Just limiting deductions for the wealthy

by on December 1, 2012 at 7:43 am in Economics, Law | Permalink

This I am pulling from Greg Mankiw, with the actual source being the White House blog, namely Sperling and Furman:

Bottom line: If you apply a $25,000 deduction cap only to households with income above $250K, phase in the cap gradually as income rises above $250K, and exclude charitable giving from the cap, you increase revenue by only $450 billion over ten years.

1 John Thacker December 1, 2012 at 8:48 am

It turns out that if you insist upon not raising taxes for those making under $250,000 at all (which would also mean modifying the Pease limits on deductions that will come back in without a tax deal), it’s very difficult to raise a lot of money without an sharp marginal tax rate right at $250k. Even letting the marginal tax rates rise by not having a deal doesn’t raise all that much money compared to the deficit. Either spending will have to be cut more than the Administration wants, or middle class taxes will have to go up eventually.

Since the Administration has proposed another deal of “tax increases now, spending increases now, spending cuts much later,” I’m not sure that we’ll get to a deal. Republicans don’t see that as a “balanced approach.” As he’s been doing consistently for years, President Obama says “balanced approach” but doesn’t actually propose any such thing.

2 mw December 1, 2012 at 9:54 am

Not bad. You should look for a job in John Boehner’s office–maybe then you can be involved in turning down the next time Obama offers the “Unbalanced approach” of $10 of spending cuts for $1 in tax increases.

3 derek December 1, 2012 at 11:13 am

Is that what is on the table right now?

4 TMC December 1, 2012 at 5:07 pm

Boehner and Obama agreed to an $800 billion tax increase, later reneged on bu Obama when he wanted 1.2 trillion (over 10 yrs). Are you suggesting they agreed to an 8 trillion spending cut?

5 Andrew' December 3, 2012 at 12:29 am

The 9 to 1 ratio of relevance is that if you disagree with John Thacker, 9 times out of 10 YOU ARE WRONG. And that is if you are smart AND informed.

6 liberalarts December 1, 2012 at 9:14 am

There is a fundamental difference between how various people define the “fiscal cliff,” and that will make a deal tricky. If the fear is a great reduction in aggregate demand that may slow or end growth, then immediate “spending cuts” are no less cliffy (gotta like that word) than the automatic ones in the bill. Revenue increases from deduction limitations also would also be aggregate demand cliffy, unless the high income people would not decrease consumption patterns from such reductions. Others just don’t want the across the board cuts to their pet programs, especially Republicans who want to increase rather than decrease defense expenditures.

7 Brian December 1, 2012 at 9:29 am

setting aside the uncomfortable issue that the deficit isn’t an issue right now, $45 billion here, $45 billion there, and eventually you start talking about real money.

8 Andrew' December 3, 2012 at 12:41 am

Tax increases to make up the deficit difference that was the result of tax cuts. The rest is spending cuts and entitlement reform.

The former is trivial compared to the latter.

9 Sam December 1, 2012 at 9:32 am

$450 isn’t nothing. Aren’t we after marginal revolutions?

10 RR December 1, 2012 at 9:37 am

$450 would be truly marginal 🙂

11 Ralph December 1, 2012 at 9:59 am

Obama has made his major campaign issue to increase the tax on the wealthy. To the 47%, limiting deductions is not as obvious a smack in the rich mouth as increasing the rate. Republicans need to trade higher rates for spending cuts and reasonable entitlement reform (raise age). In negotiations, they should keep in mind that the AMT will ultimately be what determines the tax bill.

12 Andrew' December 3, 2012 at 12:43 am

The government supply siders might want to explain why increasing taxes on families earning more than $250k is good for the economy.

13 john personna December 1, 2012 at 10:04 am

Isn’t “If we only” the worst argument for any improvement program? If I only do sit-ups each day, I’ll never get in shape. If I only cut out jam for my toast, I’ll never lose weight. If I only read chapter one, I’ll never finish the book. If we only drop dollar bills, or metal pennies, we’ll never fix the budget.

Well, life isn’t really made up of too many “if we only” moments. In a lot of cases you need to “pull all levers,” and “if we only pull one” is not useful.

14 Skip Intro December 1, 2012 at 11:39 am


15 Michael December 2, 2012 at 7:52 pm

Why would we drop the dollar bill?


