If you don't think the middle class is in trouble under Obama, you are an idiot

The basis of middle class prosperity in America has always been a full-time job. With one you can get married, buy a car and a house, and start and raise a family. That's the basic economic unit which gives life to everything in our society, starting with a strong tax base of families in single family homes on which we depend for tax revenue to erect schools, build roads, fund fire and emergency services, and provide for police to preserve, protect and defend law and order. Under Barack Obama full-time jobs have gone into deep trouble.

Examine the record of full-time jobs since the 1960s and you can't help but see how serious this is.

After recessions, full-time jobs have always recovered their former peaks within 2 to at most 3 years . . . until now. Full-time jobs bounced back to their former heights in 2 years after the recessions of 1973 and 1980, and in 3 years after the recessions of 1969, 1981, 1990 and 2001.

Full-time usually peaks in the summer months when the workforce is supplemented by young people flooding the jobs market to earn money for school and other things they want. Just before the onset of the most recent recession in 2007, full-time jobs peaked at 123,219,000 in July of that year. But now 7 long years later, full-time has still not recovered. After seeming to peak this August at 120,110,000 we've had a little headfake in October with full-time actually peaking for this cycle at 120,176,000. If we are lucky and continue to add jobs at a clip of 224,000 a month like we have added in the last twelve months, even next summer or fall we will still fall short of the 2007 high by 355,000 full-time jobs. That'll make it 8 years and counting that full-time has not recovered.

But factoring in the growth of the civilian noninstitutional population since 2007, arguably full-time jobs should be 130 million by now, not 120 million. Almost 5 million prime-working-age adults 25 to 54 do not work today who did in 2007. 

The hostility of leftists to the middle class used to be well-known in America when it was a better educated country. It's not a coincidence that with an actual leftist in the White House for the first time in history that the basis of middle class life in America is under attack like it's never been before.

Obama has promised many things which have turned out just the opposite, especially in the healthcare arena. Now the Gruber affair shows that it was in fact all by design. A subterfuge. A deliberate fraud. Many of us tried to sound the warning, but it got rammed down our throats regardless, and now you wonder why you can't keep your doctor, can't keep your insurance and have to pay much more for it.

How long will it take Americans to figure out that gutting the middle class is also by design? 

The Left's True Objective Is Higher Taxes On Middle Class: Citizen Cohn Admits It

Say whatever you want about Romney's tax numbers not adding up, the objective of the left in America is to raise taxes on the middle class, precisely because government spending as projected going forward cannot be paid for without it.

So Jonathan Cohn, here:

To reiterate something I've said before, I happen to support higher taxes for the middle class, at least over the long term, assuming they are part of a balanced deficit reduction approach that preserves Medicare, Social Security, and other critical programs. In an ideal world, Obama would make a case for precisely that sort of agenda, because without those higher taxes (above and beyond taxing the rich, as Obama has proposed) government won't have enough money to fund future spending obligations. But it's hard to fault Obama for not presenting the full facts about fiscal tradeoffs when the other side has shown repeatedly that it doesn't care about facts at all.

Conservatives need to make the point that government spending even at Rep. Paul Ryan levels is unaffordable without tax hikes on the middle class.

All the talk in the Republican Party about broadening the tax base is really about eliminating tax loss expenditures in order to raise revenues. In other words, taking away the deductibility of mortgage interest expenses, state and local income tax expenses, and the like. If it walks like a tax increase and talks like a tax increase, it's a tax increase, whether it's brought to you by the Gang of Six, the Gang of Twelve, or Mitt Romney.

The Stupid Party is about to vote for this again and the left knows it, which is why they are so happy. People like Jonathan Cohn know a Romney presidency will help achieve their goal, so it really doesn't matter if Obama loses. Unless conservatives take over the Republican National Convention and give the nomination to someone who will actually protect the middle class, taxes on the 66 percent of America which earns less than $100K per year are going up, up, up.

