Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

GOP tax plan targets itemized deductions

Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:06 AM EST
politics, us, taxes, supercommittee, debt-supercommittee
Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press

In this Nov. 15, 2011, photo, Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., rushes through the Capitol to a closed-door meeting with other Republican members of the Supercommittee, in Washington. A GOP plan to raise taxes by $290 billion over the next decade would limit deductions for mortgage interest, charitable donations and state and local taxes as part of a deficit-reduction deal. Some workers could also see their employer-provided health benefits taxed for the first time, though aides cautioned that the plan is still fluid. The plan by Toomey would raise revenue by limiting the tax breaks enjoyed by people who itemize their deductions, in exchange for lower overall tax rates for families at every income level. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — A GOP plan to raise taxes by $290 billion over the next decade would limit deductions for mortgage interest, charitable donations and state and local taxes as part of a deficit-reduction deal. Some workers could also see their employer-provided health benefits taxed for the first time, though aides cautioned that the plan is still fluid.

The plan by Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., who serves on the 12-member debt supercommittee, would raise revenue by limiting the tax breaks enjoyed by people who itemize their deductions, in exchange for lower overall tax rates for families at every income level. Taxpayers who already take the standard deduction instead of itemizing — about two-thirds of filers — could see tax cuts. The one-third of taxpayers who itemize their deductions might find themselves paying more.

The top income tax rate would fall from 35 percent to 28 percent, and the bottom rate would drop from 10 percent to 8 percent. The rates in between would be reduced as well.

A GOP congressional aide said the plan is designed to raise taxes on households in the top two tax brackets. That would affect individuals making more than $174,400 and married couples making more than $212,300. Some Republicans say the plan offers a potential breakthrough in deficit-reduction talks that have stalled over GOP opposition to tax hikes and Democrats' objection to cuts in benefit programs without significant revenue increases.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, spoke of it favorably, but his party's majority leader, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, has declined to endorse it. Several GOP presidential hopefuls also have criticized if for offering to increase taxes.

Democrats, meanwhile, have panned the plan, saying it would cut taxes for the wealthy, raise taxes on the middle class and generate less revenue than advertised.

The supercommittee has a Wednesday deadline to come up with a plan to reduce government borrowing by at least $1.2 trillion over the next decade. If the panel fails, $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts to domestic and military programs would take effect in 2013.

Some details of Toomey's plan remain in flux, in part because he is open to changes to help forge an agreement, said the GOP aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private negotiations. The aide confirmed that Toomey's plan is closely modeled after a proposal by three experts at the National Bureau of Economic Research, a private research organization perhaps best known for deciding when recessions begin and end.

The three experts are Martin Feldstein, a Harvard University professor who was President Ronald Regan's chief economic adviser; Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget; and Daniel Feenberg, a research associate at the bureau.

Under their plan, the tax benefits from itemizing deductions and excluding employer-provided health insurance from taxable income would be limited to 2 percent of taxpayer's adjusted gross income.

That means if a taxpayer has an adjusted gross income of $50,000, deductions and exemptions could reduce his or her tax bill by a maximum of $1,000.

Taxpayers who face limits on their tax breaks could opt to take the standard deduction instead. Currently, about one-third of tax filers itemize their deductions. The rest claim the standard deduction, which in 2011 is $5,800 for individuals and $11,600 for married couples filing jointly.

The plan envisions millions of additional taxpayers switching to the standard deduction, which would simplify their returns, MacGuineas said.

Policymakers across the political spectrum agree the federal tax code is too complicated, and most agree on a basic formula for simplifying it: Reduce tax breaks and use the additional revenue to lower the overall tax rates for everyone.

There is little agreement, however, on which tax breaks to target. The most generous provisions exempt employer-provided health insurance and retirement benefits from taxable income. The top itemized deductions include those for mortgage interest, charitable donations and state and local taxes.

Toomey's plan attempts to sidestep debates over which tax breaks to target and instead proposes to limit taxpayers' overall ability to reduce their tax bills.

"This is a far more practical way to start to scale back the influence and costs of tax expenditures in the code by kind of glopping them together and capping them," MacGuineas said. "You're not picking the winners and losers."

Economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin said the proposal "strikes me as quite clever."

"Right now we let people choose between the standard deduction and itemized deductions," said Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and an economic adviser to President George W. Bush. "All we're saying is we're capping the total amount of the itemized deductions."

Democrats, however, argue that such big reductions in tax rates would result in large tax cuts for the rich, which would be paid for by eliminating tax breaks that primarily benefit the middle class.

