The Political Game Behind Tax Cuts

Published in Nanfang Daily
(China) on 30 December 2011
by Liu Yan (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Michelle Deeter. Edited by Gillian Palmer.
Should the government cut taxes or raise taxes? This question pops up during every major U.S. election, becoming a major point of contention with Democrats and Republicans. During the economic downturn, debates about tax measures have been particularly heated. In order to win more support and score as many political points as possible, the two parties have launched a battle over tax reform. President Barack Obama, who was attacked by Republicans on the question of reducing spending, now faces obstacles on changing the structure of the government’s financial resources.

Plans to increase taxes on the rich are impossible

The key word in the 2012 presidential election is “debt.” Reducing the huge deficit has become the highest priority of the U.S. government. Increasing taxes is one method, but the question is who should pay more taxes. This has ignited a heated debate between the two parties.

Obama, who has been trumpeting his message to fight for the working class ever since he took office, excluded the wealthy from tax breaks from the beginning. At the beginning of his term, Obama changed the tax cuts implemented during the Bush administration. He lowered the taxes on households whose income was lower than $250,000, and eliminated the tax cut given to the richest 3 percent of Americans. Taking the election as an opportunity to show that Republicans represent the interests of the wealthy and not the middle class, Obama defined his tax reform as taxing the rich and giving to the poor.

In September 2011, Obama announced a $3 trillion long-term deficit reduction plan, which included $1.5 trillion in increased taxes. Individuals and corporations whose annual payroll amounts to over $1 million will have to pay higher taxes. Obama was inspired by investor Warren Buffet’s recent article calling for a new tax policy. Immediately after announcing his policy, he incurred opposition from the Republicans. The Republicans believe that the president is stoking conflict in society, and raising taxes for the rich will only cause investors to take their profitable business elsewhere, which would not provide any benefit to the recovery of the U.S. economy — on the contrary, it would increase unemployment. The Republicans indicated that they would not let this bill become law.

Taxing the wealthy has always been controversial in the United States. Facing every possible obstruction, the Obama administration has decided to compromise. Just before Christmas, Obama said he was willing to give up his plan to increase taxes on millionaires in order to avoid Congress becoming deadlocked and causing a second government shutdown. But in reality, the reason why Democrats are no longer pushing for taxes on the wealthy is because they want to make an agreement with the Republicans on extending payroll tax cuts.

Obama is making gains overall

As the Chinese proverb goes, what one loses in the beginning, one can compensate for later. Obama couldn’t make any headway on the issue of raising taxes on the rich, but he had more success on payroll tax cuts. In September, Obama proposed a $447 billion stimulus plan, which included a measure to extend payroll tax cuts for 160 million Americans for one year and a measure to decrease payroll taxes to 3.1 percent. Statistics from Washington show that the plan will provide roughly $1,500 in reduced taxes to each household paying the payroll tax.

Before Christmas, Congress was debating whether or not to extend the payroll tax cut. The Democrats hoped to temporarily extend the current payroll tax cuts for two more months and continue to discuss and formulate next year’s plan for tax cuts. The Republicans wanted to formulate the tax cut plan in December without any further negotiation.

During the negotiations, both parties added their own provisions to the bill. The Democrats’ ultimate goal is to treat the upper class and the middle class separately; the extension of the payroll tax cut was just a stall tactic. The Republicans seek to extend the tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration, which would reduce taxes for all income levels.

Not surprisingly, when the controversial tax cut bill was presented to the House of Representatives, it was rejected by the Republican-dominated House. Speaker of the House John Boehner said, “Americans are tired of Washington’s short-term fixes and gimmicks and fixes.” He hoped that Congress could pass the payroll tax cut bill now so that the American people would feel at ease. If Congress remains deadlocked, in 2012, the taxes of 160 million working Americans will increase in the span of one month.

In order to help the bill pass before New Year's Day, Obama worked tirelessly with the House of Representatives before Christmas. He even said that if the bill did not pass, he would cancel his plans to vacation in Hawaii.

