Clearly they should support it for people currently under 55 as necessary and prudent while attacking any reduction in benefits for folks over 55 for breaking a long standing promise.
It's the pro-pandering party.
Support it as a standalone proposal, but not as part of a deal involving higher revenue from prosperous Americans. There have already been two large tax increases on affluent Americans, the Obamacare increases and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, and we already have a more steeply progressive income tax system than most other OECD countries. We have gone far enough in taxing the most economically successful Americans, and House Republicans should just say no to any more tax increases.
We have a *more* steeply progressive tax system than most other OECD countries????This is flatly false. Read Joseph Stiglitz, in today's NYTimes:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/a-tax-system-stacked-against-the-99-percent/?hp
It is true, not false, and nothing in Stiglitz's article contradicts it. In the US, the top 10% of the income distribution earns 33.5% of the income but pays 45.1% of the taxes. That 45.1% is the highest in the OECD. European welfare states rely heavily on consumption taxes, especially the value added tax (VAT). Those European social democracies tax their middle classes much more heavily than the US does. And that 45.1% comes before the Obamacare tax increases and the effect of ending the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket. See the article in the Washington Post:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/05/Americas-taxes-are-the-most-progressive-in-the-world-its-government-is-among-the-least/?wprss=rss_erza_klein
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
At The Washington Post
At The American Prospect