RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: Debt Commission

Posted by: Boldwin
- [292351810] Sat, Mar 20, 2010, 08:03

Here the code is broken.

This is set up in an attempt to build a broad-based consensus for tax-hikes.

We've already seen the wild carefree 'spend our way out of a depression'. Then in launching this commission, Obama says this with a straight face:
"Without action," the President said, "the accumulated weight ... of ever-increasing debt, will hobble our economy, it will cloud our future, and it will saddle every child in America with an intolerable burden." Incredibly, the President made these statements with a straight face, as though fully expecting his audience to believe that it is he alone who is standing against the bad habits of extravagant spending in Washington.

Stephen Moore at the Wall Street Journal was one of the few in the press who noted the patent absurdity of the Debt Commission announcement, observing that on that very same day "President Obama called for another $50 billion to $100 billion stimulus plan (and concomitant increase in the deficit)."

"It says a lot about Washington that almost no one got the irony of those paired announcements," Moore remarked. The reality, of course, is that plenty of folks in Washington — in the political realm as well as in the media — "got" what Moore refers to as "irony" (but which is really blatant mendacity and deception). The truth is that President Obama, like many previous occupants of the White House, as well as most of his former colleagues in the Congress — both Democrat and Republican — knows that it's become an obligatory ritual for politicians to declaim and denounce budget deficits, and to profess concern about indenturing our children's children with ever greater debt burdens, while continuing merrily on their spendthrift ways piling more debt on top of debt. In the Washington Wonderland they inhabit, words do not have any relationship to actions. This is so because the Washington press corps and their national counterparts aid and abet this deception, both by failing to point out the incongruity between the politicians' words and actions, as well by actively promoting the ever-proliferating government programs that are being financed by ever-larger deficits.
Obama's actions make it clear this is not a signal Washington intends to spend less. Instead it's to address it from the other end as if giving a drunken sailor more money was the answer.

What this means is that the 'Cloward-Piven strategy' is to be enabled and accelerated. He's only got so much time.
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
80Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sat, Nov 13, 2010, 20:42
Letting the banks keep more of their money is central planners messing up? I think you don't understand what this is actually doing.
81Boldwin
      ID: 571051214
      Sun, Nov 14, 2010, 02:52
It's destroying the recovery to prevent a bank meltdown. Hard to believe this was well intentioned given Rahm's 'never waste a crisis' statement, but then with this much under water RE and bad paper Tier One securities, who knows just how shaky it is. Aint no recovery if most banks fold.
82Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Mon, Nov 15, 2010, 13:27


Quantatative Easing Explained
83weykool
      ID: 138481617
      Mon, Nov 15, 2010, 13:49
It provides all the wrong incentives, simply increases the price of houses, help the rich disproportionally to buy bigger and bigger McMansions and 131 billion is a lot of money.
Wrong.
There are limits to the mortgage deduction.
I know class warfare is one of the hallmark attacks used by the left but in this case the mortgage deduction is clearly a middle class tax deduction.
We can only hope that Americans are not stupid enough to fall for the "lower rates in exchange for your deduction" only to see the rates go back up for the next crisis.
84boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, Nov 15, 2010, 14:19
Re 82: good stuff. I wonder why no has ever pointed out that mild deflation is not not bad thing or more precisely that deflation less that a few % points is actually mentally equivalent to equilibrium?
85biliruben
      ID: 34820210
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 00:37
Wrong.
There are limits to the mortgage deduction.
I know class warfare is one of the hallmark attacks used by the left but in this case the mortgage deduction is clearly a middle class tax deduction.


Not true. With my first mortgage, I couldn't even claim the deduction because it wasn't enough for me to itemize. The standard deduction was a better deal.

It wasn't until we had two decent salaries that we and we upgraded to a much nicer house that we were able to capitalize on it.

If it doesn't help first-time homeowners, it is not a deduction for the middle class. In fact, it inflates housing prices and jabs first-time homeowners up the nether-regions twice over. They are paying higher taxes to subsidize people upgrading to McMansions.

