PatsFanInVa

Using the right wing's logic, the President has just announced a tax hike of a few hundred dollars to a couple of grand on American middle class income. That's right, he has frozen civilian Federal pay for two years (I believe it's pending congressional approval/elaboration.)

Now then: since this affects the middle class almost exclusively, I'd think it's fair to allow the gigantic tax giveaway to the rich expire.

Oh, you say $200K/year isn't rich for an individual, or $250K/yr for a married couple?

Well, it's definitely past the top of the GS scale, and we hit those guys, right?

During this time when so many are unemployed, and so many have their pay frozen or cut, the gubmit workers certainly aren't hit the hardest. Lots of people here know I fit in the gubmit category. If it's part of real austerity, I have no problem with the freeze (though it's anti-stimulative, of course, in the middle of a pretty iffy recovery.)

However, I think it's a good idea to follow up on this drop in the bucket with a sunset to the Bush tax giveaways to the rich immediately.

Oh, by the way - many on the left and the unions are downright angry about the freeze.

To me, it looks like a standard "compromise your own side first" move, that seems to be an Obama trademark when dealing with his political opposition.

Like I said, I'm glad to take the hit, so long as he gets sound fiscal policy out of it on the back end. I'm not rich, and my situation isn't ideal. But I'm all about sacrifice if we're all prepared to do it for the good of the country.

Just pinging the feds? Well, that would be incredibly annoying, if he doesn't get something back out of it, like sunsetting the tax giveaways to the rich.

PFnV

DarrylS

Having been involved and now an active follower of how efforts are made to reduce budget deficits in Municipal/State and now federal government, wage freezes are a popular effort.

My view is that it is harmful as most of these work forces are made up of lower level clerks who do not make a lot anyways... for an employee making 150K per year this means not a whole lot, for an employee making 30K per year is it meaningful. Have always advocated for leaving the lower salaried workers (primarily women) out of this equation.

Conversely it is the same with raises, a 2% raise for an employeed making 30K per year is 600 per year.. a 2% raise for someone making 150K per year is 3,000 per year, there is not a lot of equity in this effort. There are better ways of doing this and making it more equitable.

Early on we used to negotiate raises that would be something like 3% or $15.00 per/week whatever was greater.. that was more equitable for clerks, janitors and other lower salaried positions who usually make up the majority of municipal/state/federal systems..

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

IcyPatriot

It is symbolic if nothing else ... it freezes pay but they can recoup it in a bonus or a higher pay grade.

PatriotsReign

Being in the private sector, if I get a raise, it's good for the gov't. They get to collect more taxes from me!

BTW...I'm fine with letting the tax breaks on the wealthy expire.

reflexblue

Hell my wages have been frozen for at least two years.

__________________
S.H.E.S.
I Likes Spikes.

Real World

How is this a tax hike on the middle class again?


Um, freezing federal pay for 2 years is nice, but when you see that fed employees make a lot more than similar jobs for those in the private sector, I'd say a cut was more in order. Also, the fed should be eliminating positions altogether. The point isn't to freeze the beast, it's to slim it down. The government needs to downsize, not keep the status quo in place.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

PatsFanInVa

Like millions of other federal workers, I am in the middle class.

I would have more money next year, but now I won't, because the gubmit said I can't have it.

That meets the rightie definition of a tax hike.

You know - like letting a temporary tax cut expire, or complaining that you're "taxed" if insurance companies are inconvenienced by regulation, because despite enormous profit margins, they will choose to pass any such inconvenience down to a consumer (despite the obvious counterargument that if they have enormous profit margins, the capitalist ethos, in the absence of collusive pricing, would militate toward competitive advantage to the corporation that doesn't pass that inconvenience to the consumer.)

I have seen both these arguments made on this board. I conclude, therefore, that the Federal pay freeze is a tax hike on the middle class. I don't see what else you'd call it.

PFnV

PatriotsReign

I can understand your argument to a point. What I don't agree with you on is that gov't workers be included in discussions of "middle class". When we talk about the various classes, I think most think of private sector workers. Gov't workers are kind of in their own class.

Federal gov't employees are the only group that works for the rest of us and is accountable to the rest of us. But the private sector is not accountable to other citizens because their tax dollars aren't supporting them.

In my company, we get a performance raise. We never get a cost of living raise. If our company isn't performing, no one gets a raise. How does one evaulate if gov't agencies are successful?

Real World

That's pretty dumb, since no money is coming out of your pocket.

BTW, a pay freeze is called reality. Welcome to the Real World pal. I haven't had a raise in years. When times are lean, you make sacrafices. That's what most of us in the Real World do. Of course those people working in the gubmit want their damn raise, to go along with their sweet benefits. Whats sad in all this, is that a pay freeze is perfume. The real need is for cuts. Downsized labor force, and a slash in federal pay for higher earners.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Stokes

I see where you're going PF, but you can't call a pay freeze a tax hike! The government is not increasing the amount of taxes you are paying, they're simply not giving out raises for 2 years. Those are very different things. Letting the tax cuts expire will increase the amount of money the gov't is taking from paychecks, thus, even though it was originally implemented as a temporary measure (because it was passed using reconciliation), it still amounts to a tax increase. What else would you call it?

Perhaps we should go with the words of President Lisa Simpson and call it a "temporary refund adjustment."