Our Sponsors:

READ MORE »

Our Members

Many thanks to

Katherine J Hall

and

George Wilson

some of our many supporters.

ALL MEMBERS »

Why the payroll tax fight matters

Congress' battle in D.C. over payroll tax cuts marches on. Why should you tune in rather than zoning out?

Members of Congress are meeting at the capitol building in D.C. this week, to debate payroll taxes.

Beechwood Photography via Flickr (cc)

Members of Congress are meeting at the capitol building in D.C. this week, to debate payroll taxes.

Congress has a long to-do list to complete before the end of the year.

It must enact a budget, either a real one, or for most federal agencies, a Continuing Resolution that funds the government after the current one expires on Dec. 16. Many ask: “Why doesn’t Congress just pass the budget?” Because neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have enough votes to say yes, but they do have enough votes to reject the alternative.

Still, Congress must pass a new round of payroll tax cuts and extend unemployment benefits or both of those programs will expire at the end of the year.

Currently Republicans are adding all sorts of amendments that have little to do with either a budget or a tax cut. The House bill on the payroll tax, for example, requires a 60-deadline for permitting the Keystone XL Pipeline to pipe oil from Northern Alberta across Montana, South Dakota, and other states in the midwest.

There is significant opposition to the pipeline construction from Indian Country. The National Congress of American Indians in June said: “The Keystone XL pipeline . . . would threaten, among other things, water aquifers, water ways, cultural sites, agricultural lands, animal life, public drinking water sources, and other resources vital to the peoples of the region in which the pipeline is proposed to be constructed.”

The payroll tax debate is critically important to poor people and to individual American Indians. The current tax is 4.2 percent of earnings (up to a cap of $106,800). If nothing is done by the end of the year that tax will increase to 6.2 percent (plus, remember, Medicare is a tax on top of that).

What do those numbers mean? Arloc Sherman, a senior researcher at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, says the lower payroll tax will keep roughly 1.1 million people out of poverty. And, in Indian Country, it’s a big deal. Based on the median income of $21,750 for a family living on a reservation, the payroll tax cut represents about a $1,000 difference — so if no bill is enacted, that tax increase will cost folks $435 out of pocket.

One Republican plan would pay for payroll tax reductions by freezing the salaries of federal workers for the next two years, according to the Washington Post. One union leader calls this a new tax on federal employment. Another Republican plan would pay for the payroll cuts with even deeper program spending cuts.

This is a strange fight about what kind of taxes we pay, payroll versus income. Every worker pays the payroll tax, but not every American pays an income tax.

But what’s often missing from that last sentence is the “why.” The income tax doesn’t apply to those who don’t earn enough. “It’s wrong to rail on the 46 percent of people who don't pay income tax,” Paul Caron, a tax professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law, told the Business Insider. “A fairer analysis takes into account all taxes paid — and by this measure, everyone has tax skin in the game.”

If you look at all taxes paid, not just the sainted income tax, then all sorts of questions pop up. Such as: Why is investment income treated more generously than money we earn by the hour? Or, in an economy that needs entrepreneurs, why do we double-tax the self-employed? Or best of all: Why do some corporations get away without paying their fair share?

A lower payroll tax immediately benefits the economy. A paper by Bobby Dexter from the Chapman University School of Law puts it this way: “The average plumber earns $50,360.95 If the payroll tax cut is not extended, his taxes will rise by $1,007; for nurses (with average salary being $67,720), that increase is $1,354.96.”

If a nurse has to come up with an additional $1,354.96 next year, that’s money that won’t be spent in the general economy — shrinking store sales, job growth, and general economic opportunity.


About the Author

Mark Trahant is a writer, speaker and Twitter poet. He is a member of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and lives in Fort Hall, Idaho. You can reach him through www.marktrahant.com. He is the author of "The Last Great Battle of the Indian Wars," the story of Sen. Henry Jackson and Forrest Gerard.

Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Mon, Dec 12, 1:38 p.m. Inappropriate

Also, if corporation are people now, why do they only pay taxes on their profits? I would like to only pay taxes on my profits.

andy

Posted Mon, Dec 12, 2:36 p.m. Inappropriate

Republicans love "flat taxes." So why don't they pay more of them? The payroll tax is as flat as it gets, just extend it to all your income, investment or payroll, and a lot of the deficit spending goes away.

As for continuing to keep this cut, it's stupid. We aren't paying for the government we have now. Even if the 1% need to pay more, it's not as if the bottom 99% should get this break.

GaryP

Posted Tue, Dec 13, 11:59 a.m. Inappropriate

"The payroll tax debate is critically important to poor people and to individual American Indians. "
Odd phrasing, surely you mean the working poor.

Andy,
Think!

afreeman

Posted Tue, Dec 13, 2:36 p.m. Inappropriate

Wow! How did the USA survive from 1935-2010 with a full payroll tax for all workers earning earned income? From an initial 1% on the first $3,000, the payroll tax has morphed into a 12.5% on that first $106,800 supposedly split 50-50 by the employer and employee but that is a mere accounting gimmick. We have had one year of a payroll tax reduction. Why not make it permanent/forever? What are the nurse and plumber doing with their extra coin? It's almost as if the dems are all for the Bush 'privatization' of 1/6th of the social security accounting that is tagged to every social security number! And, are workers getting undo credit for paying a full payroll tax or are they lessening their eventual formulated benefit checks when they reach retirement eligibility?

animalal

Posted Wed, Dec 14, 9:50 p.m. Inappropriate

But, do you cave in to those who are essentially blackmailers? Why raid from the Social Security trust fund without getting funding to replace it that's related, e.g. raise the earnings limit (earnings that are subject to Social Security taxes) to at least its historical 90% of total earnings...or whatever above that (to 100%) it would take to pay for continuing the payroll tax cut. Or, exempt the first $30,000 - or whatever's needed - of earnings and subject everything above that to the Social Security tax?

bricsa

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »