Tax Fairness for the Elderly: Eliminating the Social Security Earnings Penalty
Social Security recipients under age 70 who earn more than a modest amount from wages or salary are America's most heavily taxed citizens.
Social Security recipients under age 70 who earn more than a modest amount from wages or salary are America's most heavily taxed citizens.
Critics of the American health care system have propagated a number of myths to justify greater government control over our health care system. This backgrounder identifies 10 of the most common myths and exposes the fictions that underlie each.
One purpose of the GATT is to limit the power of U.S. politicians over the choices of American consumers. The agreement seeks to protect trade from exploitative politicians and heavy-handed bureaucrats. Since the GATT must be ratified by politicians, it will certainly be far from perfect. Yet the real question is whether people will have more or less freedom with the GATT. The answer is, they will have more.
The Senate is now in open debate on the health care reform bill proposed by Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-ME). A composite, the proposal is based on bills written by the Senate's Finance and Education and Labor committees and on President Clinton's original proposal.
House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO) released the health care reform bill of the House Democratic leadership on July 29. It is a composite based on President Clinton's original proposal and on the work of the House Ways and Means and House Education and Labor committees. While Gephardt has sought to emphasize the differences between his bill and President Clinton's plan, what is remarkable is how little has changed.
The Dole proposal avoids most of the bad features of the Clinton health care plan and its various derivatives. A true market-based alternative, it includes many of the reform ideas developed by the National Center for Policy Analysis. However, the proposal's unnecessary, counterproductive insurance regulations need to be replaced, and details of its positive reforms can be significantly improved. This backgrounder discusses what is right in the Dole plan, why it is superior to Clinton-style plans and how it can be improved.
Both the Congress and the American people seem to have already rejected President Clinton's health reform blueprint. A large bloc of voters, perhaps a majority, is vehemently opposed to the plan. Many others are confused or skeptical. In Congress, staunch supporters of the president's proposal are rare.
The North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) agreement would phase out all tariffs and most nontariff barriers between the United States, Mexico and Canada. The most surprising thing about NAFTA is that there is any controversy surrounding it. Both economic theory and centuries of empirical evidence support the conclusion that free trade means prosperity for all involved.
As part of his health care plan, President Clinton has proposed price controls on health insurance premiums and "global budgets" that try to limit how much people can spend on health care each year. Capping the supply of care through budget and premium limitations, as in the Canadian system, will lead to lower costs only to the extent that they lead to shortages of technology, waiting for treatment and reduced response to the health care needs of Americans.
Last year, about 150 members of Congress cosponsored at least one of 12 different bills designed to create personal Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs). Also called Medisave Accounts and Medical IRAs, Medical Savings Accounts are attracting growing support again this year, as new MSA bills are fashioned in the current legislative session.
President Clinton proposes to increase the tax on Social Security benefits. Although the administration calls this an "entitlement spending reduction," what it proposes is a tax that will fall primarily on elderly investment income. The remainder of the burden will fall on the wages of elderly workers.
Bill Clinton's economic program calls for some $295 billion in taxes over the next five years. To put this tax hike in perspective: the adminis-tration's tax proposal is about twice the size of President Bush's tax increase, which was enacted as part of the 1990 budget deal.
The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) has completed a fonnal forecast of the effects of President Clinton's economic plan. The forecast assumes adoption of the plan in full, including all tax and spending changes.
According to the political pundits, a lackluster economy is the main reason President Bush lost the election. That judgment is based on solid economic evidence:
America is burdened by an appalling amount of crime. Although the crime rate is not soaring as it did during the 1960s and 1970s, we still have more crimes per capita than any other developed country.
In contrast to George Bush and Bill Clinton, Ross Perot has proposed a serious plan to reduce the federal deficit. 1 If all of Perot's recommendations were implemented, the plan would reduce deficit spending by $711.5 billion over the next six years. Even ignoring Perot's recommended cuts in Medicare and Medicaid on the grounds of political realism, the plan would reduce deficit spending by $570.2 billion. This contrasts markedly with the programs of the other two candidates.
Serious problems exist in the market for private health insurance. At both the state and federal levels, a number of proposals perporting to solve these problems would in fact make them worse. Some of the proposals would also exacerbate other problems — causing more people to be uninsured and contributing to rising health care costs.
Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton's economic program consists primarily of higher spending, higher taxes and private sector mandates. Although Clinton claims that his program would stimulate investment, create jobs, spur economic growth and reduce the federal deficit, we predict the opposite results.
A common assumption behind most health care reform proposals is that the private sector is causing our national health care crisis. In fundamental ways, the federal government rather than the private sector is responsible for our health policy crisis, and state governments can make few improvements as long as unwise federal policies remain in place.
As politicians confront the difficult task of health care reform, they face a dizzying array of reform plans. In fact, there are so many plans that most analysts have ceased trying to keep track of them. Yet the vast majority of all plans — both good and bad — are based on a few simple idea. This backgrounder provides a brief summary.
Jerry Brown is advocating the most comprehensive tax refonn plan that has been seriously proposed by a presidential candidate in modern times. The plan would abolish the Social Security (FICA) payroll tax, the corporate income tax and about two-thirds of federal excise taxes, replacing these taxes with a 13 percent Value-Added Tax (V AT).
In his State of the Union message, President Bush proposed a new tax package which he said would promote economic growth and create jobs. With unusual assertiveness, he gave Congress one month to enact his package.
As part of his new health care plan, President Bush announced his goal for health insurance reform: sick people should be able to obtain health insurance for the same price as healthy people. If you knew you could buy health insurance after you become sick for the same price charged to the healthy, there would be no reason to purchase it while you were healthy. Only sick people would buy it and premiums would be exorbitant.
The recent debate in the House of Representatives pitted a House Republican economic plan against a plan proposed by the Democratic leadership. The central feature of the Republican plan was a dramatic cut in the capital gains tax rate.
President Bush and the Democrats in the House of Representatives have submitted proposals to move the economy more quickly out of the current recession and to achieve a higher rate of economic growth. Would these proposals achieve their objectives?