I’vewritten several timesthat the left wants big tax hikes on poor and middle-class taxpayers. Simply stated, that’sthe only waythey can finance a European-sized welfare state.
Some of them even admit they want to pillage ordinary taxpayers.
The editors at theNew York Timesendorsed higher taxes on the middle classin 2010.
The then-House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer alsogave a green light that year to higher taxes on the middle class.
In 2012, MIT professor and former IMF official Simon Johnsonargued that the middle class should pay more tax.
TheWashington Postalsocalled for higher taxes on the middle classa few years ago, as did Vice President Joe Biden’s former economist.
ANew York Timescolumnist alsocalled for broad-based tax hikes on the middle classin 2012.
A Senior Fellow from Demos alsoargued for higher taxes on all Americansthat year, specifically targeting the middle class.
In 2013, theNew York Timesagain (!) editorializedin favorof higher tax burdens on the middle class.
Now we have another addition to our list.Writingin today’sWashington Post, two law professors from UCLA openly argue in favor of tightening the belts of average Americans to enable a bigger federal government.
…we needmoretax revenue from the middle class, not less.
They start by complaining that middle-income taxpayers have benefited from big tax cuts over the past 35 years.
Middle-class tax burdens are at historic lows. The Congressional Budget Officereportedin 2016 that the average federal income tax rate for the middle class — here meaning the middle 60percent of the income distribution — declined from 7.8 percent in 1979 to 3.4percent in 2013. Focusing on all federal taxes (not just income taxes), the average tax rate dropped from 19.2 to 13.8 percent over the same period. With these lower tax rates, the share of taxes paid by the middle class has also declined. The middle class paid 35 percent of income taxes in 1979 but only 16 percent in 2013, while its share of all federal taxes fell from 43 to 30 percent.
As far as I’m concerned, this is good news, not something to bemoan. Indeed, my goal is to have similar reductions in tax burdens for all taxpayers.
But the authors raise a very valid point. We will havegiant tax increases in the futureand people at all income levels will be adversely impacted. Though there is one way of avoiding that grim European future.
Unless Congress is willing to dramatically cut major entitlement programs.
Incidentally, we don’t need to “dramatically cut” those programs. The authors are relying ondishonest Washington budget math.
In reality, the problem is solved and tax increases are averted so long asreforms are adoptedto ensure that entitlement programs no longer grow faster than the private sector.
But that’s not what the authors want. They actually look forward to big tax increases.
What the middle class needs is not meager tax cuts but a muscular commitment to robust public institutions designed to benefit middle-income individuals. The higher taxes could come from our current income tax (from tax increases on the middle class and the wealthy) or a broad-based consumption tax (such as a VAT or carbon tax).
I’m greatly amused by the language they use. They want readers to believe that bloated European-style welfare states are “robust public institutions” and that politicians grabbing more money to buy more votes is a way of showing “muscular commitment.”
I’m also not surprised that they embraced acarbon taxorvalue-added tax.
By the way, the column compares the United States with other industrialized nations. Simply stated, we win (at least from my perspective).
Data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Developmentreveal that American families with children face substantially lower average income-tax rates (in some cases, less than half) than similar families in other developed countries. And this is before factoring in consumption taxes, which represent a large share of middle-class tax burdens in most countries, but not in the United States.
Those are remarkable numbers. Income taxes grab a much bigger share of family income in Europe. And then governments take an even bigger slice thanks toonerous value-added taxes.The authors would argue that Europeans get “robust public institutions” in exchange for all that money, but what they really get isless growthandlower living standards.
Indeed, it’s worth noting that the richest European nations areon the same level(or below) the poorest American states.
That’s not exactly a ringing endorsem*nt for higher tax burdens.
The bottom line is that left-wing politicians usually pontificate about raising taxes on the rich, but the truly honest folks on the left openly admit thatthe real targetsare lower-income and middle-class households.
Reprinted from International Liberty
