Democratic leaders and the White House are congratulating themselves as they depart for the holiday weekend about their tax-holiday victory -- but only until the Feb. 29 leap-of-faith day -- over GOP hardliners. But the payroll tax holiday, like most vacations, will have its bill to pay.
The national media have been playing the bipartisan shuffle in terms of Democratic stimulus versus GOP stinginess. But such major media as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal have largely abrogated their responsibility to report another viewpoint that multiple progressive experts and commentators have argued for since the essentially Republic tax-cut idea was put forward and accepted last year by the Obama White House.
A long list of prominent policy experts and advocates have contended for over a year that although the economy likely needs the tax cut's modest economic transfusion, President Obama could have accomplished the same thing even more effectively -- and without breaching the firewall between the Social Security Trust Fund and general U.S. tax dollars -- by fighting for his own Making Work Pay program.
Although Making Work Pay wasn't as politically catchy as Payroll Tax Holiday -- it was an effective tax credit of up to $400 passed as part of Obama's 2008 stimulus measure. It lasted two years and lapsed with Obama's judgment on this issue.
Not Much of a "Middle-Class" Tax Break
With Making Work Pay, the government could have set the tax credit at, say $800 for the year, about the "average" amount saved under the payroll tax. With the payroll tax cut, the Über Percent pay the FICA payroll tax on their earnings up to about $110,000. But if everyone had been limited to $800 or so, then much more of the $112 billion payroll tax cut from 2011 would have gone to people who could really use it and would get into the economy.
In other words, by giving everyone a 2 percent cut, Washington has gifted more money to wealthier people, those apt to salt the savings away in their banks, and less to middle and working class people, who would be more likely to spend it on rent, groceries and maybe a few holiday gifts.
In fact, the number crunchers at Sentier Research released their analysis this week casting doubt on whether the tax holiday is really a "middle-class tax cut" at all.
Sentier showed that compared to how much people at different income levels would have received under the Making Work Pay tax credit, under the payroll tax reduction, "The largest tax savings went to households in the highest income" brackets. The bottom 30 percent of Americans actually lost money.
What's more, "Households in the middle-income deciles gained very little, casting doubt on the often-heard assertion that this was a 'middle-class tax cut,'" says Sentier Research.
Even without the tax-credit comparison, says Sentier, the tax savings that went to the nation's richest 10 percent in 2011 was $2,990, quadruple the savings for workers in the middle -- and 25 times higher than the mere $122 amount -- about $10 a month -- saved by the bottom 10 percent.
That total bill the federal government needs to pay the Social Security Trust Fund back ($112 billion in 2011) won't much affect the long-term solvency of Social Security -- unless the holiday becomes permanent. And therein lies the national rub, which mainstream media seems to have shrugged off as hardly worth a mention in most news reports.
The Nation's Retirement Nest Egg
Now, don't get me wrong: The billions from the payroll tax holiday, now that we're stuck with this vehicle, should be renewed for now. But it was a dangerous way to go. Republicans originally proposed this approach years ago knowing it would break the barrier between the nation's retirement nest egg and general U.S. tax revenue. That barrier guards against short-term pressures, just as private pensions are separate from family cash flow, or from corporate budgets with penalties for withdrawal except in certain cases.
Here's why that division between the nation's pension plan and annual political wrangling over our tax dollars is so important. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had Social Security designed to stand independently from any other part of the federal budget. Liberal factions of the 1930s actually opposed his approach because they thought Congress should cover the program's costs annually through general taxes, as other countries did at the time. Liberals thought doing so would remind Congress of its duty to the public welfare annually. Yeah, that was going to work really well.
FDR tied Social Security to workers' wages, with an equal contribution from their employers, so everyone would feel it was his or her money. Conservatives contend that the payroll tax contributions are not really yours, but the refrain heard in today's town hall meetings and echoed in national polls has been, "It's our money. Keep your hands off of it." And truth be told, the program has been paying retirees (and later family survivors and those who become disabled) steadily for most of its 76 years of operation).
Now, though, the government needs to pay back the payroll tax cut -- through general taxes. A temporary boost to the working stiff in tough times? As predicted by media-ignored national experts and economists on the left, GOP leaders have been saying since its passage last year that they plan to attack any future Democratic effort to restore the 2 percentage point reduction by screaming bloody murder that Democrats want to raise your taxes. As seen this week, of course, the donkeys are grinning over extending it themselves.
The unreported concern is that once the prophylactic wall between Social Security and overall taxpayer dollars is punched, although just a little, it will be like a puncturing a vacuum-packed can. Longstanding conservative arguments that Social Security really isn't in a family and retirement lockbox, but is only sealed from other federal spending by worthless promises, could become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Follow Paul Kleyman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@genbeatonline
There is inequity in this method of distribution. And on top of that, it is an uniaconscionable assault on SSI funding, no matter what the talking heads say.
Also, SS is NOT bankrupt. Even if we don't make a SINGLE change, SS will be able to pay out ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of projected benefits for the next TWENTY FIVE years. And after that (again, if we don't change ANYTHING) it will still be able to pay out over 75% of benefits. Come on sally, keep up with program....
How brilliant is that? Not at all.
Mark my words.
Prominent Democrats, such as Dick Gephardt, and liberal think tanks, such as the Brookings Institution, proposed some serious reform plans. Democrats introduced flat tax legislation long before Dick Armey proposed his plan in 1994. Within months of economists Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka unveiling the original flat tax in 1981, Senator Dennis DeConcini of Arizona and Representative Leon Panetta of California introduced versions in Congress.
Unfortunately, when the Democrats became the minority party in the 1990s, they became reactionary on tax policy. They focused on throwing darts at Republican tax reform plans, and offered few ideas of their own. The Clinton administration showed no interest in tax reform, and hardly seemed to think that rising complexity was a problem.
Of course, there is election-year politics at play when Hoyer calls the tax code an "embarrassment" and Democrat Rahm Emmanuel of Illinois says, "If you're a lawyer or an accountant, this tax code is perfect for you." But like John Kerry's recent proposal for a small corporate tax rate cut, this may indicate a Democratic awakening to the serious challenges facing the federal tax system. The GOP challenge will be to start working with forward-thinking Democrats and craft reform legislation in the next Congress.
It is your money in a way, in that the government agrees to pay you as an entitlement. But forget pulling out extra for an emergency like a new roof. At least with a Roth IRA, you can and it really is "your money."
Eventually the shortage of payments into SS will have to be made up. Those formerly unemployed people will have help pay it back. So if you're unemployed, no help for you now, but you will be asked to help restore SS later.
The payroll tax cut is just a gimmick, nothing more. What we need is policy. not gimmicks.
I find it ironic that some of the Democratic leaders were blaming the GOP for "not caring about SS and wanting to abolish it", but now those same Den leaders and Obama are undercutting the fund by the tax holiday.
America is in Trouble in Media make it Soap Opera ? Social Security has been attacked.
Victory for Obama is no Victory at all..............just Drama by Journalists grinding a Paycheck.
Further weakens the United States, Fiscal Policy and Investment Confidence about America's
ability to manage Government instead of Vanity !
Paul, you have also fallen for the vile trick that this is a "tax holiday". That it is not. It is a reduction of the premium paid from payrolls for Federal Government insurances. For that very reason I cannot believe anything you write until you wake up.