Job Creators vs Lucky Ducks

In the last few years two terms have come to creep into discussions about taxation in the US.  These ideas are definitely being driven by the right wing echo chamber.  So today we are going to examine what they are, how they are used, and the reality of people at different income levels.

Lucky ducks–these are the folks that file income tax returns, but whose income after deductions and credits owe no income tax.  The Wall Street Journal editorial pages started this term, and have been using it since 2002.

Job creators–in the past few years this term has been thrown around to describe the wealthy, and defend the lower tax rates that they deserve.  You may have heard something like this, “you don’t raise taxes on job creators during a down economy.”

Why are these terms being used, basically to convince people that the Republican’s economic agenda isn’t class warfare, but fairness.

So let’s breakdown the myth of the Lucky Ducks, these folks don’t make enough to pay federal income tax.  Sadly in the down economy, the percentage of the population that falls into this category has been rising.  As average employees wages have stayed stagnant, this is an inevitable result.

However, when Lucky Ducks is talked about, it is a not used to point out the stagnant wages for the majority of Americans.  It is used to make tax payers think that there are a bunch of freeloaders that aren’t paying taxes.  That those who aren’t Lucky Ducks have been supporting those lazy freeloaders.

But are they lazy freeloaders?  While the statistic that is used is the number of people who file federal income taxes (those with an income) who don’t owe federal income taxes.  People who have no income don’t have to file taxes, so this is measuring people with income, generally workers, who aren’t generally lazy or freeloaders.

In the US working people have to pay payroll taxes, 6.2% to Social Security and 1.45% to Medicare (or 7.65%) and double that if you are self employed as you are paying employee and employer shares.  While these Lucky Ducks are not paying income tax, they are still paying payroll taxes on their income.  Not as Lucky as they want you to think, and be angry about!  That doesn’t get into state income, property or sales tax that these folks likely are paying too (double taxation!!!).

What about the myth of the job creators?  For a few years, I have been hearing this statement, “no poor person employed me!”  In the last few years as the Bush tax cuts were set to expire, and Democrats were looking to let the tax rates go up on the wealthiest Americans the job creators became the endangered species of the Republicans.  To paraphrase a familiar line, “Won’t somebody please think of the  Job Creators?”

But I want to think about this for a moment?  They are trying to say that wealthy American tax payers, individuals or couples, are job creators.  Now I believe that wealthy people do hire other people directly, maybe a housemaid, butler, driver, nanny, exercise coach, dietitian, publicist and so on.  But how many people do they hire?  Does a change in 3% marginal tax rate mean they go from hiring 3 people to 4?  To that 4th person, that is huge, but I don’t call these people Job Creators.

I think we need to start asking Republicans, do you consider yourself wealthy (Mitt Romney), if yes, how many people do you employ.  And when I say employ, you pay the employer share of payroll taxes!  If you hire a service who employs a person who provides a service for you, the service is the employer, not you.  If you create a company and that later employees people, than I will agree you are a job creator, but that isn’t a ton of the wealthy.

I have been thinking about this a for a long time, because we are all job creators if we are actively involved with the economy.  When I go shop at Target or the grocery store I am buy products, along with the other customers.  Our demand for those products are creating jobs for the people extracting the resources that are manufactured (more jobs), then transported (jobs) to a store (jobs).  My demand along with my fellow consumers are creating that demand and those jobs.

Not only that, but the average consumer probably creates more jobs than the super wealthy in most sectors (not Lear Jets).  Think about this, you have a wealthy family that makes $5,000,000.  Maybe they have a principal residence and two vacation properties, a housemaid and a driver.  Then you have 100 families who make $50,000 (same as that $5,000,000 wealthy family) who don’t directly hire anyone and just have one home.  Now those 100 families are going to buy more toilet paper, more toothpaste, food, etc… than the multi millionaire with their 3 homes and 2 employees.  For the people who make toilet paper or toothpaste, those employee’s jobs are based on the demand (job creation) of all them, but it is the demand of the average family collectively that is creating more jobs than the multi millionaires.

