceed
-
I saw them both and both include lots of nonsense
you were speaking specifically about taxes in the health care legislation and I asked you to name some
define what you're talking about
and what nonsense do you see from the assestment from ernst and young straw man?
the very first post of the obama middle class tax hikes thread has them. Its obvious you havent looked at either of those threads.
-
People making $200,000 or less a year would see their taxes rise by an average of about $2,000.
i can see where he's for the average guy
this is the romney plan,if you like the idea of taxing the middle class more vote for him,it's that easy
-
People making $200,000 or less a year would see their taxes rise by an average of about $2,000.
i can see where he's for the average guy
this is the romney plan,if you like the idea of taxing the middle class more vote for him,it's that easy
Correct, under ObamaCare premiums are skyrocketing.
-
People making $200,000 or less a year would see their taxes rise by an average of about $2,000.
i can see where he's for the average guy
this is the romney plan,if you like the idea of taxing the middle class more vote for him,it's that easy
yes but taxes in obamacare and possibly losing 700K jobs is A-OK right?
-
People making $200,000 or less a year would see their taxes rise by an average of about $2,000.
i can see where he's for the average guy
this is the romney plan,if you like the idea of taxing the middle class more vote for him,it's that easy
-
But does it cost us 700K jobs?
Per one of the worlds most respected accounting/consulting firms obamas does.
You probably just missed my thread so here you go
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=431539.75
and since when did the left become opposed to middle class taxes?
I would think you guys wouldnt have any problem seeing how much obama care is going to raise taxes on everyone.
You must have missed that thread to so Ill kindly just give you the link to that one as well
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=431539.75
so the "rich" who already pay something like 90%+ of the federal income taxes collected dont pay enough blacken is that what youre saying?
while 50% dont pay any at all and in fact many get money back...
-
and what nonsense do you see from the assestment from ernst and young straw man?
the very first post of the obama middle class tax hikes thread has them. Its obvious you havent looked at either of those threads.
nothing because it's not in the middle class tax hike thread and the link doesn't work
You said Obamacare had tax increases on the midle class and you weren't referring to the mandate so how about some details
-
nothing because it's not in the middle class tax hike thread and the link doesn't work
You said Obamacare had tax increases on the midle class and you weren't referring to the mandate so how about some details
Such as the tax on sick people. Or the employer mandate, which will have downstream effects on workers no different than the payroll tax.
Democrats apparently have a good handle on economics now-a-days. They understand that if they tax something, they'll get less of it. That's probably the reason behind their sick people tax. ::)
-
I saw them both and both include lots of nonsense
you were speaking specifically about taxes in the health care legislation and I asked you to name some
define what you're talking about
Here are the coming Obama middle-income tax hikes from a thread you labeled "nonsense." Please go down the list and show me how each tax hike is "nonsense."
1. Bush tax cut expiration - Obama has stated that he wishes to extend the Bush tax cuts for those earning under $250,000 for one year. Read that again. That means that in the beginning of 2014, middle and lower-income individuals can expect to see their tax bills increase.
2. Payroll tax cut expiration - The payroll tax cuts for middle and lower-income individuals are set to expire in the beginning of 2013.
3. Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan Tax - Starting in 2018, there will be a 40% tax on comprehensive health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family) thanks to Obamacare. This tax is expected to hit a lot of unionized blue collar workers. This is a $32 billion tax hike.
4. High Medical Bills Tax - Starting in 2013, the deduction for medical bills exceeding 7.5% of an individual's adjusted gross income will be cut: the threshold for medical deductions will be raised to 10% of adjusted gross income. This is a $15.2 billion tax hike on the sick.
5. Medicine Cabinet Tax - Americans are no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).
6. HSA Withdrawal Tax - Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
7. Special Needs Kids Tax - Beginning of 2013, imposes cap of $2500 (Indexed to inflation after 2013) on FSAs (now unlimited). . There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.
-
People making $200,000 or less a year would see their taxes rise by an average of about $2,000.
i can see where he's for the average guy
this is the romney plan,if you like the idea of taxing the middle class more vote for him,it's that easy
Remember the part of the study which says that the study doesn't actually score Romney's plan?
I'd love to see your answer to this: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=435267.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=435267.0)
-
Here are the coming Obama middle-income tax hikes from a thread you labeled "nonsense." Please go down the list and show me how each tax hike is "nonsense."
1. Bush tax cut expiration - Obama has stated that he wishes to extend the Bush tax cuts for those earning under $250,000 for one year. Read that again. That means that in the beginning of 2014, middle and lower-income individuals can expect to see their tax bills increase.
2. Payroll tax cut expiration - The payroll tax cuts for middle and lower-income individuals are set to expire in the beginning of 2013.
3. Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan Tax - Starting in 2018, there will be a 40% tax on comprehensive health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family) thanks to Obamacare. This tax is expected to hit a lot of unionized blue collar workers. This is a $32 billion tax hike.
