Fiscal Cliff Means 50% Tax Rates For The Middle Class

Keith Fitz-Gerald writes: If I didn't know any better, I'd think there's a small but growing group of people in Washington who think it would actually be good if we temporarily went over the fiscal cliff.

I say that because I am seeing a smattering of articles recently suggesting that somehow going over the cliff "won't be all that bad" or that we're "really just talking about cuts that need to happen in the first place."

President Obama seems to think the same way judging by the fact that he's dug in his heels, telling the GOP there will be no fiscal cliff bargain that doesn't include tax hikes.

Now noted budget hawk Republican Senator Tom Coburn has broken ranks, noting that he'd rather see rates rise because that "will give us a greater chance to reform the tax code and broaden the base in the future."

I find that to be an absolutely appalling argument given how much further the president's proposals will squeeze the middle class.

As Fox Business Network's Gerri Willis, an expert on consumer and personal finance issues, recently pointed out to me, the average middle class tax rate is already 43.12%, according to the non-partisan Tax Foundation.

Beyond that, Willis says if we do go over the cliff, the average middle class tax burden jumps to nearly 50%.

I asked her how she came to that conclusion. I could only smile as she simply noted she'd "done the math," knowing full well that's one of the president's tax hike tag lines.

Unless Congress takes action, Willis observed, the average middle class federal rate jumps to 28% from 25% when the Bush-era cuts are allowed to expire. At the same time, payroll taxes will jump 15% from 13.3% to 15.3%.

Factor in state taxes, which average 4.82% nationwide, and that would take the total average middle class tax burden to 47.5%.

Keep in mind that doesn't include state income tax hikes, city or county taxes, many of which are on the rise no matter where you live thanks to decades of poor fiscal management.

Chances are, many middle-class earners living in states like California, Oregon, New York, New Jersey and Hawaii, for instance, will actually have substantially higher tax burdens that, practically speaking, are well in excess of 50%.

Case in point, the President's Council of Economic Advisors estimate that a rise in middle class taxes and the corresponding decrease in consumption would shave 1.4% off GDP, which is consistent with the signals being telegraphed from that other great oxymoron in DC, the Congressional Budget Office.

Even the president's team has estimated that consumers will spend nearly $200 billion less as a result of higher taxes alone.

Conversely, the latest GOP deal called for $800 billion in new revenue via tax reform while not increasing tax rates on the top 2% of taxpayers. It also involves limiting tax credits and capping deductions.

Naturally it was quickly rejected by the White House because it doesn't meet the "test of balance" according to White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, was quick to jump on the bandwagon noting that the GOP's proposal is yet "another assault on the middle class, seniors, and our future."

Willis believes "that taxes shouldn't go up on anybody right now. Growth is sluggish and anemic so the prospect of tax hikes don't make sense, especially on those the president purports to protect."

I agree. What you want to do is improve growth. Do that and you have improved employment.

That, in turn, takes more people "off the dole and leads to higher receipts," Willis added.

For some reason, corporate taxes are strangely missing from the entire discussion.

According to the United States Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the 2013 fiscal year budget calls for $237 billion in corporate income tax revenue against individual income tax revenue of $1.165 trillion.

If you add in Social Security and other payroll taxes, individuals are on the hook for more than $2 trillion in taxes, or 81.25% of all revenues the government intends to collect.

Very few corporations actually pay the often demonized 35% U.S. corporate tax rate. In fact, the average U.S. corporation pays just 12%. Many don't even pay that.

Instead they use legions of lawyers and thousands of foreign subsidiaries to pay taxes only when they bring them home and repatriate their profits. Or, they stage a tax rebellion of sorts.

Willis believes that the White House doesn't grasp the fact this is already well under way as companies like Oracle, Costco, Wal-Mart and more than 200 others rush to pay dividends early with the express purpose of avoiding tens of millions of dollars in higher taxes that presumably lie ahead in 2013.

Adding insult to injuries the struggling middle class has already sustained, what these companies are doing is "all very quiet and perfectly legal," she observed.

You are likely correct. The argument boils down to will the “rich” be forced to pay their fair share. The argument is therefore one of class warfare and not economics.

The passage will have no real positive economic impact because the amount raised is trivial compared to the impact on the total debt. There is a potential downside as “the rich” take counter measures that actually exceed the increased payments and total revenues actually decrease as a result.

.......Disclaimer......
what follows is deduced theory and not condoned practice.

The democrats all ready have the long term solution. It is cap and trade. The liberals have dug a hole from which they can’t climb out. They have incrementally given their voters the ability to pay no taxes at all. There is no way they can take back the no tax position. At least 50 % of the population is in that group of nontax payers.

