In last week's Liberty Update, we highlighted the Heritage Foundation's 2022 Index of Economic Freedom…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Image of the Day: More Economic Freedom = Higher Standard of Living

In last week's Liberty Update, we highlighted the Heritage Foundation's 2022 Index of Economic Freedom, which shows that Joe Biden has dragged the U.S. down to 22nd, our lowest rank ever (we placed 4th in the first Index in 1995, and climbed back up from 18th to 12th under President Trump).  As we noted, among the Index's invaluable metrics is how it demonstrates the objective correlation between more economic freedom and higher citizen standards of living, which this graphic illustrates:

 …[more]

May 19, 2022 • 12:53 PM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Obama Preaches Newest Version of Tax “Bracket Creep” Print
By Ashton Ellis
Wednesday, August 17 2011
For anyone who thinks that agreeing to more taxes is the answer to the nation’s fiscal problems, just look at what President Obama has proposed.

Ever heard of “bracket creep”? 

It’s the scourge of middle-class families, and one of the favorite weapons of tax-and-spend liberals. 

Just ask Barack Obama.  On his Midwestern bus tour this week, the president hammered Republican presidential candidates for pledging not to raise taxes if elected.  In his view, the way to achieve a “balanced” debt reduction is to cut federal spending and raise taxes on Americans making more than $200,000 a year. 

Obama agrees with his billionaire investor friend Warren Buffet that the rich need to “share the sacrifice” of a retracting economy.  The implication, of course, is that everyone making less than $200,000 a year won’t pay any new taxes if Obama’s plan goes through. 

Who are these “rich” people that need to pay their “fair share”?  By and large the people that fall into this tax bracket are parents of middle class families with multiple responsibilities.  While $200,000 may sound like a lot of money to a community organizer picketing alongside union members, it’s barely enough to afford a house, send kids to college and drive two cars. 

True, $200,000 used to buy a comfortable living almost anywhere in the country.  However, that was before Congress passed the Minimum Tax and Alternative Minimum Tax rates without indexing them for inflation. 

In 1969, Congress passed the Minimum Tax to capture a greater percentage of tax income from America’s wealthiest citizens.  Like all tax hikes, it was sold as making the rich pay their fair share.  There was one major problem: The tax rate was not indexed for inflation.  Neither was its 1982 successor, the Alternative Minimum Tax. 

One way to think of inflation is when the cost (but not the value) of living goes up.  Thus, people need to make more money just to maintain their standard of living. 

So, what happened when the Alternative Minimum Tax set a threshold for big tax hikes that did not account for inflation?  Over time, millions of Americans became “rich” even though their standard of living did not improve.  The inflationary movement of income earners to higher tax thresholds is the definition of bracket creep. 

Back to Obama.  In 2008, he pushed the same kind of bait-and-switch with his $250,000 a year threshold.  Notice it’s a particular number, not a percentage of income.  Obama’s threshold doesn’t say that when $250,000 tomorrow is worth less than $250,000 today only the “rich” will be paying their fair share.  Obama’s tax works just like the Alternative Minimum Tax.

In fact, it’s worse because Obama’s tax threshold is falling faster than the AMT normally does. 

In 2008, Obama’s tax on making $250,000 was promoted as a way to fully fund the Social Security Trust Fund, which the federal government has raided for decades and filled with IOUs. 

In 2011, Obama wants to lower his threshold to $200,000 to capture more people and “pay for” a totally different problem: the woefully unbalanced federal budget.  (Technically, Social Security is considered “off budget” for deficit calculations.) 

What if Obama had gotten what he wanted in 2008?  Today, millions of Americans would have experienced skyrocketing tax burdens, Social Security might get cash but zero protection from being raided and the official budget deficit would still exist. 

For anyone who thinks that agreeing to more taxes is the answer to the nation’s fiscal problems, just look at what President Obama has proposed. 

In 2008, Obama wanted to tax the “rich” to “spread the wealth around.”  In 2011, he wants to force an even greater number of people to “share the sacrifice” of living in an America with a plunging stock market and a sovereign debt downgrade.  Whatever the fiscal question, the liberal answer is always to tax, in good times and in bad. 

When it comes to tax reform, two things to fear are inflationary brackets and the creeps that love them.

Quiz Question   
How many days does it take the average U.S. household to consume as much electrical power as one single bitcoin transaction?
More Questions
Notable Quote   
 
"The trial of former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann crossed a critical threshold Friday when a key witness uttered the name 'Hillary Clinton' in conjunction with a plan to spread the false Alfa Bank Russian collusion claim before the 2016 presidential election.For Democrats and many in the media, Hillary Clinton has long held a Voldemort-like status as 'She who must not be named' in scandals…[more]
 
 
—Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University
— Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University
 
Liberty Poll   

Should any U.S. government agency have a function called the "Disinformation Governance Board" (See Homeland Security, Department of)?