The Supercommittee Looks to Impose a Much Bigger Hit to Seniors Than the Wealthy

The NYT reported that the supercommittee remains deadlocked on taxes. It reports that Republicans are willing to agree to $250-$300 billion in tax increases by eliminating loopholes in exchange for reducing the top tax rate to 28 percent instead of allowing it to rise back to the Clinton era level of 39.6 percent. While the piece notes that this would be a windfall for high income taxpayers, it would have been worth reminding readers that the sums being proposed are less than 2 percent of the projected $17 trillion adjusted gross income of the richest 1 percent over the next decade. By contrast, there is bi-partisan support for cutting the annual Social Security cost of living adjustment by an amount that would reduce average benefits by close to 3 percent.

Party of No realizes No sometimes means you have to say Yes
written by Robert Salzberg, November 14, 2011 5:48 AM

What we're seeing with the recent fake flexibility among Republicans to raise taxes is really about the automatic 3.7 trillion dollar tax increase we'll get if they can't work out a plan with Democrats by the end of 2012.

Tax expenditures cost about 1.2 trillion annually. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 cut tax expenditures by around 40%.

The supercommittee could issue the following recommendation.

All tax expenditures shall be rewritten as stand alone policy with the goal of reducing total cost by 50%, half of which shall be used for deficit reduction and half to be used to lower tax rates.

Lori Montgomery
written by Namaimo, November 14, 2011 6:09 PM

The report on Social Security (by Lori Montgomery)in the Washington Post, last Sunday, Nov, 7, 2011) read as if it had been written by the Pete Peterson Institute (whose sole reason to exist is to destroy SS). Was I the only one to percieve it that way? One thing that the Pete Peterson Institute & Acolytes NEVER mention is that, in 1983, Reagan DOUBLED Social Security & FICA payroll withholdings on the baby boomers generation precisely because they were a demographic bulge that needed to be prepared for. So where did the money go, Ms. Montgomery, that was meant to take care of us? Why are you such an expert that you are tasked to write a major article in the Sunday Outlook section of the Post and did not mention THAT salient fact. You want to make us look as if, we , the Boomers, mooched from our parents' FICA, and are now ready to mooch our children and grandchildren's FICA. Excuse me, but that it is NOT TRUE.

What Paul Ryan means when he warns about "European austerity"
written by Matt, November 14, 2011 6:50 PM

This is exactly why Paul Ryan was warning darkly the other day of "European austerity" coming to the US: the GOP's bizarro version is the only one that proposes tax CUTS. He was warning his co-conspirators in the House that if they don't do *something*, people might start demanding REAL austerity...

The Supercommittee Looks to Impose a Much Bigger Hit to Seniors Than the Wealthy

About Beat the Press