The solution is to provide a tax on the nonpayers that is not a tax and that is paid unknowingly. The payment fuels hate of someone else rather than the corrupt, vote needing, democrat, politician, liars. The solution is Cap And Trade.

The tax is levied on energy producers, all energy producers, that then can raise rates to all consumers. Since the tax is uniform it does not effect rate competition and can by all be passed on with no effect on sales. When passed on it is effectively a trickle down tax. I say energy producers but I think it is mainly electricity. It is a tax on electricity sales covered with a carbon fig leaf described as first aid for man made climate change.

The real and only solution to eliminating the debt is inflation that devalues the amount owed over time. The cap and trade induced rise in energy costs will be hidden within the coming general inflation. That is, the pain and associated hatred will be mitigated somewhat by the general rise in the cost of everything.

The Cap and Trade tax trickle down is coming. That’s what it is, a trickle down consumption tax. Many have tax proposals, VAT, Fair Tax, etc that will cause the 50% of non payers to cough up their fair share. But they are all taxes and new taxes will be strongly resisted by the 50%. An indirect trickle down tax will not be understood when sold as a planet saving necessity.

The beauty is that the value of the tax is compounded. In the coming inflation, the incremental total will be increased compounded by the inflation rate. As all prices, including energy prices are increased the $ value of C&T receipts increases as well.

Since the election, two efforts have begun. The first is to renew the media attention to those insisting on the need to curb climate change. The other is the effort by unions to increase wages. Both are harbingers of inflation. Cap and trade increases costs across the board for all business. In an economy with unemployment wages do not rise. For the needed inflation, labor costs must rise and push general costs up. The wage inflation is being pushed by the unions and will lead to general wage increases in spite of high unemployment.

Then there is the no tax pledge. One must wonder if supporting cap and trade violates the pledge? Charging a fee for carbon emissions is not actually a tax. The fee is like usage fees for visiting a National Park or the ports or perhaps a toll road. For a politician, even a Republican politician, voting for a fee is not voting for a pledge prohibited tax.

RE :”The democrats all ready have the long term solution. It is cap and trade. The liberals have dug a hole from which they can’t climb out. They have incrementally given their voters the ability to pay no taxes at all. There is no way they can take back the no tax position. At least 50 % of the population is in that group of nontax payers.
The solution is to provide a tax on the nonpayers that is not a tax and that is paid unknowingly. The payment fuels hate of someone else rather than the corrupt, vote needing, democrat, politician, liars. The solution is Cap And Trade.”

That WOULD be the ideal solution for them except that they couldn't get that to O’s desk even in 2009 and 2010 with both houses even when they passed O-care, however if Republicans keep up the way they are going the Dems may have another shot in 2015,

RE :”Then there is the no tax pledge. One must wonder if supporting cap and trade violates the pledge? Charging a fee for carbon emissions is not actually a tax. The fee is like usage fees for visiting a National Park or the ports or perhaps a toll road. For a politician, even a Republican politician, voting for a fee is not voting for a pledge prohibited tax.”

Tax or fee, its hidden to the voters like the value-added tax so they think its the greedy energy companies gouging them.

Our lib governor O Malley played that game and won it with dumb Dem voters here, he ran in 2006 against the evil electric company charging high rates(global energy prices were high then) blaming it on the Republican governor, then got in office and announced that the high price was not really the problem, the problem was really that we were using too much.

And then he and the Dem assembly enacted into law all kinds of hidden taxes on electricity that we have to pay.

Idiot Dem voters in Maryland were too stupid to figure that out, or maybe they like high prices as long as its the government gouging then and not a business. I can believe that,

Any voter’s remorse yet America?

Probably not. They haven't felt the pinch yet. Wait till next year when those paychecks are a little smaller and all those great tax credits disappear (the ones that gave people bigger ~~refund~~ welfare checks than the amount of taxes they actually paid). Then we'll see a wailing and gnashing of teeth!

I am enjoying lurking over at DU and reading posts from liberals complaining about these mean Republicans whose intransigence will force the demise of the BUSH-era tax cuts and a return to the CLINTON-era tax rates.

Sadly, if the Republicans stand on principal, the Democrats are likely to be the ones who will ride to the rescue with tax cuts for the middle class (that look surprisingly similar to those Bush-era tax cuts that everyone except the top 2% will be able to enjoy). They'll get credit for saving the middle class while putting Republicans in the uncomfortable position of either siding with the Dems or opposing a tax cut.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.