The Heritage Foundation published the following article and graph just yesterday:
❝The Members of the U.S. House and Senate are about to engage in one of the most consequential tax policy debates of the past 50 years. At stake is the nation’s tax policy. For 14 years, Congress after Congress has voted to lighten the tax burden on taxpayers. The current Congress will decide later this fall whether to continue this successful policy and extend the tax relief laws currently in force or significantly raise personal income taxes.
Two developments have prompted this historic policy debate. On the one hand, tax laws passed in 2001 and 2003 under Congress’s peculiar budget rules means that key tax rates and tax credit or deduction provisions will revert to their higher, pre-2001 levels on January 1, 2011. Congress could, of course, extend these lower rates for a specific time or, preferably, permanently.
On the other hand, President Barack Obama has proposed several changes to tax law in his fiscal year (FY) 2011 budget that would hold tax levels constant for most married taxpayers with incomes below $250,000 and single taxpayers with incomes below $200,000, and raise taxes on those who earn more. Indeed, it is both the impending expiration of lower tax rates and the President’s and congressional leadership’s tax hike proposals that shape this coming debate.❞The POTUS is not cutting taxes. He's proposing that the 2001 & 2003 Tax Cuts be held, and he is propsing an implementation of raising taxes on anyone making more than the arbitrarily pulled $250,000 in income.
❝If Congress enacts the Obama tax hike, it will have changed the course of long-standing tax policy. With the exception of the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), no Congress has voted to raise significant sums of new tax revenues since 1996. Indeed, the fundamental tax policy of this country until now has been to reduce tax burdens.
This policy has largely been driven by a bipartisan understanding that lower tax rates support stronger economic growth. Certainly, that view animated the debates over the 2001 and 2003 tax legislation, each of which resulted in lower, though temporary, tax rates and tax liabilities. While the jury is still out on the overall economic effects of Bush-era tax relief, these two changes to tax policy, particularly the 2003 legislation, likely boosted economic activity and strengthened the macro economy.
President Obama, however, has advanced a tax plan that reverses this tax policy. Rather than continuing the pattern of tax reduction and reform, the President and his supporters in Congress and elsewhere are calling for tax increases, primarily on upper-income taxpayers and businesses. Many of these individuals are small-business owners, the primary job creators in the country, whose income often fluctuates from year to year. These tax increases would add approximately $1.8 trillion to government revenues over the next 10 years, of which more than half ($970 billion) would come from upper-income taxpayers. Enacting this tax plan would have serious, adverse consequences for economic activity, and sharply lower the rate of economic growth. This would frustrate the President’s effort to raise these new revenues.❞How is punishing people who make money and hire other Americans anything other than unconscionable? Further more, who wants to give THIS GOVERNMENT 1.8 trillion dollars? Who trusts them to do the right thing with it? In the meantime, 45% of Americans pay NO income tax, and this number is growing.
Inequitably raising taxes on a class of people is wrong, immoral, and outright UNAMERICAN.
Read through the graphs completely to the end for the Economic impact by state, or visit Heritage.org for tons of info.
Jobs Lost by Congressional District (click on image to enlarge):
Impact of Obama Tax Hikes, state by state
| > Alabama | > Montana |
| > Alaska | > Nebraska |
| > Arizona | > Nevada |
| > Arkansas | > New Hampshire |
| > California | > New Jersey |
| > Colorado | > New Mexico |
| > Connecticut | > New York |
| > Delaware | > North Carolina |
| > D.C. | > North Dakota |
| > Florida | > Ohio |
| > Georgia | > Oklahoma |
| > Hawaii | > Oregon |
| > Idaho | > Pennsylvania |
| > Illinois | > Rhode Island |
| > Indiana | > South Carolina |
| > Iowa | > South Dakota |
| > Kansas | > Tennessee |
| > Kentucky | > Texas |
| > Louisiana | > Utah |
| > Maine | > Vermont |
| > Maryland | > Virginia |
| > Massachusetts | > Washington |
| > Michigan | > West Virginia |
| > Minnesota | > Wisconsin |
| > Mississippi | > Wyoming |
| > Missouri |
No comments:
Post a Comment