If there's one unshakable, unwavering rule in American politics in the 21st century, it's this: Republicans oppose any tax increases on anyone by any amount for any reason, no matter the consequences. Full stop.
There is, however, a pesky little asterisk tied to this rule that often goes overlooked: a whole lot of Republicans support tax hikes on the poor. Indeed, the House Republican budget plan, as written by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), actually increases the tax burden on those at the very bottom of the income scale.
ThinkProgress' Scott Keyes asked Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-Ohio), a member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, about this yesterday. Tiberi stressed the need for low-income families, many of whom have no federal income tax burden at all, to have some "skin in the game."
This is a surprisingly common sentiment in GOP circles. Indeed, none other than Mitt Romney told voters in Florida last year, "I think it's a real problem when you have half of Americans, almost half of Americans, that are not paying [federal] income tax."
Got that? Millions of struggling Americans are not currently required to pay federal income taxes, and the presumptive Republican nominee considers that "a real problem," which presumably he would try to fix if elected.
When Democrats want millionaires to pay a little more, it's socialism. When Republicans want the poor to pay a little more, it's just helping these low-income Americans have some "skin in the game."
Welcome to class warfare, Republican style.
In case anyone's forgotten, the relevant details matter here: millions of Americans may be exempt from income taxes, but they still pay sales taxes, state taxes, local taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare/Medicaid taxes, and in many instances, property taxes. It's not as if these folks are getting away with something -- the existing tax structure leaves them out of the income tax system because they don't make enough money to qualify. Indeed, many are retirees who can't earn an income because they're no longer in the workforce.
But for many Republicans, including the party's presidential candidate, it's "a real problem" that these folks aren't also paying federal income taxes -- and the only way to correct this problem is by increasing the tax burdens of those least able to afford it.
Leave a Comment:
as someone smarter than me said, since the poor don't have any money to put in the game all they have left to offer IS skin
Very pithy, but the concept is that if half of working age Americans do not pay any federal income taxes, we have unintentionally created a society where half of the population feels entitled to receive government handouts while the other half of the population feels resentment that they are constantly having more of their income redistributed to the other half. The concept of having everyone have some "skin" in the game is that there should be a minimal income tax of say $100/year so that everyone is a tax payor and is a stakeholder. What is wrong with this minimal contribution?
They don't feel "entitled"- they were laid off of work and have to use benefits that they paid into while they were working until they can get a new job
Very interesting that they'd feel this way considering that their taxes have gone down the past 40 years and not up.
Every single person pays taxes. You are talking about federal income taxes and even that's manipulative because people still pay federal taxes. They just don't pay the additional tax of the income tax. They do have skin in the game- just not in the form of income tax. The only way you'd see them as not having 'skin in the game' would be if you fundamentally do not understand how the US tax system works.
What's wrong is your thoroughly immoral Randian division of the population into makers and takers. It's absolutely sick, that's what's wrong with it. And if you feel that I'm coming on too strong, Hank, that I'm being rude and offensive and that I've hurt your feelings...good. It's intentional. I want you to feel in your gut, not just know in your head, just how in the wrong you are in the eyes of others.
Your statements do not hurt my feelings. However my feelings are that Obama and the rest of y'all take about fairness with the Buffet Rule. Is it fair to discriminate with this asinine "rule" by having the majority pick on the minority with this rule when the lower capital gains rate and dividend rates were passed by prior congresses and both parties? Is it fair that Obama's tax rate is less than his secretary's tax rate?
My feelings are that yes half of the population is working their asses off to support the other half who are sitting on their asses. Is this too strong Meddle? Am I being rude and offensive and have I hurt your feelings. Sorry unlike you I did not mean to hurt your feelings. I don't try to call anyone names or insult anyone's intelligence here on this blog and I would ask that y'all not insult or try to hurt feelings of those who have different opinions than yours. However whenever I bring a differing opinion I get insulted and called a Troll or that I am reciting talking points. I could easily do this to everyone of your comments, but I don't. I try to bring a rational and reasoned response to why I think you are wrong. I do not try to hurt feelings.
Mouse - please don't insult me by saying I don't understand how the US tax system works. Yes we all pay sales tax and payroll tax even if our income is less than the minimal to pay federal income tax. And there is the indirect payment of property taxes to our landlord through our rent. The skin in the game concept is about federal income taxes. Look its never going to see the light of day. However if Steve is going to stir up the pot and get y'all riled up, I'm going to pipe in share my "feelings".
Every single person in the United States who earns income pays taxes to the federal government. Do you understand this? I'm not even talking about payroll taxes. Every person pays into the federal system. They just don't necessarily pay into the federal income tax system. How in the hell can you argue that this means they don't have skin in the game? Seriously?
