More

Payroll Tax Cuts Gain Support -- Including From Roubini

Huffington Post   First Posted: 09/17/10 12:23 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 06:40 PM ET

Roubini

As President Obama's recent proposal for new stimulus programs has elicited mixed reviews from financial pundits, there's been growing support for another measure that the administration reportedly isn't considering -- payroll tax cuts.

Prominent economist Nouriel "Dr. Doom" Roubini, co-founder and chairman of Roubini Global Economics, argues for such a cut in today's Washington Post, saying a two-year reduction in the tax, whose burden is shared by employers and employees, would stimulate both hiring and spending. He adds that allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire would fully pay for this program. Here's Roubini:

"Most policy approaches, including the Obama proposals, have tended to subsidize the demand for capital rather than the demand for labor. That has the problem backward. In the second quarter, capital spending reached an annual growth rate of 25 percent. The argument that increased demand for capital leads to greater demand for labor (i.e., if you buy more machines you need workers to run them) has not held up. Firms are investing in capital goods, equipment and offshore offices that allow them to produce the same amount of goods with less -- and lower labor costs. To avoid a chronic increase in the unemployment rate, we need to subsidize the demand for labor -- achieving job creation -- rather than making it cheaper to buy capital, as investment and other tax credits would do."

In the Wall Street Journal last week, Republican governor of Indiana Mitch Daniels also supported payroll tax cuts. The details of his plan are different: He proposes a one-year reduction, paid for by a host of cuts to government spending. His basic idea, though, is similar to Roubini's, that the government's first priority should be to fight unemployment directly. Here's Daniels:

"Moreover, the administration's big-government policies -- most notably health-care reform -- are holding back job creation. Drowning in new or pending regulations and taxes, businesses, banks and investors are understandably sitting on dollars that could be putting Americans to work."

As the New York Times reported last week, economist Nigel Gault also supports payroll tax cuts. The chief U.S. economist at consulting firm IHS Global Insight said the president's proposals for infrastructure spending and research subsidization could help, but they're "not going to kick-start the economy." A payroll tax cut, he said, just might.

The NYT says the White House doesn't like the payroll tax cut because it would sap money from Social Security and Medicare. Paul Krugman, for his part, has called that argument "old nonsense."

Quick Poll

Should The U.S. Implement A Payroll Tax?

Yes, it will fuel demand in the economy.

No, the deficit is more pressing.


FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
As President Obama's recent proposal for new stimulus programs has elicited mixed reviews from financial pundits, there's been growing support for another measure that the administration reportedly is...
As President Obama's recent proposal for new stimulus programs has elicited mixed reviews from financial pundits, there's been growing support for another measure that the administration reportedly is...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 675
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (14 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClareP
11:58 PM on 10/14/2010
Make a reduction but pay for it in large part by raising the income cap. There are other uses for the tax revenue from the upper 2%, but raising the cap means all middle income people would get a substantial reduction and it would be pretty far up the ladder in wealth before the wealthy who would be affected would actually feel an increase.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
YMBM
11:32 PM on 10/05/2010
They don't need any Payroll Tax Cut! This is Funny!

Its Time to stop giving and The American People start getting back from Corporations! All the Corporations are standing on the Corner with their hands out, isn't time you start giving something back!!

No More Free Bees! Start Putting Your Free Market and Capitalist Way of Life Back To Work!

NO MORE HAND OUTS!!
05:47 PM on 09/30/2010
Isn't Medicare pay as you go? That would leave the elderly with no health care.