Stupid tax break.
86Frick
      ID: 21016718
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 08:25
Bili, there are limits on the mortgage interest deduction, you can only deduct interest up to $1M on your principle and secondary homes. That's a pretty high amount, but I can think of only 1 year where I didn't itemize and my mortgage is a fraction of the limit (the benefit of living in BFE.) It might not make sense to itemize just for the mortgage exemption, but I bet it is rare that a person has a child and a mortgage and it isn't beneficial to itemize. Either by itself might not be enough, but combined it doesn't take much of a mortgage to push you over the standard deduction.
87Razor
      ID: 57854118
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 09:20
I'm a first-time homeowner as of this year. I'll let you know in a couple months if and how the deduction affects my taxes.
88biliruben
      ID: 34820210
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 10:16
Our state doesn't have an income tax, so it's really hard to get over the standard deduction unless you have a fat mortgage. I do have a kid.

A million dollar mortgage is not middle class mortgage. That's over $6000/mo mortgage payment.
89Frick
      ID: 21016718
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 10:45
I agree that a $1M mortgage is not middle class, but there are parts of the country where a $500k mortgage is not a McMansion. I wouldn't have a problem with lowering the cap or to put a cap on income similar to the student loan interest cap.

90weykool
      Leader
      ID: 41750315
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 10:58
Frick, we need to be really clear with Bili because he is desperately clinging to his "McMansion Myth".
The $1M limitation is is on the amount of the loan and not the deduction.
A 6% loan on $1M amounts to a $60k deduction.
The after tax benefit at 40% tax rate comes to 24K.
But somehow the rich are magically taking 24K and buying McMansions.

Bili, Are you really going to try and make the argument that the mortgage deduction hasn't benefited the middle class based on you personally not being able to benefit from it?
Perhaps you were not middle class?????

Lets do the math:
The standard deduction the past few years has been just under 11K witch comes to about a $900 a month.
This assumes you paid no state income taxes, no real estate taxes, and made zero charitable contributions.
The typical American middle class taxpayer who gets paid twice a month uses one paycheck to pay for housing and the other paycheck for the rest of their expenses.
This would mean after tax income of $1,800/mo which would make the gross/pretax income less than 25K/yr.......NOT middle class.

So now that you have used the mortgage deduction to move into the middle class you want to deny that same opportunity for other Americans?

You are correct on one point that the mortgage deduction increases the price of homes.
Which also means if you take away the deduction it will further decrease the prices of homes.
At a time when foreclosures are at such a high level is it really wise further decrease the value of American homes?
Brilliant idea...lets get rid of the mortgage deduction, put more Americans upside down in their homes, add more bad loans to the banks that have these mortgages on their books so the government can spend more money on another bailout.
91Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 11:09
I don't think anyone is buying a home with the mortgage deduction in mind.

When Britain was considering the same thing (getting rid of the tax deduction for mortgage interest) the same arguments were being made. When they ended that deduction, there was virtually no change in the market. Home ownership has stayed the same (and, in fact, is about the same as the US).

I don't think taxpayers need to foot the bill for home ownership which, in the end, isn't actually doing very much promotion.
92boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 11:11
The typical American middle class taxpayer who gets paid twice a month uses one paycheck to pay for housing and the other paycheck for the rest of their expenses.

spending 50% your income on housing is not what one would call a wise decision, this is what leads people into foreclosure. By your math:

This would mean after tax income of $1,800/mo which would make the gross/pretax income less than 25K/yr.......NOT middle class.

lets say a more reasonable 30% of your income on housing you get a number of 42K a year which puts you in the middle class. just to define middle class as the middle 50% of the population your income would be roughly: $23K - 80K with median being 45K. So actually 25k/yr is middle class.
93Razor
      ID: 57854118
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 11:28
I don't think anyone is buying a home with the mortgage deduction in mind.

I don't think that's accurate. In the calculations I did on the benefits of owning vs. renting, the deduction was certainly in the equation.