Yes and no in direct answer to your questions. Just because a previous congress passed a bill doesn't suddenly mean that said bill cannot be repealed or a new bill cannot replace an old one. The tax code as set up by former POTUS George Bush is a complete failure and needs to be repealed if we're going to ever hope to start working down our deficit and debt. There is absolutely nothing wrong w/ congress repealing legislation it put into place before. There is absolutely nothing 'unfair' about congress repealing a piece of legislation it put into place before. Secondly it is not fair for PBO to pay less in taxes than his secretary. Which is why PBO has stated that he wants his taxes to go up.
But this isn't true. This is why I stated that you fundamentally don't understand the US federal tax system. How are federal programs paid for? Hint: it's not the income tax. Half the people paying income tax does not equate to half the people leeching off the other half. Beyond that the other half aren't "sitting on their asses" and how arrogant and presumptive are you for saying this? Those who are employed are already working full time and paying into the system. Remember that all those who are not paying federal income taxes =/= those who are unemployed. However since I'm presuming it's the unemployed w/ whom you have a problem: those who are unemployed are hoping to get back to work and to get back to paying into the system. In the latter case those who are receiving benefits paid for their benefits before they lost their job.
I was not trying to insult your intelligence. There is a difference between calling you ignorant and calling you stupid. Saying you are ignorant means I am saying that you have not yet been educated on the system. Saying you are stupid means I believe you are fundamentally incapable of being educated on the system. I implied the former, not the latter (nor would I). Regardless I am sorry that it came across that way since that was not my intention
....because most of the time you are reciting talking points w/o having read deeper into the argument you're making. Like, as an example, the fact that you think the majority of our social services are paid by federal income taxes when they are not. Yet you argue that those who are too poor to pay into the federal income tax system are somehow freeloading. However if you'd like to explain this contradiction in logic to me in a way that explains how you've came to such an uncannily similar conclusion to that of the talking point, but otherwise of your own deduction process, I'd always be open to that.
Next!
Right, Hank. You're the grownup in all this. If you want to play that game, you will play it alone. You've asserted that everyone in this country who is not wealthy is a parasite. That is not a reasonable position. And if you want to talk about insults, you're entire ideology is an insult. At the heart of that ideology (or illness) is a crippling lack of empathy that leads you to see other people as parasites who are sucking you dry. If that is your idea of rationality, then you are as sane as Mr Thomas Shap.
So Hank complains that he's not getting a serious conversation and I invite him to explain his side.....and his response is to say next!
This is why you get called a troll, ftr. It's not because you express an opposing view, but because when you are asked to seriously defend your position you either refuse to or can't.
Once again it's not my responsibility to treat your argument like it's fair when it's factually wrong. You have to prove the claim that you are making. If you can't do it then do not make the claim.
Mr. Mouse. I shared with you my feelings. It was a factual statement. All of the comments on this blog are about feeeeeeelinnnnnnngssss.... So I shared mine.
You guys take yourselves way too seriously. Lighten up.
Isn't it true that nobody pays any fed income taxes on the amount that those lucky-ducky loafers with excess of unused skin aren't paying? The only difference being that the pore, pore millionaires are way above that minimum, exempt, level?
This is a point that I've been trying to make for a long time. Under a progressive tax system, if you want to raise the taxes on the "least of these," then you are going to have to raise taxes on everyone. I don't think the republicans have thought this one through.
@dkm - the GOP "never thinks things through" and therein is the problem!
When Lincoln got Congress to pass the 1st income tax to help pay for the war that he found himself in, it started at $10,000.00. In 1863 dollars. At a time when a worker earned $1 per day, but maybe worked maybe 350 days a year.
According to my math this is $500,000.00 now.
Does the party of Lincoln think it would be good to revamp the income tax to this starting point? I think not.
And when the 16th (I think) amendment was ratified the 2nd income tax started at a similar level, but I never learned what it was. I'm sure it's on the internet somewhere.
The income tax was NEVER intended to be placed on everyone. The poor pay taxes in other ways.
Well, all Democrats have to do is agree to this Republican idea and then they'll scatter like rats away from this notion exactly in the same way they ran from RomneyCare and the individual mandate when they were demanding that those not on health insurance get some of their "skin in the game". Republicans were for it, having come up with the idea in the first place, that is until the Democrats thought it was also a good idea.
If I have one political pet peeve that I just never will get over, it's people talking about the economy as if it's a game.
I don't care if it's republicans or democrats throwing around playful little metaphors. When you see how poverty has the power to devastate and demoralize, you just get tired of the callous disregard with which people treat the whole matter.
