PDA

View Full Version : Just to be clear.....



Lanie
12-20-2011, 02:40 PM
what's the justification for the tax hike on the middle guy?

Is it because we're supposedly wanting to punish the rich?

Seriously, I'm searching google and I don't get it. I went on the GOP website. What is their perspective on this?

I know some economists said it wouldn't help the economy. I say that's bull because unemployment has went down. Also, it only makes sense to say that if people have more money, then they can do more with it. That helps the economy.

Arroyo_Doble
12-20-2011, 02:45 PM
It is all political brinksmanship with the Democrats trying to rhetorically paint the Republicans as caring only for the wealthy while the Republicans are trying to stay out of that corner and continue the momentum they achieved in 2010.

Whether or not there are people in our political leadership that give a rat's ass about anything other than their own fucking rice bowl is a personal opinion.

Rockntractor
12-20-2011, 02:48 PM
what's the justification for the tax hike on the middle guy?

Is it because we're supposedly wanting to punish the rich?

Seriously, I'm searching google and I don't get it. I went on the GOP website. What is their perspective on this?

I know some economists said it wouldn't help the economy. I say that's bull because unemployment has went down. Also, it only makes sense to say that if people have more money, then they can do more with it. That helps the economy.

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/forums/19318690.gif

Starbuck
12-20-2011, 02:54 PM
Yeah, it's just political sparing. It would be best, both parties feel, if the current contribution to SS is kept at 4% instead of going back up to the 6% that is used to be year before last.

It really doesn't make a bit of difference, IMO. But one party or the other is going to get to use the increase as a tool against the other side.

The two points, to me, are that (1) it doesn't really affect the economy and (2) the 4% isn't sustainable anyway. Someone is going to have to raise it back to 6% sooner or later.

I think the Republicans ought to just let it go back to 6%, but that's going to be tough, because now the keystone pipeline is attached to the bill. So I'm betting The House approves the 2 month extension and we fight it all over again in February.

Arroyo_Doble
12-20-2011, 02:57 PM
Yeah, it's just political sparing. It would be best, both parties feel, if the current contribution to SS is kept at 4% instead of going back up to the 6% that is used to be year before last.

It really doesn't make a bit of difference, IMO. But one party or the other is going to get to use the increase as a tool against the other side.

The two points, to me, are that (1) it doesn't really affect the economy and (2) the 4% isn't sustainable anyway. Someone is going to have to raise it back to 6% sooner or later.

I think the Republicans ought to just let it go back to 6%, but that's going to be tough, because now the keystone pipeline is attached to the bill. So I'm betting The House approves the 2 month extension and we fight it all over again in February.

I think the House just killed it.

DumbAss Tanker
12-20-2011, 03:10 PM
what's the justification for the tax hike on the middle guy?

Is it because we're supposedly wanting to punish the rich?

Seriously, I'm searching google and I don't get it. I went on the GOP website. What is their perspective on this?

I know some economists said it wouldn't help the economy. I say that's bull because unemployment has went down. Also, it only makes sense to say that if people have more money, then they can do more with it. That helps the economy.

It's only being called a tax hike because Obama wants to say "Bad Republicans." It's actually an end to a completely unfunded one-year recess from paying Social Security taxes the same way you did every year before 2010.

The effect on household income is trivial for most, and more or less neutralized by prices rising from 2009 levels in ways that don't show up in the CPI - food and energy (You can blame the ethanol subsidies for some of each). Its effect on unemployment is entirely imaginary.

Why do you and Obama hate Social Security and want to see it go broke? :rolleyes:

Adam Wood
12-20-2011, 03:27 PM
what's the justification for the tax hike on the middle guy?

Is it because we're supposedly wanting to punish the rich?

Seriously, I'm searching google and I don't get it. I went on the GOP website. What is their perspective on this?

I know some economists said it wouldn't help the economy. I say that's bull because unemployment has went down. Also, it only makes sense to say that if people have more money, then they can do more with it. That helps the economy.The primary argument I've heard is not a bad one: it's blowing a gigantic hole in Social Security (as though that wasn't a vacuous black hole of nothingness already), and someone, somewhere is going to have to pay it back, and soon.

