The Fiscal cliff

[InuFaye]

I mean its not technically a tax raise, its a holiday that expired.

[z31maniac]

I'm happy taxes went up. Hopefully they will go higher over the next 4 years, then, possibly, some of the D supporters will realize it isn't helping the situation.

[joshh]

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2013/01/02/middle-class-taxes-just-went-up

[rwh11385]

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...htm?src=IBDDAE

Tough shit.

Indeed tough shit to the people who are just now finding out about it.

I guess some clueless people may be shocked by the payroll tax holiday not being extended again.

Doesn't really change that you are wrong about a multitude of basic facts and now retreating back to an article about uninformed people being mad while ignoring all of your incredibly failed argument.

[joshh]

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...htm?src=IBDDAE

Tough shit.

[rwh11385]

Of course not...but if I said I supported (or would support) the same tax cut for Americans that made above middle class incomes. Demand side now?

Maybe you should realize that "job creators" class didn't really benefit greatly from the payroll tax cut. (Rather someone who made $200K got the same benefit as someone who made $110,100) Which would be a basic fact of the topic that you are ignorant of.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/arti...fin_99010.html

To stimulate GDP growth, a tax cut has to cut the marginal tax rates upon which the decision makers in the economy base their decisions to work and, above all, to invest. Because the Social Security tax applies only to wage income, and then only up to a "cap" of $106,800/year, this tax does not have a significant impact upon the decisions that drive the economy. Accordingly, cutting the Social Security tax would be expected to produce no benefit, and the 1Q2011 GDP numbers show that no benefit is exactly what this tax cut produced. Interestingly enough, in opinion polls taken at the time that the tax bill was passed, the only element of the package that the public did not support was the Social Security tax cut.

That is what the argument is about. Payroll tax holiday. The payroll tax cut was for OASDI / social security. Do you not even know that basic fact??
The 2% in question:

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240/~/2012-social-security-tax-rate-and-maximum-taxable-earnings

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html

What was the effect of the payroll tax holiday on the next dollar earned by someone making $110,100????
What would be the effect of a marginal tax rate cut on the same person?

It's hard to lower the payroll tax rate on wages earned above $110,100 when they were 0% to start with. On the other hand, MARGINAL tax rate cut would create an incentive to work and earn more.

[rwh11385]

And Bush handing out tax credit checks is also conservative as well right (that's called Republican)....but then I'm talking to a guy that will use Heritage for and against them when he needs to.
While at the same time reads Media Matters links and refuses to read Fox news...go figure.

No, that was Keynesian as well. As I mentioned... Or can you not read?

The Making Work Pay credit wasn't much different from the Bush Economic Stimulus Package which gave everyone $600. And the Making Work Pay credit was part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [aka $831 billion Stimulus] http://www.irs.gov/uac/The-Making-Work-Pay-Tax-Credit

And it's all Keynesian. Only at least the stimulus checks took from the government's income tax revenues, instead of making the future situation of social security even more troubling. It's kinda like not wanting to add to the deficit problem by robbing from the future retiree's fund.

Remember how he ran up massive deficits? And remember the conservative objection to the Stimulus package that Obama had - with Making Work Pay credit? Bush acted against the conservative grain, mostly because he was like you. He thought he knew better than the economists and made up his own conclusions. Your mistake was to assume that it was a good conservative move because he did it without support from his ignorant arrogance.

Bush IGNORED the advice of the people around him:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2010/09/17/Bush-Tax-Cuts-No-Economic-Help.aspx#page1

Bush’s economic advisers tried to talk him out of the rebate, but ran into a brick wall.

No Reaganites praised the Bush plan; all favored something much bolder, such as the flat tax proposal that was being promoted by publisher Steve Forbes, who was challenging Bush for the Republican nomination. Rather than defend his proposal as one that would increase growth, Bush argued that its main purpose was simply to deplete the budget surplus, which had grown under President Bill Clinton to $126 billion in 1999. Surpluses were dangerous, Bush and his advisers repeatedly warned, because Congress might spend them.

