Conservatives, don't despair...

[Moonbeam]

Your opinion is exactly why the Republicans lost in this election cycle.

You consider the significantly higher proposed tax rates are acceptable, whatever these rates might be for you, and you seem to have little ambition to use your smaller slice of remaining money for more than a semi-comfortable life.

Maybe you have no kids, maybe you don't even want to start a family. Maybe you have no aspiration to accumulate wealth for a comfortable retirement or buying a nice house or having the capital to start a business, as those possibilities are going to become further out of reach for most. Not entirely, of course, but significantly fewer will now be able to go those routes for personal happiness (the constitutional definition of "happiness," not the popular one of vapidness.)

To keep your satisfaction in context, you might tell us if you are an employee or (highly unlikely) an employer, as here lies the real differential between those who are going to be happy with more of the status quo and even higher taxation and regulatory levels, or not.

If you are a business owner facing costly government imposed health care mandates, vastly expanded regulatory burdens and significantly higher taxation rates, you might not be so quick to parrot the Democrat speaking points.

Since business owners find ways to cope with all of these imposed burdens by passing these costs of doing business to the consumer, who do you think actually pays for big government? You do, in the form of not only higher personal taxation but by inflated prices.

Some businesses, especially service businesses sensitive to a lack of market elasticity that comes with higher pricing are stopping full time employment. Right now we are seeing restaurants and other service businesses moving quickly to eliminate as many FT employees as possible. If you are in this line of work, look forward to a better than Europe 30 hour work week, or, more likely, a future 60 hour work week where you have the privilege of buying your own government menu of limited and cost controlled benefits.

The cost to the US will be more real poverty and less of the opportunity for happiness that comes from capitalism. This grand experiment of declining "good enough" government determined minimal "benefits" paid by those who remain productive is nothing new. It has always been the hallmark of other places that have chosen government socialism.

Hope you enjoy the ride, there is no safety net at the bottom!

Did Jesus want what you want to be happy or was he happy because he had what you can't find in things? You confuse happiness with ego contentment and that will be taken away.

 

[techs]

I have been checking the web and despairing seems to be in style among Conservatives.

 

[Lanyap]

Of what relevance to the point he's making is that? None.

It was in his article and you bolded it. So why did you bold it if it was not relevant?

 

[techs]

Apparently this whole thing called the "internet" has been taken over by despairing conservatives.

 

[Moonbeam]

The American Republican party is a party of delusional white males whose station as self fancied alpha jackasses has been usurped by reality. They are going thought the inevitable depression that lower testosterone level inevitably bring to male losers. Give them some time to recover and they will be back to their old selves, authoritarian, sexist pig, egotistical twits.

 

[wuliheron]

The only one in fantasy land is you. The TEA Party was never anything other than a very large and informal assortment of people who detest big government, big taxation and all of the lost freedoms and lessened potentials big government represents.

They won big, really big, in 2010 but did not have sufficient clout in 2012 to overcome the social welfare Democrats.

The evangelicals and social moralists are a different subset with, obviously, a different agenda.

Consider the opposite on your side. Those advocating for a government takeover of health care, the anti-free market socialists, certainly do have members of Queer Nation among them. Does Queer Nation define the socialists?

LOL, the Tea Party is overwhelming white evangelical Christians who have not hesitated to push their Victorian values every chance they get. You need to catch with the times and make your retreat from denial into fantasy or risk getting left behind.

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by Lanyap: Since you bolded this statement, I guess you and the opinion writer don't realize that workers and companies were forced to pay into this federal health insurance program called medicare so it's the people who have been working who are now the recipients of this program.

Of what relevance to the point he's making is that? None.

The author is talking about O'Rielly's remarks:

"The demographic are changing. It's not a traditional America anymore." And these untraditional Americans "want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it, and he ran on it."

O'Reilly's analysis is echoed across the conservative blogosphere. The (non-white) takers now outnumber the (white) makers. They will use their majority to pillage the makers and redistribute to the takers. In the process, they will destroy the sources of the country's wealth and end the American experiment forever.

O'Reilley is talking culture. One wants the freedom to go out and earn money themselves, with less government intervention. The other wants something different and unrelated - a government that will give them benefits. Obama promises them the govt supplied benefits they want so they voted for him according to O'Reilly.

These two groups have two different motivations etc.

