the 13 bucks a week in your pocket at the end of the week was a joke when it was implemented, going back to not having that 13 bucks is more insult than injury
-
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. -Alexis de TocquevilleOriginally posted by Fusion
The Desire to Save Humanity is Always a False Front for the Urge to Rule it- H. L. Mencken
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants.
William Pitt- -
its just a ponzi scheme (tax payers are the investors) and they have to continue to get approval to fund it.Comment
-
I feel the charts and graphs being pulled up...lol.
Nickel and diming us is what they're good at... This tax increase will hit businesses more than the middle class. The payroll tax is a 2% increase.
The good thing is the Democrats get what they want now, so they have no more excuses. Well we know they will always have excuses but they will have less now. Next they'll whine that Republicans stalled too long and that they needed tax increases for 250k and above....Your signature picture has been removed since it contained the Photobucket "upgrade your account" image.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the [federal] government." ~ James Madison
"If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" Barack ObamaComment
-
So you are a fan of robbing from the Social Security trust fund to follow Keynesian strategies? The code should be fixed, simplified, and include a VAT, not following the stimulus Keynesian bullshit forever.
They aren't increasing taxes as much as letting them go back to where they were before the supposedly TEMPORARY payroll tax holiday was put into place. But that's the problem of politics and suggesting temporary measures, uneducated and uninformed people complain about raising things back to where they were when the deadline is reached, even if that was the aim in the first place.
The payroll holiday was less than Making Work Pay which was less than Bush's stimulus checks.The tax legislation that President Obama signed into law on Friday, will for one year reduce workers' Social Security taxes. Workers pay 6.2% on their first $106,800 of wages. The tax cut deal will reduce that to 4.2%.
That payroll tax "holiday" will replace the Making Work Pay credit, which expires Dec. 31 and was part of the 2009 Recovery Act.
As a result, 51 million households -- about a third of the total -- will be out an average of $210 compared with this year, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
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.
Making Work Pay was the one stimulus tax credit that didn't survive past 2010. It mimicked the payroll tax cut, except it worked through the income tax, so it didn't deplete the Social Security Trust Fund.
Yeah, Obama took to Twitter and talked about $40/paycheck to promote its extension, but focused of course on the benefit to the people now instead of the cost to the country's future and particularly future retirees.
Obviously some people were short-sighted enough to support it.Comment
-
I Still think rather than spend a couple of trillion on "stimulus" we should have had a 1 year total personal income and pay roll tax holiday. you want to stimulate an economy that would have been one way to do it, and would have been cheaper than what we have been up too the last 4 years.The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. -Alexis de TocquevilleOriginally posted by Fusion
The Desire to Save Humanity is Always a False Front for the Urge to Rule it- H. L. Mencken
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants.
William Pitt-Comment
-
I find it interesting you want to talk about SS when the real problem we have is jobs. But then you're not so non-partisan as you are liberal so that explains that.So you are a fan of robbing from the Social Security trust fund to follow Keynesian strategies? The code should be fixed, simplified, and include a VAT, not following the stimulus Keynesian bullshit forever.
They aren't increasing taxes as much as letting them go back to where they were before the supposedly TEMPORARY payroll tax holiday was put into place. But that's the problem of politics and suggesting temporary measures, uneducated and uninformed people complain about raising things back to where they were when the deadline is reached, even if that was the aim in the first place.
The payroll holiday was less than Making Work Pay which was less than Bush's stimulus checks.
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.
Yeah, Obama took to Twitter and talked about $40/paycheck to promote its extension, but focused of course on the benefit to the people now instead of the cost to the country's future and particularly future retirees.
Obviously some people were short-sighted enough to support it.
Increasing taxes does not increase the amount of jobs we create in the private sector. That is the real problem.Your signature picture has been removed since it contained the Photobucket "upgrade your account" image.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the [federal] government." ~ James Madison
"If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" Barack ObamaComment
-
The payroll holiday that businesses didn't get will hit them harder than the middle class which did see their payroll contributions decease?
Employers still kicked in the same amount.Congress and Obama cut the share paid by workers from 6.2% to 4.2%.
A temporary reduction in Social Security payroll taxes expires at the end of the year and hardly anyone in Washington is pushing to extend it. Neither Obama nor Romney has proposed an extension, and it probably wouldn't get through Congress anyway, with lawmakers in both parties down on the idea.
Even Republicans who have sworn off tax increases have little appetite to prevent one that will cost a typical worker about $1,000 a year, and two-earner family with six-figure incomes as much as $4,500.
Before he was named as Romney's running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., disparaged the payroll tax cut, calling it "sugar-high economics" that wouldn't promote long-term growth.Politicians from both parties say they are concerned that it threatens the independent revenue stream that funds Social Security.
They are backed by powerful advocates for seniors, including AARP, who adamantly oppose any extension.
