Payroll Tax Cut: Middle Class Needs the Tax Break Millionaires Get

44

Payroll Tax Cut: Middle Class Needs the Tax Break Millionaires Get

As the battle over the payroll tax cut extension is set to continue today with the introduction of the GOP package, the point of contention is over how to pay for the tax cut. 

In order to fund the bill — legislation that would provide an additional $1,500 take-home income to 160 million middle class families — Senate Democrats are calling for a surtax on those with gross income over $1 million, while the Republicans are seeking instead for a Federal pay freeze and a gradual reduction of the Federal work force in lieu of millionaire surtax. 

This debate, once again, highlights the over-emphasis of wealthy Americans’ positive role in spurring the domestic economy. But in an economy where consumer spending is nearly two-thirds of GDP, it is the middle-class consumers who are the job creators, not the wealthiest Americans.

Many Republican lawmakers call the millionaire surtax a “job-crushing tax hike," arguing that any additional tax on these “job creators” will do nothing to improve, and will likely even further increase, the unemployment rate.

But are the rich in America really the all-important job creators that should be protected from any kind of tax increase, even if protecting them will provide additional take-home income for the middle and lower class? As Nick Hanauer, founder of a venture capital company Second Avenue Partner so persuasively wrote recently on Bloomberg, real job growth stems mainly from the actions of the average American consumers, not from the super-rich. Ultimately, it is the everyday consumers that create the economic environment for job growth.

Of course, business entrepreneurs invest, hire workers, and make products and services – but they do so if and when there is demand for what they produce. And the more disposable income Americans have in their pocket, the more money they can spend on products that the rich invest to produce.

The rich don’t magically create jobs. They don’t hire more workers simply because they have money to spend. They hire when they know they will make additional profit by hiring more workers. And similarly, even if a tax increase leaves them with less capital to grow their business, they will expand and hire if they know there are consumers out there who will spend and buy their products.

Yes, rich investors and business owners do hire and create jobs. Their reason behind doing so, however, are not solely determined by how much money they have left after paying taxes, but by how much opportunity there is for profit in the economy. 

This is why the tax breaks on the middle-class and surtax on the millionaires to pay for them make sense. According the Moody’s Analytics, this payroll tax holiday extension would “spur enough new consumer spending to add about 750,000 jobs.” The middle-class consumers are the real job creators here. This tax on the rich is not about class-warfare or income redistribution. This is about getting the economy going again. 

Photo Credit: Matt McGee

44

Sign up to join the discussion

Reply to this article
view profile

Yoonho Ji

Yoonho is a recent graduate from University of California, San Diego, with a BA in International Studies: Political Science/History. As an underg...

Most Mic'd Response

weekly-winner-headshot-fpo

Danny Keener

Ji, you are right. We have a consumer-driven economy. As for the "job creators" I wonder where the jobs are that they supposedly create. It seems that they are oversees. They don't create jobs; they outsource them (at least the multinational corporations do). And the medium to small size businesses need people to have money in order to stay in business. We can argue all day long about what should be done about this, but the fact remains that without demand nothing can be sold. Also, we seem to incentivize making money off of money. This has no supply chain and does little to effect a positive growth because it does not put money in the pockets of working class Americans. Nice article!

Watch the PolicyMic Video Join PolicyMic

The Discussion

Why President Newt Gingrich Will be better than President Obama?
Please type the title in Google above to read my article
President Obama promised the American people to fix economic problem in home and fix the image of the USA overseas. The Nobel Peace Prize committee rushed and gives the prize to

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Rarely have I seen such succinct and accurate analysis of this debate and the hidden truth, agenda, and consequences of action. The current GOP is lost and adrift in special interests that are far removed from the average American. That alone is reason enough to reject, not necessarily the GOP, but the premise by which they are currently operating. I was expecting "hope and change" to come from Obama to my dismay. It is not the label but reality.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

The title of the article should be the reverse: the rich should pay the same tax rate as the middle class. We can not keep on borrowing our way out of everything and should face up to the pains of a balanced budget. Perhaps that would get our country to get our fiscal house in order.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

3 Replies

  • Ben Poole 5 months ago Actually, I don't disagree wit...