Medicare is a compulsory program so by itself it is not indicative of motivation. It is indicative of gainful (legal) employment. So Frum's point fails. Even more so if you consider that the 85% whites in the program will by force of law end up in the Medicare program because they are "makers". If you're a "taker" you will likely end in the Medicaid program.

Moreover, people in Medicare paid for their participation in it. So, they are not "taking". You can quibble that Medicare is not entirely self funded, but many who have paid in Medicare taxes all their adult lives will never receive the full return on their money paid in. (It's insurance, some unfortunate small percentage with very bad health will consume far more than they paid.)

His point is completely fallacious. It is not substantially different than calling retired people receiving pensions accrued over many years of working "takers".

Fern

 

[Fern]

What is Frum's evidence for this assertion?

President Barack Obama was not re-elected by people who want to "take." The president was re-elected by people who want to work -- and who were convinced, rightly or wrongly, that the president's policies were more likely to create work than were the policies advocated by my party.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I think it best if the Republican party (the leaders, really) just take a nice long vacation. I would guess many are burnt out by the long campaign and probably a little 'emotional' right now. Fatigue and emotion are not helpful in good judgement and arriving at good decisions.

I don't personally know (some of you may) but I'm not sure if good polling exists yet on the mood of the electorate at the polls: Who voted and why did they vote the way they did? I doubt the states have yet had time to get out actual numbers and am afraid the info we're seeing might be from exit polling. If so, better data will be soon available.

Fern

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Your opinion is exactly why the Republicans lost in this election cycle.

You consider the significantly higher proposed tax rates are acceptable, whatever these rates might be for you, and you seem to have little ambition to use your smaller slice of remaining money for more than a semi-comfortable life.

Maybe you have no kids, maybe you don't even want to start a family. Maybe you have no aspiration to accumulate wealth for a comfortable retirement or buying a nice house or having the capital to start a business, as those possibilities are going to become further out of reach for most. Not entirely, of course, but significantly fewer will now be able to go those routes for personal happiness (the constitutional definition of "happiness," not the popular one of vapidness.)

To keep your satisfaction in context, you might tell us if you are an employee or (highly unlikely) an employer, as here lies the real differential between those who are going to be happy with more of the status quo and even higher taxation and regulatory levels, or not.

If you are a business owner facing costly government imposed health care mandates, vastly expanded regulatory burdens and significantly higher taxation rates, you might not be so quick to parrot the Democrat speaking points.

Since business owners find ways to cope with all of these imposed burdens by passing these costs of doing business to the consumer, who do you think actually pays for big government? You do, in the form of not only higher personal taxation but by inflated prices.

Some businesses, especially service businesses sensitive to a lack of market elasticity that comes with higher pricing are stopping full time employment. Right now we are seeing restaurants and other service businesses moving quickly to eliminate as many FT employees as possible. If you are in this line of work, look forward to a better than Europe 30 hour work week, or, more likely, a future 60 hour work week where you have the privilege of buying your own government menu of limited and cost controlled benefits.

The cost to the US will be more real poverty and less of the opportunity for happiness that comes from capitalism. This grand experiment of declining "good enough" government determined minimal "benefits" paid by those who remain productive is nothing new. It has always been the hallmark of other places that have chosen government socialism.

Hope you enjoy the ride, there is no safety net at the bottom!

404: doom and gloom not found

Also lets keep in mind that a pretty large chunk of this debt that we, or some of us anyways, are willing to pay more taxes to pay down was due to two wars. And it's pretty funny how a mere 20 years ago socialized healthcare was something that was a great idea for Republicans. Now it's bad. My how the tides change.

As to your argument about accumulating wealth. I can accumulate just fine with the current tax rate. I am able to create a plan to get me where I want to be on my net take home pay. Not the gross. If you can't do that then shame on you and you need to learn how to live within your means. If you have a family then that's your choice that you need to live with, and if that means you can't go on a yearly vacation or have the biggest TV or largest house then that's your own damn fault. If you live within your means, yes even with a family, you can get by on $40k+/yr (I'm assuming that the spouse is also working bringing home around the same or more, but even if they weren't that high it's doable).

I can't speak to businesses, but judging by the economy so far the past 4 years have gotten us back on track as a general rule. Sure some people are worse off but it appears that the large majority are doing better today than they were 4 years ago.