There is also the point that there is nothing to show that it has created any jobs. You can't just say "well, there was this tax holiday, and there was a downtick in the UE claims last month, so the tax holiday must have worked to create jobs." That's called post hoc ergo proptor hoc, Latin for "after the fact therefore because of the fact," and it's a classical logical fallacy. You have to understand that just because the "unemployment number" goes down doesn't mean that more people have jobs. That just means that fewer people filed for unemployment. Some of those people have given up, some have moved back home to be with other family, etc.



Now, all of that having been said, it's not a GOP position to have that tax holiday end, per se. Some Republicans are for it, some are against it. Regardless, the House passed a one-year extension on it. The Democrats in the Senate refused it. So if there's anyone to "blame" for this, it's Harry Reid and company, not the GOP.

Arroyo_Doble
12-20-2011, 03:32 PM
The primary argument I've heard is not a bad one: it's blowing a gigantic hole in Social Security (as though that wasn't a vacuous black hole of nothingness already), and someone, somewhere is going to have to pay it back, and soon.

There is also the point that there is nothing to show that it has created any jobs. You can't just say "well, there was this tax holiday, and there was a downtick in the UE claims last month, so the tax holiday must have worked to create jobs." That's called post hoc ergo proptor hoc, Latin for "after the fact therefore because of the fact," and it's a classical logical fallacy. You have to understand that just because the "unemployment number" goes down doesn't mean that more people have jobs. That just means that fewer people filed for unemployment. Some of those people have given up, some have moved back home to be with other family, etc.



Now, all of that having been said, it's not a GOP position to have that tax holiday end, per se. Some Republicans are for it, some are against it. Regardless, the House passed a one-year extension on it. The Democrats in the Senate refused it. So if there's anyone to "blame" for this, it's Harry Reid and company, not the GOP.


I think what irritates the Democratic leadership in the Senate and the White House is they ate the Keystone pie served up by the Republican leadership in the Senate and it still wasn't enough for the House.

I believe there may be some genuine pique.

Adam Wood
12-20-2011, 03:35 PM
I think what irritates the Democratic leadership in the Senate and the White House is they ate the Keystone pie served up by the Republican leadership in the Senate and it still wasn't enough for the House.

I believe there may be some genuine pique.Well, I have to agree with Boehner on this one: two months is BS. They (the Senate) should have come up with something real instead of this flippant two-month bit just so they could get out of town and still hit the malls before they close Saturday. Even if they had said six months, it would have been more palatable. There's really not much of an excuse for this.

Arroyo_Doble
12-20-2011, 03:41 PM
Well, I have to agree with Boehner on this one: two months is BS. They (the Senate) should have come up with something real instead of this flippant two-month bit just so they could get out of town and still hit the malls before they close Saturday. Even if they had said six months, it would have been more palatable. There's really not much of an excuse for this.

Continuing resolutions are BS, the debt ceiling debacle was BS, blocking appointees is BS, the whole fucking shittery has been BS for awhile.

The question is, who has the most feces on their faces? Obviously, you are going to think the Democrats, and it is possible you are right, but how this plays to Joe Bananahead and Mary Steamclean is what matters.

Let the games begin ..... or continue, really.

txradioguy
12-20-2011, 03:44 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/forums/19318690.gif

Yeah I feel that way too when I read her drivel.

Adam Wood
12-20-2011, 03:50 PM
Continuing resolutions are BS, the debt ceiling debacle was BS, blocking appointees is BS, the whole fucking shittery has been BS for awhile.

The question is, who has the most feces on their faces? Obviously, you are going to think the Democrats, and it is possible you are right, but how this plays to Joe Bananahead and Mary Steamclean is what matters.

Let the games begin ..... or continue, really.
And this is how you get to a single-digit approval rating, somewhere just below medically-resistant flesh-eating bacteria.

Rockntractor
12-20-2011, 07:23 PM
It is also ridiculous to have tax law for weeks or months, you make it for years or permanent.
This is not some sort of political tool you can pull out of your ass every two months and beat the other side over the head with, I'm tired of these games.

Lanie
12-20-2011, 08:50 PM
Yeah, it's just political sparing. It would be best, both parties feel, if the current contribution to SS is kept at 4% instead of going back up to the 6% that is used to be year before last.

It really doesn't make a bit of difference, IMO. But one party or the other is going to get to use the increase as a tool against the other side.

The two points, to me, are that (1) it doesn't really affect the economy and (2) the 4% isn't sustainable anyway. Someone is going to have to raise it back to 6% sooner or later.

