David Sirota, in effect, agrees with Rush Limbaugh

In a recent Open Left article, progressive firebrand David Sirota argues to eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes. Currently, income over $106,800 is "capped" and does not get taxed at 12.4% by Social Security. Eliminating the cap would make Social Security more solvent. On the other hand, it's a large 12.4% tax increase on those making more than $106,800 a year.

Sirota then makes a pair of interesting points.

IRS data ... shows people who make over $106,800 are squarely in the top quintile of income earners - not the "middle-class.

So, only about 10% of Americans would be affected.

Sloan - theoretically an objective reporter - is on the extreme fringe when he lambastes the proposal to subject more income to payroll taxes. As a 2005 Washington Post poll showed, a stunning 81 percent of Americans believe there shouldn't be a cap at all. 81 percent!

Now, those 81 percent of Americans are (largely) those who are not in the top 10%. So, 81% of Americans are willing to let others pay higher taxes. Hardly a shock, and hardly right or wrong. (For the record, I think some sort of 6% "half tax" on income above $107K would be a fine and all too obvious compromise)

But Sirota also implies that a 19% minority is an "extreme fringe". To me, 19% is still a pretty large group, but let's see what comes from accepting his rhetoric.

According to a recent Gallup poll,





only 21% of Americans describe themselves as "liberal" or "very liberal". By Sirota's logic, liberals are an extreme fringe. That's the kind of rhetoric you'd expect from Rush Limbaugh!

And since progressives are presumably largely in that 5% "very liberal", they are really a fringe!

Anyway, I don't disagree with Sirota's point that we should raise taxes on the rich. Though I wouldn't raise them as much as he. But, in my opinion, his class baiting and cries of "extreme fringe" do not help the debate, and backfire against his own supporters.