What is the point in messing with payroll taxes. Why not just give the employers a tax break on their income taxes if they hire new workers?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
themodernleader
06:04 AM on 09/20/2010
Tax cuts allegedly used as a panacea for a prostrate economic system is actually a dishonest way of dismantling the most efficient, fair tax system in human history.  No modern nation can long prevail without a fair, rational tax collection system.  Once a tax is elliminated it is virtually impossible to restore it. Look at corporate and inheritance taxes.  Alone, corporate taxes were 54% of total Federal taxes in 1945. Now they are a scandalous minus 7% and decreasing yearly.  Talking about  a nation in decline-----.
    When Reagan the Constitutional traitor, stated that government was the problem, Americans turned from patriotic duty to self-interest,selfishishness, regionalism and politics of plutocracy and ruin.  If there are turning points towards incipient decline it was FDR proclamattion that historical forces, not personal negligence, irresponsibility  were to blame for the great depression.  From that point on Americans turned to Washington with all their problems that they should have started solving at the local level.  Second, was the Reagan Revolution of turning loose unrequited financial wealth and power on a defenseless industry, technology and competent membership which destroyed the sinews of American know-how and strength.  Now we stand alone, weeping in grief and desolation outside our Constitutional Wall.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
2lib4oh
01:27 AM on 09/19/2010
Why should people pay taxes to work?
photo
Kache
Toodlum, wake up, I hear a prowler downstairs
06:24 PM on 09/19/2010
Why should we pay taxes at all? Let's just borrow all of it.

Right now, when we run deficits and borrow, we borrow primarily from the upper class who collect the interest from future taxes - deficits are a transfer of wealth from lower class tax payers to higher class lenders.

If we eliminate taxes and just borrow all the money, the upper class can only be paid back with interest from them buying more debt. This way, the interest would be a simple shuffle of money from one generation of Rockefellers to the next. This would eventually milk the Rockefellers dry and during the meantime the lower classes would get the benefits of government services without paying into the rich man's merry-go-round.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:55 PM on 09/20/2010
Your model is correct, but maybe not quite like you think. The key word is taxpayers, and if you take a conservative view of that term, then you must actually be paying Federal Income Taxes in order to be in that category. Since only about the top 50% of filers actually PAY taxes, then yeah, your correct.

But the "wealth transfer" has absolutely nothing to do with the bottom 50% of filers, as they pay little to no Federal Income Taxes.
05:51 PM on 09/30/2010
People do not pay taxes to work. Actually payroll taxes are contributions to FICA for Social Security and Medicare. This is a form of insurance that pays benefits to your family if you die and have young children, it pays benefits if you become disabled and it pays benefits when you retire.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:15 AM on 09/19/2010
You make a great argument about taxes and the cost of civilization, but our tax money is used in far more sinister ways. Its used to line the bloated pensions of government “servants” and its used to ensure that government “servants” have life time job security at the expense of everybody else. I understand the need for government---government is there to secure and defend the nation, among other things--but what we disagree on is how much involvement should government have in supposedly securing our collective needs.

What is the proper role of government? Should government run a welfare state and take from those who are productive and work hard, and give to those who are not productive and who sham and abuse the system? Should government encourage laziness and bad behaviors by rewarding welfare queens and lifetime pension funds to losers? Should government secure us in old age or is that the role of the family? How big should government get? Is it safe to have big government, big daddy, involved in every aspect of our lives. I understand we need police, judges, courts and even the FDA, but do we really need the department of education and 15 million government workers robbing us of our money. Don’t you think we should save our money to protect our own individual future? Fanned
03:00 PM on 09/19/2010
(Yawn) Your right wing-nut talking points are putting me to sleep. Drivel does that...
schatsie
banks are more dangerous than standing armies
06:35 PM on 09/19/2010
Sure my heart bleeds for the 400 richest people in this country who Bush gave a TAX CUT of $60 grand PER DAY FOR EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM.....They are working so hard (hardly working at all because this is taxed at 17% so really it it ALL CAPITAL GAINS......Where is the Cap on Capital Gains? I mean really how do you spend $840,000 per day? While we cannot get the body armor for the grunts, where the grunts have to pay for their meals at the VA,,,,,
photo
metogamekun
non-violence takes guts
10:19 PM on 09/30/2010
The grunts have to sometimes pay with their lives for the wealthiest's right be wealthy.
maxfax
Taa - dah!
11:56 PM on 09/18/2010
He adds that allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire would fully pay for this program