I think the Republicans ought to just let it go back to 6%, but that's going to be tough, because now the keystone pipeline is attached to the bill. So I'm betting The House approves the 2 month extension and we fight it all over again in February.


I just can't help but think if this was about the rich's taxes, the case would be made that they're being punished for being successful.

Lanie
12-20-2011, 08:58 PM
The primary argument I've heard is not a bad one: it's blowing a gigantic hole in Social Security (as though that wasn't a vacuous black hole of nothingness already), and someone, somewhere is going to have to pay it back, and soon.

There is also the point that there is nothing to show that it has created any jobs. You can't just say "well, there was this tax holiday, and there was a downtick in the UE claims last month, so the tax holiday must have worked to create jobs." That's called post hoc ergo proptor hoc, Latin for "after the fact therefore because of the fact," and it's a classical logical fallacy. You have to understand that just because the "unemployment number" goes down doesn't mean that more people have jobs. That just means that fewer people filed for unemployment. Some of those people have given up, some have moved back home to be with other family, etc.

You realize these same arguments were used by Democrats when Bush did tax cuts right? While cutting taxes isn't the be all and end all of helping an economy get back on track, it helps. If the middle class (the group affected by this, so I'll discuss them here) have more money, then they have more money to put into the bank, spend, and invest. That in turn helps companies out, increasing their profits, and increases their willingness to hire more people. If companies grow, then they'll often need more hired help.




Now, all of that having been said, it's not a GOP position to have that tax holiday end, per se. Some Republicans are for it, some are against it. Regardless, the House passed a one-year extension on it. The Democrats in the Senate refused it. So if there's anyone to "blame" for this, it's Harry Reid and company, not the GOP.

The house would not have passed it for two years. The Senate won't go for one year. I see this as an inability to work together to come up with a solution. Therefore, I see this as the fault of both the house and the senate. In a company, people are expected to work together. If they can't work together and hurt the company, then somebody will go sooner or later. Why should we have to put up with this out of our congress?

I'm so frustrated with our congress's unwillingness to work together and all of our major Presidential candidates. We need people who will actually work with those who they disagree with to find a solution, not people who will let the country fall because they can't get their way.

Starbuck
12-20-2011, 10:20 PM
I just can't help but think if this was about the rich's taxes, the case would be made that they're being punished for being successful.
Yeah, I know. But the case is very strong that the rich already pay their fair share and even more than their fair share. The liberals are creating class jealousy by claiming that millionaires and billionaires pay no - or very little - taxes. It's nonsense.

The politicians promoting this idea are millionaires themselves and they know the truth full well. After all, all they have to do is study their own tax returns; they pay plenty.

But they want you to think they are exceptional. They want you to think that it's all those other millionaires who have the money and don't pay taxes - not them. Nonsense. I've never made a million dollars a year, but I have made a few hundred thousand. And there was no way to not pay taxes.

Zeus
12-20-2011, 10:48 PM
Do The Rich Pay Their Fair Share Of Taxes? (http://www.roshawnwatson.com/2010/05/do-rich-pay-their-fair-share-of-taxes.html)By: Roshawn Watson

Statements such as "the rich don't pay their taxes" can be misleading because they often ignore factual evidence to the contrary.
Mr. Warren Buffett has been a frequent critic of US tax laws and a proponent for a more progressive tax system. At a 2007 fundraiser, he mentioned...
"[We] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 percent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 percent.”
Mr. Buffett said that he made $46 million in 2006 and was taxed at 17.7 percent, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 percent. It's troubling statistics such as these that fuel cries of income inequality and the deterioration of democracy. However, a new paper by Greg Mankiw entitled “Spreading the Wealth Around: Reflections on Joe the Plumber (http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/mankiw/files/Spreading%20the%20Wealth%20Around.pdf)” elucidates a completely different perspective, citing the Congressional Budget Office calculations.
The poorest fifth of the population, with average annual income of $15,400, pays only 4.5 percent of its income in federal taxes. The middle fifth, with income of $56,200, pays 13.9 percent. And the top fifth, with income of $207,200, pays 25.1 percent. The richest 1 percent, with an average income of $1,259,700, forks over 31.1 percent of its income to the federal government.
Accordingly, he concludes that it is simply inaccurate to argue that we do not have a progressive tax system and that the "best analysis shows that average federal tax rates rise steeply with income.” The truth is the "lower tax rates" mentioned by Buffett and others often excludes corporate taxes, which would boost the rate significantly (remember double-taxation).