Conservatives need to remember what happened last time we fell for this gimmickry. Ronald Reagan agreed to eliminate deductibility of consumer interest in the 1986 tax reform in exchange for lower rates. We lost that deductibility and got the lower rates, but when Democrat Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993, we didn't get back the deductibility. The same thing will happen again. We'll sacrifice deductibility of something else in exchange for lower tax rates, which liberals later will succeed in raising the next time they have power, putting the middle class even farther behind than it is now.

We didn't get back the deductibility lost in 1986 under George Bush in 2001, and we won't in future if we answer the siren call of broadening the tax base again.

Sarah Palin Follows Rush, Tries To Change The Subject to Jobs from Looting

Newt has tried to appear to take a principled stand in the war on Romney and today's Republicans don't seem to want to join him there, which just shows what a throwback Newt is and what co-dependents Republicans have become in their job-servitude.

Republicans are in thrall to the concept of The Job as much as Germany was to The Worker in the 1920s. Sarah Palin's remarks asking for full disclosure of job creation data and of Mitt's tax returns strike me as pure posturing and ass-covering in the face of Mitt's impending coronation. What was it, five colleges she attended to get a four year degree?

While Newt's gotten older the Republican Party has continued to move so far away from its old moral positions that it now considers Newt to be talking the values of the enemy. Rush Limbaugh is a case in point, who constantly derides Newt for using the language of the left, when Rush can't make up his mind from day to day whether the bank bailouts were necessary, superfluous or deceitful. A convert like Augustine of Hippo couldn't possibly have something important to contribute, could he?

The truth is Romney's capitalism is parasitic, not entrepreneurial, because it incessantly demands gains in productivity which go to the owners and investors at the expense of the workers. Please. Save. My. Crummy. Job.

No one aged 50 or more who has lost a position on a mere technicality after twenty or more years of service, and they are legion, is sympathetic to this argument. What work at year 5, 10, 14 or 18 was superior to the work at year 20, but for the fact that salary and benefits at that point represented a juicy cost savings going directly to the almighty bottom line? The young who lose their jobs are too inexperienced and too frequently abused to know any other reality than job-hopping in the world created by the corporate raider. Such lives do not produce traditional, stable families, nor committed, law-abiding communities and reliable tax bases. The business left is now in full-throated holler for simplifying taxes, removing tax deductions, and, the real point, a more mobile worker, one who doesn't own a house and who can be moved here and there at will without having to sell first.

Pat Buchanan, who twenty years ago this month made life very difficult for one President George Herbert Walker Bush in the New Hampshire primary, had a change of heart about what was really happening to American workers as he made the rounds during the campaign. It made him realize that something had begun to change in the relationship between worker and employer which went to the heart of patriotism. Today we see the full expression of businesses' loyalty, and it's not to justice, only to the letter of the law, skilfully crafted by its bought and paid for politician. 

If only we had Republican candidates today who could effectively tap this well of misery in order to alleviate it instead of merely to get elected. Democrats are better at this, which is why their future looks bright, and ours looks dim.

The Broadest Tax Base Which Can Possibly Be Imagined Implies a Tax Rate of 6.2%

Herman Cain's 999 Plan is focusing attention on the perennially perplexing problem of taxation for the American electorate in 2012. His plan has brought questions about broadening the tax base for tax reform front and center, including: What tax base is large enough to generate adequate federal revenues? and: What rate of taxation is fair?

Herman's big idea is to scrap the entire tax code and start over with three new bases taxed at the same low rate for a temporary period of time, eventually transitioning the country permanently to just one of these bases, taxed at a much higher single rate.

His scheme is quite conventional in that it looks to the existing traditional bases of taxation with which we have been familiar for decades: corporations and individuals.

What is new, however, is the national sales tax, the base for which was fairly sizable in 2008 at $10.1 trillion in personal consumption expenditures [PCE], and running at almost $10.8 trillion annualized through August 2011.

Currently the overwhelming burden of taxation falls on the individual filer whose personal income is taxed in order to provide Social Insurance and Federal revenues, which in 2011 are currently running at an annualized rate of $2.3 trillion, as shown here by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Corporations, excises and tariffs provide puny sums by comparison: less than $500 billion in 2008.

