I understand that that would be a political departure. But a political departure, under the right circumstances would be a way to attract support to a progressive position. But is there some complexity of implementation that I don't get?
Why haven't progressives put forward this seemingly obvious and clear demand, which would lead to a drastic reduction in most people's tax burden and a democratization of the tax structure?
Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema
Nathan Newman wrote:
> This is my column from the upcoming Progressive Populist. Enjoy digging in
> :)- Nathan
>
> ====
>
> The End of Tax Cut Politics
> - Nathan Newman
>
> Forget the short-term storm and thunder over the exact size of Bush's tax
> cut plan. Below the glee of conservatives at stealing the Presidency last
> fall, there is a real fear by some that tax cut politics has lost its
> ability to move the electorate and win elections. Heck, whatever the GOP
> folks say about the electoral college, they know that George Bush received
> less votes nationwide than Al Gore, and millions less than Gore and Nader's
> vote combined. Against one of the lousiest candidates possible, Bush
> couldn't sell his tax cuts to a majority of the voting public.
>
> As conservative columnist Mark Steyn recently complained, "it's increasingly
> rare to find a majority in support of tax cuts-it's just 48 percent in the
> most recent poll. In fact, what was once a surefire issue for conservatives
> has come, perversely, to favor the left."
>
> The real fear of the right wing is that after passing any tax cut this year,
> it may be the last time they can even try to run a successful campaign on
> tax cuts, setting up the next election for a renewed round of vote winning
> "class warfare" - the conservative parlance for tax fairness - by Democrats.
>
> Taking Working Families Off the Tax Rolls
>
> The problem for conservatives is that over the years, an increasing
> percentage of families have been taken off the income tax rolls. First,
> Clinton and the Dems pushed through the large Earned Income Tax Credit
> increase in 1993 that took a large portion of working poor families off the
> income tax rolls. Then, in order to sell their 1997 tax plan and pacify the
> "pro-family" Christian Coalition wing of the GOP, the Republicans pushed
> through the $500 per child tax credit, taking many more moderate income
> families off the income tax rolls. By this year, roughly one-third of
> families were paying no income tax - although many still had heavy social
> security and Medicare tax burdens.
>
> But since Republicans have little interest in cutting payroll taxes, Bush's
> plan had literally nothing to sell to over a third of families. Given that,
> it's hardly surprising that he had trouble finding a majority to be
> enthusiastic. And now, many conservatives fear that, in order to sell the
> new round of tax cuts for the wealthy, Bush and the GOP have had to offer
> more increases in child and other tax credits which will take an estimated 6
> million more families off the tax rolls.
>
> As Ramesh Ponnuru of the National Review bemoans, conservatives "take people
> off the tax rolls and fund social programs, heedless of the long-run
> political consequences.of making government services seem free of charge."
> Or as Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily.Com, a popular rightwing news site,
> recently wrote, "In essence, after implementation of the Bush plan, 50
> percent of the public will be paying no taxes. half the population will be
> getting, in essence, a free ride. They can then dictate to the other half."
>
> Now, both conservative writers ignore the burden of payroll taxes and
> overestimate the effect of the Bush plan. But the truth of their
> observations is that as the main tax paid by working families is
> increasingly the payroll tax, they no longer will feel any kinship with the
> rants of the wealthy about the oppression of income taxes. The old Reagan
> trick of selling small income tax cuts to average families as a lure to sell
> big tax cuts for the rich just won't sell anymore.
>
> Why Some Cuts for the Wealthy May Never Be Implemented
>
> Worse for the conservatives, even if the Bush plan is largely enacted into
> law, there is no guarantee most of its provisions will ever be implemented.
> In order to keep the total ten-year projected costs down and create a
> greater appearance of fairness, the tax credits for families are implemented
> immediately while the largest tax cuts for the wealthy are phased in later
> in the decade. Some, like the Estate Tax repeal, are not implemented until
> as late as 2011.
>
> One thing this means is that, according to the Center on Budget and Policy
> Priorities, the cost of the tax cuts will explode into a $5 trillion cost in
> the second decade from 2012-2021.
>
> But the other thing this means is that progressives have up to a decade to
> organize for new laws canceling the implementation of later phase-ins of the
> giveaways to the wealthy, a campaign made easier by the budget-busting
> nature of implementing those cuts as later years approach.
>
> In the best scenario, we could get the positive parts of the tax plan - the
> child tax credits and deduction of charitable contributions by
> non-itemizers - and block the later phase-ins of cuts for the wealthy. In
> the nightmare bogeyman-scenario of the Right, Greg Pierce of the Washington
> Times worries, "More than two-thirds of the tax cut arrives after 2004, by
> which time Hillary could be running the White House." (Hopefully, we can do
> better than that in the next election).
>
> By playing the late phase-in game to make the tax cuts look more acceptable,
> the GOPers may have outsmarted themselves. By next year, progressives can
> just pocket the upfront tax breaks for moderate income families, then treat
> each subsequent year's tax phase-in for the rich as a new issue to
> politically club the rightwing during budget fights.
>
> With tax cuts for the wealthy standing alone, shorn of accompanying breaks
> for average taxpayers, it will be a lot easier to mobilize to kill them,
> especially when the American people have shown over and over again that they
> prefer new investments in schools, health care and the environment.
>
> It's the end of tax cut politics as we've known it. And I feel fine.