August 23, 2011
-
The GOP will raise taxes — on the middle class and working poor
America’s presumably anti-tax party wants to raise your taxes. Come January, the Republicans plan to raise the taxes of anyone who earns $50,000 a year by $1,000, and anyone who makes $100,000 by $2,000.
Their tax hike doesn’t apply to income from investments. It doesn’t apply to any wage income in excess of $106,800 a year. It’s the payroll tax that they want to raise — to 6.2 percent from 4.2 percent of your paycheck, a level established for one year in December’s budget deal at Democrats’ insistence. Unlike the capital gains tax, or the low tax rates for the rich included in the Bush tax cuts, or the carried interest tax for hedge fund operators (which is just 15 percent), the payroll tax chiefly hits the middle class and the working poor.
And when taxes come chiefly from the middle class and the poor, all those anti-tax right-wingers have no problem raising them. In an editorial this weekend, the Wall Street Journal termed the payroll tax reduction “an inferior tax cut,” arguing that tax cuts should be “broad-based, immediate and permanent.” Broad-based? The payroll tax cut, which the Journal dismisses so contemptuously, benefits every employed American, while the tax cuts the paper champions — on capital gains and millionaires’ income — accrue to a far smaller group. Immediate? Unlike taxes paid annually or quarterly, the payroll tax is drawn from each paycheck from the moment the law takes effect. Permanent? The payroll tax is the tax that funds Social Security, so reducing it really can’t be a permanent policy. But the impermanence of the Bush tax cuts, which had been set to expire this year but were extended, presented no obstacle to the Journal’s fervent support for them.
This tax-Joe-Six-Pack mania doesn’t end with the Journal. While President Obama has made clear that he supports extending the lower 4.2 percent payroll tax rate for another year, to keep the economy from contracting further, congressional Republicans have made their opposition equally clear. “I don’t think that’s a good idea,” said Dave Camp (R-Mich.), chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. Camp complained that it would push the deficit higher. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the man who’d have us scrap Medicare, concurred. “It would simply exacerbate our debt problems,” he said on Fox News Sunday this month.
This concern for the debt, touching though it may be, didn’t keep Republicans from enacting two waves of tax cuts under George W. Bush. It hasn’t kept them from opposing our current president’s proposal to restore the Clinton-era tax rates on the wealthy. But when we’re talking about taxes on the majority of Americans, those who work for a living and don’t make six-figure incomes, the Republican brain lobe devoted to debt reduction through tax increases goes abuzz with synaptic frenzy.
The most telling Republican reaction to the president’s proposal to extend the lower rate has been one man’s equivocation. The man is Grover Norquist, author of the anti-tax-increase pledge that the vast majority of House Republicans have signed. On Tuesday, pressed by a number of journalists (most prominently, The Post’s Greg Sargent) to state his position on raising the payroll tax, Norquist sought to quietly steal away. “One would have to see the final legislation,” his spokesman, John Kartch, told Sargent, to determine “what is the net effect on total taxes.”
But unless Congress votes to extend it, the lower rate will expire on Jan. 1 regardless of its effect on total taxes. Norquist flat-out opposed letting the Bush tax cuts expire — though he did tell The Post’s editorial board that it didn’t technically violate the pledge, a position that he has since tried to obfuscate. Now that the payroll tax is slated to expire, though, Norquist is lost in contemplation (or something). Congressional Republicans inclined to increase the payroll tax — and I’m not aware of any who have come forth to oppose that idea — can do so, apparently, without fear of being labeled tax-increasers just because they’ve increased taxes.
Republicans like to complain that Democrats practice “class warfare” and “the politics of division,” as House GOP leader Eric Cantor argued on this page Monday. What the Republicans’ position on the payroll tax makes high-definitionally clear is their own class warfare on working- and middle-class Americans. Their double standard couldn’t be more obvious: Tax cuts for the wealthy are sacrosanct; tax cuts for everyone else don’t really matter. Norquist, Cantor, Ryan, Camp, the Journal editorialists and the whole Republican crew give hypocrisy a bad name.
From here.


