Sen. Sherrod Brown's (D-OH) Payroll Tax Cut Bill

[bigtree]

Unless Congress Passes the Middle Class Tax Cut Act by the End of December, Average Ohioans Will See Tax Hike

November 30, 2011

WASHINGTON, D.C. – With the deadline to maintain a tax cut for working Ohioans looming, U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) outlined legislation he cosponsored which is being debated in the Senate this week that would stop a huge tax hike from hitting middle-class families. Unless Congress acts by the end of December, a two-percent payroll tax break will expire, increasing 98 percent of Americans’ taxes.

“At a time when many families and businesses are still struggling, we must extend and expand this important payroll tax cut,” Brown said. “Families will have more money to spend on necessities like gas and food, and their mortgages and rent. Businesses will be able to hire additional workers, boosting the economy. This bill gives tax cuts to people who need them – and will use them. America’s middle class can’t wait for them any longer.”

During a news conference call, Brown urged his colleagues to extend and expand the payroll tax cut, putting $1,430 into the pockets of the average Ohio family next year. Brown released a county-by-county analysis on Ohioans and small businesses that would benefit from the tax cut.

A broad sample of economists agrees that the payroll tax cut will help our economic recovery. Mark Zandi, who served as an economic advisor to John McCain, has said passing this legislation could create 750,000 jobs. He also said that our economy could fall back into a full blown recession if we do not extend this tax credit. Barclays analyst Michael Pond warned that letting the payroll tax cut expire at the end of this month could cause a drop in GDP of up to 1.5 percent.

Specifically, the Middle Class Tax Cut Act of 2011 would:

• Provide a Tax Cut to 160 Million Workers by cutting the Social Security payroll taxes paid by employees and the self-employed on their wages and salary from 6.2 percent to 3.1 percent. Approximately 160 million workers would benefit from this tax cut, with the average Ohio family seeing $1,430 in additional take-home pay.

• Slash the Payroll Tax for 98 percent of U.S. Businesses by cutting the employer-side Social Security payroll taxes from 6.2 percent to 3.1 percent for the first $5 million of payroll. This would benefit all businesses, but 98 percent of businesses would see their portion of the Social Security payroll tax cut in half. More than 200,000 small businesses in Ohio would stand to benefit.

• Provide an Incentive for Businesses to Hire New Workers by eliminating the Social Security payroll tax paid by employers on the first $12.5 million of an employer’s increased taxable payroll for the 4th quarter of 2011 and $50 million in increased payroll for 2012.

• Ask Millionaires to Pay Their Fair Share without Adding a Dime to the Deficit to create or save hundreds of thousands of jobs and prevent a tax hike for workers. The Senate bill would impose a 3.25 percent surtax on modified adjusted gross income in excess of $1 million for both single filers and married couples filing jointly beginning December 31, 2012.

• Protects Social Security by requiring that the Social Security Trust Fund be made whole through transfers from the General Fund.


read: http://brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press_releases/release/?id=9c14efcb-12bd-41cc-9bcc-0d07bc41245c

[global1]

1. But - But - Wait For It - But....

this could help Obama - and if this has any effect on Obama's chances for being re-elected - the Repugs will not go for it.

[apnu]

2. They've already said they will oppose it unless an equal amount is cut from the Budget.

They're all worried about "paying for" Democratic tax cuts, but they never worried about paying for Bushes.

Typical for these assholes.

[hfojvt]

3. ooh, 750,000 jobs - BFD

my plan would creat 3 million at 1/2 the cost and without being a big gift to the top 20% that just trickles down to the rest of us http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/164

I expected better from Brown.

Here's a clue, when your plan is endorsed by a McCain economist - it is probably a bad idea.

[frazzled]

4. It's not a jobs plan--it's a stimulus measure

That it was included in part of the overall Jobs Act (which was not passed) was always a way to sneak stimulus dollars into the economy. That it is now being picked up as a separate entity does not make it a "job plan".

There are very few ways to get further stimulus dollars into the fragile economy with this Congress in charge. So whatever short-term money can be pumped into the system to prop up the country for another year or two is necessary.

[bigtree]

5. fewer ways to get tax relief for working-class Americans either

. . . out of the republicans, without agreeing to let their rich cohorts scoop from the top of the till.

This bill also serves as a chance to show who the republicans are willing to stand up for.

[hfojvt]

7. and you would claim this does that?

