We Don't Need a Middle Class Tax Cut

[Jack Hays]

It has been obvious for some time that tax revenue has been inadequate, given the demonstrated impossibility of radical spending cuts. Therefore, the last thing we need right now is another middle class tax cut. In fact, the middle class (and the wealthy, of course) should be paying more. Tax reform? Sure, but we need more revenue.


We don’t need tax cuts for the middle class


We need more tax revenue from the middle class, not less.

• Kirk J. Stark, Eric M. Zolt

Amid the partisan rancor surrounding the framework for tax reform developed by GOP congressional leaders, there is one area of remarkable consensus: lower taxes for the middle class. The political logic is not hard to understand. The middle class continues to struggle, and, with midterm elections just around the corner, both parties need the support of middle-class voters.
But missing from the tax debate is an appreciation that lawmakers have already crafted a tax-friendly regime for middle-income taxpayers. The result is a more progressive tax system that raises less revenue. Unless Congress is willing to dramatically cut major entitlement programs and eschew new social programs to address poverty and declining economic mobility, we need more tax revenue from the middle class, not less. . . .

 

[Harshaw]

Who, exactly, is "we"?

And for whatever problem you think this "we" needs more revenue for, why does the solution have to be on the revenue side?

 

[Jack Hays]

Who, exactly, is "we"?

And for whatever problem you think this "we" needs more revenue for, why does the solution have to be on the revenue side?

Because, as I wrote, the impossibility of radical spending cuts has been irrefutably demonstrated.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Who, exactly, is "we"?

And for whatever problem you think this "we" needs more revenue for, why does the solution have to be on the revenue side?

We need both tax hikes and spending cuts, long term. Instead of targeted tax cuts for wealthy families, we need to stop the capital gains discount, reduce defense spending, trim the federal bureaucracy, and implement universal health care. As usual, Republican policy is short-sighted and counter-productive.

 

[JasperL]

It has been obvious for some time that tax revenue has been inadequate, given the demonstrated impossibility of radical spending cuts. Therefore, the last thing we need right now is another middle class tax cut. In fact, the middle class (and the wealthy, of course) should be paying more. Tax reform? Sure, but we need more revenue.


We don’t need tax cuts for the middle class


We need more tax revenue from the middle class, not less.

• Kirk J. Stark, Eric M. Zolt

Amid the partisan rancor surrounding the framework for tax reform developed by GOP congressional leaders, there is one area of remarkable consensus: lower taxes for the middle class. The political logic is not hard to understand. The middle class continues to struggle, and, with midterm elections just around the corner, both parties need the support of middle-class voters.
But missing from the tax debate is an appreciation that lawmakers have already crafted a tax-friendly regime for middle-income taxpayers. The result is a more progressive tax system that raises less revenue. Unless Congress is willing to dramatically cut major entitlement programs and eschew new social programs to address poverty and declining economic mobility, we need more tax revenue from the middle class, not less. . . .

I agree with that, but what good is it to be a Republican, and especially for big donors to open their wallets, if the GOP doesn't cut taxes?

 

[Harshaw]

Because, as I wrote, the impossibility of radical spending cuts has been irrefutably demonstrated.

Utter and complete nonsense. "We haven't done it, therefore, it's impossible." That's your take.

 

[Harshaw]

We need both tax hikes and spending cuts, long term. Instead of targeted tax cuts for wealthy families, we need to stop the capital gains discount, reduce defense spending, trim the federal bureaucracy, and implement universal health care. As usual, Republican policy is short-sighted and counter-productive.

Your litany of policy preferences does not constitute actual "needs." These may be things you want, but that doesn't mean "we" "need" to do them.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Your litany of policy preferences does not constitute actual "needs." These may be things you want, but that doesn't mean "we" "need" to do them.

We need them far more than we need the GOP "tax reform" plan. I'm simply outlining what must occur if we want to get a handle on deficits and stop growing the national debt.

 

[jimbo]

We need both tax hikes and spending cuts, long term. Instead of targeted tax cuts for wealthy families, we need to stop the capital gains discount, reduce defense spending, trim the federal bureaucracy, and implement universal health care. As usual, Republican policy is short-sighted and counter-productive.

Typical of the liberal mentality, your proposal includes tax hikes for the producers, claiming reductions in federal bureaucracy, which is a minor problem plus the military as the only spending cuts and adds UHC, another runaway social program. While making no reductions in other social programs.

Short sighted and counter productive liberal policy.

 

[Harshaw]

We need them far more than we need the GOP "tax reform" plan. I'm simply outlining what must occur if we want to get a handle on deficits and stop growing the national debt.

No, there are quite a few other ways to do it without paying 330 million people's medical bills from cradle to grave. That's just what you want. It's far, far, far from a "must."

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

I think we need more people paying in. A larger middle class and the people on welfare need to be brought back into society. We have 2nd and 3rd generation welfare recipients. This is not fair to the hard working taxpayer and it clearly has taken the American dream out of hope and reach of these people on welfare. Bringing people into our country to work for less than poverty wages while not paying any taxes is not a solution. I think the biggest problem is the mind set of the people collecting as well as the employers believing they can not pay a livable wage and sell their product. I think it can be done. I just bought some of the best sweet corn, green beans, cauliflower, and other vegetables all affordable and all grown locally by people making a livable wage. No slave labor from Mexico needed. Proving clearly it can be done.

 

[JasperL]

Utter and complete nonsense. "We haven't done it, therefore, it's impossible." That's your take.

Fair enough, big spending cuts are, despite decades of real world experience, still theoretically possible. But what is irrefutable is we've been dealing with deficits for decades and those big spending cuts have not happened. So until the country demonstrates the political will to cut spending, and DOES in fact cut spending, the only solution is more revenue if we care about deficits (which we actually do not, but that's not the topic.)