This means that in 2011, Herman Cain's ultimate idea of taxing consumption to replace current revenues of approximately $3 trillion would imply a national sales tax rate of 28 percent on $10.8 trillion in goods and services expenditures this year. That's a pretty hefty rate by comparison with present conditions.

Currently the personal income base on which we exact that $2.3 trillion in Social Insurance and Federal taxes is just over $13 trillion. This implies an overall tax rate of 18 percent. If personal income in that aggregate amount had to do all the pulling to generate the full $3 trillion in revenues, personal income would have to be taxed at a rate of 23 percent to do the same thing as the consumption tax. Not as high, but still much higher than the 9 percent Herman Cain has called for currently, if only temporarily, in deference to the God of the Bible who asked for just 10 percent from his chosen people.

By way of comparison, if there were some way to easily tax GDP, currently running at $15 trillion, the effective tax rate would have to be 20 percent.

So is there a tax base which is broader still, from which we can derive the necessary sums and get that rate even lower?

Given that people by definition receive income in consequence of the conduct of business of one kind or another (aside from gambling, prostitution and bank robbery), it seems reasonable to look at the size of the various tax bases available strictly from businesses, without whom none of the other tax bases would exist in the first place. If we really mean it when we say we want to tax income only once, we need to go to its source, and for nearly everyone in our society, that source is business.

Corporations in 2008 had total receipts of $28.5 trillion, 2.8 times the size of Herman Cain's PCE tax base. It would have taken a gross receipts tax of merely 10.5 percent on this sum to have generated $3 trillion in tax revenue in tax year 2008, a year when revenues were actually lower at $2.5 trillion. That implies a gross receipts tax of only 8.8 percent on corporations in 2008.

In such a world, there would be no more income taxes on individuals, no Social Security or Medicare taxes either, and no capital gains taxes nor taxes on investment income or savings of any kind, and government would not go wanting. Nor would business be constrained by other taxes and fees imposed on it if we were to throw out the current code and replace it with this simple levy.

But the base could be made broader still in order to lower the effective rate even more.

Add in partnerships, which had $5.9 trillion in total receipts in 2008. And S corporations, which had $6.1 trillion in total receipts in 2008. Both of these added to corporation total receipts yields a gargantuan tax base for 2008 of $40.5 trillion in gross receipts.

All of that could have been taxed at a mere 6.2 percent to meet the federal revenue of $2.5 trillion collected in 2008.

No more talk of a flat income tax, nor of a progressive income tax, nor of a consumption tax. No more compliance costs of $450 billion because of the current code. No more lost time equivalent to 3 million full time jobs.  Just one, low, simple, rate on business. That's it.

In addition to God, John Tamny might go for it, too:

"The answer as always is for the government to simply get out of the way. If it must tax corporations, its taxation should be blind in the way that justice is. A flat gross receipts tax would make all corporations equal before the IRS. That would ensure the most economic allocation of capital on the way to rational, market-driven growth."

Bill Clinton's Middle Class Tax Increase Meant the Rich Got a Bigger Piece of the Pie

Mark Perry seems to have missed a good story.

He's been talking recently about how the income share of the top 20 percent has been FLAT since 1994, as shown here.

What's more interesting, however, is the oddity that his charts show that the income share of the top 20 percent experienced a pronounced spike up between 1992 and 1994, which includes the first two years of the Bill Clinton administration.

Why did the richer get a bigger share of the income pie after Bill Clinton raised taxes on them in 1993?

Top marginal income tax rates had declined from 38.5 percent in 1987 to 28 percent in 1988, as shown here, and in 1991 another higher rate of 31 percent was added under Bush 41. But under Clinton in 1993 an additional marginal rate of 39.6 percent was added with the help of the Democrat controlled Congress. So higher marginal income tax rates prevailed, but the richer nevertheless got a bigger share of the income.

That doesn't make any sense. How did that happen?

The answer is Clinton's middle class tax increases.