In the face of the facts?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/160

12.1% of the payroll tax cut goes to those in the bottom 40%
26.7% of the payroll tax cut goes to those in the top 10%

27.1% goes to those in the bottom 60%
46.4% goes to those in the top 20%


"Tax relief for working class Americans?"

Almost half of the tax relief goes to the richest 20% and you think this is "for working class Americans?" Looks to me like the upper class makes out much better than most of the working class. To say nothing of what goes to people who don't have jobs, but are looking for jobs.


To me this measure shows who Obama (and now Brown) are willing to stand up for - the top 20%, not the bottom 60%. Two thumbs down to both of them.

[bigtree]

9. It's the best we've managed to advance in this political climate

it's not as if Democrats and the President are in a position to just pick and choose what they want. And yes, some higher income Americans benefit too. I don't know how you craft a tax cut without including them.

And look, those folks work too, so it makes no sense to start a war against them.

[hfojvt]

12. Start a war against them?

To propose a plan that does not give them huge benefits is not "starting a war against them".

It's very easy to craft a tax cut that does not benefit the rich. The Citizens for tax justice link in my journal will show you how. Campaign Obama from 2008 could show you how as well. He called it the Making Work Pay credit. But why propose a tax cut at all instead of proposing and fighting for something better?

And for myself, I would rather see him fight for the bottom 60% and lose than fight for the top 20% and win. At least then he would be fighting on my side. At least then he would not be spreading the bullshit Reaganomics message - "tax cuts create jobs, and tax cuts that favor the rich are really middle class tax cuts."

Obama and Brown are absolutely in a position where they can pick and choose what they will propose, what they will fight for. They can choose to fight for the bottom 60% or they can do what they are doing - concede the battle to the Republicans and fight for something that gives half of its benefits to the rich and just trickles down to the poor and working class, and then have the audacity to hope that the working class will believe them when they claim they are fighting for the working class.

It is better to be a martyr - a brave person who goes down fighting than to be a wimp, a coward and a liar. A wimp who cannot win a fight, a coward who is afraid to even try to fight and a liar who claims that he is fighting. The working class, the bottom 60% needs better champions, and I expected better from Brown.

[tblue]

6. "cutting the Social Security payroll taxes" -- Is that what we want?

Just raise the taxes of the freaking tycoons and we won't have to touch Social Security.

[bigtree]

8. it's still a matter of a Congress with a republican filter

. . . called a cloture vote.

[jpgray]

10. Why should every massive corporation sitting on billions get a massive tax cut?

They would, you know - on the first $5M of payroll. Sitting on cash does not lead to hiring unless there are opportunities to invest, namely demand for goods and services.

[bigtree]

11. these tax cuts are geared toward small businesses

Small firms:
• Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.
• Employ about half of all private sector employees.
• Pay 43 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
• Have generated 65 percent of net new jobs over the past 17 years.
• Create more than half of the nonfarm private GDP.
• Hire 43 percent of high tech workers (scientists, engineers, computer programmers, and others).
• Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.
• Made up 97.5 percent of all identified exporters and produced 31 percent of export value in FY 2008.
• Produce 16.5 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms.

In 2009, there were 27.5 million businesses in the United States, according to Office of Advocacy estimates. The latest available Census data show that there were 5.9 million firms with employees in 2008 and 21.4 million without employees in 2008. Small firms with fewer than 500 employees represent 99.9 percent of the total (employers and nonemployers), as the most recent data show there were 18,469 large businesses in 2008.

Small businesses employ about half of U.S. workers. Of the 120.9 million nonfarm private sector workers in 2008, small firms employed 59.7 million and large firms employed 61.2 million. About half of small firm employment is in second-stage companies (10-99 employees), and half is in firms that are 15 years or older. Small firms’ share of employment in rural areas is slightly higher than in urban areas; their share of part-time workers (22 percent) is similar to large firms’ share (19 percent). Small firms’ employment share remains steady since some small firms grow into large firms over time

Small firms accounted for 65 percent (or 9.8 million) of the 15 million net new jobs created between 1993 and 2009. Much of the job growth is from fast-growing high-impact firms, which represent about 5–6 percent of all firms and are on average 25 years old.

Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Census Bureau and Intl. Trade Admin.; Advocacy-funded research by Kathryn Kobe, 2007 (archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs299tot.pdf) and CHI Research, 2003 (archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs225tot.pdf); U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.