4. High Medical Bills Tax - Starting in 2013, the deduction for medical bills exceeding 7.5% of an individual's adjusted gross income will be cut: the threshold for medical deductions will be raised to 10% of adjusted gross income. This is a $15.2 billion tax hike on the sick.
5. Medicine Cabinet Tax - Americans are no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).
6. HSA Withdrawal Tax - Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
7. Special Needs Kids Tax - Beginning of 2013, imposes cap of $2500 (Indexed to inflation after 2013) on FSAs (now unlimited). . There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.
1,2, 5, 6 are complete nonsense to portray them as a tax increase by Obama
I'll look into thte other ansd see if they have any merit as a tax increase and/or if there are other benefits which offset the impact
-
Remember the part of the study which says that the study doesn't actually score Romney's plan?
I'd love to see your answer to this: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=435267.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=435267.0)
of course I remember it
I mentioned it in my first post on this thread
I'm sure Romney will be quick to fill in the missing details
If there is one thing he is known for it's providing precise information on his political and economic positions
-
1,2, 5, 6 are complete nonsense to portray them as a tax increase by Obama
I'll look into thte other ansd see if they have any merit as a tax increase and/or if there are other benefits which offset the impact
Okay, so you'll dismiss it all as nonsense without even knowing the details. This reveals a larger trend in your posts, where you state some unbacked assertion, and then when you're challenged on them you state something to the effect of "I'll look into the others later" or "I don't have time to read that right now." Let's deal with the ones you object to separately:
1. It's indisputable fact that Obama has argued for extending the Bush tax cuts for those earning under $250,000 FOR ONE YEAR. If he believed in never raising taxes on the rich, then why wouldn't he extend those tax cuts permanently, or at least for the 10-year period which avoids the Byrd rule?
2. Again, with the payroll tax cut: if Obama planned on not raising taxes on the non-rich, then why wouldn't he make this tax cut permanent or at least extend it for the 10-year period which avoids the Byrd rule?
5. Are you trying to claim that middle income earners don't use health savings accounts? Everyone who works for Whole Foods and the municipal workers of several counties disagree with you.
6. See above.
-
of course I remember it
I mentioned it in my first post on this thread
I'm sure Romney will be quick to fill in the missing details
If there is one thing he is known for it's providing precise information on his political and economic positions
You realize that Romney's plan cuts tax rates across the board by 20%, eliminates investment taxes for those who earn under $200,000, and repeals the AMT which taxes upper middle-income earners, right?
So can you please point out where there is a hidden middle-income tax hike in the Romney plan?
-
Okay, so you'll dismiss it all as nonsense without even knowing the details. This reveals a larger trend in your posts, where you state some unbacked assertion, and then when you're challenged on them you state something to the effect of "I'll look into the others later" or "I don't have time to read that right now." Let's deal with the ones you object to separately:
1. It's indisputable fact that Obama has argued for extending the Bush tax cuts for those earning under $250,000 FOR ONE YEAR. If he believed in never raising taxes on the rich, then why wouldn't he extend those tax cuts permanently, or at least for the 10-year period which avoids the Byrd rule?
2. Again, with the payroll tax cut: if Obama planned on not raising taxes on the non-rich, then why wouldn't he make this tax cut permanent or at least extend it for the 10-year period which avoids the Byrd rule?
5. Are you trying to claim that middle income earners don't use health savings accounts? Everyone who works for Whole Foods and the municipal workers of several counties disagree with you.
6. See above.
I just don't the time or interest right now but I'll quickly address the first two
Bush tax cuts expiring are not a tax increase by Obama - if you have a problem with it then blame Bush and the Republicans but there hands were tied too because the rule on congress forced it to sunset due to the fact that it increase d the deficict - something that has been said on this board about 100 time
payroll tax cut was temporary and the expiration brings the rate right back to where is was when Obama took office - hence no increase in taxes
I personally have a HSA as part of my insuranc. Any $'s into the account gives you a TAX benefit. Just because I can't use the $s' to buy OTC medicine at my discretion doesn't mean I've lost my tax benefit
Jesus man, this is all easy stuff to understand. I can't believe you actually need this explained to you
I'd explain the others but have no time or interest on this Saturday morning
-
I just don't the time or interest right now but I'll quickly address the first two
Typical evasion.
Bush tax cuts expiring are not a tax increase by Obama - if you have a problem with it then blame Bush and the Republicans but there hands were tied too because the rule on congress forced it to sunset due to the fact that it increase d the deficict - something that has been said on this board about 100 time
So blame Bush and the Republicans even though their hands were tied by a Democrat filibuster?
Obama could take the course of "Bush and the Republicans" and extend the tax cuts for a ten-year period in order to avoid the Byrd rule. So why hasn't he done so? Why is he arguing for
payroll tax cut was temporary and the expiration brings the rate right back to where is was when Obama took office - hence no increase in taxes
So would you also argue that the study which claims that Romney is raising taxes on middle-income earners is bogus, because the entire premise behind the Romney tax plan raising taxes on middle-income earners relies on the assumption that Romney will allow these payroll tax cuts to expire?