Actually, I don't disagree with that sentiment at all depending upon the definition of "rich" except I would go further in some instances and say more - not the same. The virtue of taxing proportional to disposable income is different than taxing based upon total income or total profit. Profit should always be a progressive tax meaning the more the profit the more tax. The current situation is solvable if there is will to solve the hard problems

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

2 Replies

  • Lev Sviridov 5 months ago Ben, you are absolutely right! Wher...

Ben, you are absolutely right! Where there is a will, there is a way!

However, Congress has shown itself to be a body that can pass legislation as a part of a spending package that imprisons American citizens indefinitely in 30 minutes and to be completely paralyzed on issues that require their full attention. Why would you give them money?

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

1 Replies

  • Ben Poole 5 months ago Lev, I agree but giving them money ...

Lev, I agree but giving them money is the law and there is only one way to change it (outside of revolt). But, I believe you are speaking about any increase. No increase - I will disagree. Cutting a deduction is a tax increase. I would cut loopholes. Most loopholes are for economic benefit to a special interest group. Its special interest spending (including Wall Street, Fannie/Freddie) but the biggest is taxing overseas corporate operations.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

We can't cut income taxes anymore for the middle class and poor b/c they don't pay any income taxes. Now we are cutting their contribution to social security, and the Dems want the wealthy to pick up the tab.

What are the chances the Dems ever vote to get rid of the payroll tax "holiday"? None. It will become the new "doc fix", renewed every year. We will hear the same mantra: we can't raise taxes on the poor and middle class. . .

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

6 Replies

  • Danny Keener 5 months ago First of all, this is not a Dem/Rep...

  • Ben Poole 5 months ago Gary, perhaps you have figured out ...

First of all, this is not a Dem/Repub. issue. This is an issue that hits the heart of most working (and I emphasize working) Americans, not those who sit around and wait for their dividends check to arrive. Who has had their taxes decreased the most over the last thirty years; it has been the top tier, not the middle and lower classes. How much more are you going to defend Daddy Warbucks? Is it because you think you will be amongst the top one percent? I cannot believe that anyone actually thinks that the money will EVER trickle down; it has proven over the last thirty years to fail.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

1 Replies

  • Gary W. Patterson, Jr. 5 months ago I agree it's not a Dem/Repub i...

I agree it's not a Dem/Repub issue; they're both cowards. It was a dumb idea in the first place; now there's no going back. We'll be re-upping this "holiday" for generations to come. Mark my words.

The money is supposed to be going toward social security. Instead, it's another $115 billion not going to SS every year, at a time when we are already taking in less than we are paying out.

Most people who make over a million dollars don't "sit around and wait for dividend checks to arrive." Most are actually busting their ass to make their money.

You are also mistaken about who has gotten the most out of tax cuts.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

The poor benefited more from tax cuts than the rich.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Gary, perhaps you have figured out how to keep income tax from coming out of your check and thus I solute you. Few have the intellect or time to spend realistically in planning tax returns. That is fodder for the rich's accountants which means who cares if they succeed or not in the big scheme of things. They are still rich. Its not envy or jealousy that should permeate our discussions but how to increase production when profit is loyalty or not.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

3 Replies

  • Gary W. Patterson, Jr. 5 months ago Not quite sure of your point here. ...

Not quite sure of your point here. The payroll tax holiday has nothing to do with income taxes. Moreover, just b/c income taxes are taken out of your paycheck, doesn't mean that you're actually going to have a net tax liability. 47% of Americans get back every dime; and in many cases- they get back more than they put in.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

2 Replies

  • Ben Poole 5 months ago Gary, I am not bashing the rich. I ...

  • Gary W. Patterson, Jr. 5 months ago I have to disagree. The reason 47%...