Just like the last few times when the government narrowly avoided a shutdown, the two parties reached an agreement at the very last moment. On Dec. 22, Speaker Boehner announced that he and the Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid, reached an agreement on a two-month plan to extend the payroll tax cut. Afterward, Obama signed the bill as expected, thus coming to a draw with the Republicans.

Tax reform is a hot topic; interest groups are busy lobbying

Even though the two parties have called a temporary truce on the fight over taxes, analysts believe that the tax issue will be contested even more next year. This is because Congress has delayed the negotiations on tax reform until after next year’s election.

Currently, two Republican candidates for the presidency, Texas governor Rick Perry and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, have both proposed tax reform plans, including simplifying tax laws, decreasing taxes and eliminating the loopholes in the tax system. According to the Washington Post, taxes have become the new battleground.

As the election draws near, American businesses have increased their lobbying efforts to shift the debate in Congress to cover all kinds of taxes. Since the start of 2011, new lobbying groups have emerged which garner support from large companies, such as the RATE Coalition and WIN America Campaign. What these groups have in common is that they are supported by a multinational company whose goal is to lobby and decrease the amount of taxes U.S. companies pay on business activities outside the U.S.

U.S. analysts note that a major tax reform is a major way to reduce the U.S. budget deficit. Total U.S. debt amounted to 100 percent of GDP this year, making tax reform more and more urgent. However, if the two parties are only going to make small changes which are in their narrow political interests and are unwilling to fundamentally restructure finances, it will be impossible to reduce the deficit.