That's what I'm talkin' about.  How's the new mayor of Chicago doing, Rahm Emanuel?
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
09:59 PM on 09/18/2010
In that quickpoll above, didn't they mean to say "Should the US implement a payroll tax CUT?" Leaving out the word "cut" gives a very different impression. It gives the impression that we don't already have payroll taxes and if we choose not to implement them it will mean a smaller deficit. I expect more from HP.
06:08 PM on 09/30/2010
It is confusing to me. I don't know if I am voting for payroll taxes to be implemented.
You can leave and come back and vote again. This poll is no good.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PhilipTaylor
Legalized Bribery is an Oxymoron - must END
07:31 PM on 09/18/2010
TIME TO TAX THE RICHEST 0.1% WHO HAVE THE LOWEST EFFECTIVE TAX RATE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION and LOWEST IN THE CIVILIZED/INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD!

MIDDLE-CLASS SUFFERING FROM FED and BANKSTER INDUCED INFLATION PAYS FAR TOO MUCH!

It is time to ONLY TAX DISCRETIONARY INCOME (Income over $46,500 median income in USA needed for a Family with a small home to survive)!  

The RICHEST 0.1% who SUCK CAPITAL GAINS INCOME avoid ANY CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIAL SECURITY and MEDICARE!  

Imagine making $4 Billion ($4,000,000,000) as a Hedge Fundster like John Paulson and PAYING ZERO FICA!
THE RICHEST 01.% STEAL with the LOWEST EFFECTIVE TAX RATE IN HISTORY - 


1. Lowest in the CIVILIZED/INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD
2. Lower than before the GREAT DEPRESSION of the 1920's - that helped create the GREAT DEPRESSION!
3. There 16.1% effective RATE is THEFT FROM MIDDLE-CLASS AMERICA!
4. Yet the RICHEST 0.1% HIDE their INCOME in CAYMAN and Switzerland to avoid even these MINOR TAXES!
5. Pre-Reagan for 50 Years the TOP TAX RATE was 63% to 94% on income OVER $500,000 in today's FED RESERVE INFLATED DOLLARS!


MAIN STREET IS BEING SKEWED!
photo
ibsteve2u
Someone who cares - to his unending regret
06:07 PM on 09/18/2010
Corny...but predictable. Do whatever you can to make the Social Security Trust Fund insolvent, and then a little bit down the road point to the stock market as its savior - and then once it is there, take the rest of it, just like happens to your IRAs and 401Ks right now.

Corny, to repeat myself 'cuz I ain't allowed to use stronger language.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
USNDC
Smartest President ever ? ... not even close.
01:58 PM on 09/18/2010
Eliminate the income tax altogether !

Replace our income tax code with a fully transparent consumption tax.

Do so and companies will return to the US ... foreign capital will follow ... industry will ignite ... jobs will be created ... and federal tax revenues will begin to soar !

www.FairTax.org

And before you ask ... those living in poverty will pay no taxes (prebates).

The thing is sure ... the current system is failing "everyone".

It's time to be bold ... it's time to be American.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris tibbs
02:21 PM on 09/18/2010
yep
04:57 PM on 09/18/2010
Not failing everyone, wealthy would fight it tooth and nail.........cost them to much money.....great idea though..... but don't see it happening any time soon.
photo
ibsteve2u
Someone who cares - to his unending regret
06:10 PM on 09/18/2010
lollll...ahhh....there is no award for most satirical comment, but if there were, I'd nominate yours.

The wealthy would of course LOVE a consumption tax, as what they "consume" as a portion of their income is as nothing when compared to what the individual who falls into the bottom FOUR economic income quintiles must spend on the necessities of life.