Gary, I am not bashing the rich. I am bashing the "personhood" created by an activist Supreme Court not by legislation and tax tailoring for special interests. As to payroll tax holiday, that is wonderful for those who live paycheck to paycheck. I also got all my taxes back due to losses as I expect most of that 47% represents. We are in agreement but my stance against corporate avarice is not based upon jealousy or desiring to tax but reality.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

I have to disagree. The reason 47% of Americans don't pay taxes is very clear: Reagan and Bush tax cuts. Taxes were cut across the board for every income group. Those that paid a little in 1979, paid none in 1986, and even less by 2003. In fact, many went from 0 tax liability to a negative income tax- in other words, Uncle Sam sent them a check.

As for your judicial activism charge, the SC was actually just following the Constitution (for a change). Political speech is to be protected above all. You don't have less rights to political speech b/c you happen to organize as a corporation. If you don't like it, there is a remedy: Constitutional Amendment. It's been done.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Ji, you are right. We have a consumer-driven economy. As for the "job creators" I wonder where the jobs are that they supposedly create. It seems that they are oversees. They don't create jobs; they outsource them (at least the multinational corporations do). And the medium to small size businesses need people to have money in order to stay in business. We can argue all day long about what should be done about this, but the fact remains that without demand nothing can be sold. Also, we seem to incentivize making money off of money. This has no supply chain and does little to effect a positive growth because it does not put money in the pockets of working class Americans. Nice article!

  • Mic this! 4
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

4 Replies

  • Gary W. Patterson, Jr. 5 months ago Daniel, I could ask you the same qu...

Daniel, I could ask you the same question: If the payroll holiday creates jobs; where are they? As you know, the tax "holiday" has been in place for the past year.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

3 Replies

  • Danny Keener 5 months ago Well, it puts money back into the p...

Well, it puts money back into the pockets of consumers which is one explanation for why unemployment has decreased.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

2 Replies

  • Gary W. Patterson, Jr. 5 months ago It has?!? You know as well as I do...

  • Danny Keener 5 months ago I agree that cuts are necessary in ...

It has?!? You know as well as I do that the only reason the number slipped from 9.1 to 8.6 is b/c 300K people stopped looking for work last month. If you add them in the number balloons to over 10%. The job market hasn't really improved this year. It still stinks.

I am all for tax cuts; but I don't want to "pay" for a tax cut by raising taxes on another group. That's counter-productive.

You want the payroll tax cut? Reduce spending elsewhere as the GOP has proposed. God forbid the federal employees get a little trim.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

I agree that cuts are necessary in places to streamline government, but the fact is that it needs to be coupled with revenue increases.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Mr. Ji:

Please look at the actual IRS data.

With an AGI of $170,000 or what a 20-year teacher with a masters and a 2-year police captain in Pittsburgh make, your earned a ranking of TOP 5% in America.

With an AGI of $115,00 or less than what a married couple of Engineers make with 3 years work experience in Atlanta put you in TOP 10% in America.

The Problem with America's TAX SYSTEM is 10% of filers pay 70% of all Federal INCOME Taxes!!

Someday, Progressives will admit you CANNOT claim to have a Progressive tax code when 50% of fillers pay ZERO and 90% pay less than 30%.

  • Mic this! 4
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

3 Replies

  • Lev Sviridov 5 months ago Everyone should pay something into ...

  • Yoonho Ji 5 months ago Yes, I understand your point. The n...

Everyone should pay something into the pot -- fair and flat tax. That is a compassionate, responsible, ownership society!

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Yes, I understand your point. The numbers are shocking. According to some data I came across, top 1% of the US taxpayers pay 38% of all individual federal taxes and top 10% pay 70%, all while the bottom only pay 3%. It all seems very unfair.

But my argument has to do with something else. I'm arguing that the focus should be on getting the consumers spending again. An additional 2% tax for people making over a million dollars a year will not effect their spending decision. For people who make $25,000/yr, however, an additional $1,500 can certainly determine whether they are going to go out and buy new clothes or not. The more consumer spend, the more businesses will profit and hire.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

1 Replies

  • Rick Mathews 5 months ago It is easy to forget the George W. ...

It is easy to forget the George W. Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 increased the number of filers being ZERO more than any change in Federal Tax code ever.

