On the heels of #Dobbs and state abortion bans, @MittRomney is seeking to cut aid to millions of single mothers under the guise of "promoting marriage." New @iteptweets data reveal that 2/3rds of single parents would face tax increases under his plan. 1/ itep.org/romney-child-t…
People having kids outside of marriage would be targeted in this latest escalation of the nation's culture wars. Romney's plan is to rework our tax code to require more of single parents so that married couples--especially those with a stay-at-home parent--can pay less. 2/
About 1 in 3 kids living in families that earn less than $50,000 per year would find themselves on the losing end of this bargain. Among that group, the average impact would be about $1,300 in lost income each year. 3/
Promotional materials touting the plan have emphasized its reforms to the Child Tax Credit (CTC). In isolation that could be a step forward, but it falls short of what Congressional Democrats have sought and, crucially, is paired with several other noxious ideas. 4/
Hidden just out of view, behind the happy talk about CTC expansion, are drastic cuts to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and a credit that defrays child care expenses, plus a punitive tax bracket restructuring designed solely to raise taxes on single parents. 5/
The end result is to sharply divide the country along racial and other lines. The average Black or Indigenous household would face a tax increase under @MittRomney's plan. Black households would pay $480M more per year and Indigenous households would pay $68M more. 6/
We also analyzed the plan by state and found that 1 in 5 Utah families would face a tax increase. We count 121,000 kids in Utah who would face tax increases, including 31,000 kids in households earning less than $60,000 per year. 7/
The impact would be similarly alarming in NC and MT, home to cosponsors @SteveDaines and @SenatorBurr. Under the Senators' plan, 526,000 kids in NC and 37,000 kids in MT would be worse off. NC families earning $25-47k would be more likely to see their taxes rise than fall. 8/
As the @iteptweets report explains, we may actually be understating the damage done by the more problematic aspects of this plan because federal tax increases on low- and moderate-income single parents are likely to automatically trigger many state-level tax increases as well. 9/
One of the most remarkable things about this plan is how utterly unserious it is as a starting point for negotiations. Whatever you think of @JoeBiden's pledge not to raise taxes on people earning below $400k, we know he's not going to obliterate that promise by signing this. 10/
.@MittRomney would raise taxes on more than 17 million adults and 8 million kids in families with income below $50,000. Zooming out a bit, there are tax hikes on more than 60 million people (adults+kids) who earn less than $400,000 under this plan. 11/
How anybody wakes up, looks around the country, and decides that single parents just have it too easy is completely beyond me. The last thing we need in the wake of new abortion bans is a plan like @MittRomney's that's tailor-made to leave single mothers worse off. 12/12
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In Arizona, the assault on democracy has broadened to include a billion dollar giveaway to rich families whose taxes were raised by voters in November. The plan would replace a voter-approved tax hike of $23k on the top 1% with a $3k average tax CUT. 1/ itep.org/arizonans-vote…
This would be done by creating the nation's only regressive personal income tax rate structure, with a rate that plummets from 2.5% to 1% on incomes above $1.2 million. This is indefensible policy with only one purpose: to negate the 3.5% rate increase approved by the voters. 2/
The plan is to return the top marginal tax rate on extremely high-income earners to 4.5%, precisely the level that Arizonans decided was too low when they approved Proposition 208. 3/
The .@NYTimes Editorial Board is out with a sensible recommendation for states: stop making income inequality worse through regressive taxation. The way to accomplish this is with a robust, graduated-rate income tax with higher rates on larger incomes. nytimes.com/2019/07/20/opi… 1/8
The idea of a flat-rate income tax may appear reasonable on its face—everyone pays the same rate. And if income taxes were the only taxes levied by states, then a flat tax would be enough to ensure that the rich paid at least the same rate as everyone else. 2/8
But this isn’t how state and local taxes work today. With regressive sales, excise, and property taxes in place, a graduated-rate income tax is essential to provide a progressive counterbalance. 3/8