For one thing, the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes was raised. That bumped up the limit on incomes on which the tax was levied. A tax increase for all wage earners. For another thing, the cap on income subject to Medicare taxes was removed. That meant no ordinary income could escape the tax any longer. Another huge tax increase. And thirdly, Social Security income beyond 50 percent up to 85 percent became subject to income taxation. Anyone taking Social Security income felt this, not just the rich. Another huge tax increase.

These were massive tax increases on wage earners, as opposed to those richer Americans who could take their income differently if need be, often in the form of capital gains, or from tax-free municipal bonds, or from tax shelters.

The net effect of the Clinton tax increase was that just about everyone in the four quintiles below the top 20 percent lost ground on income, which meant that the rich appeared to spike up in their share of the income pie. The regimentation in law of the tax increases on everyone altered and froze the aggregate shares of the income pie going forward, hence the flatness of those charts since 1994.

The truth was that Clinton's tax increase on the richer, who ended up shifting income to avoid taxation, masked a massive tax increase on everyone else, who couldn't shift their income if they wanted to, and they've experienced a smaller bite of the income pie ever since.

That's what expanding the tax base in tandem with raising rates will do.

Republicans, take note.

Larry Kudlow Likes Herman Cain's 999 Plan

Here:

Former Treasury hands Gary and Aldona Robbins priced out the Cain plan on a static basis and discovered it to be revenue neutral. Essentially they found a $26 trillion tax base yielding $2.3 trillion in revenue for a 9.1 percent overall rate. Hence, 9-9-9.

In essence, the Cain plan combines the flat tax (with its single marginal rate) and the fair tax (which uses the national sales tax). I don’t know if this is really possible. But in terms of first principles, throwing out the tax code, lowering marginal tax rates, getting rid of the carve-outs and deductions that make the current code impossible to understand, and providing an economic-growth tonic to heal our current funk, it makes a lot of sense.

That Herman Cain is rising in the polls is no surprise.

Just 93 Million Full Timers in Private Sector Now Form the Tax Base for 53 Million Social Security Recipients

Some of the latest grim facts about Social Security, as reported here:

[T]otal revenue from Social Security taxes in 2010—$544.8 billion—was not enough to cover Social Security’s total benefit payments—$577.4 billion. ...

The Social Security board of trustees reported that there were 53.398 million Social Security beneficiaries in 2010. ...

93.641 million full-time private sector workers were the foundation of the tax base that supported both government at large and Social Security in particular.

Tax Reform Had Better Be Revenue Neutral, Otherwise No Thanks

Louis Woodhill isn't fooled by Gang of Six types, Gang of Twelve types, or any other types looking for increased revenues from tax reform flying under the banner of eliminating tax loss expenditures while making the Bush brackets permanent:

Republicans want to reform the tax code and broaden the tax base in return for lower tax rates.  However, they must insist that such reform be (at most) “revenue neutral”, because an effort to get more revenue via reform would mean higher tax rates, and therefore lower economic growth.  An increment of economic growth provides somewhere between 27 times and infinitely more benefit to federal finances than raising taxes.  So, no thanks.

And he says No Thanks to about seven other things, too, here.

Senator Saxby Chambliss Doesn't Tell The Whole Truth About Tax Loss Expenditures

On the Sean Hannity program today Senator Chambliss claimed that under Ronald Reagan tax loss expenditures were eliminated as part of a lowering and broadening of the tax base in 1986.

The top income tax bracket eventually fell to 28 percent for a very brief time as a result of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 under Reagan's successor, George Herbert Walker Bush, who subsequently went on to break his no new taxes pledge, paving the way for tax increases under his successor, Bill Clinton, proving that broad low tax rates can be as ephemeral as any other part of the tax code.

The senator from Georgia today claimed that the current plan of his Gang of Six was proposing the scaling-back of similar tax loss expenditures enjoyed by taxpayers in the same spirit of Reagan. For example, the Gang wants to reduce the deductibility of home mortgage interest and charitable contributions in exchange for a lower income tax rate.

But the senator is pulling a fast one with the facts. Reagan didn't just eliminate some tax loss expenditures and reduce income tax rates in exchange. He in fact broadened at the same time the mortgage interest deduction in order to encourage home ownership, something entirely missing from the Gang of Six plan:

Prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA86), the interest on all personal loans (including credit card debt) was deductible. TRA86 eliminated that broad deduction, but created the narrower home mortgage interest deduction under the theory that it would encourage home ownership.