Well, he certainly took care of that surplus and moved us away from the healthy debt/gdp ratio that the 90s gave us!

Subsequent analysis showed that the rebate had virtually no stimulative effect, exactly as economic theory predicted. By and large, people saved the rebate rather than spend it. And the saving didn’t even do any good because the deficit, which is negative saving, increased by the same amount. In any case, the economy continued to deteriorate and unemployment rose sharply despite the tax cut.

It’s hard even to find Republican economists who will defend Bush’s policies.

Like you, apparently trying to convince Bush of something was like talking to a brick wall.

http://www.esquire.com/features/what-bush-meant-1008

He was convinced, he told Bush, that the president's position would soon enough be seen as "bad policy."

This, it seems, was the wrong thing to say to the president.

According to senior administration officials who learned of the encounter soon after it happened, President Bush looked at the man. "I don't ever want to hear you use those words in my presence again," he said.

"What words, Mr. President?"

"Bad policy," President Bush said. "If I decide to do it, by definition it's good policy. I thought you got that."

The adviser was dismissed. The meeting was over.

I generally like Heritage, they are good at gathering facts. Sometimes their stuff is too biased and catering to a conclusion that their donors want... but in this case where we are arguing about what conservatives think and want then it is perfectly factual at demonstrating that. I posted one mediamatters link and it was an aggregation of other not-so-biased sources. Or did you not read the link? The stupid argument in your post is focusing on me using multiple sources to provide information while you have none. I read fox news sometimes but question it because it is too biased and for people who don't want to or incapable to think for themselves, just like MSNBC. WSJ is a MUCH better source as it is intended for a more educated audience.

But even Fox News supports my take: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...l-tax-holiday/

"The problem here is that the payroll tax doesn't go into general revenue, it supports Social Security. And you can't keep extending the payroll tax holiday and have a secure Social Security."

Let's get back to the fact that you don't care what the writer of the conservative budget plan says about taxes and think you know better than him what conservatives think or want. Or that you are completely ignorant of what Keynesian means, that social security has a trust separate from general government revenue, that Reagan raised the payroll tax rates to save social security and raised capital gains taxes to afford lower marginal tax rates, that the majority of politicians wanted the holiday to end. (A lot probably because the ever-reliably-voting elderly and AARP wanted it to end) But you continue to cry over it and somehow call me a liberal for not believing it was a good thing because the wealth of economic history doesn't support your conclusion. I carry the conservative philosophy about marginal tax rates and supply-side, even though you argue I'm wrong and must love Obama because of sharing the same conclusion as Raul Ryan...

[joshh]

Bush was a Lib in war Mongers clothes.

I agree with that but my point is most Republicans are liberals/progressives these days.

[joshh]

No, you can't understand the difference between supply/demand side stimulation.

So there is really no point to engage you, other than to laugh.

Of course not...but if I said I supported (or would support) the same tax cut for Americans that made above middle class incomes. Demand side now?

[z31maniac]

Bush was a Lib in war Mongers clothes.

[joshh]

And Bush handing out tax credit checks is also conservative as well right (that's called Republican)....but then I'm talking to a guy that will use Heritage for and against them when he needs to.
While at the same time reads Media Matters links and refuses to read Fox news...go figure.

[rwh11385]

I already repeated your nonsense. Showing that I understand what you're saying and already did so calm down...oh yeah your the king of hyperbole.
What you continue to fail to understand is you're using a mold that does not match what actually happened over the last two years. I don't give a fuck who says what. Americans *had* more money in their pockets last year and now that was taken from them proving that in fact the idea that allowing Americans more money from non-marginal tax cuts is pointless is fallacious.

Actually, all you have shown is you have no comprehension of any of the topics being discussed.

So wait, now you are arguing that the basis of conservative economic thought is wrong? Based on what exactly? Your loony score just went up even more.

So you don't care what the author of the conservative budget plan says? You know better than Paul Ryan what conservatives want or think? HA!

What proof do you have that running a deficit in order to give someone a temporary non-marginal tax cut does anything to help and that it isn't a pointless act based on failed Keynesianism? On what basis do you propose that such a tax holiday is a good thing when it is funded by deficits?