And $500K is a pricepoint met by only the affluent everywhere for most of the country. $500K buys a very nice house in a very nice in-town neighborhood in Atlanta or a gigantic house in the suburbs. It's pretty much that or better way in a 750 mile radius.
94Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 11:30
You certainly wouldn't get a loan these days with that much going to housing!
95Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 11:33
32% of income is the going rate for mortgage, insurance, utilities and property tax.
96weykool
      ID: 138481617
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 12:12
If we use the 30-32% of income going to housing (Living in California it inst uncommon for that percentage to be higher) you still only have an income of roughly 36K.
Sorry Boikin but that is not the definition of middle class.
We give the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to low income families based on:
$43,279 ($48,279 married filing jointly) with three or more qualifying children
$40,295 ($45,295 married filing jointly) with two qualifying children
$35,463 ($40,463 married filing jointly) with one qualifying child
$13,440 ($18,440 married filing jointly) with no qualifying children
Based on the information Bili provided I have bolded his situation.

And PD...please tell me you are not going to argue against basic economic principles that the mortgage deduction has no affect on the housing prices.
Of course you are going to call it a subsidy when you have been brainwashed to think that the government is entitled to all of your income and we are just so lucky if they allow us to keep some of it.
The bottom line is I like most taxpaying Amreicans pay far to much in taxes already and the commission needs to be looking into cutting spending and not trying to tweak the formula to take more money for an already overtaxed population.
97biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 13:12
50% of your income ?!? We are half that, and zhit's tight.

Only "real estate professionals", who are keeping closer track of their bottom line than yours would ever advise dti that high.

What do you do again, mr. kool?
99boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 13:17
Weykool what is the definition of middle class then? I gave you the numbers for the middle 50% of America if that is not the middle class then tell me what in the world the middle class is?
100Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 13:40
#96: I'm only pointing out that in England, when they eliminated the mortgage interest deduction, there was no effect on the market. This isn't theoretical stuff here. Their ownership rates remain the same as the US. As do other countries in which there is no mortgage interest deduction.

If the deduction is there to spur home ownership (why?) you have to wonder why we would keep it if it wasn't showing actual higher ownership levels.

Of course you are going to call it a subsidy when you have been brainwashed...

You understand what we are talking about, right? That someone owes X dollars in taxes to the government, but some of them can pay less because some of their home loan interest can be deducted. This means that the government gets less in taxes than it is owed as a result.

You understand this, yes? That the government agrees to take less in taxes so that the loan holder has more money to pay the interest on their home loan?

This is just about the definition of a subsidy. Do you have a better one?

101Tree
      ID: 4010381517
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 13:45
without taking into effect location, dependents, and so forth, isn't it difficult to determined "middle class" and so forth?
102boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 13:52
I made generalization for the whole country clearly those numbers could change if I am in Massachusetts or California or Mississippi..., but the general numbers give you a feel of what middle class means.
103weykool
      ID: 138481617
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 16:20
Tree, I think you are absolutely correct.
There is no hard and fast definition of middle class.
Accoring to answers.com:
n.
The socioeconomic class between the working class and the upper class, usually including professionals, highly skilled laborers, and lower and middle management.


And Investopedia:
The word "middle" may be misleading in that it suggests that those in the middle class have earnings within the middle of the population's income distribution, which may not be the case.

Perhaps it is like pornography, I might not be able to define it, but I know when I see it....and I dont see 24K anywhere close to middle class.

Notwithstanding Bili's anecdotal situation the vast majority of the middle class is able to deduct their mortgage interest and have benefited because of it.
I couldn't care less about arguing the minutiae of the effects or if it should be allowed.
Bili made a really stupid comment that it only allowed the rich to build bigger McMansions, which I have clearly been shown to be false.

104Tree, not at home
      ID: 3910441615
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 16:44
and I dont see 24K anywhere close to middle class.

we agree.

to me, 24k is damned close to poverty. again, it depends on circumstances such as those i mentioned above, but 24k is far from middle class.
105biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 17:35
If someone making 24k takes out a mortgage anywhere close to where they would reap substantial benefit from the mortgage interest deduction, they will almost certainly end up in foreclosure.