Toomey's plan starts with the premise that tax cuts enacted under Bush, and extended through 2012 under President Barack Obama, would be made permanent. The tax rates would be reduced even further under Toomey's plan, giving even more benefits to the wealthy, according to an analysis of Toomey's plan prepared by Democratic congressional aides.

Toomey's plan "would lower the average tax rate on high-income taxpayers significantly below the level of the Bush tax cuts, while raising the average tax rate significantly for low- and middle-income households above the level of the Bush tax cuts," the Democratic analysis said.

© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Stephen Ohlemacher's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (70)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
Reliant

Screw it, just let the Bush Tax Cuts expire. That will generate more revenue, which will reduce the deficit. Oh, and return Capital Gains taxes to the same rate as ordinary income, stop giving preferential treatment to the income of financial managers.

  • 33 votes
Reply#1 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:03 AM EST
mountainmike-1199289

It looks like the same old, same old protection of tax cuts for the millionaires and billionaires, tax loopholes for corporations and to compensate looking for ways to impose more austerity on the rest of us. It also diverts attention away from our over the top excessive military spending. The only recommendation I see for it is that Eric Cantor doesn't approve of it.

It still falls are short of the mark of SHARED SACRIFICE.

If Corporations And The Rich Paid Taxes At The Same Level As The 1960s, The Debt Would Disappear

Some numbers — from an Institute for Policy Studies report released this past spring — can help us better visualize just how monumental this political failure has been. If corporations and households taking in $1 million or more in income each year were now paying taxes at the same annual rates as they did back in 1961, the IPS researchers found, the federal treasury would be collecting an additional $716 billion a year. In other words, if the federal government started taxing the wealthy and their corporations at the same rates in effect a half-century ago, the federal debt to investors would almost totally vanish over the next decade.

  • 18 votes
#1.1 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:07 AM EST
George-369262

What is it with these ' Creatures Of Government ' that cutting expenses seems to be an utterly foreign concept ?

  • 4 votes
#1.2 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:47 AM EST
Tappy McWidestance

I am the middle class. My itemized deductions for mortgage interest, property taxes, state income taxes and charitable donations are close to 25%. How did they figure a 2% cap was appropriate? My state income tax is 3 times that. Heck, the standard deduction is higher than that. But by all means lets protect giving a preferential low rate to dividend, capital gains and interest income so the "job creators" (who don't create jobs) pay a lower effective rate than people who work for a living. As usual Republicans are out to screw the bottom 99%. Why do you vote for them again?

  • 24 votes
#1.3 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:52 AM EST
Robert Bartholomew

What is it with these ' Creatures Of Government ' that raising taxes to a reasonable level seems to be an utterly foreign concept ?

  • 11 votes
#1.4 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:17 AM EST
Rygar

What is it with these ' Creatures Of Government ' that cutting expenses seems to be an utterly foreign concept ?

Why does it have to always be at the tax payers expense? Why not cut parts of defense? You know the type contracts congress want such as a jet engine that the airforce didn't want. The money we can save on that end would be major.

  • 10 votes
#1.5 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:30 AM EST
CCArm

Tappy said:

I am the middle class. My itemized deductions for mortgage interest, property taxes, state income taxes and charitable donations are close to 25%.

Those are all of the deductions I have, along with a tiny bit for working from home. No dependents left at home. If they cap these deductions they are taking away from those that already pay the highest tax rate in the country.

I will be pissed off if that happens.

  • 14 votes
#1.6 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:37 AM EST
FredC

Of course the top rate drops by 7% and the bottom by 2%! That's fair, right? Those deductions are the only large ones some of the middle class has. How about those capital gains? You know, the unearned income? That is sacrosanct to the GOP, since most of them get their wealth from investments. Most of us dont!!

  • 9 votes
#1.7 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:17 AM EST
Ralph-482541

I agree, let the Bush tax cuts expire. Nearly everything on the list had a real impact on working folks while almost nothing of impact on corporations and the rich. The new revenue averages $30 billion or so per year which has virtually no effect on the deficit. Heck, Exxon/Mobil made more than that in profits for each of the last 4 or 5 years just by themselves. Obama should have let the Bush cuts expire in 2010, if he had the Republican talking point of $1.5 Trillion per year current deficits would have evaporated as the Fed would have taken in $3 or $4 hundred million more in revenue and their would have been a related drop in interest charges to boot.

