Pretty misleading wording there. They're aiming to let a tax cut on Social Security expire. A tax that everyone pays, but only on their first 106k. True, this is a "regressive" tax that affects lower incomes more than higher incomes, *percentage-wise*. It still takes just as much money, nominally, out of someone's 300k paycheck than someone's 110k paycheck, and more than from someone's 50k paycheck.BulletMagnet wrote:So apparently Republicans ARE willing to raise taxes...as long as they only affect those earning less than six figures.
But Republicans willing to let this cut end is not surprising at all, and in fact quite in line with the right's point of view. For half of Americans (well, 46% according to that article) this is the only federal tax they actually pay on their income, and it's not even income tax. This is opposed to the other half, which pay both income tax AND SS tax, while the president is still claiming "the rich need to pay their fair share" (because paying "most of it" is still not a "fair share"). Is it truly unreasonable for a high-income individual who pays, say, 30% of their income to the government, to believe that a lower-income individual should pay 6.2% of theirs instead of 4.2%?
The tax itself was introduced to pay for Social Security, not as regular government revenue, and although the dollars themselves don't know the difference, the rich aren't getting any more benefit out of SS than the poor, so should they have to pay more into such a program when they already pay much much more income tax?