 

[Fern]

404: doom and gloom not found

Also lets keep in mind that a pretty large chunk of this debt that we, or some of us anyways, are willing to pay more taxes to pay down was due to two wars.

The best number I could find by quickly google is $1.3 trillion from both wars combined as of June '11. certainly it's a bit higher as of today, but since the wars have winding down I doubt much higher. While not an insignificant sum it's a fraction of the $16 trillion debt.

And unlike government programs, wars end.

http://theweek.com/article/index/217524/what-caused-the-national-debt-6-culprits

And it's pretty funny how a mere 20 years ago socialized healthcare was something that was a great idea for Republicans. Now it's bad. My how the tides change.

You've been fooled by the Lefty talking points. A smallish group of Repubs floated that idea back during HillaryCare, but it wasn't popular enough to be passed etc. IIRC, it never came up for a vote or got anywhere.

I can't speak to businesses, but judging by the economy so far the past 4 years have gotten us back on track as a general rule. Sure some people are worse off but it appears that the large majority are doing better today than they were 4 years ago.

No.

GDP and job growth aren't keeping up with population growth. Everyone's seen the numbers for how much income and wealth has fallen for the middle class etc. Look at the people on food stamps etc. If people were doing better participation in programs like food stamps would drop. http://www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/uploads/Food-Stamps-Monthly2.jpg

We've bottomed out and basically stayed there.

Fern

 

[sigurros81]

The best number I could find by quickly google is $1.3 trillion from both wars combined as of June '11. certainly it's a bit higher as of today, but since the wars have winding down I doubt much higher. While not an insignificant sum it's a fraction of the $16 trillion debt.

And unlike government programs, wars end.

http://theweek.com/article/index/217524/what-caused-the-national-debt-6-culprits



You've been fooled by the Lefty talking points. A smallish group of Repubs floated that idea back during HillaryCare, but it wasn't popular enough to be passed etc. IIRC, it never came up for a vote or got anywhere.



No.

GDP and job growth aren't keeping up with population growth. Everyone's seen the numbers for how much income and wealth has fallen for the middle class etc. Look at the people on food stamps etc. If people were doing better participation in programs like food stamps would drop. http://www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/uploads/Food-Stamps-Monthly2.jpg

We've bottomed out and basically stayed there.

Fern

I do not know where you're getting your data from because 1.3T is not even remotely close to how much we've spent in the past decade on wars. The 3 top chunks of our national debt are from Medicare, Social Security, and defense spending. You cannot count just the two wars we've waged in the past decade to a national debt that have been accumulating since the country's inception, that's how you warp statistics around.

 

[techs]

If this were 1929 Conservatives would be dropping from the sky like rain.

 

[Fern]

I do not know where you're getting your data from because 1.3T is not even remotely close to how much we've spent in the past decade on wars.
-snip-

You don't know where I'm getting it?

Damn, I gave you a link.

In case you don't like the source here's another below. It's the Congressional Research Service and they say $1.25 trillion . The report is dated March 29, 2011.

Total War Funding by Operation
Assuming an annual level of the current Continuing Resolution (H.J.Res. 44/P.L. 112-4) and based on DOD, State Department/USAID, and Department of Veterans Administration budget submissions, the cumulative total appropriated from the 9/11 for those war operations, diplomatic
operations, and medical care for Iraq and Afghan war veterans is $1.283 trillion including:
• $806 billion for Iraq;
• $444 billion for Afghanistan;
• $29 billion for enhanced security; and
• $6 billion unallocated (see Table 1).

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

Fern

 

[RabidMongoose]

The line between "making" and "taking" is not a racial line. The biggest government program we have, Medicare, benefits a population that is 85% white.

There is a line between the "makers" and the "takers" and it is a racial line. Only it's the old white people who vote for Republicans that are the takers.

The GOP policy was to keep Medicare for the old white people in the country and make sure that it is dead for everyone else. The ultimate epitome of being a "taker" - they barely put any money into medicare compared to how much these old white people are taking out, they're basically funded by a very diverse current electorate, and they want to make sure that the "makers" don't get the same benefits.

 

[sigurros81]

You don't know where I'm getting it?

Damn, I gave you a link.

In case you don't like the source here's another below. It's the Congressional Research Service and they say $1.25 trillion . The report is dated March 29, 2011.



http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

Fern

You're completely missing my point. You quote the cost of the two wars from the past decade for a national debt that has been long running.

