Congress approved measures to avoid the Fiscal Cliff by raising taxes for individuals who make over $400,000, and households that make over $450,000. As reported by CNN:
It raises rates on those who make more than that from 35% to 39.6%, bringing back a top tax bracket from the Clinton administration, and will raise roughly $600 billion in new revenues over 10 years, according to various estimates.
The bill also extends unemployment insurance and delays for two months the threat of sequestration — a series of automatic, across-the-board cuts in federal spending.
I tackled the proposed idea of increasing taxes for those making $200,000 or more in a recent article, calling that figure out of touch with the reality of inflation in America. It’s nice to see some sense in the number they choose. Still, I always wonder how they make these decisions, it is not like there is much transparency to the methods. I would like to think there is some evidence based practice being used in the creation of policy. Raising taxes to increase revenue is not simple; it sends ripple effects through the economy. If we can launch a rocket to the moon, we should be able to have decent statistical models about tax structure.
Come to think of it, should ideology be the basis for which we create social programs? This is precisely what we find in our current political landscape. Whatever happened to the age of enlightenment and good hard science in government? Thomas Jefferson would be ashamed today. Social Work has been blasted for being a profession that operates without evidence to support their interventions and yet Congress is allowed to make economic decisions in much the same way. In any case America is safe from ever having say the term Fiscal Cliff for a good long time, I wonder what dysfunction will be next?