Comments (14)
That tax break didn’t do much but I must admit I don’t understand why they don’t support it.
For once, you make a post I can get behind.
“Their double standard couldn’t be more obvious: Tax cuts for the wealthy are sacrosanct; tax cuts for everyone else don’t really matter”I DONT SEE WHY IT IS SO HARD TO FUCKING TAX THE WEALTHY.
The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will haunt the rest of us working Americans for a long time. Taxing the working poor is backwards, especially with the cost of living increasing. Make those rich bastards pay their share. After all, it’s “working class” Americans who provide the workforce needed to keep our economy going. Please stop raping our dwindling paychecks.
That one cartoon must’ve been so good that you posted it twice.
Really… how is it possible that so many people can even consider voting for these assclowns…?
i hope more Americans wake up but but a good sign is there have been record recalls of republicans who were elected to state government. another good sign is republicans from Washington are hearing it at town hall meetings at home. their reaction however has been to tell security to confiscate video cameras (they don’t want the sight of themselves being chewed out on youtube). they’ve asked security to escort dissenters out of the rooms. some republican lawmakers refuse to answer questions they don’t like while others have turned to charging people money for the privilege of being able to attend a meeting and ask a question. one of those charging a fee after being chewed out by angry constituents at one town hall meeting is Paul Ryan, the author of the highly criticized and failed republican 2012 budget plan. the arrogance of elected officials charging their constituents fees to ask questions is unbelievable and unprecedented as far as i know and cowardly. they don’t like facing the music or listening to the people they were elected to legislate on behalf of.
@SlackerSociety - but, taxing the wealthy is class warfare!
I don’t understand. From everything I’m reading, Liberals who originally opposed the Bush tax cuts, wanted them to expire. It was through right wing pressure, that they were extended this far. Also, the initial “decrease” in taxes bringing Payroll tax to 4.2% from 6.2% were also part of the “Bush tax cuts” in the first place.
@mr_jin_tonic - The problem is Republicans fought hard enough to nearly bring our country to default on our debt because they refused to let Bush tax cuts expire on the rich, but they have no problem letting taxes get raised on the working class.
We never would have gone into default. That was a scare tactic used by the left to try and pressure the right into increasing the debt limit without any guarantees of spending cuts.
This tax “increase”, is in fact the payroll tax adjusting back to it’s original 2010 level. It was understood that this tax break would only last one year, and was done to try and boost our economy.
Also, if you want to see who actually pays most of the United States income tax, check here, http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
The figures so that the top 10% of income earners pay nearly 70% of all taxes (based on figures from 2008). Increasing taxes for the “rich” really amounts to no more than highway robbery. Why do you think all the jobs are leaving the country?
@mr_jin_tonic - You are aware that the conservatives virtually uniformly worried about the U.S. going into default too, right? They just didn’t believe raising the debt ceiling was an appropriate response. To categorize the threat of default as being some sort of leftist scare tactic is absurd.
@UTRow1 - ”This is a misnomer that I believe that the president and the Treasury Secretary have been trying to pass off on the American people, and it is this — that if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion, that somehow the United States will go into default and we will lose the full faith and credit of the United States. That is simply not true.
“It is important to recognize that revenues continue to come in to the United States Treasury. It is merely the president’s obligation, and the Congress’s, to make sure that the interest is paid on the debt. We are grateful that revenues are sufficient to be able to pay the interest on the debt.” – Michelle Bachmann July 13, 2011
I’m not agreeing with what she said, however, you have to admit that a lot of the “hype” was played up by the media. The country would never have gone into default, it was posturing on both sides.
One side claims the sky is falling.The other side says, “it’s not so bad”.
It’s negotiations 101.
In the end, what happened? The debt limit was raised, spending cuts were promised, and STILL the S&P downgraded our credit worthiness.
Not that the Democrats are any better.
Quite useful information, thanks for your post.
SunCloud Polarized Optics – Aviator +1.5 (Gunmetal) – Eyewear | Munro American – Tahiti (Sandstone Pearlized Leather) – Footwear | Mele – Blaine In-Drawer Jewelry Organizer (Black) – Accessories