 

[Lanyap]

There is a line between the "makers" and the "takers" and it is a racial line. Only it's the old white people who vote for Republicans that are the takers.

The GOP policy was to keep Medicare for the old white people in the country and make sure that it is dead for everyone else. The ultimate epitome of being a "taker" - they barely put any money into medicare compared to how much these old white people are taking out, they're basically funded by a very diverse current electorate, and they want to make sure that the "makers" don't get the same benefits.

At least the "old white people" put something into the medicare program. They also paid taxes that funded medicaid because they had jobs. The true "takers" paid for very little if anything. I guess if they shut down medicare all those old white people can move over to medicaid and be just like the other takers, right?

Medicare is a social insurance program that serves more than 44 million enrollees (as of 2008). The program costs about $432 billion, or 3.2% of GDP, in 2007. Medicaid is a social welfare (or social protection) program that serves about 40 million people (as of 2007) and costs about $330 billion, or 2.4% of GDP, in 2007. Together, Medicare and Medicaid represent 21% of the FY 2007 U.S. federal government.

 

[VRAMdemon]

I'd like to clear up some misconceptions of Obama's tax proposal,(unless something changes) for those that don't already know.

To hear the media report it, Obama is proposing a tax increase on wealthy Americans. That’s misleading at best. He’s proposing that everyone receive a continuation of the Bush tax cuts on the first $250,000 of their incomes. Any dollars they earn in excess of $250,000 will be taxed at the old Clinton-era rates.

People hear that taxes on earnings over $250,000 will be taxed an extra 3% and say "I made $255k last year! I have to pay an extra 3% of $255,000, which is $7,650. Not true.

In reality, it would be an extra 3% of $5,000, or a total of $150 per year. And that's assuming that $255k is your income after deductions. If your actual income is $255k, your taxes won't go up at all, even with only your personal deduction. Hardly "job killing".

As far as health care and ACA and how it effects my current employer health care on my 4 employee's, I am still unsure. But, Congress created a tax credit in 2010 as part of the overhaul of the health care system. It was intended to be an incentive for small businesses to offer health insurance through the new market solution. Not all small business qualify. You must have 25 or less employee's all making less than $50,000 per yr.

My annual premium per employee is $3795.00 or $15180 annually. I applied for the credit and got it. Got back $1,600 for 2010, and $1,100 for 2011. The money came at a price though. It took our accountant a some time to put the spreadsheet and forms together and computing the credit last year and the year before came to a cost of $400.00. Surely better than nothing and hardly "business killing" (If your running your business properly).

For the record, I am a small business owner and I do not consider myself a job creator. The jobs I control are always the minimum necessary to fill demand. That's the way it is no matter what the business climate is.Good business practice dictates that I never hire new people unless the demand is there. So I don't "create" jobs, I fill necessary positions. In other words, I hire when the demand is there. Consumers create that demand. So if anyone creates jobs, it's my customers, most of whom are middle class.

If the government cuts my taxes, even by 25%, I'm not going to rush out and hire more people. That's not how business works. If you cut some of the red tape that government forces me to live with, I'm not going to hire more people. If my profit margin, and consequentially my income, rises, I'm still not going to hire more people than is absolutely necessary. That's capitalism. The only reason I will hire more people is because I need them to keep up with demand.

So, in short, the middle class (my customers) are the "job creators". Put more money in their pocket and you will put more money in my pocket. Don't get me wrong, I would love to have lower taxes and less regulation, but that's for my benefit and has little to do with hiring new workers.

 

[techs]

I heard Rafalca is on a suicide watch.

 

[jackstar7]

I'd like to clear up some misconceptions of Obama's tax proposal,(unless something changes) for those that don't already know.

To hear the media report it, Obama is proposing a tax increase on wealthy Americans. That’s misleading at best. He’s proposing that everyone receive a continuation of the Bush tax cuts on the first $250,000 of their incomes. Any dollars they earn in excess of $250,000 will be taxed at the old Clinton-era rates.

People hear that taxes on earnings over $250,000 will be taxed an extra 3% and say "I made $255k last year! I have to pay an extra 3% of $255,000, which is $7,650. Not true.

In reality, it would be an extra 3% of $5,000, or a total of $150 per year. And that's assuming that $255k is your income after deductions. If your actual income is $255k, your taxes won't go up at all, even with only your personal deduction. Hardly "job killing".