  • 3 votes
#1.8 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:57 AM EST
RichardBL

A little perspective,

“The top income tax rate would fall from 35 percent to 28 percent, and the bottom rate would drop from 10 percent to 8 percent. The rates in between would be reduced as well.”

2011 top tax bracket $379,150.00 or above

2011 bottom tax bracket $8,500.00 or below

Top tax rate: Reduced 7%

Bottom rate: Reduced 2%

The low end of the top bracket ($379,150.00) gets an additional $26,540.50 deduction. If you make $1,000,000.00 or more it’s an additional $70,000.00 or more deduction.

The high end of the bottom bracket (8,500.00) gets an additional $170.00 max. deduction.

If you flipped those reductions: (giving the larger tax reduction to the bottom bracket instead of the top bracket)

Top tax rate: Reduced 2%

Bottom rate: Reduced 7%

The low end of the top bracket ($379,150.00) gets an additional $7,583.00 deduction.

The high end of the bottom bracket (8,500.00) gets an additional $595.00 max. deduction.

  • 3 votes
#1.9 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:24 AM EST
real michaud

ok so the want to raise taxes on the middle class....and this is what the republicans call comprimise?....they are way out off the reservation....if people vote republican next year they are going to get exactly what the hell they deserve.

  • 6 votes
#1.10 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:25 AM EST
Nicey-1026620

The items they are talking about are itemized deductions, which of course, will impact the bottom end greatly.

The only way most Americans can store their wealth or build wealth (aside from just putting it in a bank) is thru a home purchase. And they are basically saying, guess what, even though we already statically tax your biggest asset....

*i.e. Property tax on a home is a tax on the middle class biggest asset. How come that doesn't exist on say stocks? (oh, that's right, because the tax code is rigged to keep the middle class down or lower and make it very difficult to achieve any kind of wealth accumulation).*

Even though you already have that tax, now we're going to take away what little relief there was *instead* of returning capital gains to regular tax rates or letting the top rates go back to where they were.

How back asswards is that?

We're going to help those who are already very well off by making the money they earn much less taxed and providing an asset class where they can store it tax free (stocks). And not help those trying to build, working, expanding, etc by making their taxes harder (relatively) and not providing easy access to a non-taxed asset that will store wealth.

  • 5 votes
#1.11 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:40 AM EST
Pablo-123

The new revenue averages $30 billion or so per year which has virtually no effect on the deficit. Heck, Exxon/Mobil made more than that in profits for each of the last 4 or 5 years just by themselves.

Correction, Exxon Mobile made $30 billion or so per QUARTER the last 4 or 5 years.

  • 2 votes
#1.12 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 2:52 PM EST
Reply
Wizeguy

GOP congressional aide said the plan is designed to raise taxes on households in the top two tax brackets. That would affect individuals making more than $174,400 and married couples making more than $212,300"

While the top 2% says who cares!!!! Because they already own their house, will stop giving to charity and don't work so they don't pay State Taxes...

Again the working man gets the crappy end of the stick...but remember vote GOP/TEA it's good for you!!!!!

  • 13 votes
Reply#2 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:49 AM EST
DEATHNELL J.

Sounds like they have better get their "fat" asses back to the ole drawing board!

  • 13 votes
Reply#3 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:59 AM EST
Minan59

Me too!!

  • 6 votes
#3.1 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:27 AM EST
Reply
Naughtia

SO let me get this.

THE reich want to cut government services for the poor and middle class and then they want to get rid of tax incentive for the rich to help the poor and middle class?

  • 12 votes
Reply#4 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:15 AM EST
mountainmike-1199289

12 Corporations Pay Effective Tax Rate of Negative 1.5% on $171 Billion in Profits
http://www.scribd.com/doc/56809745/12-Corporations-Pay-Effective-Tax-Rate-of-Negative-1-5-on-171-Billion-in-Profits

How Our Largest Corporations Made $170 Billion During Great Recession And Paid No Taxes

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/06/01/how-our-largest-corporations-made-170-billion-during-great-recession-and-paid-no-taxes/

Today, and not a moment too soon, the non-profit Citizens For Tax Justice (CTJ) has put out their findings revealing that twelve of the nations largest Fortune 500 companies, while making $170 billion in profits during the period of The Great Recession, paid an effective tax rate of negative 1.5%.

Yes, you read that correctly.

Not only have these twelve companies paid zero in taxes for the years 2008-2010, they actually received tax subsidies that added $62.4 billion to their bottom lines.

