Political Calculations, has seemingly been listing to port this last year if their blogroll is any indication, seems to be aligned with some of the wackier denizens of the far-right. That said, I still read them for their occasional non-partisan metric analysis and tools.
Today finds this one – a tool for determining the implicit income tax rate for benefit phaseout (emphasis mine):
You see, the government has two ways of really sticking it to people with taxes depending upon their income level: tax rates and the phaseout of benefits with a rising level of income.
The first is really straightforward – you directly see it when determining how much you have to pay in taxes. For instance, you probably have a very good idea of which income tax bracket you fall into because of your income level, because it’s very easy to find out. It’s stated explicitly.
But how much are you being taxed by being denied some or all of a benefit others receive due to their lower incomes because of your higher income level? And if you’re moving up the income ladder, how much are you having to give up for your success because of these hidden, implicit taxes? That’s not so easy to find out.
Conservatives are now at the disadvantage of using the increasingly suspect AHIP report drafted by Price-Waterhouse Cooper and their own selective quotations from various CBO reports to bolster their opposition on conservative principles. Long story short, this allows Conservatives to use a new talking point, whereby shrinking the deficit by cutting off benefits or tying eligibility for income is in fact an income tax.
I look forward to ridiculous statements declaring that by closing tax loopholes and shrinking subsidies Obama is actually raising taxes on “good, hard-working ‘Muricans” by eleventy-billion dollars. The end-political game will be to state that if Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to expire (as legislated by Congress and signed by President Bush) in 2010, he will in fact be raising taxes on ‘all’ Americans. We’ve gone from providing welfare for the have nots to providing welfare in the form of permanent tax avoidance. As I said way back in the summer of 2008:
“Cutting taxes” is a marketing strategy, not fiscal or economic policy. The fact of the matter is that after cutting taxes, no matter how impractical, leaves prudent politicians in a Catch-22 – by reversing tax cuts, raising taxes, or allowing tax-cuts to expire, Democrats hand Republicans the most effective tool for winning elections. It doesn’t matter if it is true, only if it is useful.
For some reason, those big GOP lies are left unchallenged (see the comments here
You can write it down – this will be THE theme of the 2010 cycle. Not only that, but I suppose you could work in new lines of attack – ” I was taxed 4500% because I didn’t own a car and was unable to take advantage off Cash for Clunkers”, or “I was taxed 8000% because I haven’t bought a new home!” I can hardly wait to see the commercials.
Tags: AHIP, CBO, finance, Income tax, PriceWaterhouse Cooper, PWC, tax, Taxation