Additionally, consider that nearly 50% of all filers pay nothing in federal income taxes (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125997180). These non-payers are families with children, the elderly, low income households, those who either have too little income to pay taxes or who benefit enough from all the deductions, credits and exemptions in the income tax, so they're zeroed out on the bottom line of their 1040.


This leaves the higher income earners and upper middle class paying the bulk of income taxes. Those who earn over $500,000 per year pay about 24% of all US taxes and earn about 16-17% of all income. Those who earn over $100,000 per year pay about 70% of all US taxes and earn about 56% of all income.

MrsSmith
12-20-2011, 11:00 PM
It is also ridiculous to have tax law for weeks or months, you make it for years or permanent.
This is not some sort of political tool you can pull out of your ass every two months and beat the other side over the head with, I'm tired of these games.

The best that can be said for these stupid short-term tax changes is that a few HR and Accounting personnel may have slightly better job security. I'm glad I don't work in either job...talk about never knowing what tomorrow brings! They hardly know from pay period to pay period what kind of deductions they'll have to make from every paycheck. You would think even Democrats could figure out that this is a problem...but then again, these are the same jokers that couldn't pass a budget with a super-majority.

Rockntractor
12-20-2011, 11:16 PM
The best that can be said for these stupid short-term tax changes is that a few HR and Accounting personnel may have slightly better job security. I'm glad I don't work in either job...talk about never knowing what tomorrow brings! They hardly know from pay period to pay period what kind of deductions they'll have to make from every paycheck. You would think even Democrats could figure out that this is a problem...but then again, these are the same jokers that couldn't pass a budget with a super-majority.

Perhaps they should only have job security for two months at a time and then have to be reaffirmed, this is just another game where we are the losers, this socialist government is no longer controlled by us.

Lanie
12-20-2011, 11:21 PM
Yeah, I know. But the case is very strong that the rich already pay their fair share and even more than their fair share. The liberals are creating class jealousy by claiming that millionaires and billionaires pay no - or very little - taxes. It's nonsense.

The politicians promoting this idea are millionaires themselves and they know the truth full well. After all, all they have to do is study their own tax returns; they pay plenty.

But they want you to think they are exceptional. They want you to think that it's all those other millionaires who have the money and don't pay taxes - not them. Nonsense. I've never made a million dollars a year, but I have made a few hundred thousand. And there was no way to not pay taxes.


Bill Clinton didn't deny that he got tax cuts. He admitted it in I think the year 2004 and suggested they should be raised. He said he nearly wrote the Bush Administration thanking them for his tax cut. lol.

Class warfare does get created when the rich are demonized as greedy. It's also created when the poor are characterized as lazy. In this case, the middle class are going to get a tax hike. Meanwhile, your payroll tax doesn't get taxed after so much. Also, we know the Republican Party. We know good and well if this was the rich we were talking about, they'd speak out against a tax hike, portray it as punishing them for their success.

I think that a tax cut is often necessary for corporations to encourage job growth. When Bush passed the tax cuts years ago, it appeared that everybody benefited from the tax cuts, not just the rich. Now, it appears that only the middle class are going to suffer from these hikes.

Odysseus
12-21-2011, 12:40 AM
what's the justification for the tax hike on the middle guy?

Is it because we're supposedly wanting to punish the rich?

Seriously, I'm searching google and I don't get it. I went on the GOP website. What is their perspective on this?

I know some economists said it wouldn't help the economy. I say that's bull because unemployment has went down. Also, it only makes sense to say that if people have more money, then they can do more with it. That helps the economy.

Unemployment hasn't gone down. The unemployment rate has, but it's a specious measurement.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics U3 number (what we call the unemployment rate) only counts people without jobs who have actively looked for work within the past four weeks. If someone has dropped out of the workforce, i.e., is no longer looking for work, then that person is no longer part of the number. So, all that the BLS has to do to drop the unemployment rate is declare that a certain percentage of people were no longer looking for work, regardless of whether they found any. The household surveys found that 125,000 jobs were created in the last month, which is roughly what it takes to keep the U3 stable, rather than drive it down, so what happened? Simple math and a bit of sleight of hand. In order to get the U3 rate down to 8.6%, the BLS simply assumed that the workforce had contracted by 315,000 former job seekers. If you reduce the workforce, then the same anemic job growth figure becomes larger by comparison, and the U3 drops. However, the workforce hasn't declined, in reality. If anything, it should be increasing because each year, the growth in the US population adds about two million new workers to the workforce.