“If the interest savings due to increased seigniorage are excluded from the
analysis, the government would incur a total net loss of about $1.8 billion over 10
years, or an average of $179 million per year [if it switched from dollar bills to dollar coins].”

16 Andrew' December 3, 2012 at 12:47 am

Because people who are balanced in view remember that giving to the government is taking from someone else. Right now Obama is fixated on those families earning more than $250k because he can’t do anything else but has to pander to the liberals- or himself.

To do more kills everyone else. There is no “more” there is only less for everyone else.

It’s just a scramble for funds. Luckily we are Goldman Sachs.

17 frothferous December 1, 2012 at 10:19 am

How about we simply eliminate itemized deductions. The increased revenue would be significant, $260 billion per year http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=3590
Moreover the burden would fall upon our Galtian overlords. Less than 10 percent of those in the bottom two income quintiles itemized in 2011, in contrast to the 80 percent of those in the top quintile and more than 95 percent of those in the top 1 percent.)
Who says only Urban voters vote for “goodies”?

18 buddyglass December 1, 2012 at 5:23 pm

I’m hardly Galtian and my taxable income was somewhere around 60% of gross. That’s after deducting mortgage interest, property tax, state sales tax and charitable contributions. And, last year at least, medical expenses stemming from fertility treatments. My household income is greater than about 85% of households, but not more than that.

19 will December 2, 2012 at 1:53 am

Phase in.

20 Marty Murphy December 1, 2012 at 6:57 pm

Eliminating all itemized deductions would be particularly bad for taxpayers in states with high city and state income taxes, and hefty local property taxes (NY, IL, CA). All Blue states. All Obama states.

Never going to happen — but it would be interesting to listen to them squeal.

21 Think before you speak December 2, 2012 at 3:11 am
22 DocMerlin December 1, 2012 at 10:30 am

And the state tries to monopolize the charity sector.

23 john personna December 1, 2012 at 10:48 am

Let’s remember the key difference between personal charity and state aid. The former is about small scale relationships, while the later is about universality. Charity helps a family, support takes on all families. It seeks them out. The charitable giver may go to sleep knowing both that he helped a homeless person, and that there are many more out there.

It’s not bad that problems are approached both ways, but a giver who complains about “monopoly” should remember that he made no commitment to help “everyone.”

24 marty362 December 1, 2012 at 7:13 pm

You seem to suggest that charity and state aid exist in opposition to each other.

The ‘cheerful giver’ pays his taxes to support state aid. He also gives a little more — as charity — in a direct, targeted way — and he may be giving to someone who was missed by your bureaucracy of ‘universality.’

BTW if the charitable deduction is removed, I will continue to give, even though I will have less to give.

25 john personna December 1, 2012 at 9:06 pm

I actually think the two forms can be complementary, but at the same time I do like them to be very separate. I don’t think partnerships between government and “faith based initiatives” etc. was at all healthy. Possibly it expanded your bureaucracy in both domains.

26 Andrew' December 3, 2012 at 12:31 am

“the later is about universality.”

If only…

27 John B. Chilton December 1, 2012 at 11:03 am

The White House blog excludes charitable contributions from the cap and says that reduces the 10 year revenue by $200 billion. But it makes no reference to the elasticity of charitable giving. That is, is there a good reason to exclude charitable contributions from the cap?

Also, does a cap on federal deductions have a different effect on state income tax revenues than a change in rates? And if it doesn’t shouldn’t that be factored in? Asking because I’m not a tax expert.

28 mulp December 1, 2012 at 3:44 pm

The impact on total individual taxes due and the impact on States is a big issue with the kinds of quick tax policy change. Some States simply tax Federal adjusted gross, others list deductions that are 99% identical to Federal – no tax on that State’s bond interest, for example are the typical 1% deviations, but the Federal law charities requires changing State law to keep them in parity.

And the deduction of State taxes on Federal has odd effects for
o low cost State with $20K median income and $1K State tax which is lower than Federal standard deduction
o high cost State with $200K median income and $10K State tax which is higher than Federal standard deduction

Same relative income but higher effective Federal tax rate on State with higher cost of living.

Of course, living in NYC has higher utility than living on high desert Indian reservation, doesn’t it, so being poor in NYC is better than being equally poor on Indian reservation in desert, so you should pay more for NYC.