Let's run through some ballpark scenarios, shall we?

I'll base this on spending 33% of houshold gross income on housing for a married couple -the max I would recommend a typical borrower spend:

36k income,$1000/ mo rent, benefit - $0
36k income $200k mortgage, $1000/mo payment (plus 250 taxes and insurance) benefit -$0

72k income, $2000/mo rent - benefit $0
72k income, $400k mortgage, $2000/mo payment (plus 500) - benefit (beyond standard deduction) - $7000

200k income, million dollar mortgage, $5000(+1000)/mo mortgage - benefit ~ $40,000 a year.

Who's this tax break for again?

72 income $400k mortgage
106biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 17:45
And this assumes a 4.5% interest rate, which is the only way someone making 72k could possibly get into that much house.
107Seattle Zen
      ID: 10732616
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 17:53
Bili made a really stupid comment that it only allowed the rich to build bigger McMansions, which I have clearly been shown to be false.

When someone states that they have shown something to be "clearly" false, generally the opposite is true. Yep, weykool, you are clearly what I had in mind :)
108biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 18:04
In addition, the benefit dissipates over time as you pay more principal and less interest, almost daring you to double down and upgrade to the McMansion instead of paying off your mortgage
109biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 18:32
Though I don't dispute pd's assertion that the uk didnt see any decline, housing prices are pretty sticky on the way down, and if occured during the recent runup any effects of elimination might have been masked or delayed.

If you do some searches, I've been calling for this particular tax-breaks removal since 2004. I agree that this might not be the best time, but you could grandfather current mortgages and sunset it in 2015 or something, softening the blow, if any.
110Boldwin
      ID: 3610451619
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 20:45
Tax code is far from my strong suit but even if the mortgage deduction considered all by itself appears to be of no benefit, I am guessing that, unless you have large medical bills for the year, you won't be able to itemize without that mortgage deduction added so it is still the route to tax savings.
111biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 22:10
No doubt. If you have substantial other deductions, it is much more relevant. They threshold for medical expenses is quite high however, iirc. I've never been able to declare any medical.
112Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 22:33
Which makes it far more likely to be utilized by those in the higher tax brackets. Those who make more money are more likely to itemize rather than getting the standard deduction.

In other words, the people actually utilizing the mortgage interest deduction on their federal taxes are those less likely to actually need it.
113Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 22:43
If you cannot take the mortgage interest deduction and the corresponding real estate taxes; you're probably not gonna itemize. And if you're not going to be able to itemize, you will be less inclined to make charitable contributions. I never thought it was fair that people who own a house can writeoff charitable contributions, and renters cannot.
114Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 22:51
Renters can. They are just less likely to do so. And (by and large) don't make charitable contributions large enough to make a difference. what they can do is get the standard deduction.

Those that itemize are not able to take that standard deduction, and have to pay the time and expense involved in itemizing (which is, at times, a very real cost). Often, the standard deduction works for people--no harm in that.
115biliruben
      ID: 34820210
      Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 23:17
I agree with B7. It's absurd to have two sets of rules - one for the rich and one for the poor.

In those circumstances, the poor, or even the middle class, end up screwed.
116weykool
      Leader
      ID: 41750315
      Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 04:22
Before we get all weepy about the the rules favoring the rich a little perspective is in order.
Most low income taxpayers will not get a benefit from a mortgage deduction because for the most part they pay little to NO income taxes.
The rich are hit with a very punitive progressive tax system.
I used the examples posted in #105.

36k income $200k mortgage, $1000/mo payment (plus 250 taxes and insurance) benefit -$0
72k income, $400k mortgage, $2000/mo payment (plus 500) - benefit (beyond standard deduction) - $7000
200k income, million dollar mortgage, $5000(+1000)/mo mortgage - benefit ~ $40,000 a year.



