How to Avoid Being a Principled Republican on Taxes

[Flaylo]

Robert Reich: How to Avoid Being a Principled Republican on Taxes

For example, rank-and-file House Republicans are willing to increase taxes on the middle class starting in a few weeks in order to avoid a tax increase the very rich.

Here are the details: The payroll tax will increase 2 percent starting January 1 -- costing most working Americans about $1,000 next year -- unless the employee part of the tax cut is extended for another year.

Democrats want to pay for this with a temporary -- not permanent -- surtax on any earnings over $1 million, according to their most recent proposal. The surtax would be 1.9 percent, for ten years. (Democrats would also increase the fees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac charge lenders.)

This means someone who earns $1,000,001 would pay just under two cents extra next year, and 19 cents over ten years.

Relatively few Americans earn more than a million dollars, to begin with. An exquisitely tiny number earn so much that a 1.9 percent surtax on their earnings in excess of a million would amount to much. Most of these people are on Wall Street. It's hard to find a small business "job creator" among them.

Nonetheless, Republicans say no to the surtax. "The surtax is something that could very much hurt small businesses and job creation," says John Kyl of Arizona, the Senate's second-ranking Republican.

This puts Republicans in the awkward position of allowing taxes to increase on most Americans in order to avoid a small, temporary tax only on earnings in excess of a million dollars -- mostly hitting a tiny group of financiers.

Not even a resolute, doctrinaire follower of GOP president Grover Norquist has any basis for preferring millionaires over the rest of us.

To say the least, this position is also difficult to explain to average Americans flattened by an economy that's taken away their jobs, wages, and homes but continues to confer record profits to corporations and unprecedented pay to CEOs and Wall Street's top executives.

So Republican leaders are trying to get rank-and-file Republicans to go along with an extended payroll tax holiday -- but by paying for it without raising taxes on the very rich.

According to their latest proposal, they want to pay for it mainly by extending the pay freeze on federal workers for another four years -- in effect, cutting federal employees' pay even more deeply -- and increasing Medicare premiums on wealthy beneficiaries over time.

But even this proposal seems odd, given what Republicans say they believe about taxes.

For years, Republicans have been telling us tax cuts pay for themselves by promoting growth. That was their argument in favor of the Bush tax cuts, remember?

So if they believe what they say, why should they worry about paying for a one-year extension of the payroll tax holiday? Surely it will pay for itself.

How can one party be so blatantly in love with the rich?

 

[Stephanie]

The RICH little midget Robbie Reich is posting at the Hufferpost?

Remember folks-Bush tax cut-------BAD

Obama wanting tax cuts-----GOOD GOOD GOOD a hero

 

[Flaylo]

The RICH little midget Robbie Reich is posting at the Hufferpost?

Remember folks-Bush tax cut-------BAD

Obama wanting tax cuts-----GOOD GOOD GOOD a hero

Remember Repugs folks-Tax cuts for the middleclass and working poor-------BAD

Repugs wanting tax cuts for the rich only-----GOOD GOOD GOOD, heroes.

 

[Stephanie]

The RICH little midget Robbie Reich is posting at the Hufferpost?

Remember folks-Bush tax cut-------BAD

Obama wanting tax cuts-----GOOD GOOD GOOD a hero

Remember Repugs folks-Tax cuts for the middleclass and working poor-------BAD

Repugs wanting tax cuts for the rich only-----GOOD GOOD GOOD, heroes.

ya, you guys got that talking point down. the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich.
But the Republicans tired to compromise on these Obama tax cuts and so far the DEMOCRATS have been hemming and hawing. so the little midget should shut his mouth, it's far too big for his body anyway.

 

[eflatminor]

Social Security, which is funded by the payroll tax, does NOT have the funds to pay on its promised liabilities. If you support the idea of SS, which I assume you do, why would you want cut off its source of revenue? If this tax cut is so important, why would Democrats not support reduced spending federal spending elsewhere? Is the federal government running that lean and mean???

 

[Oldstyle]

Social Security, which is funded by the payroll tax, does NOT have the funds to pay on its promised liabilities. If you support the idea of SS, which I assume you do, why would you want cut off its source of revenue? If this tax cut is so important, why would Democrats not support reduced spending federal spending elsewhere? Is the federal government running that lean and mean???

It's another example of the "rob Peter to pay Paul" mentality that the Left seems to feel passes for sane fiscal policy. Cutting the payroll tax takes money out of Social Security...a program that is already rapidly approaching insolvency. Quite obviously you can't make the payroll tax cut permanent because it will bankrupt Social Security. Unfortunately the Obama Stimulus did so little to stimulate the economy that we can't raise taxes on anyone because to do so will smother what little recovery we do have. Too bad we couldn't have spent that trillion dollars on some stuff that worked. Solyndra? Shovel ready jobs?