Why liberals don't like the tax cut deal -- in graphs

[ProSense]

Why liberals don't like the tax cut deal -- in graphs

By Ezra Klein

CAP's Michael Linden produced a nice chart showing why the tax deal is tough for liberals to swallow:



<...>

Obama's got 156 million people splitting $214 billion in tax cuts and benefits. The GOP's got 4 million people splitting $133 billion in tax cuts. On a per-person level, the GOP's tax cuts are much larger. An individual billionaire is getting a far better deal than an individual unemployed American. And that's galling. The problem is that to take the money from the billionaire means to also take the money from the unemployed individual. Actually, taking the money from the billionaire means taking the money from a lot of unemployed Americans.

To see how much, behold the return of the "snowman" graph, now updated to compare the original Obama plan, the original Republican plan and the compromise (click on the chart to enlarge it). All groups are getting more under this framework, but on an individual level, the wealthy are getting much, much more. The question, at the end of the day, is whether stopping them from getting it is worth cutting benefits for the unemployed, and tax cuts for middle-income Americans, and the Earned Income Tax Credit. I don't think it is, and that's particularly true because it's not, to me, about the size of the transfer so much as the possibility for stimulus. But given the level of inequality in this country, and the potential that deficit reduction deals won't be worked out by a progressive congress, I see how you could come down on the other side:

[jpgray]

1. Obama doesn't like it, Pelosi doesn't like it, Reid doesn't like it, most voters don't like it

The bizarre nature of this debate is that all the people in positions of authority listed above hate this deal. A majority of GOP voters hates this deal. Why is it then that the people arguing for the garbage provisions of it are the ones confidently raising the stakes and making the demands?

[Autumn]

2. Good questions. I'm not

sure we will get the answers though.

[ProSense]

4. Congress either

negotiates a better deal now or later.

Later, means the deal will be negotiated by Republicans. They will not need a single Democratic vote in the House, and there will be five more Republicans in the Senate.

They will ensure that all the things that are currently being held hostage by them are still held hostage in the next Congress.

They will negotiate a deal that includes more tax cuts for the rich, middle class tax cuts, a lesser deal for the unemployed and none of the stimulus provisions.

The President will have to sign or veto a bill with relief for the middle class and unemployed. Do you think that they will change their package to accommodate him when they are the majority in the House?

People have to realize that Republicans are assholes, and they are not going to act otherwise. This is not shut the government down, this is about tax cuts for the middle class and stimulus provisions. Any package that Republicans negotiate will be accepted by Americans as the best we can do, especially when they are calling the shots in Congress.

The Democratic Congress needs to make the deal better now because it's unlikely to get better in the next Congress.




Edited for clarity.

[TheKentuckian]

19. TeaPubliKlans always know our bottom lines and that we will always play to protect them.

Hence, we are defeated or forced to bend over backward to pay whatever price they wish to exact for the endgame.

We get backing into corners really easily because we pick battles that we are committed to not losing, rather than all in to win.

If you want wins that mean something it almost always requires risk. Democrats have a large risk adverse streak.

[Bryn]

3. Very telling!

Republicans are horrible people. They claim to be "Christians" yet do not care for the poor, seniors, children, disabled, equal rights for gay people. Their souls will be like Gollum in LOTR ... ugly and empty, forever worshiping gold "my precioussssssss"

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Of course to be fair, Obama also claims to be a Christian and he

shares their opposition to equal rights for gay people. Obama says that straight people are 'sanctified by God' so they should have superior standing in secular law. He says sanctified. He also repeats the 'one man, one woman' line along with them. Goose and gander and all of that sauce talk.

[ProSense]

8. Christians oppose equal rights? n/t

[Bryn]

14. The Christian Left is cool and not like The Religious Right

The Christian Left supports gay rights.

[BeyondGeography]

5. Why no Democrat should like it

[Supersedeas]

15. sometimes personality politics trumps principal

[frugal99]

7. Informative Post -- And YES this is why Liberals HATE this deal

[bigwillq]

9. Hello

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Supersedeas]

12. i'll second that

[WiffenPoof]

10. Excellent Post ProSense...

I may not agree with you all of the time...but this post is very informative and to the point.

-PLA

[displacedvermoter]

16. Ditto for what it is worth

[high density]

11. We couldn't pass any more stimulus but we can spend $990 billion on some more tax cuts

Great idea, because as we saw under Bush, tax cuts sure are great at creating jobs.

[jeanpalmer]

13. Here's why they really don't like it

real liberals, that is.

Obama Tax Proposal Benefits Wealthiest Americans while Raising Taxes on the Poor
By Andre Damon
9 December 2010

When US president Barack Obama introduced his tax proposal on Monday, he presented it as a compromise with Republicans that extended tax cuts for the wealthy as a necessary component of a package that will benefit the “middle class.” In fact, the measure is a boondoggle to the wealthy that will actually raise taxes for many working people.

An analysis of the plan shows that Obama has adopted the bulk of the Republican tax program, while eliminating programs currently in place that benefit lower income earners.

For the more than 40 percent of households with income less than $40,000 per year, federal taxes will increase under the proposal. This is because Obama’s plan will allow the Making Work Pay tax credit, which gives $800 per household or $400 per individual, to lapse.

The new tax breaks included in Obama’s plan will “come to a few dollars a week,” for these workers, Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center told the New York Times, but will not offset the loss.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/taxc-d09.shtml

and

Obama’s tax windfall for the rich
10 December 2010

This is yet one more demonstration of cynicism and contempt for the intelligence of the people by the man whose campaign slogan was “Yes we can.” Whom does Obama think he is kidding?

There was never serious doubt that the tax cuts for the rich would be extended. Plenty of signals were sent by prominent Democrats in this direction before November. However, as a December 7 article in the Washington Post spells out in some detail, the decision to do a deal with the Republicans on the tax cut for the rich was finalized following the Democrats’ debacle in the mid-term election, as part of a calculated turn by the Obama White House even further to the right.

snip//

“The strategy emerged from hours of post-election meetings among senior administration officials who, after poring over returns, exit polls and mid-term history, have determined that the loss of independent voters who supported Democrats in 2008 cost the party dozens of races this year,” the Post continued.

snip//

The invocation of the need to win back “independents” is code language for moving further to the right in order to placate not the voters, but the financial aristocracy. In fact, polls have shown that wide majorities among both Democrats and independents oppose an extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/pers-d10.shtml

[KansDem]

17. K&R beyond the 24-hour limit

This is appalling! I'm so disgusted with those public officials who are supporting this plan! :grr:

[egoclothes]

18. Yes, very appalling and led by a Dem President:-)

[ProSense]

21. Americans hate tax cuts for the rich

but they support the deal.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. He misses the key point: taxes are levied as a percentage, not as a constant value.

If you give someone earning 20k a 50% tax cut and someone earning a million a 2% tax cut, the latter will actually get more money. That's where a large part of the growth on the snowman is coming from.

What that means is that any tax cut or tax rise that's broadly in proportion to existing taxes will involve much more money going to/coming from the rich, in absolute terms.

That's not to say that cutting taxes for the rich in a time of major defecit is a sane idea, but the snowman chart does not make the case against it as clearly as it appears to - it makes it look like it's actually make the American tax system even more unequal than it is, when it fact it's merely preserving existing inequality - it's hard to know where the median in each category is*, but it looks as though it's basically a constant percentage tax cut.




*In particular, I have no idea what the average income in the "over 1,000,000 category" is - it could easily be a lot more than a million.