"The payroll tax holiday was intended to be temporary and there is strong bipartisan support to let that tax provision expire," said Sen. Orrin of Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. "The continued extension of a temporary payroll tax holiday has serious long-term implications for Social Security and, frankly, it's not even clear that it has helped to boost our ailing economy.""There's a growing consensus that Congress and the president can't continue to divert such a critical revenue stream from Social Security," said Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, a senior Republican on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. "More and more Americans understand that that payroll tax cut, while politically unappealing, is endangering Social Security.""I think people realize that was a temporary thing," said Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska.Economists were divided on the economic benefits.The initial tax cut was for only a year, and many Republicans in Congress wanted to let it lapse at the end of 2011. But Obama and Democratic lawmakers successfully fought to extend it through 2012.
Obama, however, didn't include the tax cut in his 2013 budget proposal, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told Congress this year that he saw no reason to extend it again.
This time, the White House isn't pushing for another extension. "That was always intended to be a temporary measure to support job creation and economic growth," Jason Furman, a top White House economic adviser, said recently. "It's not something that we have at this stage called for extending into next year."
Republicans were unenthusiastic about the tax cut to begin with, preferring instead a broad overhaul of the tax code and contending it would weaken Social Security. Now the party is openly opposed to extending the tax break.
"I'm not for that," said Rep. David Camp (R., Mich.), who heads the House's Ways and Means Committee, which oversees tax policy. "I don't think we can keep cutting into Social Security." House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) has made similar comments.
Senate Democratic leaders are more cautious, saying they would let the payroll tax cut expire as part of a broader tax deal that would prevent the tax burden from rising for middle-income families. But they're not pushing for an extension, either.
Neither side wanted to really see it extended and most people knew it was temporary. Obama didn't made an oversight, his view on the payroll holiday for 2013 was clear previously. But I guess you have to be able to read to understand that.
July 25, 2012 - Furman's quote publish way back in July.
But I guess if you are completely uninformed of a position stated back in July and bipartisan interest in letting it die, the holiday ending can seem shocking to you. Maybe try being more educated on the issues.Comment
-
I find it interesting that you defend a Keynesian effort whose extension had no support and instead of realizing that you are wrong, you attack me for being apparently liberal for not wanting continued Keynesian crap. The real problem is people like you who are clueless, and not understanding how hilariously stupid the things you said are.
What kind of conservative are you to want deficit-funded Keynesian stimulus?
The real jobs problem is long-term unemployment and labor mismatch / lazy people whose industries aren't likely to come back regardless of economic growth and should get with the times and get re-trained. Job training programs have been a part of many recoveries. If you doubt it, just look at a Beveridge curve - it's rather clear.Comment
-
Yeah I know you like to play games with words.
I already blew you out of the water with you not being non-partisan so stop trying to play that card. You fucking lost. You're anything but non-partisan.
"Lower taxes" being only Keynesian economics is a fucking joke and you know it. Being conservative lower taxes would be a norm. Nice try on the word play though.
Oh yes, you still think people falling off the back side of unemployment is the larger part of our improving economy. That is an uneducated view if there is one.
Yes of course I should base my opinions on what Republicans and Democrats think, because they've been so successful at bringing this economy back so quickly to fully swing. Another brilliant view by you.
This tax increase (regardless of your playing with words again) hits the middle class (and regardless if I was wrong on employers or not). Obama was even trying to fight for this holiday extension earlier this year. Hate to bring that fact up to you. A family making $50,000 a year will now see $1,000 less because of this. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that a family making 50k could probably use that 1k pretty badly in this economy where gas prices are stably high along with food prices and other commodities.
But fuck it, obviously your worried about SS not the middle class.Your signature picture has been removed since it contained the Photobucket "upgrade your account" image.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the [federal] government." ~ James Madison
"If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" Barack ObamaComment
-
LOL dude. You are so lost it is hilarious, but let me help you out. You call me a liberal because I am glad the payroll tax holiday wasn't extended and along the same lines think that you "blew me out of the water" before. Well, let me explain how you aren't good at being conservative and actually just an idiot instead.
You are not educated enough to know when tax cuts are Keynesian or not, supply-side or demand-side. You're a mindless fool who can't even understand the fundamentals of economic thought and are calling someone with a conservative position a liberal out of your absolute ignorance. IRONY OVERLOAD.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briandom...-no-keynesian/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrode...n-sand-castle/Romney’s tax plan would reduce every rate of the income tax by 20 percent. And as Larry Kudlow is keen to point out, here is how Romney justifies it: “By reducing the tax on the next dollar of income earned by all taxpayers, we will encourage hard work, risk-taking, and productivity by allowing Americans to keep more of what they earn.”
This argument is a supply-side one. The justification for tax cuts here is that they prompt people to expand their horizons in the world of work. The demand-side, or Keynesian argument for tax cuts is that they “put money in people’s pockets,” as the saying goes; in the Keynes jargon, they raise people’s “propensity to consume.”
The crucial difference between supply-side and Keynesian tax cuts is one of design. Supply-side tax cuts occur at the marginal rates of the income tax, whereas Keynesian tax cuts occur before those rates. Under a regimen of marginal rate cuts, the most remunerative thing to do is earn more income. Under non-marginal cuts, you get the full amount of the cut no matter if you work more or not.