It is time for us to think past the language that is being used to support tax policies that benefit the ultra wealthy.  Average Americans are struggling enough in the current economic climate.  We need jobs, not class warfare, but we have been getting attacked for years and usually don’t even realize the Black Ops/Psy Ops that have been waged against us workers.

Lucky Ducks who may not pay any federal income tax definitely pay taxes, and usually are pretty hard workers.  All of us that are buying things are job creators.  The ultra wealthy may create jobs in the luxury industries, but they are not the only job creators and for a large part of society create less jobs (collectively) than the average American, including those who are not working, but still consuming.

-Josh

Advertisements

Confuse and mislead on progressive taxation

So I was watching Chris Wallace grill Dick Durbin (Obama’s proxy) on Fox News Sunday this morning. This is really about framing an issue in such a way as to achieve your objective by presenting the language in a favorable, or more generally acceptable way.

The frame:

  • An increase in capital gains taxes, which Obama is proposing to increase from 15% to 28%, will impact the middle class, considering that almost 50% of the tax returns that list capital gains taxes make less than $50,000.

I am going to pick on a piece by Larry Kudlow at the National Review Online on this issue, because that way I can quote what he is writing, plus I am certain this is part of the right wing echo machine that I have said I am fighting, the echo ends here!

The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore points out that in 2005, almost half of all tax returns reporting capital gains came from households with incomes under $50,000, while more than three-quarters came from households earning less than $100,000.

The first hint that an attempt is being made to confuse us is that we talk about the number of returns, not the percentage of capital gains tax paid. See, I did my taxes earlier this week. I make less than $50,000 and I paid capital gains taxes on my dividends from one stock, that one stock gained me a total of $4.52 in dividends, so at 15% I paid 68 cents and at 28% I would pay $1.27, or a tax increase of 59 cents. So yes, I would be one of these masses that would face a tax increase, but I would be okay with it.

But my point still stands, so I went looking for information on percentages by income of the capital gains tax paid, not just number of returns. I found this from Citizens for Tax Justice (pdf),

Looks like under $46,000 paid 0.4% of all of the capital gains taxes paid, and under $110,00 paid 5.7%. Once again, this an example of conservatives, co-opting the “looking out for the middle class” to protect a reduced tax rate that primarily benefits those at the top of the income scale. You will not see this similar behavior, this concern for middle and low income voters when we talk about preserving (when cuts are proposed) or expanding social programs, just on the revenue end of things.

Now Kudlow has some questionable arguments against other aspects of Obama’s proposed tax policy.

Obama also proposed uncapping the payroll tax, another blunder that will hit people up and down the income ladder. While Obama pledges tax hikes only for folks earning more that $200,000 a year, his tax hike on payrolls would actually slam middle-income earners. The cap on wages subject to the payroll tax is presently $102,000. By eliminating that cap Obama will be soaking veteran firemen, cops, teachers, and health-service workers, along with a variety of other occupations.

In fact, in America’s largest cities, a firefighter married to a school teacher can earn close to $200,000 filing jointly. So not only will each spouse separately pay more for Social Security and health care under Obama’s plan, together they’ll also be slammed by Obama’s cap-gains tax increase.

This is a lot of confusion being thrown about to make Obama look bad.

Who down the ladder will this impact, if you make under $102,000 a year, no tax increase. It is that simple and begins to unravel the lie.

What is middle class, maybe in the Boston to Washington DC supercity, $200,000 is considered middle class in that subset of the US population. But if you look at the raw number in the chart above, $200,000 is clearly in the top 5 percent for the whole US. This increase only effects those that are in the top 20% nationally and mostly those in the top 10%.

