<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[To Tax or not To Tax ?]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p><span><span>Best-case scenarios for health reform would reduce the growth rate in health care costs by 1.5 percentage points a year. Even Obama economic adviser Christina Romer has said that won't be easy to achieve.</span></span></p>

<p>
Gale and Auerbach estimate that for health cost savings alone to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio over time, the growth rate in health costs would need to be slowed by 3 percentage points a year -- for 75 years.</p>

<p>
"The issue is certainly health care, but the issue is a lot more than health care," Gale said. "Our fiscal books are fundamentally out of balance."</p>

<p>
A big reason, Gale and Auerbach say, are the tax cuts and spending increases put into place since 2001.</p>

<p>
One way to measure the imbalance is to consider the "fiscal gap" -- which is a measure of the difference between revenue and outlays over the long term.</p>

<p>
Under Obama's budget, Gale and Auerbach estimate the fiscal gap would be 9% of GDP. Conceptually, that means to restore fiscal balance over the long-term the federal government would need to increase taxes by 9% of GDP or cut spending by that amount starting now and lasting "until the end of time," Gale said.</p>

<p>
For some context, consider that in a normal year, the country gets tax revenue equal to about 9% of GDP.</p>

<p>
Obama has promised to make permanent the tax cuts for everyone except high-income households. It's an expensive promise. The federal coffers will see roughly $2.1 trillion less in revenue over the next 10 years than it would if the tax cuts expired for everyone, according to estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation.</p>

<p>
"The [Obama administration] gave away a huge pot of money. [it was] a gargantuan missed opportunity," said Charles Konigsberg, chief budget counsel of the Concord Coalition, a deficit watchdog group.</p>]]></description><link>https://brownsboard.com/topic/5315/to-tax-or-not-to-tax</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2026 04:51:31 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://brownsboard.com/topic/5315.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:27:47 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to To Tax or not To Tax ? on Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:29:46 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p>That extract came from -&gt; <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/01/news/economy/health_care_reform/index.htm?postversion=2009070108" rel="external nofollow">http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/01/news/econo...sion=2009070108</a></p>



<p>
so a simple question - Should Obama listen to the watch dog group and tax appropriately so that we do not lose the 2.1 trillion dollars ?</p>]]></description><link>https://brownsboard.com/post/82157</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://brownsboard.com/post/82157</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[BrownIndian]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:29:46 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>