Obama’s present policies *will* raise taxes on the middle class.

The one on the left already will raise taxes on the middle class. The one on the right has pledged to assure that tax cuts don't unduly favor the wealthy.

One of the consistent charges leveled against Romney in the comments ’round these parts has been that he will raise taxes on the middle class while reducing taxes on the wealthy.

Problem is, the study the folks who make that charge have been relying upon is terribly flawed and utterly ignores important parts of Romney’s plan. Romney, for instance, sets as a goal that the overall distribution of how the tax burden falls will not change. In other words, if the wealthiest 10 percent are paying 80-some percent of all income taxes right now his plans will actively try to maintain that ratio. Tax cuts, then, would be available for all who pay taxes, but the “fairness” of the distribution would not change.

The same cannot be said for the taxes set to be imposed by Obamacare. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT):

CBO and JCT now estimate that about 6 million people will pay a penalty because they are uninsured in 2016 (a figure that includes uninsured dependents who have the penalty paid on their behalf ) and that total collections will be about $7 billion in 2016 and average about $8 billion per year over the 2017–2022 period.

Those estimates differ from projections that CBO and JCT made in April 2010: About two million more uninsured people are now projected to pay the penalty each year, and collections are now expected to be about $3 billion more per year.

So starting in 2016, on top of any taxes already due, six million Americans will have to cough up seven billion more dollars in taxes (that’s more than $1,000 on top of one’s tax bill per person) and that figure will rise to eight billion dollars for the years 2017-22 (or $1,333 more per person).

Mind you: this is not a health insurance premium; this is the tax penalty for failing to have your own insurance. So if you’re one of the six million Americans saddled with this new tax, you still won’t have insurance.



  • Sticking to the facts

    Obama’s past policies *did* lower taxes on the middle class. You seem to leave this major (and inconvenient) fact out in your discussion of tax policy. The Earned Income tax credit was strengthened under the BIPARTISAN tax bill signed in 2010. http://taxes.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=taxes&cdn=money&tm=7&f=00&su=p284.13.342.ip_&tt=13&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p596.pdf

    The Making Work Pay tax credit in 2009 played a role in Americans paying their lowest income tax rate in 30 years.


    By definition, therefore, Obama’s middle class tax plan provides LOWER tax rates for the middle class than the Bush administration (not a criticism of either administration, just a fact), since the Bush tax cuts are still in place, and Obama provided further deductions.

    Since you are so concerned about middle class tax rates, perhaps you can answer a sticky question: if Governor Romney is being truthful that his tax plans are revenue neutral, how on earth will that be possible with the rates he is proposing for the highest earners (same goes with the Path to Prosperity)? Also, since Governor Romney has released no details of his tax plan, I’d be curious to know how you will go about answering this question.

    • Mary Beth

      Of course Tom has no answer…better to just slam Obama than actually engage in factual discussion.

      • http://twitter.com/TomCrowe Tom Crowe

        Fascinating response, Mary Beth. Two observations. Note
        first that Mr. “Sticking to the facts” posted his comment some time
        around 11 a.m. or noon today. You may or may not know, but I have a day
        job that makes activity on this site well-nigh impossible during regular
        business hours. So there’s that. Second, and this is tied to the first,
        considering your comment is baseless and is intended merely as a
        personal attack, while my post above presents facts that others
        have established and I merely offer some commentary upon, which of us is actually “slamming” another rather than engaging in a factual conversation? Cheers.

    • http://twitter.com/TomCrowe Tom Crowe

      Dear Sticking to the facts. First you need to learn to stick to the tense. My post clearly says “will” … as in, “what does the future hold.” My post was neither intended nor written as an exhaustive look at what tax policies passed into law during Barack Obama’s presidency thus far. Hence, what you present is neither major nor inconvenient to my post. Second, Bush is not running. I can’t believe how frequently I have to remind people of that fact. So bringing him up is totally irrelevant. Third, on Romney, since you concede that he “has released no details of his tax plan,” I’m curing how you know so certainly the final details of what he will propose and how it will have an impact. In my original post here I merely talked about one of the *goals* Romney has set for his future tax policy proposals (a goal which a negative study totally ignored), and juxtaposed them to something that *is already law* that *will* raise taxes. Further, according to this article in the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443507204578020381770352230.html Romney is not promising major tax reductions for anyone. And I’m fine with that, provided tax reform is tied to significant entitlement reform and deep spending cuts. So I am, in fact, sticking to facts here. Cheers.



Receive our updates via email.