September 3, 2010 12:12 PM
- Text
Payroll Tax Holiday is Fine, but Still a Poor Second to Real Stimulus
(MoneyWatch)
Today we learned that employment is still stagnant. And that the Obama administration is considering a payroll tax holiday. Our reaction should be: it's worth a try.
The Washington Post tells us that President Obama may propose a payroll tax holiday. Of what sort we do not know -- the article seems to be written by political reporters will little zeal for policy details. But, chewing this one over, we should do more than Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution, who simply crows with a "!" that a payroll tax holiday might be coming. Politically, it's probably a win -- how could Republicans not embrace something like that?
Let's say we lay off the payroll tax for Social Security, an idea that Sens. Orrin Hatch and Charles Schumer proposed in the NYT some time ago. You might get some more consumer spending out of this, or at least a faster march toward normal consumer spending because the cash would let people pay down their debts, the albatross around American necks these days. The payroll tax is 12.4 percent, split evenly between employer and employee and is capped at $102,000. That means, in theory, money would flow to people on the end of the income scale who are more likely to spend their money. Great.
But then we have the old conservative saw about the payroll tax: employers simply pass the full cost on to the employee, making it a tax on employment, rather than income. That may be. But if we follow this line of argument -- I would love to see an economist like Cowen do so -- doesn't that mean that employers would absorb a tax holiday into the bottom line and reduce what they pay? Would people get axed the moment it expires? If those two things are true, then you'd get less stimulus than expected. And we know where that leads: to a discrediting of the whole concept.
That we even have to debate this highlights a point stimulus advocates have been making for awhile: that straightforward government spending would be the best option. But if the best isn't available, then second- or third-best will have to do. That's where modern political life has left us.
Image from brianjmatis via Flickr
Related:
Today we learned that employment is still stagnant. And that the Obama administration is considering a payroll tax holiday. Our reaction should be: it's worth a try.The Washington Post tells us that President Obama may propose a payroll tax holiday. Of what sort we do not know -- the article seems to be written by political reporters will little zeal for policy details. But, chewing this one over, we should do more than Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution, who simply crows with a "!" that a payroll tax holiday might be coming. Politically, it's probably a win -- how could Republicans not embrace something like that?
Let's say we lay off the payroll tax for Social Security, an idea that Sens. Orrin Hatch and Charles Schumer proposed in the NYT some time ago. You might get some more consumer spending out of this, or at least a faster march toward normal consumer spending because the cash would let people pay down their debts, the albatross around American necks these days. The payroll tax is 12.4 percent, split evenly between employer and employee and is capped at $102,000. That means, in theory, money would flow to people on the end of the income scale who are more likely to spend their money. Great.
But then we have the old conservative saw about the payroll tax: employers simply pass the full cost on to the employee, making it a tax on employment, rather than income. That may be. But if we follow this line of argument -- I would love to see an economist like Cowen do so -- doesn't that mean that employers would absorb a tax holiday into the bottom line and reduce what they pay? Would people get axed the moment it expires? If those two things are true, then you'd get less stimulus than expected. And we know where that leads: to a discrediting of the whole concept.
That we even have to debate this highlights a point stimulus advocates have been making for awhile: that straightforward government spending would be the best option. But if the best isn't available, then second- or third-best will have to do. That's where modern political life has left us.
Image from brianjmatis via Flickr
Related:
- The Fed: Absent a Double-Dip Or Deflation, We'll Hang The Economy Out To Dry
- Criticism of Fed On Quantitative Easing Are Wrong: We Need More
- Fed To Maintain Its Balance Sheet - But Not Because The Economy Is Slipping
- Fighting With Itself, The Fed Does Damage to Its Credibility As Economy Suffers
- Bernanke Gives Us the Evidence For Further Action, But No Clear Endorsement Of It
- Draw Ben Bernanke Out on the D-Word: Is Deflation Near
Latest Now in MoneyWatch
- Big banks, gov't officials strike $25B deal
- LinkedIn swings back to profit
- LinkedIn doubles revenue, beats growth estimates
- Kodak to stop making digital cameras, frames
- Market cap, schmarket cap, Apple still gets no respect
- Philip Morris Int'l income up nearly 8 percent
- Survey: Small biz plans big hires in 2012
- Freddie Mac: Mortgages inch higher but stay low
- Will the European debt crisis sink Obama's re-election?
- Banks in $25B deal to settle foreclosure abuses
- Joe Coffee: Scaling up without selling your soul
- Greek agreement accomplishes nothing
- 401K plans: New rules make costs clearer
- Are women leaders selling themselves short?
- Ask the Experts: New 401(k) rules
- Mortgage lenders strike a deal
- $25B foreclosure-abuse settlement reached
Latest CBS News Headlines
on Facebook
on CBS News
- Rep. Bachus faces insider-trading investigation
- Singapore DBS bank profit jumps 7.8 percent in 4Q
- Owner of Sierra mine surrenders to face charges
- Asia stocks slip as Greek bailout remains in limbo
on Facebook
- Adele opens up about vocal cord surgery
- Tenn. father charged with murdering couple who"unfriended" daughter on Facebook
- Mo. teen gets life in prison for murder of 9-year-old girl
on CBS News