 

[Jack Hays]

I agree with that, but what good is it to be a Republican, and especially for big donors to open their wallets, if the GOP doesn't cut taxes?

Big donors all have their reasons, including the ones who give to Democrats.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Typical of the liberal mentality, your proposal includes tax hikes for the producers, claiming reductions in federal bureaucracy, which is a minor problem plus the military as the only spending cuts and adds UHC, another runaway social program. While making no reductions in other social programs.

Short sighted and counter productive liberal policy.

Those policy goals would simply move us closer to the west of the first world. Your "liberal" label is not instructive. The current GOP plan is folly.

 

[Jack Hays]

Utter and complete nonsense. "We haven't done it, therefore, it's impossible." That's your take.

"Only a fool learns from experience. I learn from the experience of others." --Otto von Bismarck

If it ever happens I'll be delighted to admit my error.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

I think we need more people paying in. A larger middle class and the people on welfare need to be brought back into society. We have 2nd and 3rd generation welfare recipients. This is not fair to the hard working taxpayer and it clearly has taken the American dream out of hope and reach of these people on welfare. Bringing people into our country to work for less than poverty wages while not paying any taxes is not a solution. I think the biggest problem is the mind set of the people collecting as well as the employers believing they can not pay a livable wage and sell their product. I think it can be done. I just bought some of the best sweet corn, green beans, cauliflower, and other vegetables all affordable and all grown locally by people making a livable wage. No slave labor from Mexico needed. Proving clearly it can be done.

Pop the cap gains discount, add more tax brackets, have much higher rates on the top brackets, AND expand the tax base. While only about half the country pays the FIT after credits and deductions, taxation as a whole it relatively flat. It should be more progressive.

 

[jimbo]

Your litany of policy preferences does not constitute actual "needs." These may be things you want, but that doesn't mean "we" "need" to do them.

The actual Constitutional "needs" is fighting the wars, protecting the borders, and facilitating interstate commerce and travel. Federal government fails at two out of the three. Interstate commerce costs are insignificant.

There is no Constitutional mandate for any social program. Yet social programs are considered untouchable or insufficient by the left.

 

[chuckiechan]

We need them far more than we need the GOP "tax reform" plan. I'm simply outlining what must occur if we want to get a handle on deficits and stop growing the national debt.

We can reduce the taxes on business and get more from their workers since every taxpayer generated with a job is one less cost on the social cost* ledger. One way or another, we are paying the unemployed. So a job represents a debit on the social account and a credit on the tax account. A person collecting $300 a month on food stamps, now pays $300 a month on taxes = a $600 move on the government account.

The best way to get people working is to cut corporate taxes. Lower prices means more sales as well as more exports. You'll get the corporate tax cut back my more workers paying taxes and receiving less social cost.

social cost* A broad definition of government assistance that unemployed people get.

 

[Harshaw]

Fair enough, big spending cuts are, despite decades of real world experience, still theoretically possible. But what is irrefutable is we've been dealing with deficits for decades and those big spending cuts have not happened. So until the country demonstrates the political will to cut spending, and DOES in fact cut spending, the only solution is more revenue if we care about deficits (which we actually do not, but that's not the topic.)

Raising taxes has proven be a similar political non-starter.

People warned back in 2008/9 that a trillion-dollar ad-hoc stimulus package, let alone two of them, would raise the baseline of spending by that much. It did. If spending were still on the curve it was on prior to those 30%+ sudden jumps, the budget would be in surplus with current revenues.

3.46 trillion in revenue is quite enough. Spending more than that is spending too much.

 

[Jack Hays]

Those policy goals would simply move us closer to the west of the first world. Your "liberal" label is not instructive. The current GOP plan is folly.

We are not like the rest of the world, and it is folly to try to be so.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

No, there are quite a few other ways to do it without paying 330 million people's medical bills from cradle to grave. That's just what you want. It's far, far, far from a "must."

Most of the world does it successfully. Don't let misguided ideology get in the way of real solutions to a huge domestic problem.

 

[Harshaw]

"Only a fool learns from experience. I learn from the experience of others." --Otto von Bismarck

If it ever happens I'll be delighted to admit my error.

As I just said above, raising taxes, especially at the levels you wish to do it, and upon whom you wish to do it, is similarly "impossible."

 

[GhostlyJoe]

We can reduce the taxes on business and get more from their workers since every taxpayer generated with a job is one less cost on the social cost* ledger. One way or another, we are paying the unemployed. So a job represents a debit on the social account and a credit on the tax account. A person collecting $300 a month on food stamps, now pays $300 a month on taxes = a $600 move on the government account.

The best way to get people working is to cut corporate taxes. Lower prices means more sales as well as more exports. You'll get the corporate tax cut back my more workers paying taxes and receiving less social cost.

social cost* A broad definition of government assistance that unemployed people get.

Cutting corporate taxes will not create jobs. Corporations are already sitting on record cash reserves without lowering prices or ramping up hiring. Tax cuts will not change the math for them. Job creation and pricing are market-driven, not policy driven, and lowering taxes will most certainly not prompt anyone to unilaterally lower prices.

Edit: Also, most people receiving government benefits are either retired or already working.

 

[Harshaw]

Most of the world does it successfully. Don't let misguided ideology get in the way of real solutions to a huge domestic problem.

Most of the world, in fact, does not do it at all, let alone successfully. Most of the world's health care systems are a hybrid of government and private insurance.

 

[Jack Hays]

As I just said above, raising taxes, especially at the levels you wish to do it, and upon whom you wish to do it, is similarly "impossible."

You may be right, but there have been far fewer attempts so the record of failure is less comprehensive.