29 david colander December 1, 2012 at 11:10 am

In the current negotiations to raise government revenues, politicians on both sides of the aisle seem to be pushing for phase-outs of deductions and credits rather than raising marginal tax rates. Somehow they seem to think that eliminating phase-outs will not raise marginal tax rates. That is not true. Phaseouts are simply a backdoor method of increasing marginal tax rates. The problem is that phaseouts increase marginal tax rates in a manner that most would consider unfair. Specifically, phaseouts raise the marginal tax rate on the upper middle class while keeping marginal tax rates lower for the very rich.
That’s not what people have in mind when they call for tax fairness. Most Americans would prefer a flat or progressive tax system. A phase-out of a deduction might sound progressive, but it is actually a regressive marginal tax system. Within the income range where the deductions are phased out the marginal tax rate rises, and then at higher income levels, once the phase-out is complete, the marginal rate falls.
To see this, suppose that there is a flat 20 percent rate with various deductions capped at $50,000. If you earn $150,000 you owe $20,000 in taxes, (20% x $150,000-50,000). If you earn $250,000 you’d owe $40,000, (20% x $250,000-50,000). For both, an extra $1,000 of income means $200 more in taxes-the 20% marginal tax rate. Now suppose that the $50,000 deduction is phased out at a rate of 5% per $1,000 beginning with those earning more than $150,000 (that is, the deduction falls by $50 for every thousand dollars earned over $150,000). With this phase-out rate, the deductions will be totally phased out at an income of $250,000.
Now consider the marginal tax rate of people earning between $150,000 and $250,000 compared to the marginal tax rate of someone earning more than $250,000. They will be paying the equivalent of a marginal tax rate of 25%–when they earn another $1000 they pay 20% ($200) in marginal tax, and 5% ($50) in what might be called phase-out marginal tax. But any person earning more than $250,000 only pays a 20% marginal tax rate. So in that range the tax system becomes regressive, with higher income individuals paying a lower marginal tax rate than lower income individuals. That’s not my, and what I think are most people’s, view of a fair tax system.
What’s a better alternative? To be honest about what you are doing. Basic arithmetic tells us that increasing tax revenues through tax reform requires an increase in the marginal tax rate on someone. There is no way around it, so don’t pretend you’re not raising marginal tax rates when you are. If a deduction makes sense, then keep the deduction, and institute higher overall marginal tax rates. If the deduction doesn’t make sense, then dump it totally; don’t phase it out under the pretence of not increasing marginal tax rates.

30 liberalarts December 1, 2012 at 12:20 pm


31 Michael Fisk December 1, 2012 at 12:40 pm

I think you’ve confused “marginal rates” with “effective rates”. They’re not the same, and have completely different economic implications.

32 liberalarts December 1, 2012 at 1:42 pm

There is no clear definition of “effective rate” but typically it means statutory marginal rates plus other marginal losses associated with the marginal increase in income. Colandar is most certainly talking about marginal rates, but his focus is on marginal effective rates rather than marginal statutory rates.

33 mulp December 1, 2012 at 3:32 pm

But if you argue that the rich like Mitt Romney should pay at least 20% effective rate instead of 14-15% to be closer to the effective 25% rate of his salaried staff, you can’t get to the 20% by eliminating deductions and taxing him at a 15% rate while his staff are taxed as high as 35% on 50% of income and 10-15% plus 7% on the other half (lower half).

For people over a million in income, all the deductions under discussion are already phased out.

Even charitable contributions are capped for really high income – the step up value of asset can’t be used as deduction, I believe. Something like you bought stock at $10 and $50 which you sell for $100, and you donate the 1 – $10 stock taking a deduction of $100 while selling 2 – $50 and crediting the $100 against the $50 x 2 gain for no tax. If you donate in the reverse, 1 – $50 for $100 and sell 2 – $10, then you pay tax on $80 in gain, 2 x $100 sale price – 2 x $10 basis – $100 charity deduction -> $80 taxable at 15% max.

The step up rule on charity has a theoretical justification – these gains happen from buy and hold for decades which is the point of capitalism, and government subsidy of charity is individuals investing more wisely than government so government should match the contribution for public purposes. The alternative argument is inflation raises the price of assets that have fallen in value – a house that is 30 years old bought for $30K that inflation adjusted is $100K, but age has reduced the price to $70K. Even if taxed on 50% of the $40K, you are paying taxes on a gain when you have consumed 30% of the value.

