Tax ‘compromise’ burdens middle class

The tax agreement between the Republicans and the Democrats is not a compromise. To be called a compromise, all sides must have given in (to some extent) and in return received from the other sides. Both political parties claimed to have received benefits, but what did the middle class receive, especially when compared to big business?

Everyone wanted to extend tax cuts for the middle class. Even big business benefited, since they can now emphasize the increase in take-home pay, instead of giving real raises. Tax cuts for the rich is a different story. This perpetuates the inequity; the rich, on average, still pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class. This also perpetuates the myth that tax cuts create jobs, something Republicans have claimed with little or no evidence for years. The real loser here is the middle class.

For years, the middle class has claimed that Social Security is a legal entitlement, bought and paid for, and as such was a contract that had to be honored. Now, overnight, it has gone from being a contract to being a political issue, since the government has arbitrarily waived part of the SS tax for the next year. If you can arbitrarily waive the tax, you can arbitrarily waive the benefits, right?

Beyond the tax cut everyone wanted, I see nothing that the middle class has gained from this so-called compromise, but plenty they have potentially lost. And the Democrats have lost, too. The Obama administration, not the Republicans, will be blamed for the $900 billion this “compromise” will add to the national debt. And mark my words, the middle class will be the ones who eventually have to pay all the bills.

Phil Graf

Rolling Meadows