An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Executive Summary - Revised September 15, 2008

An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Executive Summary - Revised September 15, 2008Roberton Williams, Howard Gleckman

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

The text below is an excerpt from the complete document. Read the full report in PDF format.

This short paper summarizes the Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Revised September 15, 2008

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years, according to a newly updated analysis by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. Compared to current law, TPC estimates the Obama plan would cut taxes by $2.9 trillion from 2009-2018. McCain would reduce taxes by nearly $4.2 trillion. Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers. In contrast, McCain would cut taxes across the board and give the biggest cuts to the highest-income households.

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years, according to a newly updated analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Neither candidate?s plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified.

Compared to current law, TPC estimates the Obama plan would cut taxes by $2.9 trillion from 2009-2018. McCain would reduce taxes by nearly $4.2 trillion. These projections assume the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire in 2010 and that the Alternative Minimum Tax is fully effective. Both candidates

(End of excerpt. The entire report is available in PDF format.)

View the original article here

Health Reform: A Four-Tranche System : Updated and Revised

Updated and RevisedStephanie Rennane, C. Eugene Steuerle

This package of tables considers interactions between four different provisions of government support for health care that exist under the new Health Reform law (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA): Medicare, Medicaid, Insurance Subsidies offered through the Exchange, and Employer Sponsored Insurance (ESI). The summary table estimates the value of health benefits to families and singles at various income levels under the four options, and the charts show how these benefit levels change as income rises. Estimates for Medicare benefits are from CMS; estimates of Medicaid premiums are from the Health Policy Center. Backup tables work through the calculations for the value of the exchange subsidy and the tax subsidy for ESI.

The backup tables provide a comparison of health subsidies in the employer-provided system and the subsidy exchange in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act that was signed into law on March 30, 2010. This is an update to tables that compared health subsidies under the employer-provided system and the subsidy exchange in the earlier versions health reform proposals. The main provisions of the law are found in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), originally passed by the Senate on December 24, 2009. The changes in the latest Reconciliation Act that are relevant to this analysis include: (1) premium contributions range from 2% of income for people earning up to 133% of the federal poverty line to 9.5% of income for earners in the 300%-400% FPL range; (2) the employer penalty for not providing coverage in 2014 is $2,000 per full time worker and is indexed in subsequent years; and (3) cost share subsidies ensure an actuarial value of the health premium of 94% for those under 150% FPL; of 85% for 150-200% FPL; of 73% for 200-250% FPL and of 70% for 250% and higher.

We made several assumptions when calculating these estimates. First, we assume that the employer provides only cash wages and health insurance benefits (where applicable), and pays the appropriate employer payroll taxes. Secondly, our starting point was to set the employee's cost to the employer equal under the subsidy and ESI scenarios; this represents the amount of extra or less subsidy to be shared by employee or employer by adding or removing employer-provided insurance. In a simple case where the employer gives the employee the extra benefits from switching to the exchange, for instance, those benefits would be net of any employer penalty that had to be paid. Finally, the two earner scenario assumes that both employees either: (1) both have ESI available; or (2) are both eligible for the exchange. In the exchange situation, we assume that both employers incur a penalty that is passed on to the employee. A family with two earners where only one worker's employer incurs a penalty would resemble the one-earner situation at an equal income level.

View the original article here