The companies were chosen by the CTJ to represent a range of industries, including manufacturing, energy, services, transportation and high tech and include – in alphabetical order – American Electric Power, Boeing, Dupont, Exxon Mobil, FedEx, General Electric, Honeywell International, IBM, United Technologies, Verizon Communications, Wells Fargo and Yahoo.

Here are the bullet points presented by the report:

  • From 2008 through 2010, these 12 companies reported $171 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But as a group, their federal income taxes were negative: –$2.5 billion.
  • All but two of the dozen companies enjoyed at least one no-tax year over the 2008-10 period, despite reporting substantial pretax U.S. profits in those no-tax years.
  • Eight of the twelve companies reported net tax benefits over the full three-year period.

According to the study, not a single one of these companies paid an amount even close to the 35% statutory tax rate.

In fact, the tax rate paid by Exxon Mobile, when spread over the full three years, was only 14.2% – a full 60% below the 35% rate that corporations are supposed to be paying. And if we take a look at what Exxon paid over just the past two years, it totals a mere 0.4% on their pre-tax profits of $9.9 billion.

Republicans! Get rid of tax loopholes for corporations NOW or get voted out office!!!

They need to stop violating their oath of office to serve the 99 percent of the American people in order to grossly over indulge the 1 percent.

  • 16 votes
Reply#5 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:16 AM EST
Sparrow-2863685

Oh, this just keeps getting better! They can't possibly stop spending to bring the deficit down, now can they? No, they'll just find a brilliant new way to take MORE money from the PEOPLE. SPENDING needs to STOP, period! The dollar bill is not worth the paper it's printed on.

  • 4 votes
Reply#6 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:29 AM EST
hole_in_the_wall

Thats why I put all my money into precious metals like copper, lead, and brass.

  • 2 votes
#6.1 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:15 AM EST
real michaud

i agree Sparrow the spending needs to stop like on useless wars and welfare for the rich

  • 6 votes
#6.2 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:26 AM EST
Minan59

i agree Sparrow the spending needs to stop like on useless wars and welfare for the rich

And corporate subsidies!

  • 3 votes
#6.3 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 12:32 PM EST
Reply
MeanGene-3334839

Tax deductions are social engineering and should never be allowed for any reason to anyone.

Ronald Reagan, the greatest President this nation ever had, ended most tax deductions, especially the popular (but stupid) credit card interest tax deduction. You don't get a tax deduction for going up to your neck in debt anymore.

It's time to end all tax deductions across the board. None of them serve any good purpose and they all reward irresponsibility over responsibility.

Have a kid you can't afford? Here's a tax deduction for irresponsibility!

Have a house you can't pay off? Here's a tax deduction for irresponsibility!

Have medical bills because you neglected your health? Here's a tax deduction for irresponsibility!

Tax deductions are horrible things which usually go to the absolute worst, most irresponsible, stupidest citizens in the USA and they should be completely ended immediately, all of them, every last one.

Nothing, but nothing would go further to hurt Democrats and their voter base than the end of all tax deductions and that's exactly why Republicans should be all for it. FINALLY, Democrats would actually pay taxes and then they might understand, for once, that voting for politicians who promise stupid crap el-freebo is the wrong thing to do.

  • 3 votes
Reply#7 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:17 AM EST
Tappy McWidestance

What if you have medical bills because a chemical company poisoned the water table near near your well because lax regulations meant they could. Because of tort reform and the corporate bias in our courts, you can't sue them. Now the only job you can find is minimum wage and without health insurance.

As for the mortgage interest deduction, do you really think people bought more expensive homes just to get a tax deduction? Is part of their decision process "Gee, if I pay an extra $5000 in interest this year I'll get $1000 off my federal taxes." Of course you will pay that grand back on higher property taxes on your bigger house so it's a wash.

As for Reagan being the greatest President ever, you list all credibility right there.

  • 11 votes
#7.1 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:09 AM EST
Minan59

Ronald Reagan, the greatest worst President this nation ever had.

There now it makes sense. Reagan's voodoo economics and free market outsourcing of jobs are the reason this country has been going down the tubes for the last 3 decades.

  • 8 votes
#7.2 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:30 AM EST
Pete520

MeanGene-3334839

It's time to end all tax deductions across the board. None of them serve any good purpose and they all reward irresponsibility over responsibility.

Have a kid you can't afford? Here's a tax deduction for irresponsibility!

Have a house you can't pay off? Here's a tax deduction for irresponsibility!

Have medical bills because you neglected your health? Here's a tax deduction for irresponsibility!