As far as health care and ACA and how it effects my current employer health care on my 4 employee's, I am still unsure. But, Congress created a tax credit in 2010 as part of the overhaul of the health care system. It was intended to be an incentive for small businesses to offer health insurance through the new market solution. Not all small business qualify. You must have 25 or less employee's all making less than $50,000 per yr.

My annual premium per employee is $3795.00 or $15180 annually. I applied for the credit and got it. Got back $1,600 for 2010, and $1,100 for 2011. The money came at a price though. It took our accountant a some time to put the spreadsheet and forms together and computing the credit last year and the year before came to a cost of $400.00. Surely better than nothing and hardly "business killing" (If your running your business properly).

For the record, I am a small business owner and I do not consider myself a job creator. The jobs I control are always the minimum necessary to fill demand. That's the way it is no matter what the business climate is.Good business practice dictates that I never hire new people unless the demand is there. So I don't "create" jobs, I fill necessary positions. In other words, I hire when the demand is there. Consumers create that demand. So if anyone creates jobs, it's my customers, most of whom are middle class.

If the government cuts my taxes, even by 25%, I'm not going to rush out and hire more people. That's not how business works. If you cut some of the red tape that government forces me to live with, I'm not going to hire more people. If my profit margin, and consequentially my income, rises, I'm still not going to hire more people than is absolutely necessary. That's capitalism. The only reason I will hire more people is because I need them to keep up with demand.

So, in short, the middle class (my customers) are the "job creators". Put more money in their pocket and you will put more money in my pocket. Don't get me wrong, I would love to have lower taxes and less regulation, but that's for my benefit and has little to do with hiring new workers.

Appreciate your continued (if infrequent) contributions. Hope you're feeling better.

 

[PJABBER]

I'd like to clear up some misconceptions of Obama's tax proposal,(unless something changes) for those that don't already know.

As a new poster here, thanks for the attempt, but such a partial answer is misleading.

There are quite a few tax impacts coming down the pike, though the Democrats would like you and I to focus on only such as you tried to illustrate.

It gets complex because there are quite a few unknowns, but one thing you can be absolutely sure of is that everyone is going to see higher taxes real soon.

I refer you, and anyone else who is not politically blindered, to check out a few of the in-depth analyses of just how widespread the pain is going to be.

Here is a good simplified analysis by The Tax Foundation, a non-partisan tax research group -

The Fiscal Cliff: A Primer - November 08, 2012

The total tax increase from 2012 to 2013 is projected to be $514 billion. This is per the Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Office of Management & Budget.

If you look carefully, there are a number of startling increases. I cut a few of the itemized impacts from the above referenced primer for your immediate consideration -

The lowest income tax bracket of 10 percent will expire, reverting to 15 percent.

The top four income tax brackets would see rate increases. The 25 percent bracket would rise to 28 percent, the 28 percent bracket would rise to 31 percent, the 33 percent bracket would rise to 36 percent, and the top bracket would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent.

The tax on long-term capital gains would rise from a maximum of 15 percent to a maximum of 20 percent. Additionally, a 3.8 percent capital gains tax on high-income individuals, enacted as part of Obamacare, takes effect in 2013. The top capital gains tax rate would thus be 23.8 percent (20 percent plus 3.8 percent).

The tax on qualified dividends would rise from 15 percent to ordinary wage tax rates. Additionally, a 3.8 percent dividend tax on high-income individuals, enacted as part of Obamacare, takes effect in 2013. The top dividend tax rate would thus be 43.4 percent (39.6 percent plus 3.8 percent).

The standard deduction for married couples will fall to 167% of single filers, down from 200% of single filers.

The child tax credit will fall from $1,000 to $500 and no longer be refundable.

The estate of an individual who dies on December 31, 2012 will pay a federal estate tax (or death tax) of 35 percent on anything above $5.12 million. If the decedent instead passes away the next day, and Congress has not yet acted to change the law, the estate will instead owe a 55 percent tax on anything above $1 million.

Perhaps the worst aspect of the estate tax is how uneven its impact is in practice. By utilizing careful estate planning, many wealthy taxpayers are able to shield much of their income from taxation upon their death. The people that tend to get hit the hardest are those that die unexpectedly, or, like farmers, have their assets tied up in illiquid holdings.

