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.
these are merely personal attacks, without any substance. Repealing the payroll tax would not "ruin the economy."
It puzzles me how conservatives like yourself will want to reduce taxes for rich people, but when it comes to eliminating the payroll tax for Joe Sixpack, you're suddenly up in arms over the potential for lost revenue.
Learn to read. I didn't say more taxes. I said scrap the payroll tax and shift that burden elsewhere. This results in fewer taxes, because now businesses and workers don't have to pay both a payroll tax AND an income tax.
I guess you do not understand that payroll taxes are not an inherently better tax than personal income taxes, or corporate income taxes.
Back to the realm of reality -- you can have it both ways. You can scrap the payroll tax, and shift that burden to a wide variety of revenue sources which have a broader base, and are much fairer than the payroll tax. The payroll tax should be replaced by a better, more sensible tax which has a broader base.
1. You said to-
a. increase the corporate tax rate
b. tax "the rich"
both of these things would hurt the economy. It is not a "personal attack", these are just facts. Many small buisnesses are "S corps" which pay taxes as an individual. Increasing taxes on buisness encourages them to not create new hires and to potentially move offshore for lower taxes. - pretty simple stuff.
2. I don't care about reducing taxes for people who actually pay taxes. If you don't pay taxes, it is hard to reduce that level from Zero to Zero minus.
3. Social security and medicare is funded through the payroll tax. If you cut the funding for these programs by eliminating that tax, where does the revenue come from?
4. I can read. You said to increase taxes on corporations and "the rich". Now if you do that , one would offer that those tax increases are in fact tax increases.
5. "shift that burden to a wide variety of revenue sources which have a broader base" .................. i.e. tax "the rich" and corporations, thus destroying the economy even further.
Here is a novel idea. If you want social security and medicare, why not keep the taxes in place to pay for it? I know that sounds odd to a liberal, but keep in mind that Uncle Sam's bucket is empty and even slavery of the "rich" cannot pay for all the social programs you want.
So again.................. which is it?
A. Payroll tax cuts
B. Medicare and Social Security?
It is a Payroll Tax Holiday that has been, and will contiue to have taxes from General collections go to SS to fill in what would have been collected via Payroll Tax. Operative word there is, Holiday, AKA temporary. The purpose is to provide some funds to millions of Americans who will actually spend it. I am not sure what in your pretend world, enslaves the wealthy?
..........soooooooo you are robbing Peter to pay Paul and just adding to the national debt and annual deficit with no means of paying for these cuts?
Brilliant.
Newsflash- Nothing is free. Eventually everything has to be paid for. When that time comes, the elderly and poor will be slaughtered due to the "good intentions" of liberals who cannot seem to face reality.
You can absolutely have it both ways. You don't know what you're talking about. There are a wide variety of ways to fund our social welfare system.
My personal favorite: Scrap the payroll tax, and replace it with a tax on net worth, that fully funds Medicare and SS.
But you could also scrap the payroll tax and raise the corporate income tax to pay for it.
Or you could scrap the payroll tax and raise the personal income tax to pay for it.
Or you could scrap the payroll tax and institute a sales tax to pay for it.
Or you could scrap the payroll tax and fund the entire system as an ongoing budget deficit. (Under this scenario, to put a damper on inflation, you may have to return to full-reserve banking.)
Hi Cletus,
Ya see people think that if everyone saved a nickel, we could have a huge mountain sized bag of nickels in retirement.
Y'all think thats what Gen Next is looking for, a bag-O-nickels? They don't want investment or production?
Everyone can't save. Saving works when some people would consume their wealth instead save it for production. So who are the producers and what will be the production?
First someone besides a bank needs to get to that giant bag-O-nickels.
I guess it can't be a payroll tax cut according to some so that leaves out tax payers. We can't afford private people having this money.
We don't want da guberment to spend it either cause that's debt, even if we owe ourselves for a bridge.
Nope we don't want any of that crap. We want a big bag-O-nickels cause we ain't nothing but a flock of crows who likes shinny stuff.
that's the solution
thats the key.
money is for hoarding
not bread, barns or factories for you and me.
We live in a society that buys mountains that get no bigger with growing big bags-O-nickels it takes to buy it.
I hope the coming generations learn to rightly curse us for locking the stone age inventions in a vault, and handing them the key as if we made anything worth spit.