I am a responsible taxpayer and get a boatload of deductions. By the time I take my standard exemption, my child tax credit, my mortgage interest, my property taxes, and my charitable contributions, I get to reduce my taxable income by almost $40,000, which is a lot more than a whole lot of people in the bottom 47% make...you know, that bottom 47% who don't pay federal income tax. Oh, I also don't pay taxes on my 401(k) contributions, which takes another $10k off of my taxable income...so let me amend my number to $50,000.

If my deductions were capped - and according to the article, they wouldn't be because I don't make $212k per year - my lifestyle wouldn't change. I wouldn't lay off my staff because of a higher tax burden. In fact, if I wanted to keep my net income where it is, I would look for more opportunities to grow my company and add to my staff because the more people I have working for me, the more money my company makes.

The "employees are a cost" mindset in our country is ludicrous...employees are the reason my company makes money. Employees are only a "cost" if the demand for my business is low and they don't have enough work to do...but if they're all busy, the company and I are doing well.

Tax rates and tax burdens do not effectuate the hiring of or laying off of employees. If a business owner says that he or she is going to lay people off because of increased tax burdens, he or she is lying. Contrarily, if a business owner says that he or she is going to hire people because of decreased tax burdens, he or she is also lying.

  • 9 votes
#7.3 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:44 AM EST
NC Slim

#7

Ronald Reagan gave the S&Ls carte blanche to increase profitability by pumping up home ownership. Hello--housing bubble. Hello--crashed housing bubble. Repeating, repeater! His administration kick-started this downward spiral aimed at stripping every last dime from the working class. He was a wind-up celebrity who could read a script, curry favor with the power elite. He was a triple dipper--pensions from SAG, the Governorship and as former prez. During the McCarthy era, he was confidential informant, “T-10.” Once again, stop the attempted lionization of a bad actor!

  • 5 votes
#7.4 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:56 AM EST
JayCFO-3768452

I am a CPA, active in two states, and this IS the most incredibly insidious plan I’ve seen yet out of the bagger Republicans. Grover would be proud.

Although I don’t know the details of the plan, given the information the author has provided about the top 2 rates paying more and the rest paying less is absolutely false.

The 2 best tax benefits majority of Americans receive is a) non-taxable health insurance paid by employer and b) home mortgage interest deduction - especially for the bottom ½ of Americans.

Write your congressman or senator and tell them to stop f#ckin around with the working man’s lives and tell the mother f#ckin wealthy to start paying better salaries, that’s how you increase tax revenue, that’s how you drive an economy. The wealthy don’t spend, they save and the tax structure is based on transactions, not wealth (except for the estate tax, which, if you have a large enough estate you can pretty much avoid the most significant portions of the estate by working with a CPA or attorney and ONLY accounts for about 2% of the overall federal tax revenue). Increase the top rates with a credit back for paying their bottom ½ of employees enough. The wealthy will still become wealthier because they’ll raise some of their prices, which their employees now can afford to buy.

For example

An average married couple, 2 children, earning $50,000 / year with family health coverage costing a net $10,000 (employer pays $15,000 but employee is paying $5,000) and a house payment of $1,500 per month (we’ll use 7% interest rate, estimated interest deduction of $13,000) probably also has around $2,000 property tax bill as well (included in the house payment). We’ll use 5% for state (approximately $1,000), although many states are higher. That would mean their approximate itemized deductions would be $16,000 under existing law (assuming no other deductions) and about $14,600 for exemptions, resulting in about $2,900 in federal tax and about $1,000 for state.

Under this proposal:

AGI becomes 60,000 x 2% = $1,200

Standard deduction of $11,600; therefore, the maximum deduction is $ 12,800 under the proposed plan.

Therefore, the proposed net taxable would be $47,200 and the tax, assuming no rate change, nearly $4,900 in federal. That’s a change of $2,000 or nearly 68% increase in tax.

In order to equalize that tax the rate would have to be lowered to nearly 9.0% (an adjustment of 6% down). Hardly something the bagger republicans are going to do.

Of the increased $230 billion referred to, 76% comes from those having an AGI less than $250,000.

For those questioning my analysis, go to the irs.gov site and type in "statistics" in the search. You'll see numerous files you can download and work with. The particular file I have been using is 09in14ar.xls. This file contains the various line components of average tax returns by AGI. Very detailed and allows very basic analysis.

  • 2 votes
#7.5 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:43 AM EST
Nicey-1026620

Have a kid you can't afford? Here's a tax deduction for irresponsibility!

Have a house you can't pay off? Here's a tax deduction for irresponsibility!

