Time to say goodbye to the payroll tax cut? It's looking that way.

No matter how the 'fiscal cliff' talks end, federal taxes of working Americans appear likely to rise after Jan. 1. That's because the Obama White House isn't pushing to extend the payroll tax cut. 

Kevin Lamarque/Reuters
US President Barack Obama signs a payroll tax cut extension in the Oval Office, in December 2011.

It now appears that all Americans with a job – no matter what their income level – will see their federal taxes rise on Jan. 1. That's because, in an effort to resolve the so-called "fiscal cliff," the Obama White House has quietly dropped its plan to extend the temporary 2 percentage point cut in payroll taxes, which are used to fund Social Security.

For someone who makes about $50,000 a year, the payroll tax will rise by about $19 a week, meaning that earner will have about $1,000 less to spend next year than in 2012. Some may make up for the lost income by eliminating that $4 latte every work day, or cutting back on the frequency of dining out at a sit-down restaurant.

“First paychecks [of the new year] will be about 2 percent smaller,” says Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center in Washington. If someone's gross pay is $1,000 per week this year and all other taxes stay the same next year, that worker will take home $20 less a week in 2013.  

That may not sound like much money, but for the economy as a whole the payroll tax cut amounted to about $112 billion in 2012 – or the equivalent of at least $300 for each person in the US.

“It’s money taken out of the economy that is not available to be spent,” says Mr. Williams.

All those cups of coffee and dinners out have added up to some extra hiring. In 2012, the payroll tax cut was expected to boost gross domestic product by 0.5 percent and 400,000 jobs, according to an August analysis by Macroeconomic Advisers, a St. Louis firm.

The payroll tax cuts date back to 2010, when President Obama proposed – and Congress agreed – to cut payroll taxes for individuals for one year, in a bid to help the country recover from the Great Recession. So, in 2011, the payroll tax went from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent on the employee’s contribution to Social Security for earned income up to $110,000. The employer contribution of 6.2 percent remained unchanged.

Then, Congress and the president agreed to renew the payroll tax cut for 2012. Many budget analysts were surprised when Mr. Obama included it again for 2013.

“It was clearly a bargaining chip,” says Pete Davis of Davis Capital Investment Ideas, which advises Wall Street firms on Washington affairs. “And it was time to cash it in” during the fiscal cliff bargaining.

Getting Congress to agree to continue the payroll tax cut yet again might have been problematic. Many politicians, from Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D) of California to Sen. Orin Hatch (R) of Utah, were less than enthusiastic about extending it. That is in part because the money that would have come from wage earners’ pockets for Social Security was coming instead from the US Treasury’s general fund.

That is alarming to Pamela Tainter-Causey of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare.

“We’re moving from a fund that is independent to one that is dependent on the general fund,” Ms. Tainter-Causey says of Social Security. “There could be a time when they say we can’t afford to put the money into Social Security this year.”

Some analysts also ask whether the payroll tax cut was a stimulus that actually served to create jobs. “If it was designed to encourage hiring, they should have done it on the employers’ side,” says Pamela Villarreal, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonpartisan think tank in Dallas.

The analysis from Macroeconomic Advisers, however, disagreed. It said that decreasing employers’ payroll taxes would go right into profits and would be an “ineffective” way to increase hiring.

Ms. Villarreal suggests that it might be too soon to consider the payroll tax cuts kaput.

“To me, nothing is set in stone until the end of the year, until the fat lady sings,” she says. But for now, extending the payroll tax cut seems to be off the table.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.