NY Times Admits: Left Would Tax ‘High-Income’ Americans, Not Just Mega-Rich

Listen to the Article!

The New York Times conceded a crucial point that flies in the face of liberals who want to tax the ultra-rich and redistribute wealth.

The Times stated Nov. 19 in a piece headlined “How Democrats Would Tax High-Income Professionals (Not Just the Mega-Rich),” that there’s a “less discussed tax increase in leading Democratic policy proposals that would affect not just a tiny sliver of the ultra-wealthy, but also millions of high-income workers.” The Times noted that for many affluent Americans living in “Democratic strongholds, it would be the biggest tax increase in recent memory.”

Employers and American workers “owe a combined 12.4 percent on Social Security payroll taxes for income up to $132,900 (rising to $137,700 in 2020),” according to The Times. “They owe nothing on earnings above that level.”

And then The Times put it plainly (emphasis added): “Some Democrats in the thick of the presidential race and on Capitol Hill now seek to change or eliminate that cap — potentially placing a new double-digit tax on high earners, with several plans focusing on earnings above $250,000.”

The Washington Post’s Allan Sloan, quashed the idea May 10, stating that eliminating the salary cap on which Social Security tax is paid would be a “terrible idea … Because removing the cap would undermine Social Security by turning it from an earned benefit, which it is now, into mass welfare. Welfare doesn’t play very well these days,” [emphasis added].

Liberals (including some Democratic Party presidential candidates) supporting the overall idea, were cited by The Times:

  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) “would tax earnings above $250,000 at a 14.8 percent rate, including both the employees’ and employers’ share.” The Times called her plan “the most detailed plan,” also noting that Warren’s “Social Security plan would affect around seven million Americans, compared with the 75,000 that her advisers estimate would be affected by the wealth tax,” [emphasis added].
  • Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) would apply the combined Social Security tax rate (12.4 percent) to all income exceeding $250,000.

  • “[A] broad coalition of House Democrats” supported a bill that would apply the 12.4 percent rate “to all earnings above $400,000, and gradually raise the combined rate to 14.8 percent,” The Times said.

  • Former Vice President Joe Biden (D) was also cited as having pledged “to increase benefits and solidify Social Security’s finances,” but reportedly did not detail any specifics on how he would do this.

The Times did attempt to put lipstick on the pig by suggesting that the tax “would pump vastly more money into Social Security, enabling more generous benefits and helping sustain the finances of a program that could be forced to slash benefits in the decades ahead if nothing is done.”

But The Times does admit the result would be a “large tax increase on high earners, even before other changes a Democratic administration might contemplate, such as increasing income tax rates or taxes on investment income.”

One thing is for sure, the liberal media have an obsession with tax increases.

The Times article stipulated an important point that the tax would “eliminate a feature of the Social Security system that has made it politically untouchable through the decades — that the taxes Americans pay in are closely related to the benefits they eventually receive, assuming they live long enough.”

Now, according to The Times, the top earners who would face the new Social Security taxes would “not see their future benefits rise commensurately; rather it would amount to a transfer from high earners to low- and middle-income Social Security recipients” [emphasis added].

So, redistribution of wealth? Got it.

Economy Capitalism Taxes New York Times Washington Post Neil Irwin Allan Sloan Joe Biden Bernie Sanders Elizabeth Warren

Sponsored Links