The capital gain exclusion was a crude fix for inflation because indexing capital assets for inflation required data that was calculated years after the fact. But thanks to Milton Friedman, indexing everything for inflation is done in near real time. Except for capital gains (and losses). Tax tables are indexed. Bond interest is indexed. Payment tables are indexed. With computers, indexing 2, or 5000, stock buys over decades and sold in a year to determine real capital gain is equally simple.

The “increased revenue from lower rates” is basically all driven by “tax dodges” that make no economic sense, and that in most cases result in inefficient economic activity that harms the economy in one or more way over the long term.

34 Brian Donohue December 1, 2012 at 4:57 pm

Effective rate = total taxes / total income.

35 y81 December 1, 2012 at 10:08 pm

What colander says is true, but the length of the paragraph required for him to explain it is well beyond what the editors of the Wall Street Journal, much less the average voter, could read and digest, which is why phaseouts of deductions are so popular.

36 OldCurmudgeon December 3, 2012 at 11:30 am

I think most politicians are actually calling for a hard-cap, and not a phase-out. The reporters are just being lazy/sloppy…

37 BintheCT December 28, 2012 at 5:08 pm


38 Turkey Vulture December 1, 2012 at 11:42 am

What’s the net revenue impact of 1) eliminating the corporate income tax and 2) treating dividends and capital gains like labor income?

39 Alexei Sadeski December 1, 2012 at 12:35 pm

Probably a net loss of government revenue.

40 mulp December 1, 2012 at 2:55 pm

Australia simply withhold 15% from corporate profits and then imputes all corporate profit to shareholders who then file tax return to count the income and the tax withholding, and pay regular income tax rates on their share of the profits with no tax on dividends if any as they were already taxed. Foreign shareholders can file Australian income taxes and claim the tax withholding as credit to taxes with tax refunds, or simply not file for an effective flat 15% tax by default.

Of course, tax rates on income/profits is lower because consumption is taxed by the VAT at about 15%.

The target for corporate/business taxes seems to be globally 30% with the rest of the world using a VAT at about 15% to cut profit tax rates to 15% while the US is out of step with a 35% rate with all sorts of loopholes to try to compete on a level playing field globally. The health benefit exemption and tax credits are attempts to offset the 50-100% higher health care costs in the US relative to the rest of the world we compete with who all have government directed universal health care for all which largely ensures uniformity for 95-99% of their population.

One thing that is interesting is the idea that government should be more market driven, but the arguments for public policy tend to be selectively cut profit tax rates to be like Europe, but don’t do a VAT or universal health care like Europe, because we need to compete with Europe or we don’t want to be like Europe because we don’t compete that much with Europe. It is all in search of the free lunch – country X is doing ok so let’s be like them, but only for the policies that will deliver a free lunch: cut profit tax like EU but don’t do a VAT like EU because we will be like the good of the EU without paying the price the EU pays to get the lower profit tax rates.

It is like “Lance ate 20,000 calories a day, so I’m going to be like Lance by eating 20,000 calories a day which makes him really buff and fit, but his hours of training is too hard and takes too much time so I’m not going to do that.”

41 Alexei Sadeski December 1, 2012 at 12:36 pm

Is it possible that increased taxes on the earners over $250k could lead to decreased tax receipts?

42 mulp December 1, 2012 at 2:06 pm

Did cutting taxes repeatedly over the period 2001 to 2012 increase tax revenue as share of GDP over the share from higher taxes from 1990-2000 when there were multiple tax hikes?

The tax cuts from 2001 had the greatest impact reducing taxes over $250K.

I know economist claim that they can’t run experiments like physicists who are constantly creating stars from gases and then running stars through the life cycle of stars in their laboratory, but here is the little secret: physicists simply observe and collect data to develop and support or refute theory.

Economists can likewise look at the period of 1930 to 1945 when taxes were repeatedly hiked, and from 1982 to 1995 when taxes were repeatedly hiked (all conservatives admit Reagan hiked taxes because he was tricked by liberals), and then compare them to 2001 to the present when taxes were repeatedly cut, or from 1020 to 1930 when taxes were repeatedly cut. What are the trends of multiple parameters of economic growth for those periods, like “lifting all boats”, job creation rates, sustainability and robustness, debt trends public and private, etc.

