For the last couple of years there has been a payroll tax “holiday”, which has largely benefited middle class wage earners. The president’s proposal for averting the “fiscal cliff” continues this, while the Republican counter-proposal ends it (while also keeping the lower rates for the wealthy).
So the Republican proposal raises taxes on middle class workers. Why would they go for this? This seems like such an easy thing to attack.
Because the only thing they care about is letting the rich continue to loot the country.
Because it can be raised as many times as wanted, but still allow the claim that they hold the line against “income taxes”. Same thing for getting rid of tax deductions, which is also a de facto tax increase.
Because American conservatives are too fucking stupid to think at all, never mind think for themselves. This whole idea that most people don’t pay taxes is ridiculous if you include payroll tax. And if you don’t, then you can’t turn around and include Soc Security payments in the deficit.
Not to mention that the people the Republicans care most about stop paying FICA at the $100,000 mark, so either way they’re not any worse off.
Maybe they think it’s irresponsible to indefinitely underfund a mandatory spending program.
Or, maybe for the same reason Nancy Pelosi does.
Or maybe for the reason Obama was for letting it expire before he was against it.
John Mace, Obama never supported ending the payroll tax holiday while keeping the Bush tax cuts for top earners. I think that’s what the OP is criticizing: the fact that Republicans are more willing to raise taxes on the middle class than on the rich.
I was under the impression that she supports the President’s proposal. Probably because she’s said so.
So circumstances have changed, I guess. But anyway, it doesn’t change the fact that the Republican proposal raises taxes for working people (while lowering them for the rich) and the President’s doesn’t. I’m actually for uncapping payroll taxes, or perhaps even making payroll taxes progressive (like income taxes). In this case it seems obvious that the President’s plan is the political winner.
The payroll tax is a flat tax, and therefore regressive, much like a sales tax. It unfairly taxes the working poor and middle class; a few percent of a rich person’s check doesn’t affect them as much as a few percent of a check for a person of more modest means. Republicans mostly love the flat tax idea.
The payroll tax cut as always meant to be temporary. We can argue in good faith when the best time to let it expire is.
The payroll tax hits everyone, not just the middle class. The GOP is willing to let that expire now, as it must at some point. Democrats have supported that position in the recent past, so I don’t see what the big deal is.
The GOP doesn’t want to raise tax rates on anyone. They are arguing for revenue increases by means other than rate increases and those would targeted at “the rich”.
Now, I think the Democrats have the better approach, but it’s not accurate to say that the GOP is targeting the middle class for tax increase, but not the rich.
I don’t see how letting the payroll tax cut expire isn’t a tax increase. And the middle class pay a far higher percentage, relative to their income, on payroll taxes then the rich do.
Why not? It’s just simple arithmetic. Under the Republican plan, an average middle class person would pay more taxes overall then under the President’s plan- and an average wealthy person would pay less overall.
The fact of the cap on the payroll tax means that whether it’s accurate or not, it’s broadly true.
The Bush tax cuts were also temporary, so I think it’s fair to ask why they’re more willing to let one tax cut expire than another.
The pain of the payroll tax is greater on the middle class than on the rich, though.
The lower class and lower middle class pay no income tax, but do pay payroll taxes. If that’s what you mean by “everyone,” OK.
If, instead, your “everyone” was meant to imply “including the rich” than your statement is not only false in detail (many rich have no earned income), but shows gross innumeracy (even the rich who do have earned income pay payroll tax on such a tiny portion of their income, it should be approximated as zero for discussion).
True, but they fund the parts of the budget that are subject to being cut. FICA does not.
True, but the claim I was responding to was:
If that that poster wants to rephrase his assertion and backtrack on what he is claiming, he’s free to do so. As it is, my response stands. When the GOP favors letting the payroll tax cut expires, it causes a raise in taxes for everyone, not just the middle class.
Incorrect and innumerate. I refer the honorable Mace to the answer given eight minutes earlier in the thread.
What drives me nuts, is the incorrect references to the ‘Bush tax cuts’. There were NO cuts. What they were, was a freeze on increasing the tax rates for that bracket of earners.
You do have to ask yourselves though, before whizzing all over ‘the rich’: Did I ever get a job from a poor man? Answer: NO. The more the wealthy get squeezed, the less jobs they’ll create. Or they’ll just say screw it, close their businesses, cash out, and head for Caribbean.
And by the way, I’m not rich, quite the opposite.
Do you think the tax rate on the rich should be reduced to zero? Perhaps the poor should be taxed extra to give a subsidy (negative tax) for the rich, so they can create more jobs.
If you concede that the tax rate on the rich should be more than zero (though I’m not sure you will) the issue isn’t “should we whizz all over ‘the rich’.” The issue is, what tax rate is an optimal compromise. Do you have some insight why specifically 35% is a better number than 39.6% ?
This will come as a surprise to every analyst or news organization (except Fox?)
Maybe your question is very basic: Do you know which is larger, 39.6% or 35% ?
On the other hand, hunger is a powerful motivator. How about we split the difference and give millionaires a zero per cent income tax, but a progressive sales tax of up to 10000000%?
No, the more tax you pay, the more you care about the future of the country and the less likely you are to want to lead to systemic failure through looting and the tragedy of the commons. That’s surely why Wall Street CEOs want the poorest to have a stake in the game, right?
If a major in the Army said “screw it, I’m renouncing my citizenship and going to Canada; they promised to make me a Colonel”, what would you say about him? Should we change the rules and give him what he wants to entice him to stay?
How is it any different for a rich person to abandon the country just to save a few bucks?