New excise tax on medical devices. Producers of medical devices face a tax equivalent to 2.3 percent of their gross sales. This tax is estimated to raise $29 billion over ten years.

New Limitations on Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs). FSAs will face an annual cap of $2,500 for medical expense reimbursements, as opposed to the present unlimited level. This change is estimated to raise $24 billion over ten years.

Increased threshold for deducting medical expenses. Presently, taxpayers who itemize deductions may deduct their medical expenses exceeding 7.5 percent of their income. Effective January 1, 2013, that threshold rises to 10 percent. This change is estimated to raise $19 billion over ten years.

Finally, guess what? The annual deficit spending for 2012 is running to $1,089 trillion. Without a substantial cut in federal government spending, the projected $514 billion in new taxes won't be enough to cover half of the new deficit Obama and the Democrats are running each year.

 

[RabidMongoose]

At least the "old white people" put something into the medicare program. They also paid taxes that funded medicaid because they had jobs. The true "takers" paid for very little if anything. I guess if they shut down medicare all those old white people can move over to medicaid and be just like the other takers, right?

They barely put anything in there and are taking much more out. And now they want to shut everyone else out who are paying for them!

Republicans have been very open about supporting the takers, even talking about how their plan is to help the takers and to punish the makers. Old white people are the takers in this society and they voted big time like we have never seen before on a policy of taking all that they can from the multicultural makers.

 

[PJABBER]

By the way, just so that we don't forget there is a substantial price to be paid economically for these increases. The projected effects are expected to be...

President Obama's tax plan would gradually reduce the level of GDP by nearly 3 percent, relative to the baseline projection, over five to ten years. Labor income would be lower by a similar amount, driven down by fewer hours worked and lower wages per hour. The reduction in hours worked, about 0.75 percent, would be the equivalent of about a million jobs lost in today's economy, with those still employed earning roughly 2.28 percent lower wages. Alternatively, one could view the result as losing four million jobs at unchanged pay levels.

The plan would trim the capital stock by about 7.5 percent (or over $2 trillion in lost investment in plant, equipment, and buildings, things that drive productivity, wages, and hiring).

Three-quarters of the loss in GDP, labor income, and capital formation would come from the rise in the taxes on capital gains and dividends. These would trim GDP by a cumulative 2.2 percent over time, the capital stock by 5.8 percent, and the wage rate by 1.8 percent.[3] Though of smaller total magnitude, the estate tax increase is equally destructive per dollar of initial tax increase.

After all adjustments, fully 70 percent of the expected static revenue gain from President Obama’s plan would be lost due to the dynamic effects of slower economic growth.

For the Obama tax plan as a whole, each $1 of increased government revenue it generates would reduce GDP by more than $10. Some elements of the Obama plan generate even higher costs to the public, reducing incomes and employment with no gain, and even some loss, to the federal budget.

The lower levels of capital, GDP, and income would take time to develop. It takes about five years to lose all of the additional equipment made unaffordable by the tax increases and about ten years for the full decline in the stock of structures to be achieved. About two thirds of the reductions in the capital stock would occur within five years. Job losses begin quite quickly, as fewer people are put to work producing machinery and buildings. The depression in employment and wages is sustained in the long term as workers must make do with the smaller amount of capital, and are left less productive on a permanent basis.

I've seen this happen in Europe and South America. Really hating to see these conditions come to the US, but the country deserves the leaders it chooses.

 

[jackstar7]

By the way, just so that we don't forget there is a substantial price to be paid economically for these increases. The projected effects are expected to be...

Attribution?

 

[PJABBER]

Attribution?

Simulating the Economic Effects of Obama's Tax Plan

The first part of this paper discusses the economic and distributional effects of the president’s proposals to sunset the Bush-era tax rates for high-income taxpayers. Next, we present the results of our modeling of the two largest tax increases in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which will become effective in 2013. We then analyze the president’s corporate tax proposals as outlined in the White House’s Framework for Business Tax Reform.

The model is neo-classical; its projections are derived from tax-driven changes in the quantity of capital and labor offered to the market and used to produce output within the United States. They do not include any additional behavior changes to avoid the higher taxes, such as a slowdown in the rate of realization of capital gains or reductions in dividend payments, nor any reduction in R&D or the rate of technological advance as a result of the initial reduction in the after-tax returns to investment.