There is a lot of discussion over the tax proposal introduced by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), now that Rubio has announced a presidential run.
Rubio said on two occasions that the plan would help the majority of Americans - and that 90 percent of Americans would see a tax cut under their plan.
Lee and Rubio billed the "Economic Growth and Family Fairness Tax Plan" as a pro-growth and pro-family proposal to overhaul and simplify the tax code. One of the main provisions would consolidate the personal income tax into two brackets - 15 percent and 35 percent. Depending on the interaction with other provisions, that could result in a break for some and a tax increase for others, as the current lowest bracket is 10 percent and the highest is 39.6 percent. It cuts taxes on investment income, eliminates double taxation for business income, and reduces the corporate tax rate to 25 percent from the current 35 percent. The plan also eliminates the Alternative Minimum Tax and most itemized deductions, except for a modified mortgage deduction and the deduction for charitable giving. It expands the child tax credit to $2,500 per child - the key pro-family provision. The credit is partially refundable up to the payroll taxes paid, so there is criticism that poorest families would not benefit from the expanded child tax credit.
The key provision that could make a difference is a new personal tax credit, of $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for joint filers, to replace the standard deduction and personal exemption. A fully refundable personal credit also would be costly and add to the deficit. The refund, essentially, would be new spending since there is no such current program. The expanded child tax credit alone would cost about $170 billion a year, according to the Tax Foundation. The problem here is that the full refundability of the personal tax credit is not written in the current proposal.
The non-partisan Tax Policy Center, reviewed an earlier version of this proposal that Lee introduced in 2013.
Under the 2013 plan, 61.5 percent of taxpayers will see a tax cut, and 12 percent will see a tax increase. The center found it would disproportionately help the rich, and raise taxes on poor families. But, the Tax Policy Center, said it is impossible to analyze the impact of the Lee-Rubio plan without knowing the specifics of how the refundable tax credit would work.
A lot of vague promises are made on the presidential campaign trail. But when it comes to Rubio's' statements, it would be more responsible for Rubio to note that the figures are based on a provision that is not explicitly written into the proposal.
Santorum misrepresents EPA
Rick Santorum misrepresented the Environmental Protection Agency's impact analysis of a new agency rule that would reduce power plant emissions of mercury and other toxins.
Santorum falsely claimed that the EPA's cost-benefit analysis assumed hundreds of thousands of pregnant women eat six pounds of fish caught in lakes per week, potentially exposing their unborn children to high levels of mercury. Actually, the EPA assumption was far lower, about 0.1 pounds per week on average.
Santorum said the "direct health benefit" of lowering mercury emissions is $6 million, referring to the EPA estimate for the reduction in IQ loss, but he ignores the associated health benefits from reducing pollutants other than mercury. The EPA places the total benefit of the rule at between $37 billion and $90 billion per year, against a cost of $9.6 billion per year.
Chip Tuthill lives in Mancos. Websites used: www.factcheck.org www.washingtonpost.com