Then the man who had received the one talent came. “Master,” he said, “I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.”
His master replied, “You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.
..........soooooooo you are robbing Peter to pay Paul and just adding to the national debt and annual deficit with no means of paying for these cuts?
Brilliant.
Newsflash- Nothing is free. Eventually everything has to be paid for. When that time comes, the elderly and poor will be slaughtered due to the "good intentions" of liberals who cannot seem to face reality.
Ya see people think that if everyone saved a nickel, we could have a huge mountain sized bag of nickels in retirement.
Y'all think thats what Gen Next is looking for, a bag-O-nickels? They don't want investment or production?
Everyone can't save. Saving works when some people would consume their wealth instead save it for production. So who are the producers and what will be the production?
First someone besides a bank needs to get to that giant bag-O-nickels.
I guess it can't be a payroll tax cut according to some so that leaves out tax payers. We can't afford private people having this money.
We don't want da guberment to spend it either cause that's debt, even if we owe ourselves for a bridge.
Nope we don't want any of that crap. We want a big bag-O-nickels cause we ain't nothing but a flock of crows who likes shinny stuff.
that's the solution
thats the key.
money is for hoarding
not bread, barns or factories for you and me.
We live in a society that buys mountains that get no bigger with growing big bags-O-nickels it takes to buy it.
I hope the coming generations learn to rightly curse us for locking the stone age inventions in a vault, and handing them the key as if we made anything worth spit.
Then the man who had received the one talent came. “Master,†he said, “I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.â€
His master replied, “You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.
It is amusing that you have taken a parable from Matthew, slaughted it and twisted it to achieve a leftist agenda. Brilliant.
God is the master and the servant is a person who had a talent or skill that they ignored and did not develop. The servant is condemned for this. You forgot to mention the other part of the parable in which the "master" praises the two other "servants" who took the gold that was given them and increased what was given them.
This is a nice biblical account that actually condemns the concept of socialism and one not working to develop thier maximal potential. Only a liberal would see this in 180 degrees the wrong way.
It is amusing that you have taken a parable from Matthew, slaughted it and twisted it to achieve a leftist agenda. Brilliant.
Really? What was the leftist part?
Quote:
God is the master and the servant is a person who had a talent or skill that they ignored and did not develop. The servant is condemned for this. You forgot to mention the other part of the parable in which the "master" praises the two other "servants" who took the gold that was given them and increased what was given them.
This is a nice biblical account that actually condemns the concept of socialism and one not working to develop thier maximal potential. Only a liberal would see this in 180 degrees the wrong way.
I am no socialist. I hate socialism. I just also hate crony capitalism which is essentially just socialism in gilt.
It is amusing that you have taken a parable from Matthew, slaughted it and twisted it to achieve a leftist agenda. Brilliant.
God is the master and the servant is a person who had a talent or skill that they ignored and did not develop. The servant is condemned for this. You forgot to mention the other part of the parable in which the "master" praises the two other "servants" who took the gold that was given them and increased what was given them.
This is a nice biblical account that actually condemns the concept of socialism and one not working to develop thier maximal potential. Only a liberal would see this in 180 degrees the wrong way.
You wouldn't be one of those "conservative" Christians would you? They are the biggest, self contradictory hive of idiots on the planet. I was raised one which is why I am so good at destroying their wretched constructs. I like they have read the Bible 10X over but with the advantage of a rational mind.
23 ‘The land shall not be sold permanently, for the land is Mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with Me. 24 And in all the land of your possession you shall grant redemption of the land.
a. increase the corporate tax rate
b. tax "the rich"
both of these things would hurt the economy.
No, it would not hurt the economy if you eliminated the payroll tax. Eliminating the payroll tax would be a huge boost to the economy.
And I never said anything about "taxing the rich." I said we should spread the tax burden from just wages, to include net worth. Why do you hate middle-income people so much?
Quote:
Many small buisnesses are "S corps" which pay taxes as an individual. Increasing taxes on buisness encourages them to not create new hires and to potentially move offshore for lower taxes. - pretty simple stuff.
Corporate balance sheets are stronger now, than they've been at any time in American history. Corporations are flush with cash to spend, but yet, hiring isn't going on. So there goes your theory.
So no, it's not "pretty simple stuff." Corporations don't hire as a result of acquiring capital, they hire in an attempt to meet demand for a good or service. A corporation without much capital, but plenty of demand, can borrow to hire employees anyway.
