Things I like: the cap on discretionary spending; the reduction in future Social Security benefits for high earners; the expansion of the Medicare payment commission’s mandate so that it can recommend benefit changes, not just price controls; the increased Medicare cost-sharing; the reduction in the number of tax rates; the abolition of the state and local tax deduction; the rate-reducing reform of the corporate income tax.
Things I dislike: federally-mandated medical-malpractice reform; the fact that the commission won’t just come out and say that it wants to make Social Security benefits less generous for high earners; the hostility shown to the child tax credit.
Something I dislike a little but can live with: Rising inequality means that a higher share of national income has exceeded the cap on Social Security taxes. The commission raises the cap to reverse this erosion.
Places the commission should have gone further: Three tax rates is an improvement, but two would be even better; the cap on revenues over GDP, at 22 percent, is much too high; no functions of government are shed.
A place it should not have gone as far: The commission gets rid of the alternative minimum tax. For the same revenue hit you could address most of that tax’s problems and address other more serious shortcomings of the tax code. (Dropping the state and local deduction takes means a lot fewer people would be paying the AMT to start with.)
Unless coupled with a significant reduction of rates, the elimination of the local and state tax deduction and the mortgage interest deduction will lead to some very large tax hikes on some not so "rich" people -- like me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe WSJ is reporting that the the first draft proposes a federal RIF of 10%. I wonder what percentage of that 10% will come from the military.
Slashing $3 billion from agribusinesses is virtually nothing. If some reporting is accurate, they may have that in stashed away in cheese (alone) located in Missouri caves. It's time to end agri-welfare forever, IMHO (sorry Iowa).
A gas tax increase of $.15/gallon starting in 2013 is probably palatable now, but what happens when oil spikes to over $120/barrel, again? And, is this an annual $.15/gallon increase?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseReducing the deductibility of State taxes puts pressure on those states to lower (or not raise) their taxes. Every $1 of state tax was offset by ~$.25 reduction in Federal taxes.
In essence, this was a transfer of funds from Fed to State. Now I'm curious to see how states will get their federal funds in the future.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWait a minute. Doesn't dropping the deduction for state and local taxes mean that a taxpayer would be forced to pay federal taxes on dollars that he never sees (because those dollars are going to state/local tax authorities)? Say I pay $1,000 from my income to state taxes. If the federal government also taxes those same dollars, then the effective tax rate on that income is MORE than 100 percent!!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseElimination of local and state tax deduction will force taxpayers to pay federal taxes on dollars they never see (becuse they are gobbled up by state/local tax authorities). That's outrageous.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEliminating the state and local tax deductions will eliminate the subsidies that low tax states' taxpayers provide to high tax states. It will also put pressure on high tax states to reduce their taxes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHigh earners pay far more in social security taxes than low earners. Now they are to be punished for that success. Here is my alternative-- lets return social security to something that looks more like a pension or an insurance plan where pay out is related to what is paid in . Then lets pay SSI (Supplemental Security Income)_ to those over 66 or 67 who haven't earned enough to live on. The argument that high earners should not receive the benefits they have clearly paid for so that people who have not contributed enough to pay for their benefits comes at a time when high earners, under current plans, will not receive back what they paid in. Let's mean test those who are receiving a subsidy not those who have paid in more than enough to justify the income stream they get from social security. At 67, having paid social security for literally 50 years and more than half of those years at maximum earnings, I am really not open to arguments that I don't deserve the benefits I receive because I earned more money and retired later than others. the irony is that Pommeru's plan forces people like me to subsidize those who have not worked as much but may well have other income-- like inherited or investment income-- because Social Security only takes into account income from work. It doesn't take into account investment income and trust funds. So my daughter's friend who gets a 3,000 a month trust fund payment while she tries to think about working, will get as much in benefits as my daughter who works full time for 2000 a month. Doesn't seem fair to me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse