Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is already going to be a massive tax increase in 2012. That was determined when they passed raising the Debt Ceiling. Although it is not a new tax increase, but rather an old one.
In 1993 the Democrat controlled Congress massively, and retroactively, increased taxes. In May of 2001 the GOP controlled Congress suspended that tax increase, and then continued suspending that tax increase until 2012. With the "deal" Speaker Boehner got for increasing the Debt Ceiling, that tax increase suspension has been lifted.
Everyone who earns more than $32,000 per year will see a significant increase in their federal income taxes beginning in 2012. This is the Democrats idea of "taxing the rich." According to the Democrats, if you have more than a poverty-level income, you are "rich."
Very well said but I doubt that many of the lefties will read it and surely they won't understand what you say. Since you didn't have the words, Tea Party, in your reply some won't understand any of it, at all.
You are smart enough to understand me so I will tell you that the money that hasn't been spent on SS to retired people has been considered surplus and spent on primarily pork projects for years. All of a sudden we put in this "trick" tax cut and the $120 billion that could have been available for SS is not there and that sure puts the system in a hole since there wouldn't have been enough money if the $120 billion had gone where it was supposed to go.
You are almost seeing the light. That is the plan to give everyone this little 2% even though the idiots are running a deficit in SSI. See Roy, later down the road { you will be dead then} the gvt can cover their a$$es on what happened to all the SSI money they spent. They will tell the duped masses that they gave some of it back and it caused the whole short fall.
Then the program will remain insolvent and the gvt will borrow year after year to fund it. But do not worry Roy, you got yours.
Since you read the article I guess you saw the part about what this tax cut was all about. It took 2% off the 6.2% we have been paying on SS taxes for years. You know, that Social Security program that the rate finally got to where the originator, FDR and his Brain Trust, wrote into the original SS law? Anyway, that is the tax that this article is about. A one year cut only intended to be a temporary cut can be done away with very easily by not extending it. The same Congress that extended the Bush income tax cuts voted this one in.
You are smart enough to understand me so I will tell you that the money that hasn't been spent on SS to retired people has been considered surplus and spent on primarily pork projects for years. All of a sudden we put in this "trick" tax cut and the $120 billion that could have been available for SS is not there and that sure puts the system in a hole since there wouldn't have been enough money if the $120 billion had gone where it was supposed to go.
Another thing that the cut did against the people was that the $120 billion wasn't stuck in the General Fund so the deficit had to be that much higher. Do you see that no matter how we look at it that "tax cut" may have helped the average employed person, but what did it do for the unemployed?
Please put your mind to thinking about what the article told us about this whole thing. What I saw is that those Republicans who want to not raise taxes were, in essence, talking about letting that 2% get back in effect. i guess the person who wrote that was trying to compare putting that one back on to the Bush tax cuts. Naw, he wouldn't be doing that, would he?
Roy, I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish with this synopsis. Yes, I know what a pay roll tax is, and I know why Democrats generally favor lowering them while Republicans like to see them high. It's a tax on the middle and working classes. For the record, I personally want to see the tax go back to its old rate, just as I want to see all of the Bush tax cuts repealed.
But the point the author was making, which is an extremely valid and telling one, is that Republicans scream and holler when someone tries to get the wealthy to pay a dime more than the current tax rates, which are among the lowest in decades. However, when middle and working class Americans are asked to pay more, they are ok with that. It's very obvious who owns and controls the Republic party.
Roy, I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish with this synopsis. Yes, I know what a pay roll tax is, and I know why Democrats generally favor lowering them while Republicans like to see them high. It's a tax on the middle and working classes. For the record, I personally want to see the tax go back to its old rate, just as I want to see all of the Bush tax cuts repealed.
But the point the author was making, which is an extremely valid and telling one, is that Republicans scream and holler when someone tries to get the wealthy to pay a dime more than the current tax rates, which are among the lowest in decades. However, when middle and working class Americans are asked to pay more, they are ok with that. It's very obvious who owns and controls the Republic party.
I guess the idea is dead, that Social Security is actually social insurance, paid for by beneficiaries during their working years. The amount paid in bears some proportion to benefits paid out, although this is twisted to benefit lower earners disproportionately.
If we fix it so half the people pay nothing, as is nearly true of the federal income tax, we are totally screwed since the beneficiary-only party will vote for more and more benefits--no skin off their backs!
I agree with you on eliminating ALL of the Bush tax cuts (so more people will be rowing the boat), but I am also in favor of restoring the funding to Social Security by letting the one-year break expire.
This tax cut is a joke anyway. Just something for the left to make noise about.
A two percent payroll tax cut isn't shabby, Grady. I'm personally against it because I'd like to see higher taxes and lower spending to get our debt under control. I find it very curious that the supposedly anti-tax party is not supporting it though. Unless they're not anti-tax so much as anti-taxes on certain people.
It looks the threatened payroll tax cut is going to put on the table as a negotiating chip in the never ending nauseating game being played in the debt reduction struggle.
I have got to think this is a ploy---a chip----if you want to remove the Bush tax cuts, weve got this to eliminate----and it also goes along with tea assertion that 50% of the country truly does not pay any tax.
Lets stop the jabbing--counter punching---grenade launching. Let us know when you are going to get to work and start restoring some national and international confidence-----otherwise, both parties you have an invitation to keep on your self destructive pablum, and we will see the majority of you on the sidelines after 2012.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
