Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKrugman: The Deal Dilemma
The Deal Dilemma
<...>
So how does the possible deal differ? It doesnt raise rates on the second-highest bracket, which means that the tax hike on earned income only falls on those making $400,000 or more. As I understand it the reporting is weirdly silent on this, but its what I got from my own conversation with an SAO is that taxes on unearned income are going back to pre-Bush levels: capital gains at 20 instead of 15 percent, dividends taxed as ordinary income. If Im wrong about that, this is easy: no deal.
And theres extra revenue too, notably from changing the treatment of itemized deductions: instead of being a deduction from taxable income, they offer a tax credit, not to exceed 28 percent which means a further substantial tax rise for people in the top bracket. Overall, theres more revenue in this deal than you get from letting the high-end tax cuts expire after the cliff.
<...>
But then theres the Social Security cut.
Switching from the regular CPI to the chained CPI doesnt affect benefits immediately after retirement, which are based on your past earnings.What it does mean is that after retirement your payments grow more slowly, about 0.3 percent each year. So if you retire at 65, your income at 75 would be 3 percent less under this proposal than under current law; at 85 it would be 6 percent less; theres supposedly a bump-up in benefits for people who make it that far.
This is not good; theres no good policy reason to be doing this, because the savings wont have any significant impact on the underlying budget issues. And for many older people it would hurt. Also, the symbolism of a Democratic president cutting Social Security is pretty awful.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/the-deal-dilemma
<...>
So how does the possible deal differ? It doesnt raise rates on the second-highest bracket, which means that the tax hike on earned income only falls on those making $400,000 or more. As I understand it the reporting is weirdly silent on this, but its what I got from my own conversation with an SAO is that taxes on unearned income are going back to pre-Bush levels: capital gains at 20 instead of 15 percent, dividends taxed as ordinary income. If Im wrong about that, this is easy: no deal.
And theres extra revenue too, notably from changing the treatment of itemized deductions: instead of being a deduction from taxable income, they offer a tax credit, not to exceed 28 percent which means a further substantial tax rise for people in the top bracket. Overall, theres more revenue in this deal than you get from letting the high-end tax cuts expire after the cliff.
<...>
But then theres the Social Security cut.
Switching from the regular CPI to the chained CPI doesnt affect benefits immediately after retirement, which are based on your past earnings.What it does mean is that after retirement your payments grow more slowly, about 0.3 percent each year. So if you retire at 65, your income at 75 would be 3 percent less under this proposal than under current law; at 85 it would be 6 percent less; theres supposedly a bump-up in benefits for people who make it that far.
This is not good; theres no good policy reason to be doing this, because the savings wont have any significant impact on the underlying budget issues. And for many older people it would hurt. Also, the symbolism of a Democratic president cutting Social Security is pretty awful.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/the-deal-dilemma
Harry Reid "not prepared to accept the emerging deal yet"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022019627
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 879 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (10)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Krugman: The Deal Dilemma (Original Post)
ProSense
Dec 2012
OP
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)1. This is a good piece. rec
sasha031
(6,700 posts)2. K/r for later
pscot
(21,024 posts)3. Krugman is one of the vanishingly small group
of public figures I still trust. Sad to say, the President is not among their number.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)4. No cuts to SS, Medicare, Medicaid, period
this isn't that complicated.