Have medical bills because you neglected your health? Here's a tax deduction for irresponsibility!

By proportion (that is the level of deduction per capita) is mostly found on the top end.

But I see all the deductions listed above only apply to the poor, middle class, etc.

Look, we get it. Some tax deductions do encourage some iffy behavior. But this is *shared* responsiblity. And the biggest deductions are with the most wealthy, the largest corps.

You can't cut a bunch of government services, raise taxes in the middle, and sit there and keep subsidizing the ultra wealthy and or, lower the taxes at the top at the same time. Shared sacrifice.

*Home deductions are entirely fair because property taxes exist* - If property taxes didn't exist, then home deductions wouldn't be needed as an offset to wealth accumulation that is rampant in a non-taxed asset. That is stock equities. i.e. they aren't taxed for owning them, but most well off have more money in stock equities than they do in a house.

    #7.6 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:49 AM EST
    MeanGene-3334839

    By proportion (that is the level of deduction per capita) is mostly found on the top end.

    Good, then it won't matter if they all get deep-sixed and nobody gets a break for anything. Nobody deserves a break and nobody should get one. Government is supposed to be mean and vicious and never, ever give anyone a break. I hate it when government shows compassion to people. That's not what government is supposed to be for.

    But I see all the deductions listed above only apply to the poor, middle class, etc.

    I don't care who the deductions apply to. Nobody deserves a break. That's the only truly fair way to treat everyone as absolute equals without exception as the founders intended. No man should be treated better or worse than the next man by the American government.

    • 1 vote
    #7.7 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:23 PM EST
    Reply
    Ripley8

    so when is someone going to bring up cutting corporate welfare which costs far more than social ??

    • 12 votes
    Reply#8 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:25 AM EST
    MeanGene-3334839

    Corporate welfare isn't evil but social welfare is extremely evil as a practice. It's BUYING VOTES. Politicians cannot ethically use taxpayer dollars to reward individual voters the way social welfare does.

    Social welfare is a form of pork, and one of the most insidious. The only way to fix that would be to have everyone who accepts a welfare check stricken from the voting rolls due to the obvious conflict of interests.

    • 2 votes
    #8.1 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:20 AM EST
    Reply
    Robert Bartholomew

    The top tax rate under the Eisenhower administration was over 90%, and Ike refused to lower taxes until the budget was balanced and the national debt was under control. The period under Ike was the greatest relative expansion of the US economy in our history. "Job creators" were not disincented to make money. They still made much more than anyone else.

    All of this crap about being "taxed to death" is just that. Crap! The top tax rate is nearly the lowest it's been since Federal income tax was initiated.

    • 15 votes
    Reply#9 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:32 AM EST
    brenda-359726

    Have the GOP tax the rich, and cut out the loop holes. Let's begin facing facts ,you can't expect people to be taxed on what they don't have in the first place. No jobs, no housing market, no extra money, charity lossing already, no savings, medical insurance is for profit.

    Lets start looking at why people around the world are protesting, inclusinve of the US protesters; there is a huge problem with the rich getting richer and getting away with it. The rich don't want to face the reality of what was has fallen apart. Many rich people are among the best known scam artist going. Let's simply begin looking at the corruption. Tax the corruption makers.

    • 7 votes
    Reply#10 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:33 AM EST
    RobPlumley

    290 billion over 10 years - about 30 billion a year. I can't believe it.

    Those who are republicans should be outraged that their representatives would put such an idea on the table.

    I can't believe they have the gall to offer that as the revenue portion of super-committee.

    After they are tarred and feathered, the bush tax cuts should be eliminated, retroactive Jan 1, 2011!

    These people disgust me.

    • 6 votes
    Reply#11 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:54 AM EST
    Pick A NinnieDeleted
    DocS-2870800

    Wow. Dear Middle Class, prepare to get punched in the face by a big fist.

    • 8 votes
    Reply#13 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:14 AM EST
    RobPlumley

    State of Pennsylvania or not, every one needs to contact Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa. and show our absolute disgust with him.

    What a @!$%#ing tool.

    230 billion dollars over ten years. This has really pissed me off.

    • 5 votes
    Reply#14 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:19 AM EST
    Boomhower

    limit deductions for mortgage interest,

    That will really help a sick housing market.

    • 6 votes
    Reply#15 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:39 AM EST
    MeanGene-3334839

    Government is not in the business of helping any market. Government it to treat everyone as absolutely fairly as is possible and favor no man and no market.

