Obama’s middle-class tax hike
Analysts at the Tax Policy Center estimated that Romney could not both cut rates and maintain revenue neutrality, and published an estimate that this would necessitate an $86 billion tax increase on the middle class. Many of the center’s assumptions were either tendentious or incorrect, as we argued in an earlier editorial, and as has been amply demonstrated by budget scholars at the American Enterprise Institute and elsewhere. The center later cut its $86 billion estimate by more than half. And even that doesn’t quite get the story: For example, Romney proposes to “pay for” repealing the taxes associated with Obamacare by (this is a subtle point) repealing Obamacare, and no further offset is required. According to AEI’s Alex Brill, the Romney plan could produce anything from a $14 billion shortfall that would need to be made up elsewhere to a $1 billion surplus, depending upon how the plan is implemented and how fast the economy grows. An extra one-tenth of 1 percent in annual economic growth substantially changes the federal fiscal picture for the better. That fact, of course, is the animating idea behind Romney’s tax-reform agenda, the point of which is not to lower federal revenue but to increase economic growth by simplifying tax law, lowering compliance costs, and reducing economic distortions.
The Obama campaign’s dishonesty about this is striking even by the very low standards of Democratic election rhetoric. But the White House is also misleading the public about the consequences of its economic policies, specifically about elevating levels of federal spending that have produced an unbroken chain of deficits exceeding $1 trillion — which ultimately will force a very large tax increase on, yes, the middle class and all other taxpayers.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
We need that tax to invest in minority owned businesses, not more highways in the suburbs.
That investment will go along with the ten other previous investments made in minority areas.
What happened to those other investments anyway?
Dack Thrombosis on October 3, 2012 at 2:23 PM
Behold, the endgame of the Progressive ideology.
It makes no difference if we’re talking about Lefty-lite RINOs or Democrats. The endgame of the Progressive ideology, taken out of the classroom and applied to reality, can only be the punishment of middle-income families.
visions on October 3, 2012 at 2:32 PM
They were taken to Detroit.
Steve Eggleston on October 3, 2012 at 2:33 PM
So the Regime’s latest main feature talking point is blatant lie.
Can these people ever say anything that isn’t a lie? Well, besides the national security leaks or course.
forest on October 3, 2012 at 2:46 PM
And if we still have our nice health care plan, that Obama says we can keep, in a couple years you get a big tax bill if you don’t find a plan and also if you do. Because it balances Obama’s projection of ten years, so he can say right now that Obamacare won’t cost you anything. And the media is complicit, they won’t ask him any questions about the future, lest we balk.
No one can tell you what that tax will be, it must be for the man…behind the tree.
Fleuries on October 3, 2012 at 3:50 PM