Income ....... ….. 36,000.00 ….. 72,000.00 ….. 200,000.00
Mortgage Interest ….. (12,000.00) ….. (24,000.00) ….. (60,000.00)
Taxes ....... ….. (3,000.00) ….. (6,000.00) ….. (12,000.00)
Contibutions ….. (1,000.00) ….. (2,000.00) ….. (5,000.00)
Exemptions (3x3,650) ….. (10,950.00) ….. (10,950.00) ….. (10,950.00)

Taxable Income ….. 9,050.00 ….. 29,050.00 ….. 112,050.00

Income Tax ….. 905.00 ….. 3,520.00 ….. 20,375.00

Tax as a % of Income ….. 2.51% ….. 4.89% ….. 10.19%

My apologies that the columns not lining up make it difficult to read.
Comparing the low income to the middle income, the tax increased by a factor of 4 even though the income only doubled.
The taxes paid by the highest income was almost 6 times higher than the middle income even though the income was less than 3 times the amount.
117biliruben
      ID: 34820210
      Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 09:29
Yes we have a mildly progressive tax system. I concur.

Should I assume because you are changing the subject, you are conceding the previous point that the mortgage interest deduction benefits those with higher incomes far, far more than lower incomes?
118boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 09:48
Perhaps it is like pornography, I might not be able to define it, but I know when I see it....and I dont see 24K anywhere close to middle class.

I think the term you should actually be using is Bourgeoisie.


119Frick
      ID: 5310541617
      Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 09:59
Don't all deductions benefit higher incomes more due to our progressive tax system?

Isn't the idea behind the mortgage interest deduction is that home owners and purchases are a large driver of the economy? And the incentive of the deduction was to encourage home ownership and help improve/grow the economy in general.
120biliruben
      ID: 34820210
      Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 10:06
I think that's how it is sold, yes.

I don't think it helps improve and grow the economy in a long-term sustainable way. I think we had some unsustainable building for about a decade, and now we have 4.5-5 million empty homes.

It may or may not encourage home ownership. At this point, I am not certain that's an admirable goal, however. I think there may be a percentage of our population who are better off renting. Both because it's better for them and because it's better for society as a whole.

I suggest we may have already reached, then exceeded the level of home-ownership our society and sustain in a healthy way, maybe back at around turn of the century (2000ish):



121Razor
      ID: 57854118
      Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 10:10
I think the point being made here is that while the deduction is supposed to encourage home ownership, the primary beneficiaries are not marginal purchasers, but those who have more than enough to purchase. I think biliruben is right that like the Bush tax cuts, this was sold as a middle-class tax cut but disproportionately benefits the rich. Wouldn't be that big of a deal if we weren't a trillion a year in the hole. I'll be interested to see how the debt commission approaches budget balancing. Much to the chagrin of the current GOP and Democratic leadership (save President Obama), it will have to be a combination of tax increases and social service reductions.
122biliruben
      ID: 34820210
      Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 10:13
Any way for a moderator to shrink down that graph to a more reasonable size? Or I can do it and repost?
123Razor
      ID: 57854118
      Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 11:11
124biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 11:23
Thanks man. Now can you double it? ;)

Unfortunatly, I'm now iPhone only, and won't be able to do anything with that post til tomorrow.
125Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Nov 18, 2010, 17:19
re: 117/119: One of the reasons the tax code isn't more progressive is that the deductions are specifically tied to economic activities that those in the higher tax brackets are able to do.

I've been looking a bit at the Bipartisan Policy Center's debt reduction plan (the Tax Policy Center's down-and-dirty analysis is here). By eliminating nearly all deductions and tweaking a few other places (replacing home mortgage interest deduction with a targeted credit instead) the result is a far more progressive tax code--and one in which things are much more clear as well.

Deductions, by and large, are just small loopholes for taxpayers with the means and opportunity to utilize them. I'm liking what I'm seeing from that plan.
126weykool
      ID: 138481617
      Thu, Nov 18, 2010, 19:57
Deductions, by and large, are just small loopholes for taxpayers with the means and opportunity to utilize them.
Not entirely true.
For middle class taxpayers...yes.
But for married taxpayers making more than $166,800 the itemized deductions are phazed out.
Rich taxpayers are only able to deduct 20% of all their itemized deductions, and that is after the mortgage deduction is limited.
It is not a "loophole" to itemize.
Itemize deductions were specifically put into the tax code as a method to calulate tax liability.
A loophole is something put into the code by mistake.