I remember at the time how unfair I thought it was to lose the deductibility of credit card interest until I realized how an equity line of credit based on home ownership could and in fact did replace the role credit cards and other lines of credit had played in the tax equation before 1986. The change was also noteworthy because it encouraged the acquisition and use of secured equity instead of the use of mere credit secured only by income and creditworthiness.

Senator Chambliss' plan will eliminate tax deductibility of home mortgage interest without replacing it with anything to encourage home ownership.

And if there's anything America needs more right now, it's jobs and family formation to soak up the excess housing inventory. All Chambliss' plan will do is worsen the economic circumstances of current homeowners, who are already struggling with upside down loans and declining real estate values.

It's time conservatives recaptured the importance of home ownership as a social good. Unfortunately, the ideas of the Gang of Six do anything but. And whatever else they are, they aren't Reaganite. 

4 of 6 Current Tax Rates Already Do Not Apply to 80% of the Country

Per the US Census, all US households divide into five groups of equal size along these income lines for 2009:

1) $0 to $20,453

2) $20,454 to $38,550

3) $38,551 to $61, 801

4) $61,802 to $100,000

5) over $100,000 (the top 5% make in excess of $180,000).

Current tax brackets are concentrated on the fifth group, the over $100,000 set, so that the top four of the six brackets affect the top 20% of earners in the population the most:

10% for adjusted gross incomes $0 to $16,750

15% on AGIs to $68,000

25% on AGIs to $137,300

28% on AGIs to $209,250

33% on AGIs to $373,650

35% on AGIs above $373,650.

The result is that 60% of the country is responsible for very little tax revenue, and the expansion of various credits like the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Credit have meant that an increasingly large percentage of the population is paying no tax at all.

For the 2008 tax year the Tax Foundation reported here that 36% of filers paid no tax at all:

Nonpaying status used to be a sure sign of poverty or near-poverty, but Congress and the President have changed the tax laws to pull much of the middle class into the growing pool of nonpayers. The income level at which a typical family of four will owe no income taxes has risen rapidly, now topping $51,000. 

As a result, recently released IRS data for the 2008 tax year show that a record 51.6 million filers had no income tax obligation. That means more than 36 percent of all Americans who filed a tax return for 2008 were nonpayers, raising serious doubts about the ability of the income tax system to continue funding the federal government's ballooning expenditures. 

The situation worsened dramatically in 2009, to 47%, according to the Tax Policy Center in this AP story: 

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization. ...The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.

"We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing," said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation. ...The number of households that don't pay federal income taxes increased substantially in 2008, when the poor economy reduced incomes and Congress cut taxes in an attempt to help recovery. 

In 2007, about 38 percent of households paid no federal income tax, a figure that jumped to 49 percent in 2008, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center. 

In other words, the tax code under George Bush and the Republicans in 2001 and 2003 became an instrument of liberal social policy, providing massive social spending on America's middle and lower classes. Combined with George Bush's massive hand out to the elderly in the form of drugs for seniors you now understand why liberals hate George Bush so much: because he out-liberaled the liberals. 

And don't expect to hear about it from Rush Limbaugh. He thinks there isn't anyone in the country who is undertaxed. 

If there were really any conservatives left in the country, they'd be calling for a complete end to these subsidies because they represent government spending which we cannot afford, and for a broader tax base which embodied every American's patriotic duty to contribute to the general welfare. 

A real conservative would equate exempting low incomes from taxation with the practice of exempting high incomes from taxation. The "refund" checks which "the poor" receive from the government when they file their taxes are no different from the exemption the rich receive when payroll taxes are not collected on income above $106,500. The former are justified as offsets of the payroll taxes the poor pay, the latter as exemptions from contributions the rich would never live to recoup. Everyone in a narrower and narrower middle pays and pays those taxes, year in and year out, to benefit the poor and the elderly. It is unsustainable.