These matters don't just affect people's lives, they control their lives. People lose their health, their relationships, their sanity and their lives trying to struggle to earn enough money to pay their bills.
I think it's dangerous to play with these kinds of metaphors, if you get into thinking serious matters like the U.S. Economy, or the war in Afghanistan are games, you start to forget that in these "games." When there is cheating, people die.
I feel the same way when pundits talk about elections the same way. It is not a game when the appointments of judges who render life/death decisions, or representatives could be elected who shout "You lie!" at POTUS, or when senators could vote to filabuster and not vote on life-affirming jobs bills; or give leadership positions to those whose major goal is to defeat the President; our elections are NOT games for analysts to relish the "fight" or "gamesmanship" of the candidates. Electing Allens and Virginias and Michelle Bs are "not healthy for children and other human beings"; neither is an election process that pundits laugh about or that voters fail to inform themselves to make reasoned choices.
Here! Here Vox!
It is a game, though. One with rigged rules in their favor. And they know it, That's why they say it. Hooray for a little unintended honesty.
Great, heartfelt post Vox. It is exactly how many of us feel.
Wow!! breathtaking!! and not in a good way!! At a time when corporate profits are at a record high and the top 1% grabs the biggest slice of the pie, I find this beyond offensive.. When is the republican party going to understand that in an increasingly more global and interconnected world there is less and less space for a "us versus them" attitude? As democrat Barney Frank said about the republicans recently as he prepared to leave congress: We may not be perfect, but they're NUTS!!"
This mantra is tedious. Who are you fighting for? The "poor" are expendable, easily duplicated and of no earthly interest to you or anybody else. Making these people NOT POOR is a genuine goal. Minimum living wage is $20.00. OOPS! No more cheap help, flopping your meat, cleaning your toilet and being your sex servant.
But, who would you be better than? Oh wait, they have to be "educated", there's a prop for your ego.
If only white collar crime was treated with the same sense of contempt. More wall street criminal's skin in jail, please.
@lennybruce48: Yep, but the use of the word "more" makes me wonder: besides obvious frauds like Bernie Madoff the real financial overlords are still riding high, no?
We can get rid of the real "problem" by voting out the Repubs then there wouldn't be any "problems".
How can Republicans and the Tea Party complain that the president is engaging in "class warfare" when they are the ones pitting the rich against every other American. On top of trying to kill Medicare for the working class, the GOP is seeking more tax cuts and tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans while bemoaning that the poor and middle-class aren't paying ENOUGH taxes. that is the very definition of class warfare. The GOP's reckless partisanship is dangerous for our country and is tantamount to political sabotage to win the election. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
It is only class warfare when the poor and working classes fight back.
It's called projection. The right wing is a master of the art of projecting their own faults onto others.
Yes, and when Madam Defarge is sitting in front of the capital with her "knitting needles" - I'm sure that the GOP will get the point....
This week I heard on progressive radio that last year the top 1% gobbled up 97% of the increase in national income. I mean increase in income 'earned' by all the people.
By my math this leaves just 7% for the other 99% to divide up.
This is not fair.
Oops, I meant 93% leaving 7% for all the other 99% of the people.
So they are arguing that all corporations should be paying federal taxes too? It would be nice if GE had some skin in the game ;)
I'm too lazy to look; is there any data out there as to the ratio of income to voting?
I assume that Republican 'skin in the game' is the equivalent of 'whose ox is gored'.
If someone broke into your neighbors' house, would you call the cops? Probably. . .
If someone broke into your house, would you call the cops? DAMN STRAIGHT!
To your question of income to voting ratios:
- If you are poor, you get either zero or 1 vote, depending on race and/or political affiliation.
- If you are middle class, you get either zero or 1 vote, depending on where you live and whether the machines in your area are working or not.
- If you are a wealthy Republlican, you get to vote as many times as you or your Super PAC wish to purchase.
Yes, I know those aren't the types of ratios you had in mind when asking. Just thought I'd throw this out here though.
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/03/01/income-religious-attendance-and-voting-behavior/ gives you graphs on both income and religion related to voting behavior. Short version: the more you make the likelier you are to vote.
What Republicans continue to ignore is that our federal income tax system is based on discretionary earnings i.e. the amount of money you have left over after you pay your bills, buy food, etc. When you tax non-discretionary earnings, you are immediately taking money out of the economy because now people have less money to pay their bills. This results in falling demand and puts recessionary pressure on the economy. THIS is why we have graduated tax rates.
The truly sad part is that, based on the federal income tax rates, more than half of families in this country have NO discretionary earnings. It's no wonder that our economy is having trouble growing.