Moreover, if marginal tax rates are high, and you get a non-marginal cut, you might even decide to work less than before. A non-marginal tax cut increases your income beyond what you’d been making in the past. If your last bit of work is barely paying — say taxed at 1980’s marginal rate of 70% — you can cut back on work and still see the same take-home pay as before.
It’s clear what makes a tax cut supply-side or Keynesian. Supply-side tax cuts prompt people to envision more income and thus go for earning it. Demand-side tax cuts increase paychecks without encouraging more work and production.
Here’s the president on his kind of tax cuts, referring to the recent reduction in the social security levy: “It means $40 extra in their paycheck. And that $40 helps to pay the rent, the groceries, the rising cost of gas — which is on a lot of people’s minds right now. LaRonda Hill — right here — told us how $40 covers the water bill for a month. So this tax cut makes a difference for a lot of families.”
Obviously the Keynesian variety. The president sees tax cuts — demand-side ones — as a sort of welfare program, whereas Romney sees tax cuts — supply-side ones — as a spur to economic growth. You might take the persistence of the Obama-style tax cuts over these last few years as a natural accompaniment to sluggish recovery.
These tax cuts were not meant to spark people into new initiatives, but to help people along during hard times. In turn, Romney’s tax cuts may be seen as an antidote to sluggishness, in that their purpose is to get the economy to recover into newness and to boom.
If the New York Times would interviewed me, or any number of much more distinguished non-Keynesian economists, it could learn why a payroll tax extension will either harm our fragile recovery or have no effect at all.
If the Republicans had both a spine and a consistent voice, they would take the case to the voters with three logical arguments:
First, the Social Security Administration reports that social security revenues have fallen short of expenditures in both 2010 and 2011 (2010 was the first time since 1983). Payroll tax cuts, obviously, widen the deficit.
Reasonable consumers and investors will conclude that Congress lacks the political will to resist further payroll tax holidays. Social Security threatens to become an unfunded entitlement paid out of general revenues.
Legitimate and widespread fears of insolvency and higher taxes create more uncertainty, which reduces investment and consumption. The recovery falters with a real threat of a double-dip recession.
Second, all economists (except for a few odd balls) know that temporary tax cuts do not affect consumer spending. Experience has proved this time and time again. But advocates of the payroll tax holiday sell it on the very grounds that it is temporary. Nor do temporary payroll tax cuts promote hiring. Why would a business hire if the tax advantage will disappear shortly?
Third, Republicans indeed favor tax cuts, but only those that align incentives to innovate, start businesses, accept jobs and be productive in whatever you do. They do not favor temporary band-aid tax cuts that will either do harm or accomplish nothing. A temporary payroll tax cut accomplishes none of these things and should be opposed. Case closed.It is disheartening that so few conservative economists and politicians explain in a logical and direct way why Keynesian economics has failed over the past few years.
But hey, keep crying over a tax holiday that no one with a clue still wanted, no one could prove actually helped, and carrying the ignorant notion that all tax cuts are favored by conservatives. It only continues to point out what a foolish troll you are, even when you think you are "blowing someone out of the water". Maybe consider educating yourself or shutting up. Your argument rests on demand-side as Forbes mentioned almost welfare program reasoning and "more money in pocket" approach which is opposite of supply-side economics, marginal tax rates, and what educated conservatives like.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.Last edited by rwh11385; 01-02-2013, 04:47 AM.Comment
-
But but but, can't we just fix this magically ?!
Mtech1 v8 build thread - https://www.r3vlimited.com/board/sho...d.php?t=413205
OEM v8 manual chip or dme - https://www.r3vlimited.com/board/sho....php?p=4938827Comment
-
troll = anyone that points out rwh with his pants down
lol“There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
Sir Winston ChurchillComment
-
It's become very typical.
This time he's trying to tell me I'm being Keynesian for wanting lower taxes when Conservatives are for lower taxes. Sometimes Rwh is a mindless fool and has to do what he needs to to try to stir the pot...even if it doesn't make sense.
By the way you fucking idiot (Rwh of course) Obama fought for this cut for a good portion of the year. Keep telling yourself no one wanted it.Your signature picture has been removed since it contained the Photobucket "upgrade your account" image.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the [federal] government." ~ James Madison
"If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" Barack ObamaComment
-
So being completely wrong = pointing out my pants are down? Seems it would make more sense that joshh's pants are down and talking out of his ass like you do most of the time.
Maybe you can explain why my position that the payroll tax cut should end is wrong or liberal, or why the holiday wasn't just a Keynesian move that threatened social security. Because that's the stupidity joshh was claiming and you apparently think has my pants down. Or are you just quick to jump on a side completely ignorant of the facts and reality?
Comment
-
Your inability to read or understand basic concepts is typical. Have you read nothing I've posted? It clearly shows you are 180 degrees from reality. You are simple.
Although Obama likes Keynesian economics and welfare for the people, he knew in July that it wasn't going to live into 2013. What I don't get is why you are mad about losing something conservatives were against - or are you just that stupid?Comment
Comment