    • 1 vote
    #15.1 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:23 AM EST
    Reply
    WeldDem

    I could see the mortgage interest deduction on anything except the primary residence. Eliminating that deduction on the primary will not help the housing market.

    • 4 votes
    Reply#16 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:40 AM EST
    jwc2blue

    Once again, the consequences of believing that the Teapublicans are working in the best interest of the Middle and Working classes are evident.

    Where is the Blight Wing Vine support? I see one comment from the sole occupant of my ignore list, and without reading it I guarantee that it's a rant about so-called personal responsibility and defense of the Copratocracy. The rest who complain about "Socialism" all the time must have the day off.

    So much for your Grover pledge, eh boys? Must be some fine print on it that makes @!$%#ing us over to protect the rich a noble act.

    Bastards.

    WE NEED A REVOLUTION!

    • 7 votes
    Reply#17 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:50 AM EST
    James-316346

    In other words the GOP wants to tax the middle class even more while letting the 1% coast. Egads how stupid do they think the people are???

    Have these people completely lost their minds? How can anyone ever vote for one of these petty little ideological midgets?

    • 7 votes
    Reply#18 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:53 AM EST
    Netwit

    For those individuals that believe that raising taxes is bad for the USA, why do you also support the inequality of the tax code which provides numerous tax loopholes that only the wealthy and corporations can take advantage of.  It's amazing how many billions of dollars the wealthy and corporations are willing to spend to send lobbyist's to Washington D.C..  Their sole purpose being to shift the tax burden to middle income families.  I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes in this country for all the privileges and freedoms that my family enjoys.  I just wish the wealthy and corporations were willing to pay their fair share percentage of taxes for the freedoms and privileges they also enjoy.

     

    • 8 votes
    Reply#19 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:03 AM EST
    sillyman

    Really all they would need to do is make the effective tax rate at 35% on the top .1% (1 tenth of 1 %) including capital gains and close the tax loopholes on corporations, they could even lower the tax rate for corpoorations to 28% and still have money left over to pay down our debt. This talk about making cuts is absurd.

    • 3 votes
    Reply#20 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:08 AM EST
    trm2008

    Gee, the repubs want to screw the middle class--big surprise there (not).

    • 9 votes
    Reply#21 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:16 AM EST
    outragious

    Pat Toomey is another puppet for the big oil/natural gas companies. There are commercials stating Pat Toomey wants support to stop Washington from increasing taxes and regulations on Petroleum Companies. This guy is only concerned with the funds that end up in his own pocket, not the people of Pennsylvania.

    It is obvious that the GOP/TP will not concede on the issue of raising taxes and closing loopholes for the 1%. The middle class is the back bone of this country. Shrinking it will only put us farther into debt. If this is considered a "class warfare" it is one that the GOP/TP has created by signing that ridiculous pledge! Vote all GOP/TP OUT in 2012!

    • 6 votes
    Reply#22 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:19 AM EST
    Boomhower

    This is simple stuff. Cut government spending by 50% and no tax increases are necessary, eliminate Fannie and Freddy. The more you give em the more they spend. We're at the point now where the national debt is out of control and no one wants to cut anything. It's so far out of control that no matter how much we cut or raise taxes, it won't be enough to reduce the national by debt by $1.00. Has any American President EVER cut the national debt by $1.00? That's the President our country needs!! Didn't our current President say something about cutting George's huge deficit in half? It ain't happening.

      Reply#23 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:21 AM EST
      Andrew-1162039

      Take a look at the national budget. Social security and medicaid are specially funded. The biggest general budget item to cut is defense, and even if you cut it by 50% you'll still need additional revenues to eliminate the deficit. The only reasonable fix is a combination of tax increases and budget cuts.

      • 3 votes
      #23.1 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:00 AM EST
      Minan59

      The biggest general budget item to cut is defense, and even if you cut it by 50% you'll still need additional revenues to eliminate the deficit.

      The defense budget needs to be cut by more than 50% along with ending all forms of corporate welfare/ subsidies.

      • 2 votes
      #23.2 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 12:34 PM EST
      Boomhower

      Not just defense. 50% accross the board. Shared sacrafice.

      • 1 vote
      #23.3 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 1:58 PM EST
      Andrew-1162039

      Except social security is the biggest expenditure, but takes in more than it pays out. Cutting social security benefits is robbing Peter to pay Paul. A measured cut of some medicare benefits is probably in the works, but again, a large percentage is paid for by medicare taxes, so cutting medicaid that deeply would result in a similar robbing of that department from funds specifically earmarked for it. There simply isn't enough discretionary spending in the budget to cut to make up the shortfall. You have to raise revenues somewhere.