The easiest way to get most of those "no Federal income tax" parasites to have some "skin in the game" would be to tax Social Security a second time.
I'm on SS and it is taxed by the feds and the state. So, therefore I've been taxed twice on the same money. Maybe I've got more "skin in the game" than the Repubs?
Tom, there's an income threshold for the double taxation. Basically, you have to be making enough (and from the "right" kind of income) before it kicks in. Those who aren't paying any income tax at all are obviously not in the taxed-twice range.<P>
I'm old enough to be taking some serious interest in the rules for what incomes avoid SS triggers, but not old enough to make it a hot topic yet.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1111 "Leaving aside Social Security income, nearly one of every two elderly people — 46.8 percent — has income below the poverty line." And,"Once Social Security benefits are taken into account, just one in twelve — 8.7 percent — is poor." That would seem to suggest that, since it is nearly 50% who have no federal tax liability, your target group would be too small to make much impact. And why after all, would you want to target old, poor people, unless you are some kind of monster.
Many states with an income tax exempt Social Security benefits from taxation. They are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, District of Columbia (not yet a state!), Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Iowa will fully exempt benefits beginning in 2014.
Source: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/issinfo/sstaxes.htm
Romney thinks the poor should pay more in taxes?This coming from a man that hides his money in Swiss,Cayman Island,Bermudan bank accounts and only he and Bain Capital know where else.The only time he invested in America was when he was bleeding an American company of its assets for his own profit.It's not that he made a lot of money that bothers me it's how he made it. He was and still is a Michael Milken or Ivan Boesky on steroids.How is he going to "fix" the economy?Invest tax revenue where he hid his money?His judgement is horrendous,he would have let the American auto industry collapse,taking millions of jobs from hard working Americans.He would have foreclosed on family homes in order to let wealthy investors buy them up,rent them out until values went up,then sell at a healthy profit.This is the man republicans want to "fix"the economy. A Romney presidency would be a Koch Bros.presidency.I'll vote for the present President!Obama!
Near as I can tell, the Republican "game" is much more cynical than Benen suggests. It is possible this is pure, punitive class hatred by the powerful. And for some of the smaller, more petty ones, that is likely true. But for most, I suspect there is a strategy at work, which is both odd sounding and almost logical in its evil scheme.
What Rich Republicans seem to want more than anything else is a tax break. The opposition is primarily among those with less means who figure the rich already have more than enough, thank you. So when the Republicans say they want the low income to have "skin in the game," the "game" they refer to is tax cuts. If the poor are taxed, making their situations worse, they will want the tax removed. But any bill to reduce taxes on the poor will be met with a call for reductions to be across the board as opposed to "class warfare."
In short, the Republicans want to raise taxes on the poor so that they can later court the support of the poor for an across-the-board tax reduction, making them both heroic to the newly-relieved poor and able to get the poor to supprt a bill that reduces taxes for the rich.
Shorter: the less-well-off are being used as pawns in a Republican long game to further benefit the rich. shicking, i know.
Having watched too much right-wing rhetoric lately, I think you're overcomplicating this.
The motivation is really simple: what holds the Party together is loathing of The Other. You know, those lazy welfare queens and all. So they point to the "lucky duckies" who don't pay Real Taxes -- you know, like US.
Having now established the essential commonality between the Koch brothers and the clerks Kansas
farmersgrowers, they can then pursue the Kochs' agenda with the full support of the farmers, with everyone feeling good about sticking it to those slaves of Washington.Mittski, show us your tax returns for the last 20 years. Maybe you don't have any "skin in the game".
The best way of increasing the percentage of people paying federal income tax is by DECREASING the number of POOR!
That's the real crux of the problem. Republicans love to talk about making the poor richer as the solution to poverty, but they absolutely hate anything that might make the poor even temporarily less poor, much less richer. They hate Social Security and Medicare, they hate the minimum wage, they hate overtime pay, they hate unions, they can't stand college loans or even unemployment benefits for those who need them, they love to send good paying American jobs overseas, a government employee making 50k a year infuriates them, they don't even like the payroll tax deduction and they actually want to raise taxes on the non rich by killing their deductions. All they can come up with as a plan to deal with poverty are variations on "Let's give The Pentagon, Big Oil and Mittens more free money and hope for the best."
A good many of those who are not currently paying federal or state income taxes are those on Social Security. I am one of them. According to my tax accountant, I do not have to file a tax return unless I make more than $9,000.00 from sources other than my Social Security. It would cost the IRS more to process my return than it would get out of me.
I, of course, pay gas taxes, sales taxes and property taxes, and I paid plenty of taxes on the income that I made while I was working for a salary. I have already put a lot of skin in the game.