Give the wealthy a break on taxes, and they don't even spend it:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/rich-americans-save-money-from-tax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:48 PM on 09/18/2010
If employers cut payroll taxes who would pay for NObama's Democratic spending habits??!! We know he is not going to stop spending like there is no tomorrow and with his Obamacare costs going up on a daily basis and if it is not repealed it will end up costing tax payers 500 Billion more than estimated beside the increased cost of their personal insurance !!! The only thing NObama should do is extend Bushes tax breaks across the board for all American Citizens !!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
will357
Active Duty Navy
05:56 PM on 09/18/2010
SERIOUSLY! Are you serious? So what about the unfunded war in Iraq started by "W"? 1st time in American history we go to Afghanistan and Iraq and not raise taxes to pay for them. All that money was off the books in the form of supplemental spending measures. President Obama put it back on the books. Go in debt for a war(Iraq) more than 3 Trillion US dollars but won't go into debt for US citizens(health care and education) Wow, you are a true patriot.
maxfax
Taa - dah!
12:00 AM on 09/19/2010
Bushies are nothing but "one note Johnnys."
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
10:07 PM on 09/18/2010
Foolish nonsense. Get a job.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:14 PM on 09/18/2010
Because you say so....rofl ! Get a life, moonbat !
photo
Bankerrkt
He's making things worse.
01:20 PM on 09/18/2010
Repubs have been calling for this for the last two years, only to be ignored by the Professor as he continues to kill jobs.
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
10:09 PM on 09/18/2010
Bull. Republicans don't care about payroll taxes. Those are paid by the working class and republicans are pawns but not of the working class. They are pawns of the banksters and the uber-wealthy. None of those people care about payroll taxes that are paid by workers. The only reason they would want to eliminate them is to dry up the Social Security trust fund, which by the way, has a $2.5 Trillion surplus. Just the other day I heard another one of your republican professional liars on Fake News claiming that Social Security was bankrupt over and over again.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
woody7
Always a Dem, but..............
03:04 PM on 09/21/2010
Where are all the jobs that were created under Bush the last 10 wonderful years?
photo
metogamekun
non-violence takes guts
10:26 PM on 09/30/2010
*chirp*chirp*chirp*
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WeCanDoMore
Enjoying a fact based reality.
11:42 AM on 09/18/2010
Sounds good to me. I mean there are people in this country, CEO's, wall streeters, who earned a billion dollars last year. This did not happen ever, in our recent past. $1 bil will pay for 20,000 teachers. This is where the money has gone, and we must take it back to save this country. You can label it class warfare, socialism, or whatever, but that won't change the fact that this present unbalance is wrong and unprecedented. We must have to tax our wealthiest, as we always have, until Bush.

Under Eisenhower, our wealthiest paid something like 90% in taxes, and no-one called him a socialist. The only think difference now, besides the fact that we have a black president, is that are wealthiest are exponentially more wealthy, powerful, entrenched and connected.

The GOP vote to protect the wealthiest and most powerful, leaving those who most need help, in the dust. To vote GOP is to vote against your own best interest. Get out there and vote Dem in November, This is the only way to really get our country back , and back on track.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris tibbs
02:25 PM on 09/18/2010
how is it in your best interest to vote for yourself to pay more taxes.... govt revenue increases as more money is circulated... when the govt takes your money... a much higher percentage of it falls out of circulation
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WeCanDoMore
Enjoying a fact based reality.
03:53 PM on 09/18/2010
So we can continue to offer necessities of civilization to our citizens. We are talking the top 2% of our citizens here, folks who earn on average 8 mil a year. They have so much power now, thorough lobbying, that they pay the smallest amount of taxes ever in our history. It no coincidence our economy is now in such trouble. The disparity since Bush between the top and everyone else is off the charts. Without public school, for example, we would have no future. Obvious to some, but not all, evidently.
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
10:14 PM on 09/18/2010
You talk like you are raking in $8 million a year. If you are in the middle class ($250K or less) you were given the biggest tax cut in the history of the world within ONE MONTH of Obama being elected. He's trying to get you more tax cuts. He is NOT trying to get the undertaxed idle class of nonproductive paper traders a tax cut. They don't produce anything and their "trade" just amounts to looting companies and selling the pieces to other countries. Also, they pay at most 16% which is less than middle class people pay. Why should someone who actually works for a living have a higher rate than those thieves and scofflaws? Not only is it injustice but we simply can't afford it. We still have to pay off those wars that Dubya put on the credit card.
07:40 PM on 09/30/2010
Dar WeCanDoMore,