I have not seen the plan but any plan that starts with new methods to take more taxes from taxpayers without them noticing is not a good plan.
Taxes are already out of control.
Give the government another $1 of tax revenue and they will find a way to spend $2.
Come up with a plan to hold the line on spening increases until the economy catches up with the current spending and you would have a plan that just might work.
127Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Nov 18, 2010, 20:22
Itemize deductions were specifically put into the tax code as a method to calulate tax liability.

I really don't know what you mean here.

Individual deductions are things Congress does to spur certain economic activity.

Rich taxpayers are only able to deduct 20% of all their itemized deductions, and that is after the mortgage deduction is limited.

That's not exactly true, but those making over $166,000/year do have some limitations on deductions. Nevertheless, reducing the tax rates for everyone while getting rid of most deductions is probably something only an accountant would be against.

I have not seen the plan...

Take a look at it, then. Plans which simply the tax code, making it more fair and transparent are a good thing. Regardless of what Congress does with the money.
128weykool
      ID: 138481617
      Thu, Nov 18, 2010, 20:41
"Not exactly true"?
"Some limitations"?
Wrong on both counts.
If you dont believe me take a look at the form.
Losing 80% of your itemized deductions is a lot more than "some limitations".
In case you didnt get your latest copy of the class warfare hand book the rich is considered $250K.
The figure most often cited when Dems want to want to raise taxes "on the rich" is "this increase only applies to incomes over $250K.

I would have no problem getting rid of all itemized deductions.
-Get rid of all itemized deductions.
-Come up with one rair tax rate that applies to all taxpayers equally.
-Lock that rate into law that would require 3/4 vote to change and Im 100% on board.
129Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 01:27
There is no need to be confrontational. Maybe you should take a deep breath (or ten) before posting. Seriously.

Wrong on both counts.

So all I have to do is prove just one point, yes? There is no limit on medical deductions because you made over $166,000 a year. Done.

I really don't know what you mean by your comments about "class warfare" et al. You sound all ginned up and ready to yell at someone. Are my posts "class warfare?" Basically, I posted your last point (except the part about 75% needed to change the tax code) already. And yet you seem of the belief that you are insulted enough by my posting to write an angry response.

Perhaps you might look to see where we agree before reacting to the things we don't.
130Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Wed, Nov 24, 2010, 13:14
Debt commision member Rep. Jan Schakowski has a counter proposal to the Chairmens' debt reduction plan.

Huffington Post synopsis.

Here's how a blogger summarizes her proposal:
Here’s what the Schakowsky plan does do:

* Cuts $120.7 billion from the defense budget, largely by following the recommendations of the bipartisan Strategic Defense Task Force.
* Eliminates some of the most egregious corporate tax breaks, including a tax subsidy for mergers and acquisitions and deductibility of interest payments on corporate debt.
* Closes loopholes that allow corporate executives to avoid tax on compensation over $1 million a year.
* Eliminates the cap on on earnings subject to payroll tax on the employer side, and raises it back to 90% on the employee side.
* Carries health care reform forward by creating a public option to compete with private insurance providers, and
* Requiring Medicare to use its bargaining power to negotiate better drug prices.

He left off my favorite item, she proposes to tax capital gains as ordinary income! Woo Hoo! I've advocated that for over twenty years. That would generate $88 billion dollars of the $450 billion of deficit reduction and simply the tax code profoundly. Blogger's review of her plan.

Here is her plan, it's only seven pages long, but you have to read it sideways.

Her plan is full of great ideas: cap and trade, executive compensation taxes, reduction in farm subsidies, estate tax reform and Social Security tax cap elimination. This woman rocks!
 If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com 
RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread




Post a reply to this message:

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Click here to insert a block of hidden (spoiler) text
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour11
Last 24 hours31
Last 7 days42
Last 30 days1711
Since Mar 1, 200738671280