Posts Tagged ‘household’
Elections have consequences. And the big consequence of the 2012 election looks to be higher taxes for the rich. With President Obama still in office, that’s what will happen on January 1, 2013 when the Bush tax cuts expire, whether John Boehner likes it or not. The big question is whether Obama and House Republicans can make a deal undoing the rest of the so-called fiscal cliff.
They can. If they listen to Mitt Romney.
Romney got some well-deserved criticism for his chronically math-challenged tax plan, but he did have a very clever idea when it came to tax reform. Rather than take on specific tax deductions — and the constituencies ready to defend them — he would limit overall deductions. Such a cap raises revenue without raising marginal tax rates, and it raises the most revenue from the rich…
See the tax changes for people making less than $200,000? Of course not. That’s because the Romney’s tax plan would hardly raise their taxes. But households making between $200,000 and $500,000? They would pay a couple thousand more in taxes. Millionaires could wind up paying almost a hundred thousand dollars more…
The wealthiest households not only pay more than others under the cap, they pay most of the cap. In other words, households making a million dollars or more would pay 73 percent of the $59 billion a $50,000 cap would raise in 2015 if tax rates stay the same. Middle-class households mostly wouldn’t get hit because they mostly don’t take itemized deductions, and when they do they rarely take anywhere near $50,000 worth of them. Take a look at the chart below to see just how progressive a $50,000 cap would be.
The idea is fiscally valid – meets the approval of the other geeks with whom I discuss topics like business and banking.
I do wonder who suggested it to Romney. He isn’t capable of an original thought about the weather or sex – much less tax policy. Scott Galupo of the American Conservative thinks he stole the idea from an earlier suggestion by President Obama.
Sounds about right to me.
Not only an intelligent redesign; but, a well-made video presentation.
UPDATE: Congratulations are in order to Min-Kyu Choi the overall winner at this year’s Brit Insurance Design Awards.
A University of Washington study of top-selling laundry products and air fresheners found the products emitted dozens of different chemicals. All six products tested gave off at least one chemical regulated as toxic or hazardous under federal laws, but none of those chemicals was listed on the product labels.
“I first got interested in this topic because people were telling me that the air fresheners in public restrooms and the scent from laundry products vented outdoors were making them sick,” said Anne Steinemann, a UW professor of civil and environmental engineering and of public affairs. “And I wanted to know, ‘What’s in these products that is causing these effects?’”
“I was surprised by both the number and the potential toxicity of the chemicals that were found,” Steinemann said. Chemicals included acetone, the active ingredient in paint thinner and nail-polish remover; limonene, a molecule with a citrus scent; and acetaldehyde, chloromethane and 1,4-dioxane.
“Nearly 100 volatile organic compounds were emitted from these six products, and none were listed on any product label. Plus, five of the six products emitted one or more carcinogenic ‘hazardous air pollutants,’ which are considered by the Environmental Protection Agency to have no safe exposure level,” Steinemann said…
The European Union recently enacted legislation requiring products to list 26 fragrance chemicals when they are present above a certain concentration in cosmetic products and detergents. No similar laws exist in the United States.
Gee, what a surprise! To think that our government cares less about the health of citizens using household products – than potential profit margins for the manufacturers of those products. Who’da thunk it?