This is without doubt silly posting, the wealthy only pay tax on money they make, not on their wealth. So under Eisenhower, I could buy a tax exempt bond and make money without paying any taxes. Trust me no mllionaire paid 90 percent on his income, it was all tax sheltered. Our tax code needs to make since to make sure the capital flows to the plays where it can provide the largest benefit

I agree our tax code is incorrect, as it under taxes capital gains, and over taxes workign income, due to SSA taxes. The black president you speak of is part of the wealthy, just in case you care,and he became wealthy never having to work and earn a living, he did it being a humble public servent. Mr Clinton made 100M in 8 years, giving speeches, and Mr Dole made 200M convincing government to fund stupid energy sources that could never pay for themselves.
Both parties are in for one thing and one thing only, to control power, and to control power then need money. The both get money from the same donors, and the donors do not care who gets elected as they own both of them. Look at what the Honorable Mr Kaufaman said, If you go against the donors, they will fund the other guy, and you will lose.
You want your country back,vote libertarian, do it just this once,.
10:55 AM on 09/18/2010
We must find better solutions. Workers are not being paid enough to put away money for retirement. More companies are dropping insurance. If a tax cut is implemented and they spend that money what will be their outcome at retirement? Prices continue to climb and pay is stagnant. Young people do not realize that retirement takes decades to save for. SS is fixed. Life goes on just like it did when you worked. Property taxes, untilities, car tags, car insurance, supplemental health insurance runs at least $300 per month for two. Many retirees are in trouble, their money didn't last. On average I would say that whatever you make now will be what it takes to live in retirement in 20 years.

On the other side of the coin, other countries are not behind us any longer in exports. They too learned to export at a cheaper cost which makes our products more expensive so we buy theirs, putting our workers out of work. We need solutions for American workers not the rich. Small business are not small, dont think "cafe on the corner", think businesses that make something. We need to balance trade. Americans will have to pay taxes to get out of our mess, end of story. Retirees are still paying the piper on 401/IRA's even though Wall Street hurt us. Under Clinton we paid higher taxes and saved more. How? When the economy booms wages rise and so do 401K's. Wages didn't rise under Bush.
photo
emicscram
None of your god damned business!
11:19 AM on 09/18/2010
If the US could halve it's trade deficit the unemployment rate could be down into 5 to 6% territory in a matter of a couple of years. The 2,000lb gorilla on the scale is petroleum.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/02/trade-deficit-increases-to-402-billion.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CalculatedRisk+%28Calculated+Risk%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
10:19 PM on 09/18/2010
The unemployment rate and the trade deficit are entirely unrelated concepts. Your link does not explain how these two are somehow related. I agree that the 2000lb gorilla is petrol and I would love to minimize our use of that substance. But that doesn't mean trade deficits and unemployment rates are related. Sure if we produce more stuff, we'll need more employees to do the producing. But that is also true if we consume more stuff. Exports are a great way to boost GDP but they are not the whole story (in fact they are the smallest variable in the GDP equation).
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris tibbs
02:27 PM on 09/18/2010
yep, and if ss didnt exist in the mindset that the govt pays you to exist after you retire.. maybe more people would have planned for themselves instead of relying on someone else.... that mindset is totally responsible for the problems we face today
photo
castlerider
"A man's home is his castle"
05:56 PM on 09/18/2010
Wrong. So wrong.

Amazing how the greed of corporations finds so many willing to say the same things in so many different ways. To them it's as simple as different flavors, but it's still all about greed.

SS is OUR money. The very idea of someone else getting a hold of it to do as they will is criminal. Nothing diminishes a person's own ideas about saving for their separate retitrement in thier own way.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
woody7
Always a Dem, but..............
03:08 PM on 09/21/2010
Yea those private accounts would have worked out really well when the economy imploded.