Today’s Hill article
on a Tax Foundation study
of the effects of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts caused a stir
after Republicans spread it far and wide because of its headline —
“Study: Expiration of Bush tax cuts will hit poorest hardest.”
It’s a great line for GOP rhetorical purposes, but it obscures
the value of the report. It’s not big news that raising taxes right
now would be bad for the poor — if one believes that raising taxes
in a recession will hurt the economy, it should follow that raising
taxes will especially hurt the poor. Anything bad will have an
outsized effect on the poor. One recent example that drew a lot of
commentary: the recession
has led to far worse unemployment and underemployment among the
poor than among higher income earners. And the disproportionate
impact on the poor is invoked to support almost every policy issue
— erratic weather caused by climate change will plague the poor
most, a lack of health insurance affects the poor most,
etc.
At some point, people are going to realize that to be poor
is to lack security from all these bad outcomes.
So it’s not news that growth-killing tax hikes will hurt poor
people. What is news (or what I think would be news to most people)
in the Tax Foundation study is that the Bush tax cuts included a
number of designed measures to aid poorer workers, most of which
fixed small problems in the tax code, but ended up being
significant in the aggregate. From the report:
While many people view the Bush tax cuts as targeted towards the
wealthy, taxpayers across the entire income spectrum received a
significant tax cut. It’s certainly true that wealthier taxpayers
received a bigger cut as measured in dollars because they were
paying higher taxes to begin with. However, a better measure of tax
cuts is the percentage change in after-tax income, which reflects
tangible lifestyle benefits and is intuitively understood.
Comparing changes in after-tax income shows that the benefits of
the tax cuts were distributed much more equally along the income
spectrum because the Bush tax cuts included a number of provisions
targeted specifically at low-income people.
The report goes into some detail about what those provisions
are, specifically.
Eric Cartman| 10.7.10 @ 7:46PM
Headline: Life Hits Poor Hardest
Alice Moore| 10.8.10 @ 8:59AM
This sound like a headline out of The Onion.
Leila | 10.7.10 @ 11:05PM
It was Joe Sobran RIP "who came up with the apocryphal New York Times headline: "New York Destroyed by Earthquake; Women and Minorities Hit Hardest."
Read Ann Coulter's tribute: http://townhall.com/columnists.....page/full/
MightyMighty | 10.8.10 @ 12:01AM
I was just about to link to this! So funny.
Here's some new ones:
" East Coast submerged after tsunami. Poor and minorities die hardest."
"LA covered by lava, killing all citizens. Poor and minorities hit hardest."
"Miami sinks into the ocean in the middle of the night without warning. Poor and minorities least likely to survive."
charie| 10.8.10 @ 11:27AM
It's easy to simply laugh at the article, but what it says below the headline is important!
I was at a debate last night and the Democrat candidate kept dinging away at the "tax cuts for the rich". Every Republican should keep shouting from the housetops that those tax cuts helped everyone, not just the rich. My kids, who had 2 young children at the time were darned happy to get that tax cut. Now they have both kids in college and are not happy the taxcuts may expire in January.
The Dems have a headlock on the issue and will keep on it until the lie is put to them.