CBO has estimated basically $300 Billion in additional revenue annually would be generated simply allowing those rates to expire.

While those who make the most would of course continue to pay both the highest rates and contribute the bulk of tax revenue generated, the progressive nature of the tax code would be partially restored.

Less than 35% of American's would pay ZERO if the Bush Tax Cuts are allowed to expire.
















  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Mr. Ji, you have espoused the same ubiquitous arguments that have been rammed down our throats by liberal congressmen and our liberal president for the past three years; a little creativity, please. Conservatives think raising taxes for anyone at this time would be a bad move. Most economists agree with this. And, give me a break on the fair share argument. Liberals won't be happy until the wealthiest pay all the taxes. The tax rates of the affluent are not the only source of new revenues in this country; as soon as the class warfare advocates recognize this, the sooner we will be able to move the economy in the right direction.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

5 Replies

  • Tim Martinez 5 months ago Sure, raising taxes has a negative ...

  • Yoonho Ji 5 months ago I agree that raising taxes for anyo...

Sure, raising taxes has a negative effect on the economy. So does spending cuts. But if we assume that there's a limit to how much we are willing to be deficit, then we can't have it all.

The question then should become what is more effective in helping the economy. The answer is that high income tax rates have the least effect on the economy.


You may argue it's unfair for the rich who are paying a greater percentage, but it's economic conditions that make it that way. Strong employment is what allows people to demand better pay (and so pay more taxes), and cut into wealthy profit margins.

Ironically, the policies that make it "fairer" for the rich in the short term are the policies contribute to greater disparity due to market forces.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

3 Replies

  • Sal Bommarito 5 months ago Mr. Martinez, I tried to make a sub...

  • Lev Sviridov 5 months ago Taxation is not a market force. If ...

Mr. Martinez, I tried to make a subtle point in my previous comment about "other sources of revenue." I agree with you that cutting spending can impede economic growth, but cutting wasteful spending would not. Even though I do not endorse the tactics of the GOP in Congress, I do support the idea that there is a lot to cut before we need to increase taxes for anybody. Just look at all the pork barrel spending being attached to current legislation- by the way, both parties are still abusing this technique of spending without debate. Most affluent people in the country would tell you that they are ready to pay more taxes, but only after Congress does its job of cutting the waste.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

1 Replies

  • Tim Martinez 5 months ago Well, I'd disagree that wastef...

Well, I'd disagree that wasteful spending automatically doesn't help economic growth. Of course it depends on the specific item, but even hiring people to dig and fill holes would create personal income and increase consumption. It'd actually be more stimulative than a low income tax cut, since it'd be going to people who'd spend most quickly (people who previous had no income). So it's really more a matter of efficiency, as in getting something more useful out of the money put into it.


Regarding pork barreling, it doesn't seem that congress makes any better judgement when something is debated or not...

I'd also disagree on how significant pork barreling is, and on just how wasteful it really is when you really look into it.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Taxation is not a market force. If we want the Federal Government to do something, them we must pay for it and the revenue must be generated in a way that creates healthy cash flow. Right now the wealthiest of Americans and the wealthiest corporations are sitting on cash. Taxation can be a method to thrust that cash from the reserves into the economy without having to print money or come up with other incentives. Government spending, at an appropriate level, could stimulate the economy without borrowing. So, taxes must be adjusted to best fit the needs of the nation and not due to political belief. Putting country before party should be a sign of authentic and effective leadership.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

I agree that raising taxes for anyone in a bad economy may not be a good idea. And I certainly support cutting "wasteful" spending (determining what's “wasteful” would be a whole new argument).

I guess where we differ is that I believe more good than harm will come out of choosing millionaire surtax over spending cuts. It seemed to me that the main reason why Republicans rejected the surtax proposal was that the rich are the job creators. I tried to outline in my article that that is not the case.

As for the "fair share" argument, I don't think I made any in my article. In fact, I never understood that argument because "fairness" is almost entirely on the eye of the beholder. I just think millionaire surtax makes the most economic sense.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!
Join PolicyMic

What is PolicyMic?