      • 2 votes
      #23.4 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:34 PM EST
      Reply
      cms5

      Some workers could also see their employer-provided health benefits taxed for the first time, though aides cautioned that the plan is still fluid.

      I was wondering when that was going to come out.

      • 1 vote
      Reply#24 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:51 AM EST
      trm2008

      Most of those workers have traded wages for those benefits.

      • 5 votes
      #24.1 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:14 AM EST
      cms5

      The Health Insurance Act requires reporting of the employers portion of Health Insurance on an employee's W-2 and it begins next year.

      How long before Section 125 plans are canned? That would increase their revenue.

        #24.2 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 12:25 PM EST
        jwc2blue

        The Health Insurance Act requires reporting of the employers portion of Health Insurance on an employee's W-2 and it begins next year.

        If you are referring to Obama's Affordable Health Care Act, it has nothing to do with the proposed taxation of health benefits, although I would bet that the Teapublicans will spin it that way.

        It is actually being proposed by some Right Wingers; The aide confirmed that Toomey's plan is closely modeled after a proposal by three experts at the National Bureau of Economic Research, a private research organization perhaps best known for deciding when recessions begin and end.

        The three experts are Martin Feldstein, a Harvard University professor who was President Ronald Regan's chief economic adviser; Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget; and Daniel Feenberg, a research associate at the bureau.

        Under their plan, the tax benefits from itemizing deductions and excluding employer-provided health insurance from taxable income would be limited to 2 percent of taxpayer's adjusted gross income.

        • 4 votes
        #24.3 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 1:05 PM EST
        cms5

        ....it has nothing to do with the proposed taxation of health benefits

        As per the ACT (Insert whichever name you prefer), reporting of the employers portion of an employees Health Insurance coverage must be reported on the employee's W-2 for 2012.

        Now, if it has nothing to do with the proposed taxation...just how do you think they'll gather the necessary data?

          #24.4 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 1:55 PM EST
          jwc2blue

          Reporting your employers portion on your W-2 would affect your taxes how? Do you think that you would be required to pay taxes on what you employer pays?

          It's apples and oranges anyway.

          It's not Obama's bill that is proposing the tax, no matter how hard you try to spin it that way.

          Under their plan, the tax benefits from itemizing deductions and excluding employer-provided health insurance......

          • 2 votes
          #24.5 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:27 PM EST
          Tappy McWidestance

          I know remembering details can be tough for the right wing, but during the debate for AHCA, "Cadillac" health care plans, i.e. the ones over $20,000 per year that executives get as a perk would have been taxed. Regular health care plans were not.

          • 5 votes
          #24.6 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:03 PM EST
          trm2008

          http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=237894,00.html

          2. Does the cost of an employee’s health care benefits shown on the Form W-2 mean that the benefits are taxable to the employee?

          A. No. There is nothing about the reporting requirement that causes or will cause excludable employer-provided health coverage to become taxable. The purpose of the reporting requirement is to provide employees useful and comparable consumer information on the cost of their health care coverage.

          • 5 votes
          #24.7 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:23 AM EST
          cms5

          I wasn't trying to 'spin' anything. I was merely pointing out that the ACT will require the reporting, the article pointed out that you may be taxed on the employer's portion...which will be accomplished via the ACT's requirement.

          I do understand where you're coming from now and I appreciate your well-rounded responses. HAGD

            #24.8 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:19 AM EST
            Reply
            JayCFO-3768452

            I am a CPA, active in two states, and this IS the most incredibly insidious plan I’ve seen yet out of the bagger Republicans. Grover would be proud.

            • 4 votes
            Reply#25 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:28 AM EST
            T. Gracchus

            How did the deficit reduction supercommittee turn into a tax reduction supercommittee?

            • 5 votes
            Reply#26 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:30 AM EST
            Jump to discussion page: 1 2
            Leave a Comment:
            You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
            You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
            (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
            Newsvine Privacy Statement
            As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
            FUN STUFF:
            • Leaderboard |
            • E-Mail Alerts |
            • Top of the Vine |
            • Newsvine Live |
            • Newsvine Archives |
            • The Greenhouse |
            COMPANY STUFF:
            • Code of Honor |
            • Company Info |
            • Contact Us |
            • Jobs |
            • User Agreement |
            • Privacy Policy |
            • About our ads
            LEGAL STUFF:
            • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
            • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
            • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com