I would be willing to bet that another big group of those not paying income taxes are veterans, some of whom not only have skin in the game, but arms and legs to boot.
'skin in the game'
This isn't a game, Rep. Tiberi.
It is if you're a sociopath.
Hey, there's a lot of "dignity" in all those McJobs. Be thankful the medievalists of the GOP don't want to re-impose the Salt Tax.
It comes down to some simple thinking here
For 2010 Revenues
So WHO paid that 40% of the Federal Revenues?
Answer: People who work for a living - the ones with "skin in the game"
Here's another point, the top 1% are capped at $106,000 so no matter what else they make this number will not increase, it will decrease as a percentage of their taxable revenue (regressive).
Please Rachel, do more stories about this crazy claim that people don't pay federal taxes.
It is INSANE to suggest that people who pay 15.3% of their working income to the Federal Government are somehow not paying income tax.
Personal Income Tax was 41.5% of revenues in 2010, and Corporate Taxes just 7.9%.
All Source OMB Table 2.2 - Percentage Composition of Receipts by Source: 1934-2017
Steve, they should also point out that the number of people who owe NO tax has gone up significantly because of the Bush Tax Cuts, which increased individual deductions and added several new refundable tax credits.
If they want the percentage of people who pay taxes to increase, they should start by ending the Bush Tax Cuts.
Source: testimony from the U.S. Joint Committee on Taxation
Yes that may be true that EITC appears to reduce the taxable income to net zero (or a kick-back) but most of the studies released do not take into consideration that a person making $15,000 a year has to pay FICA of $2,235 before the other taxes are considered.
Well, Steve, if you're going to talk about FICA as well, then you should adjust your figures. Same source I mentioned above puts the individual taxpayer contribution to the budget at 83% via payroll taxes (fed income tax, SS & MED taxes). Compare THAT to the measly 9% from corporations and you can really start a conversation about why corporations get so much out of the government while the rest of us get nothing.
Their argument, again, is that the rest of us should pay MORE.
You see we're in agreement, right? :)
Note to Mitt:
99 and 44/100 percent of Americans would gladly pay the less than 15% you did last year if they made what you did.
For many, having to put "skin in the game" would leave them with nothing but bare bones....
- - Dog Lovers Against Romney
The poor can put some skin in the game by selling their blood, organs and first born. Maybe we can bring back indentured servants. Apple Annies anyone? Debtor's prisons?
After the Civil War, freed blacks had various local taxes levied on them. They had no cash to pay, so the sheriff rounded them up and forced them to do contract labor in the fields. The county got the money. (See "convict lease" on Wikipedia)
How about making people with no tax debt do community service instead?
That can be their "skin" in the responsibilities of citizenship game.
How about we just collect all of the poor into a giant concentration camp? I mean if they don't pay any federal income tax then obviously they aren't paying any taxes and are therefore useless. So let's corral them all up and make them work for a living. Maybe we'll make them take all those jobs that the illegals we've been chasing out the country were doing. Problem solved
#sarcasm
There should be a requirement that before running for Congress you must spend at least 30 days living w/ a family that is classified as 'poor' just so that you know what it's like.
@Mouzer: A modern "Modest Proposal"?
Hah! I was really just being disgruntled while at work this morning....but yeah. Maybe I should start a 'concentration camp' movement just to show how ridiculous the ideology has become.
...the only thing that scares me is what if the Republicans actually think eating babies is a reasonable solution?
The Mouzer sometimes comes up with good ideas!
"Maybe we'll make them take all those jobs that the illegals we've been chasing out the country were doing. "
This seems to me to be Win-Win!
.....It seriously took that little bit of time before people began agreeing w/ my hyperbolic let's put them in concentration camps idea?
See Fran- this is why I said 'I'm afraid they'll take eating babies seriously'
wow
I don't think like you people. What you people believe is anathema to the very idea of freedom. You are all about as anti-American as some apparatchik extracting his sinecure from the "rich" in France or Greece while the world looks on aghast at your thick-headed stupidity. I know this post will disappear down the rabbit-hole. Rachel Maddow and those like you, with a myopic ideology are absolutely opposed to freedom of speech, unless it conforms to a similar communistic world view.
If they ran a supermarket like the USA: You want bread? Fine how much to you make a year? That's a hundred-dollar loaf Ritchie-rich. You want a six-pack? One-grand. Oh hello Mr. loser. You're poor so you get your groceries for free. Here, have another Filet Mignon.
America is doomed because of the 52% losers who feel like the other 48% of the countryâÂÂwho do pay taxesâÂÂsomehow owes them all the benefits of government for free.