So by the same token - does that mean that Obama's tax plan will raise taxes on middle-income earners? After all, if it applies to Romney, shouldn't it apply to Obama?
I personally have a HSA as part of my insuranc. Any $'s into the account gives you a TAX benefit. Just because I can't use the $s' to buy OTC medicine at my discretion doesn't mean I've lost my tax benefit
It means you have to pay taxes on money used to buy OTC medicine. That is a tax hike, plain and simple.
Jesus man, this is all easy stuff to understand. I can't believe you actually need this explained to you
That's how I feel about you every single time I reply to your painful kneepadding or economic ignorance.
I'd explain the others but have no time or interest on this Saturday morning
Typical evasion.
-
You realize that Romney's plan cuts tax rates across the board by 20%, eliminates investment taxes for those who earn under $200,000, and repeals the AMT which taxes upper middle-income earners, right?
So can you please point out where there is a hidden middle-income tax hike in the Romney plan?
sure thing
as soon as you point out where I said it did
I haven't looked at it much and my only comment was that Romney recently praised the TCP as being objective and now he calls the very same group bias
As you pointed out, Romney has left out details that it impossible to draw certain conclusions but when TCP makes the best case assumptions is still doesn't work out
Hopefully Romney will be forthcoming with him statement to put it on the table and fill in the missing data
Here's someone who has researched it so maybe you'll find some answers to your question:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/04/romney-tax-plan-on-table-debt-collapses-table/
-
Do you realize that the ONLY assumption that the study uses to justify that Romney's tax plan will raise taxes on middle and lower-income earners is that he will allow the payroll tax cut expire? Do you realize that making the same assumption for Obama would mean that Obama is a bigger tax hiker than Romney?
-
Typical evasion.
So blame Bush and the Republicans even though their hands were tied by a Democrat filibuster?
Obama could take the course of "Bush and the Republicans" and extend the tax cuts for a ten-year period in order to avoid the Byrd rule. So why hasn't he done so? Why is he arguing for
So would you also argue that the study which claims that Romney is raising taxes on middle-income earners is bogus, because the entire premise behind the Romney tax plan raising taxes on middle-income earners relies on the assumption that Romney will allow these payroll tax cuts to expire?
So by the same token - does that mean that Obama's tax plan will raise taxes on middle-income earners? After all, if it applies to Romney, shouldn't it apply to Obama?
It means you have to pay taxes on money used to buy OTC medicine. That is a tax hike, plain and simple.
That's how I feel about you every single time I reply to your painful kneepadding or economic ignorance.
Typical evasion.
I have no time for you this mornign and it's obvious that you don't even understand how an HSA account works so why wiould I waste my time explaining even more complicated stuff
here's how an HSA works
$'s going in = $'s not taxed as income that year
just because I can't buy aspirin with my HSA doesn't change my tax savings that year by one penny
when I go buy aspirin with my non-HSA $'s I still haven't lost one penny of the tax savings from my HSA account nor have increased my income tax liability by that purchase (I assume of course you're not referring to sales tax because if it's applicable in your state you'd be paying it whether you used HSA $'s or not)
-
I have no time for you this mornign and it's obvious that you don't even understand how an HSA account works so why wiould I waste my time explaining even more complicated stuff
Typical evasion.
here's how an HSA works
$'s going in = $'s not taxed as income that year
I know.
just because I can't buy aspirin with my HSA doesn't change my tax savings that year by one penny
when I go buy aspirin with my non-HSA $'s I still haven't lost one penny of the tax savings from my HSA account nor have increased my income tax liability by that purchase (I assume of course you're not referring to sales tax because if it's applicable in your state you'd be paying it whether you used HSA $'s or not)
Say you have to purchase $200 of OTC medicine throughout the year. Before, you could do that with untaxed income through your HSA. Now, you can only do that with income taxed at whatever your marginal tax rate is. Is that not a tax increase?
-
Typical evasion.
I know.
Say you have to purchase $200 of OTC medicine throughout the year. Before, you could do that with untaxed income through your HSA. Now, you can only do that with income taxed at whatever your marginal tax rate is. Is that not a tax increase?
no it's not an increase because my contribution to my HSA is EXACTLY the same and that's where the tax savings comes from
using non HSA dollars to buy $200 of medicine does not change that fact
-
nothing because it's not in the middle class tax hike thread and the link doesn't work
You said Obamacare had tax increases on the midle class and you weren't referring to the mandate so how about some details
you specifically stated that both threads include a lot of nonsense
so what nonsense do you see from the ernst and young assesment straw man?I saw them both and both include lots of nonsense
you were speaking specifically about taxes in the health care legislation and I asked you to name some
define what you're talking about