I point to some intervals where I identify inflections in tax and regulatory policy changes, not points where the economy looks good with the economy going off the trend without policy change has been trimmed – Hoover did not hike taxes, change regulation, increase big government, etc in 1929 but pursued stability in policy. The Fed likewise followed the same policies of 1920-28 as far as I can tell. No significant event occurred in Europe 1928-29, just the continued recovery from war.

43 JonF December 1, 2012 at 2:10 pm

Only if someone repeals the basic laws of arithmetic.

44 TMC December 1, 2012 at 5:16 pm

I assume this is a reply to Mulp.

45 Michael Sullivan December 1, 2012 at 11:44 pm

Possible? Sure. Increase the $250k+ marginal tax rate to 100%, and you’ll see decreased tax receipts. And so forth.

But the kind of policies under discussion are very likely to, at least in the short term, raise revenue. You can probably make a colorable argument that in the long term, they’ll impair economic growth and lead to lower tax revenues than they “would have been,” but such counterfactual comparisons are inherently judgment calls along a number of different axes.

46 ThomasH December 1, 2012 at 12:52 pm

I see no advantges to capping deductions compared to converting deductions into tax credits whether for increasing progressivity or for raising revenue and neither is an alternative to raising the highest marginal rates. Whatever is done needs to avoid a sharp decline in the dieficit while unemployment remain high. An extention (or even better, an increase) in the payroll tax cut and getting rid of the debt ceiling are key.

47 Dan Weber December 3, 2012 at 11:50 am

The only way I like “capping deductions” is as a phase-in method for killing the deduction.

I.e., the way to get rid of the home-interest deduction is to make the maximum interest deductible be $800,000 for FY 2014, and then make it $0 for FY 2021.

48 Dan Weber December 3, 2012 at 11:55 am

Darn it. I left out a very important clause. Can I buy an edit button?

“be $800,000 for FY 2014, cut it in half every year thereafter, finally making it $0 for FY 2021.”

49 vanderleun December 1, 2012 at 1:00 pm

Is it possible that we could just declare a moratorium with dicking with this garbage for a couple of years just to let the cliche drenched parts of the brain dry out?

50 mulp December 1, 2012 at 1:41 pm

Why is Mankiw so opposed to a higher job creation rate??

Clinton signed tax rates resulted in 23 million jobs added in 8 years. And a budget in operating balance converting external debt to internal debt for smoothing the difference between SSI revenue-spend over a half century.

Bush and Obama have both cut taxes more than a dozen times resulting in a 25% reduction in tax revenue as a share of GDP, having only a minor impact on the SSI revenue stream, so it is the individual and corporate tax revenue that has gone down by the largest share, but…

The job creation from 12 years of reducing income taxes signed by Bush and Obama has resulted in 5 million jobs in 12 years. And massive increases in debt and deficit.

The result of the tax cuts is completely the opposite of what Mankiw predicted back in 2001. When the tax cuts failed to deliver what Mankiw predicted, the result has been a decade of digging deeper and deeper to get out of the hole created by the tax cuts that were supposed to increase the rate of job creation.

Back in the 60s and 70s, economist like Mankiw were criticizing those economists who thought the economy and jobs could be fine tuned by fiscal and monetary policy. Today, I think those trying to fix the economy by round after round of fiscal policy changes while monetary policy has been constant for a quarter century should take heed of the advice to stop trying to fine tune the economy and just return to the last set of fiscal policies that seemed to work, Either the taxes of the 80s, say 1987 after the Reagan reform, or the 90s to the tax law of 1996 or 2000.

(I hesitate to advocate the tax rates of 2000 because the temporary tax cuts of 1997 promoted an asset bubble like some of the tax cuts of 1981 when phased by 1985. Capital assets do not increase in value – capital always depreciates in value. Any change in capital price reflects income poured into the asset in almost all cases, so taxing gains less than income promotes uneconomic concealing of income to lower tax rates.)

Basically, Mankiw and others have spent decades trying to figure out how to get free lunches. We can cut taxes and then pursue big government policies because these activities will result in higher growth that comes from big government without paying for it. Mankiw et al were not screaming and denouncing the Republican charge to bigger government that coincided with the tax cut efforts, and then got turned up on steroids after 911. Would Mankiw or Milton Friedman have called for big tax cuts in 1941, and then in 1942 support even bigger tax cuts on the promise that bigger government and tax cuts would balance the budget?