Now lets say we breakdown his example of a firefighter married to a school worker making $200,000 a year. Lets say the firefighter makes $130,000 and the school teacher makes $70,000. A big omission, is that the cap is per person, not per family. So the school teacher who makes less than $102,000 will not see any increase to their payroll taxes. So the fire fighter would for the $28,000 income that currently is not subject to the social security pay roll tax. That tax is 6.2% off of the pay check and then another 6.2% from the employer. So $28,000 times 6.2% is an increase of $1,762. That is a real increase, but Kudlow is trying to confuse, because in a scenario where both wage earners earn $100,000, then they would face no increase to the payroll tax. But he wants you to think that the total increase would be $98,000 times 6.2% or $6,076.

That is how it would effect his middle class in his example. But what about a person that earns $1 million. Well that additional $898,000 of their income that would be subjected to the 6.2% social security tax would increase their tax by $55,676. That is a big amount, clearly more than I make in a year, but why should only lower income, those of us under $102,000 in income pay 6.2% on ALL of our income. Currently anyone that makes $102,000 or more pays at total of $6,324 in payroll taxes for social security. So for that person making a cool million, they are paying an effective tax rate to social security of 0.63% or one tenth the tax rate we middle and lower class people are making.

Now after this, if you are confused, you may now question the thinking that Larry Kudlow is looking out of the middle class, and this reinforces that doubt. He has been a staunch defender of preserving the capital gains rate of 15% for the hedge funder managers,

The latest assault comes courtesy of House Democrat Sander Levin. Late last week, he introduced a bill that essentially would abolish the 15 percent capital-gains tax preference for risk investing, and raise it by 20 percentage points to the 35 percent corporate and personal rate. This goes beyond an earlier tax attack on a public offering by the Blackstone Group, and would slam into all private partnerships, including buyout funds, hedge funds, venture-capital firms, real estate partnerships, and oil-and-gas deals.

Taxing income at 35% versus the 15%, what does that mean to tax revenue for the country? Well for one manager in 2007,

One manager — John Paulson of Paulson & Co. — earned $3.7 billion last year, which management consultant Peter Cohan pointed out means Paulson in 2007 made 30 times in one hour what the median family made all year.

So what would John Paulson pay in taxes on that $3.7 billion.

  • 15% equals $555 million
  • 28% equals $1.036 billion
  • 35% equals $1.295 billion

Even at 35% he would have $2.4 billion in take home income, I know that must be a hardship, after all he could (and probably did) taken home $3.1 billion.

Ironically, that June 27, 2007 post where he argues against raising the tax rate for hedge fund managers, he mentions this,

But plain ol’ income this is not. The recent crack up of two Bear Stearns sub-prime-mortgage hedge funds shows just how risky these ventures can be.

Well they aren’t THAT risky if the government is going to bail you out, and what was his take on that bailout for Bear Stearns?

But speaking for himself, Kudlow, a contributor to Buckley’s National Review who worked for Bear Stearns for eight years, defended the bailout. He said that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed chairman Ben Bernanke “have done exactly the right thing.” But it wasn’t the conservative thing to do. It wasn’t consistent with the conservative and free market principles in the Sharon Statement.

Well I have gotten a bit off topic here, so I will summarize.

  • Conservative pundits are trying to co-opt the progressive message of protecting middle class from tax increases. They do this by using numbers of people who file capital gains in their returns, not the amount of the capital gains they claim as a percentage of all capital gains claimed to inflate the impact on the middle class.
  • Conservatives worry about the lifting the cap on income subjected to the payroll tax for social security, while clearly this only would impact those in the top 20% nationally.
  • When talking about the capital gains taxes and how they must be kept low, they have defended the right for people like John Paulson to only pay 15% on his $3.7 billion income in 2007, not a higher 28% (proposed increase to capital gains tax rate) or 35% rate (top income tax rate).
  • Larry Kudlow justified this lower rate because of the associated risk that hedge fund managers have, but did not have an issue when the government bailed out Bear Stearns, in other words government taking on the risk that hedge managers were apparently being rewarded for taking with a lower tax rate.

So when the right wing pundits carry the water for the investor class to punch holes in Obama’s plan for more equitable taxation, they are only crying crocodile’s tears for the middle class.

-Josh