The fact that you have gotten some basic concepts about the tax holiday wrong is funny. [That the argument is about something other than social security or that government spending cuts have to do with the financial position of social security] But moreso you challenging the premise of conservative fiscal thought and saying you know more about what conservatives want from economic policy is HILARIOUS. Keep digging your hole deeper. As Z31 said, it provides many laughs.

[joshh]

I already repeated your nonsense. Showing that I understand what you're saying and already did so calm down...oh yeah your the king of hyperbole.
What you continue to fail to understand is you're using a mold that does not match what actually happened over the last two years. I don't give a fuck who says what. Americans *had* more money in their pockets last year and now that was taken from them proving that in fact the idea that allowing Americans more money from non-marginal tax cuts is pointless is fallacious.

[rwh11385]

I understand it just fine. What's funny is your basic lack of understanding that real Americans are getting less money in their pay checks every week. Kind of funny how that doesn't match the argument you and Rwh are spewing.

No. You don't understand anything and apparently are incapable of reading or even understanding Paul Ryan after watching the video.

The "getting less money in their paychecks every week" is a Keynesian / demand-side approach.
Supply-side approach is to lower the marginal tax rate to encourage workers to work more.

The only argument you have here is the SS one. But even that is a bad one because it's dying. Allowing Americans to go home with more of their own pay checks is exactly what Conservatives should be calling for. But the people in Congress have to protect the social welfare programs that are taking this country down.

You're trying to make an argument that non-marginal rate cuts (at all) would make it so workers would be able to work less and still make the same amount of money, but guess what. That's not what happened. You're using a generic template that any cut at all would do this. That's your failure.

That is what the argument is about. Payroll tax holiday. The payroll tax cut was for OASDI / social security. Do you not even know that basic fact??
The 2% in question:

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240/~/2012-social-security-tax-rate-and-maximum-taxable-earnings

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html

What was the effect of the payroll tax holiday on the next dollar earned by someone making $110,100????
What would be the effect of a marginal tax rate cut on the same person?


No. Allowing Americans to go home with more from their paychecks from a non-marginal tax cut is NOT what supply-siders / Conservatives are about. Like the Heritage piece said, they cost money so ought to be worth it. Non-marginal tax cuts do not encourage people to work more like marginal tax cuts do. How is it possible for you to not be able to understand this even now? Conservatives would rather make cuts for marginal rates which encourage economic growth through supply-side mechanisms. And they certainly don't think they should bankrupt Social Security or run deficits in order to keep up a temporary Keynesian approach.

You keep failing and what is sad is that you are completely incapable of understanding that you have been wrong. I wish you were intelligent enough to get that, but the endless sources to back my claims are lost on you. Paul Ryan clearly refers to the payroll tax cut as Keynesian and demand-side and thinks it would be horrible to be permanent. Why you want to argue that conservatives want the opposite of what he said is ridiculous and based on nothing but your absolute ignorance.

You have simplified the concept of tax cuts too much and fail to actually understand what anything you are attempting to talk about means.

[joshh]

No, you can't understand the difference between supply/demand side stimulation.

So there is really no point to engage you, other than to laugh.

I understand it just fine. What's funny is your basic lack of understanding that real Americans are getting less money in their pay checks every week. Kind of funny how that doesn't match the argument you and Rwh are spewing.

Maybe you can't read, so here's Paul Ryan calling the payroll tax cut Keynesian and saying that no one wants it to be permanent.





But maybe you can prove the guy who was behind the conservative's budget plan wasn't right or he's not a conservative.

The only argument you have here is the SS one. But even that is a bad one because it's dying. Allowing Americans to go home with more of their own pay checks is exactly what Conservatives should be calling for. But the people in Congress have to protect the social welfare programs that are taking this country down.

You're trying to make an argument that non-marginal rate cuts (at all) would make it so workers would be able to work less and still make the same amount of money, but guess what. That's not what happened. You're using a generic template that any cut at all would do this. That's your failure. Now Americans will have less real money in their pockets. Yes that does matter.