51 Jon December 1, 2012 at 1:45 pm

Wasn’t Romneys proposal to cap deductions period, not just deductions on incomes above a certain threshold. So none of this phase in discussion really applies to a plan seriously put forward.

This is about fairness and rejecting the notion that the bush system was in adequately progressive.

52 TMC December 1, 2012 at 5:18 pm

Bush’s tax changes made the system MORE progressive.

53 GIVCO December 1, 2012 at 3:02 pm

But if you cap deductions like that you will increase the number of taxpayers reporting +$250,000 taxable income

54 Lucas December 1, 2012 at 4:48 pm

The $250,000 number usually refers to Adjusted Gross Income, from which itemized deductions are subtracted.

55 JB December 1, 2012 at 5:13 pm

Deductions used to be phased out down to 20% until it was repealed in 2010. Did the fact that very high income people were only able to get 7% of their contribution paid for by taxes (instead of 35%) reduce charitable contributions? It seems like the white house is in favor of bringing this back anyway, so the same logic would apply to the overall limit wouldn’t it? I don’t understand why charitable contributions are being excluded. Plus I assume they will get limited anyway (to 20%) just not reduced to non-deductible.


It still seems like a more fair plan than raising rates. I believe that we may also need to raise rates but not as much if we also limit deductions.

Also, for people arguing about FICA and the regressive nature of that tax; I don’t agree. If it were just a tax then the benefit provided should not be proportional to a person’s input. Also since only wages are taxed (and counted toward the benefit) it seems particularly unfair as a pure tax. If Social Security is just spending and FICA is just an income tax shouldn’t we also tax investment income to pay for social security? Should the benefit be paid to people with high incomes? The benefit is quite progressive since it makes up a much larger share of income at lower levels of income (which makes it much harder to argue that FICA is “regressive”). It seems problematic (or at least terribly inconsistent) to analyze FICA as simply a tax.

Politically it seems like the differentiation is important and that more people thinking of it as simply a tax will undermine its purpose. FDR seemed to think so anyway saying, “We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”

56 Dismalist December 1, 2012 at 6:02 pm

Cap deductions at zero, all of them. That should help.

57 Mogden December 1, 2012 at 8:12 pm

Take every check the government spends, and divide the number on it by 2 before sending it out. That should help also.

58 Dismalist December 1, 2012 at 9:44 pm


59 Duracomm December 2, 2012 at 7:45 am

Interesting discussion over what type teaspoon should be used to bail out the titanic.

The problem is spending not revenue.

Until that fact is acknowledged and dealt with trying to fix the federal fiscal situation by tweaking tax rates on those who make more than $250,000 a year is an exercise in futility.

60 Dismalist December 2, 2012 at 11:53 am

These teaspoons are called tax expenditures. Ad them all up, and you get one hell of a lot!

61 stubydoo December 2, 2012 at 11:57 am

If we switched from the revenue side to the spending side the teaspoons on titanic metaphor would become even more applicable. The most widely publicized Republican spending cut proposal of the last election cycle was firing big bird. There might be three or four other similarly sized ideas floating around that they might find acceptable, but nothing remotely as large as the tax increases discussed in this thread.

62 Duracomm December 2, 2012 at 1:00 pm


Good point on big bird.

If politicians can’t stop using tax money to fund a well off entertainment corporation they are incapable of cutting spending and are unworthy of having one thin penny of additional tax money.

Other examples of the fed government robin hood in reverse policies (take from the less well off and give to the more well off) are sugar tariffs, ethanol mandates, and ag subsidies.

63 Andrew' December 3, 2012 at 12:36 am

“The most widely publicized”

We can’t help that publicizers can’t suck enough.

We should have fired Elmo.

64 Ryan December 2, 2012 at 9:38 am

“Bottom line: If you apply a $25,000 deduction cap only to households with income above $250K, phase in the cap gradually as income rises above $250K, and exclude charitable giving from the cap, you increase revenue by … $450 billion over ten years.”

Let’s give it a go. Now. What other ideas can we come up with?

65 David Young December 2, 2012 at 7:57 pm

The thing is this amount isn’t much smaller that the amount the democrats were to raise by increasing taxes which itself is but a tiny amount of the deficit. The tax increases were never about revenue but “fairness”.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: