More Leftists Admit They Want Big Tax Hike On The Middle Class
August 10, 2012 by Dan Mitchell
While I disagree with statists, I sometimes admire their discipline. They are very good at staying “on message.”
I am 100 percent confident, for instance, that they intend big tax hikes on the middle class, even though they would piously swear an oath to the contrary. Indeed, I suspect more than 90 percent of them secretly would like a value-added tax.
It’s not that they necessarily dislike ordinary people, but privately they understand that you can’t finance big government by taxing rich people.
Simply stated, there aren’t enough of the “1 percent.” Moreover, rich people have significant control over the timing, composition, and level of their income, so class-warfare tax hikes inevitably will fail to generate much revenue (yes, the Laffer Curve exists).
So it makes sense that they want to screw the middle class, but it’s also obvious that they don’t want to admit this is their goal. As such, it’s always interesting and revealing when folks on the left slip up and admit their true intentions.
- The New York Times endorsed higher taxes on the middle class in 2010.
- The then-House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer also gave a green light that year to higher taxes on the middle class.
- Earlier this year, MIT professor and former IMF official Simon Johnson argued that the middle class should pay more tax.
In recent days, more leftists have come out of the we-only-want-to-tax-the-rich closet.
Here’s some of what Jared Bernstein, former economist for Vice President Biden, just wrote for the U.K.’s Financial Times.
That plan will have to include tax increases beyond just the wealthiest households, although that is the right place to start. But what should happen next? …The best thing to do, once the economic recovery is solidly under way, is to simply let the Bush tax cuts expire and return to the tax structure that prevailed under Bill Clinton. …I’d urge Democrats to be forthright with the fact that we’re way below where we need to be in terms of revenue collection.
Bernstein, by the way, was a co-author of the infamous prediction that enacting Obama’s stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent.
The Washington Post also is on board with the idea of big tax hikes on ordinary folks.
…it’s impossible to tackle the federal debt by taxing only the wealthy. …the middle class is going to have to pay more…the only way to achieve tax reform with a reasonable increase in revenue is to reset everyone’s rates at Clinton-era levels.
Keep in mind, by the way, that these proposals are just the tip of the iceberg. Once tax rates are pushed back to 2000 levels, then the drumbeat will sound for additional tax hikes.
“The middle class is an easy target”
And, sooner or later, the left will push for its big goal of a value-added tax.
This is not a trivial threat. Obama, for instance, already has expressed support, saying that the VAT is “something that has worked for other countries.” Romney’s also untrustworthy on the issue, having left the door open to this European-style national sales tax.
But the main point of this post is to explain that class-warfare taxes on the rich are a real threat, but they’re also just the camel’s nose under the tent. The left’s real goal is to fleece the middle class.
There’s no way to boost the burden of government spending to European levels without mimicking European tax policies.
And the dirty little secret about European tax policy is that taxes on the rich are about the same on both sides of the Atlantic. The reason government is so much bigger in Europe is that they ransack the middle class.
Top Opinion
-
Aurora 2012/08/10 20:03:29
So, basically, they don't have any problem with sucking the top 33% dry and can blame taxing the middle 33% on somebody else.
How many of that 33% is even worth paying $7.50 per hour? They are unskilled in most cases or for one reason or another have jumped from job to job and who wants to spend as fortune to train them?
Not everyone can go to college straight out of high school and are better versed to attend a trade school or community college. Many of those can be done online as well.
The impending failure of Social Security is something the Dem's refuse to acknowledge.
Even if Congress kept their paws out, (which they haven't dipped in for quite a while)
that program along with Medicare are already unsustainable and MUST be overhauled, phased lout and replaced with a system compatible with the 21st century.
Everyone faces different challenges, but we have far too many on the govt. dole with no ambition, drive or inclination to get off their ass and contribute something to society rather than being a drain. Generational welfare is rampant, as is the problem we have with footing the bill for illegals which the Dem's are looking for ways to make even worse.
T...&
How many of that 33% is even worth paying $7.50 per hour? They are unskilled in most cases or for one reason or another have jumped from job to job and who wants to spend as fortune to train them?
Not everyone can go to college straight out of high school and are better versed to attend a trade school or community college. Many of those can be done online as well.
The impending failure of Social Security is something the Dem's refuse to acknowledge.
Even if Congress kept their paws out, (which they haven't dipped in for quite a while)
that program along with Medicare are already unsustainable and MUST be overhauled, phased lout and replaced with a system compatible with the 21st century.
Everyone faces different challenges, but we have far too many on the govt. dole with no ambition, drive or inclination to get off their ass and contribute something to society rather than being a drain. Generational welfare is rampant, as is the problem we have with footing the bill for illegals which the Dem's are looking for ways to make even worse.
Take a good look at who is creating the situations you speak of and understand WHY we want to address all of this now, instead of passing the problems onto our children & grandchildren.
No it really doesn't. More people are going on benefits in part BECAUSE cost of food and gas is going up so fast but the government isn't taking either into account. Americans lost about 40% of their wealth between 2007-2010. The poor are definitely much poorer now and more people are joining their ranks. This is not a left or right thing (I am definitely on the right) it's just reality.
"How many of that 33% is even worth paying $7.50 per hour? They are unskilled in most cases or for one reason or another have jumped from job to job and who wants to spend as fortune to train them?"
Even assuming they are unskilled I don't necessarily view that as their fault. The education system is a disaster and you just admitted work training isn't really available. Many of the jobs that could have employed them are either automated, outsourced/offshored or being done by migrant labor by now.
"Not everyone can go to college straight out of high school and are better versed to attend a trade school or community college. Many of those can be done ...
No it really doesn't. More people are going on benefits in part BECAUSE cost of food and gas is going up so fast but the government isn't taking either into account. Americans lost about 40% of their wealth between 2007-2010. The poor are definitely much poorer now and more people are joining their ranks. This is not a left or right thing (I am definitely on the right) it's just reality.
"How many of that 33% is even worth paying $7.50 per hour? They are unskilled in most cases or for one reason or another have jumped from job to job and who wants to spend as fortune to train them?"
Even assuming they are unskilled I don't necessarily view that as their fault. The education system is a disaster and you just admitted work training isn't really available. Many of the jobs that could have employed them are either automated, outsourced/offshored or being done by migrant labor by now.
"Not everyone can go to college straight out of high school and are better versed to attend a trade school or community college. Many of those can be done online as well."
Community college funding is being cut in many states, like California for example. Many trade schools and "online/for profit colleges" are grossly over-priced too. The entire "college industry" is a disaster. Basically everything about our society is a disaster at this point.
"The impending failure of Social Security is something the Dem's refuse to acknowledge. Even if Congress kept their paws out, (which they haven't dipped in for quite a while) that program along with Medicare are already unsustainable and MUST be overhauled, phased lout and replaced with a system compatible with the 21st century."
I said congress, I never specified party because both are guilty. Congress has been raiding social security to fund pet projects and wars for decades now. If they had not done that the program would have been fine. That doesn't mean I don't think there need to be substantial changes made to Social Security. It makes no sense to ask the young and less well off to pay more in taxes for less benefits. The young need to be having children and getting jobs yet the society is so dysfunctional that many of us have no realistic means of living lives anywhere near as well as our parents did.
As far as Medicare goes I think it has problems but a lot of those could be fixed by transitioning to something closer to Canadian medicare with certain reforms enacted. To me it doesn't make sense to spend as much on end of life care as the US does. It doesn't make sense to me to not negotiate for lower drug prices (or at least allow for importation of drugs) or continuing to subsidize the dysfunctional pseudo-private employer based HMO system either. I don't think any of those things really make sense to both parties either they are just too paid off by the lobbyists to care. The people that truly believe in "the free market" or "universal healthcare" are a principled minority.
"Everyone faces different challenges, but we have far too many on the govt. dole with no ambition, drive or inclination to get off their ass and contribute something to society rather than being a drain. Generational welfare is rampant"
I don't really view the welfare issue as cut vs keep/expand, it's much more complicated than that. We have a dysfunctional economy and culture. Case in point: Motherhood. So many educated, middle/upper class couples continue to delay having children. They wait until they are in their late 20s or 30s or sometimes even later (!). The people that have children younger tend to be lower middle class or poor. You can say that the welfare state shouldn't be encouraging the poor to have children, or that they are irresponsible.
But what has changed to make having children when you are young and most healthy a BAD move? It is in our genes, it is our most basic instinct! Yet the modern economic structure and certain cultural trends (e.g. feminism) heavily discourage this, at least for those that want a better life or aspire to be "respectable." And who can really blame them?
Children have become a huge economic burden for families (cost of education, clothing, food, etc.). Worse children are not guaranteed to take care of you in your old age or to obey you. Whereas in older/more traditional societies children obeyed their elders and people had children to help them in their farms/businesses or to take care of them in their old age. Again, what went so horribly wrong?
if some programs could help reverse a lot of the above then I am for them. If some programs look like they need to be cut or re-worked or abolished or order to achieve the above then I am for that.
"as is the problem we have with footing the bill for illegals which the Dem's are looking for ways to make even worse."
As I said earlier it is very wrong IMO for illegal immigrants to be getting tax-payer subsidized scholarships or other benefits. Democrats are cynically doing this so that they can get more votes. If anything I think current immigration levels in general are far too high.
We ceased being the Republic our Constitution was crafted around in the mid 1800's and there's been an element that's been trying to destroy that concept ever since.
Perhaps we could try it the way it was designed for a change? .... before all the Federal govt. interference -- before people got lazy, found an excuse and a finger to point for everything under the Sun?
In reality, we only gave it less than 75 years before Ben Franklin's words came to pass,..... "A Republic,.... if you can keep it".
Social decline is a direct result of removal from personal responsibility and govt. sanctioned, immoral and illegal behavior.
We have many problems, no easy fix and it certainly wont be corrected quickly.
It will have to begin with the basics of enforcing the laws we already have, to their letter. Right now, they're playing pick & choose, allowing other, more lenient laws to take their place.
Society used to shun those who were non contributors by choice, and those who chose to live outside our rule of law. All of that has been replaced by political correctness and the threat of being sued for speaking your mind.
Who will pay then?