So no, the bottleneck in our economy right now is not that corporations need more cash before they can hire.
Quote:
3. Social security and medicare is funded through the payroll tax. If you cut the funding for these programs by eliminating that tax, where does the revenue come from?
I answered this question earlier in the thread.
Quote:
4. I can read. You said to increase taxes on corporations and "the rich". Now if you do that , one would offer that those tax increases are in fact tax increases.
One would be pretty daft to believe that what I'm describing is a tax increase. If you cut taxes by $1 trillion and then raise taxes by $1 trillion, you didn't exactly raise taxes, did you?
Furthermore , I did not say "tax the rich." I said "tax wealth." Rather than having TWO business taxes (payroll and corporate), and TWO personal taxes (payroll and personal income), I think we need a flat tax on wealth that includes the net worth of everyone. That includes EVERYONE , not just rich people.
Why do you want to penalize people with middle incomes? What is your problem with them?
Quote:
5. "shift that burden to a wide variety of revenue sources which have a broader base" .................. i.e. tax "the rich" and corporations, thus destroying the economy even further.
A broader base refers to a larger, more diverse group of capital from which we tax.
Right now we put an unfair portion of our taxes on wage earners.
Quote:
Here is a novel idea. If you want social security and medicare, why not keep the taxes in place to pay for it?
sure. just derive those taxes from a source besides the payroll tax.
Quote:
I know that sounds odd to a liberal, but keep in mind that Uncle Sam's bucket is empty and even slavery of the "rich" cannot pay for all the social programs you want.
i don't give a rats ass if we have social welfare programs or not, but if we're going to have them, the tax burden shouldn't fall so heavily on wages. Payroll tax excludes all income over $106,000. It is a welfare system, what sense does that make, letting people opt-out of paying it?
Last edited by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus; 12-08-2011 at 12:24 PM..
..........soooooooo you are robbing Peter to pay Paul and just adding to the national debt and annual deficit with no means of paying for these cuts?
Brilliant.
Newsflash- Nothing is free. Eventually everything has to be paid for. When that time comes, the elderly and poor will be slaughtered due to the "good intentions" of liberals who cannot seem to face reality.
You regurgitated the GOP lie that the tax holiday takes money away from SS. It does not. Be a man, own up.
3. Social security and medicare is funded through the payroll tax. If you cut the funding for these programs by eliminating that tax, where does the revenue come from?
So again.................. which is it?
A. Payroll tax cuts
B. Medicare and Social Security?
I'll take exception here. SS is funded through the general fund. Payroll taxes are just an illusionary manner to keep the masses from rioting. There is no obligation of the government to pay you SS. It is not a legal entitlement of the government either.
Your wife can deposit money into her Christmas account throughout the year. If the transmission breaks, nothing prevents you from spending the money on auto repairs.
I think it would be best to eliminate the illusion. You are correct that reducing the tax will cost us long-term. If there was only one pot of money, at least mentally in the collective mind, citizens might think different about wasting so much money. Right now the low wage employees pay no FIT, but they do help fund the treasury via payroll taxes. Mentally, they believe they have a separate retirement account waiting for them. The government furthers this illusion by sending out annual benefit statements.
The reality is more stark: They can only pay you if they have the money. They are spending more than they tax or borrow. They can't tax enough from the rich to bridge the gap. I'm pretty well off, and could afford more, but it's pointless. Government spending is a cancer. At some point we have to stop it.
I'd eliminate all refundable credits and have the lower wage employees pay some nominal amount. Take them off the tax rolls. Tie their SS benefit to the cash resources available in a given timeframe. If there is a surplus, make a "dividend" payment. This might encourage them to vote for lawmakers who have an incentive to save money rather than spend it.
When I was in industry my big dollars were earned in bonus dollars tied to meeting financial metrics. Later when I owned a company, I was rewarded because I got to keep everything we earned. There was a financial incentive to be a cheap SOB. If the average Joe had the same incentive (no surplus, no SS check), you can bet he'd support the fiscally conservative candidate.
Right now half of America thinks we fund government from one pot, and SS from their own. Anything that comes from the first pot is fair game. They can spend it all day, because they think they are somehow spending my money, and not their own. In a few years they are going to get a rude surprise!
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.
