Top 5 Problems with the Tax Deal

[chimpymustgo]

Email from moveon.org:

Problem #1: The deal is a stealth attack on Social Security.

The deal will lower the payroll tax—the tax that funds the Social Security trust. This is a trap for Democrats. Republicans have been coming after Social Security for years and this cut is the biggest threat to the vital program in decades. It will cut one-third of Social Security's funding this year alone and when we need to restore the payroll tax back to its current level, Republicans will cry "tax increases" and could gut it permanently. 1

Problem #2: For nearly one in three workers, it's a tax increase.

Nearly 50 million working Americans—including all workers making less than $20,000 per year—and millions of federal, state, and municipal workers will see their taxes go up because of the deal.2

Problem #3: The deal has not one but TWO millionaire bailouts.

In addition to extending all the Bush income tax breaks for the top 2%, the deal will slash the estate tax. If Congress did nothing, next year the estate tax would be 55% and apply to everyone inheriting $1 million or more. But the deal reduces it to 35% and only people who inherit more than $5 million will have to pay. This second bailout will give a gigantic tax giveaway to a few thousand of the richest families in the country and add hundreds of billions to the national debt.3

Problem #4: Unemployment help is insufficient and inadequate.

While the deal extends unemployment benefits for another 13 months for people currently receiving it, millions of unemployed workers who've struggled the most and been out of work more than 99 weeks—since the giant Wall Street banks wrecked the economy—will get no help at all under the deal.4 It's a gamble that there will be jobs in the next 13 months when the insurance runs out, but the tax cuts will go well beyond that. Better to just pass a stand-alone unemployment extension to help all struggling Americans.

Problem #5: Tax giveaways to the rich are a terrible way to create jobs.

Tax breaks for the rich are the least efficient way to create jobs and help the economy grow. In fact the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says extending all tax cuts would lower unemployment only 0.1% to 0.3% over the next year5 and that the cost of the tax deal would be $900 billion over the next five years.6

We've got to stop this deal and make sure everyone understands what's really in it. Can you share this list now?

Thanks for all you do.

–Nita, Robin, Milan, Wes, and the rest of the team

Sources:

1."Tax Cut Deal A Hidden Threat To Social Security," The Huffington Post, December 8, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205508&id=25497-8882088-Nn_T0cx&t=6

2. "Obama-Republican Deal Could Mean Tax Hike For One In Three Workers," The Huffington Post, December 10, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205509&id=25497-8882088-Nn_T0cx&t=7

3. "Estate tax deal: worst part of a bad tax compromise," The Christian Science Monitor, December 7, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205510&id=25497-8882088-Nn_T0cx&t=8

4. "Unemployment benefits: Extension won't help '99ers'," The Christian Science Monitor, December 7, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205511&id=25497-8882088-Nn_T0cx&t=9

5. "The Deal," Paul Krugman, The New York Times, December 7, 2010
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/the-deal/

6. "CBO score shows tax plan ups deficit $900 billion in 5 years," CNN.com, December 10, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205512&id=25497-8882088-Nn_T0cx&t=10

Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.

[DCKit]

1. Didn't this go to The Greatest the first time it was posted? nt

[valerief]

6. You're right. It DOES bear repeating. nt

[customerserviceguy]

2. While I'm not in favor of this deal

I have to quibble with something you said in point #1. The FICA tax is 6.2% for both employers and employees, for a total of 12.4%. The 2% cut is only on the employee side, and makes up about 16% of Social Security's funding, not the third you state.

I'm all for killing the deal, and especially for the principle of not defunding SS, but you have to use arithmetic facts to make your point, not fuzzy math.

[xxqqqzme]

3. the rethugs will still call it a tax increase

in a year.

[customerserviceguy]

4. I'm with you all the way on this

But if we wish to convince people of our position, it doesn't help to use exaggeration. The truth is enough reason to persuade most people.

[DCKit]

7. +2

No need to exaggerate when the facts speak for themselves. We need to be more careful, since we don't have Faux repeating our propaganda.

I would prefer the tax cuts expire and the rest be taken up as individual Bills. A small sacrifice for the 98% NOW = Security for All later, at a much lower cost.

[chimpymustgo]

8. This is moveon.org's math - with footnotes.

:shrug:

[valerief]

5. Great list. nt

[Starry Messenger]

9. k & r