It's just another scam from the most transparent administration in history.

Starbuck
12-21-2011, 01:50 AM
Lanie

Bill Clinton didn't deny that he got tax cuts. He admitted it in I think the year 2004 and suggested they should be raised. He said he nearly wrote the Bush Administration thanking them for his tax cut. lol. As well he should. But after all, EVERYONE got a tax cut. I got one; you got one; we all paid less.

Class warfare does get created when the rich are demonized as greedy. It's also created when the poor are characterized as lazy. Who does THAT?!In this case, the middle class are going to get a tax hike. EVERYONE is going to go back to paying 6% instead of 4%, and they should since the 4% rate is unsustainableMeanwhile, your payroll tax doesn't get taxed after so much. That's right. Everyone stops paying into the Social Security System afer a certain amount, but the INCOME tax has no upper limit.Also, we know the Republican Party. We know good and well if this was the rich we were talking about, they'd speak out against a tax hike, portray it as punishing them for their success. But that is the case. We're talking about every working person in America returning to the 6% level. We ALL went to 4% for a while and it looks like it's over. Back to 6

I think that a tax cut is often necessary for corporations to encourage job growth. When Bush passed the tax cuts years ago, it appeared that everybody benefited from the tax cuts, not just the rich. Now, it appears that only the middle class are going to suffer from these hikes.No, you're wrong. In the first place no one is going to "suffer" because their deduction went from 4% to 6%, and in the second place everyone pays the same until they make over $106,800. After that, they don't pay social security anymore, but continue to move into higher income tax brackets; something that the poor and middle class do not do. The maximum income tax rate is 35%, and that's just federal tax. State taxes vary and New York imposes a 15% city tax. All-in-all a well to do couple living in New York will pay about 50% of their income in taxes. In Mississippi, where I live, it is more like 40%. Now. Do you pay anything LIKE that percentage or amount?

RobJohnson
12-21-2011, 02:22 AM
Yeah I feel that way too when I read her drivel.

But the girl in that picture is cute. :D

Adam Wood
12-21-2011, 05:48 PM
You realize these same arguments were used by Democrats when Bush did tax cuts right? While cutting taxes isn't the be all and end all of helping an economy get back on track, it helps. If the middle class (the group affected by this, so I'll discuss them here) have more money, then they have more money to put into the bank, spend, and invest. That in turn helps companies out, increasing their profits, and increases their willingness to hire more people. If companies grow, then they'll often need more hired help. That's a fair point. Democrats who didn't believe that reducing taxes would increase revenue had concerns that there would just be less money coming into the coffers. However, I don't think that Social Security contributions work quite the same way as taxes do, from a macroeconomic standpoint. Additionally, I don't think that this really is enough to matter to most middle- and lower-income people. Let's say you have a couple of DINKs (double-income, no kids), and we'll say they each earn $10/hour. That's $20,800 per, or a household income of $41,600. Not living large, but a respectable middle class income in most parts of the country. The extra amount in this couple's paychecks is $821.70 over the course of a year, or a big $15.79 per week total for the two of them. Let's just be honest here: I'm not going to notice $7.89 extra in my check in any given week. Neither are most other people. As such, I don't think it's going to have the stimulative effect that you propose. While you have the concept right, I don't think that the mechanics are there.


The house would not have passed it for two years. The Senate won't go for one year. I see this as an inability to work together to come up with a solution. Therefore, I see this as the fault of both the house and the senate. In a company, people are expected to work together. If they can't work together and hurt the company, then somebody will go sooner or later. Why should we have to put up with this out of our congress?

I'm so frustrated with our congress's unwillingness to work together and all of our major Presidential candidates. We need people who will actually work with those who they disagree with to find a solution, not people who will let the country fall because they can't get their way.Both houses share some blame. I'll grant that. But ultimately, the House sent over a good compromise bill that, as I understand it, even Obama found palatable, and yet the Senate just fucked it all up, then high-fived (literally) and went on vacation.