美国税收改革的政治博弈

增税还是减税,每到美国的大选季,这个老生常谈的话题就会冒出来,成为民主党和共和党 激辩的焦点。在美国经济低迷的大背景下,税负政策今年被讨论的热度尤其的高,为了赢得选民的支持,尽最大可能给政治加分,美国两党围绕税改政策展开了一场 恶斗。先前在“节流”问题上遇到共和党夹击的美国总统奥巴马,到了年底又在“开源”问题上遭到掣肘。
  对富人加税计划无法落实
  2012年美国大选的关键词是“债务”。减少庞大的财政赤字已成为美国政府的当务之急。增加税收是办法之一,问题是谁应上交更多的税,这在美国两党间引发了一场激烈的争论。
  一上台便打出“为中产阶级而战”旗号的奥巴马,从一开始便主张把富人排除在减税优 惠的范围之外。奥巴马上台之初就改变了布什政府时期无限期延长所有减税的政策,把减税的范围缩小到年收入低于25万美元的中产阶级,而占总人口约3%的高 收入人群将不再享受减税优惠。为了在明年的总统竞选中抢占先机,向选民证明共和党代表富人利益而非中产阶级,奥巴马进一步明确了其“劫富济贫”的税改政 策。
  今年9月,奥巴马公布了总额达3万亿美元的长期减赤计划,其中包括1.5万亿美元 的增税计划。而增税目标则是年收入超过100万美元的美国个人和公司。奥巴马受到“股神”巴菲特启发而制定的这项新政一经公布,便立即遭到共和党方面的反 对。后者认为总统是在挑拨社会矛盾,向富人加税只会令投资者将赚钱的业务转往全球其他地方,对美国经济复苏毫无益处,反而会加剧失业问题。共和党明确提 出,不会让这项政策成为法律。
  向富人征税在美国国内一直存有争议。如今面对反对党的百般阻挠,奥巴马政府最终选 择了妥协。圣诞节到来前,奥巴马表示愿意放弃对百万富翁征收附加税,以避免国会就税收问题僵持不下而再度导致政府面临停摆。但事实上,民主党不再坚持调高 富人的税率,是为了换取今年内就延长减税政策与共和党达成协议。
  奥巴马总算扳回一局
  “失之东隅,收之桑榆。”在富人征税问题上未能闯关的奥巴马,在工资税减税方案上 扳回一局。今年9月,奥巴马向国会提出总额达4470亿美元的就业促进法案,其中一项内容是提议将1.6亿名美国雇员的薪资税减税政策延期一年,并且将薪 资税比率减至3.1%。白宫数据显示,该计划差不多能让每个工薪家庭一年得到约1500美元的减税实惠。
  圣诞节前,美国国会一直在就延长工资税减税方案进行讨论。民主党希望暂时延长现有的工资税减税计划2个月,然后再与共和党展开讨论,制定为期一年的减税计划。而共和党则希望一次性制定一年期的减税计划。
  当然在协商中,两党都“打包”进了不少自己的诉求。民主党的终极目标是将富人阶层和中产阶级区分对待,延长2个月只是缓兵之计;共和党谋求的则是延长布什政府时期的减税政策,使所有阶层统统受惠。
  果不其然,这项争议很大的减税方案送交众议院讨论时,遭到共和党把持的众议院的抵 制。众议院议长博纳表示,“美国民众已经厌倦了政策的修补和小打小闹”,希望能够一次性通过一年的工资税减税计划来让民众更加安心。如果国会继续僵持不 下,过了新年,1.6亿美国工薪族的税负就会在1个月内增加。
  为促使法案赶在年底前通过,奥巴马圣诞节前连续做众议院的工作,他甚至表示,倘若法案不通过,将取消夏威夷的度假计划。
  如同过去几次政府险些关门的境况,两党在最后一刻达成妥协。当地时间12月22日,众议院议长约翰•博纳宣布,他已与参议院多数党民主党领袖哈里•里德就工资税减税政策延期2个月的方案达成妥协。随后,奥巴马如愿签署了法案,跟共和党打了个平手。
  税改成大选热点利益集团忙游说
  尽管美国两党围绕税收政策的争斗暂时平息,但分析人士多认为,税收问题在明年的热度会只升不降,因为美国国会已将税改问题的讨论延至明年大选后。
  目前,美国共和党的两名总统竞选人——得克萨斯州州长佩里、前马萨诸塞州州长罗姆尼都提出了改革赋税的计划,包括简化税规、下调税率以及消除赋税体系中的许多漏洞。《华盛顿邮报》形容,税收政策已成为共和党党内预选的“新战场”。
  随着大选的迫近,美国企业界也加大对国会的游说力度,以左右国会对美国全面税改的 讨论。自今年年初以来,美国出现多个受到大企业支持的游说团体,比如“RATE联盟”、“赢得美国竞选”等。这些团体的共同点是,背后都有跨国企业推动, 目的是为减轻美国企业海外盈利税收负担进行游说。
  美国国内的分析家指出,大举推进赋税改革是降低美国预算赤字的关键。今年美国总债务已相当于GDP的100%,改革赋税体制已越发急迫。但问题是,美国两党如果仅仅是出于政治利益对税收制度小修小补,而不愿从根本上进行财政整顿,那么削减赤字的目标将不可能完成。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Austria: The Deal for Kyiv Is Better Than the Many Threats against It

Japan: Trump’s 100 Days: A Future with No Visible Change So Far

Spain: Spain’s Defense against Trump’s Tariffs

Australia: Played by Vladimir Putin, a ‘Weary’ Donald Trump Could Walk away from Ukraine

Australia: Trump Is Washing His Hands of the Ukraine Problem, Without Quite Saying It

Topics

Canada: Tell Me Again Which North American Leader Is Acting like a Dictator?

Australia: Trump Is Washing His Hands of the Ukraine Problem, Without Quite Saying It

Australia: Musk Turns Away from Trump in Bid To Rescue Tesla

Spain: Spain’s Defense against Trump’s Tariffs

Australia: Played by Vladimir Putin, a ‘Weary’ Donald Trump Could Walk away from Ukraine

Canada: Donald Trump’s Oddities Mask a Real Threat that Lurks in Plain Sight

Related Articles

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary

Hong Kong: Can US Tariffs Targeting Hong Kong’s ‘Very Survival’ Really Choke the Life out of It?