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.
Michelle Bachman made a solid point on why she did not vote for the pay roll tax holiday, it ran up 110 billion in debt. And if passed again it will run up another 112 billion in debt. In other words this is like a back door stimulus for our poor excuse of a economy. When there is less money being put into the the so called trust fund it has to come out of the general budget to pay current retiree"s.
We all know there is not a single thin dime in the trust fund and both parties are guilty of spending the money.
To me this looks like a attempt to let SSI wither on the vine. If the {R}s vote to restore the pay roll tax they will be on record as voting for a tax increase. They will be slammed by the {D}s as wanting to give tax cuts to the rich and tax increases to the poor. We are hearing that rhetoric right now.
So this argument could go on year after year and new ones will be created such as the economy is too weak to restore the pay roll tax. And after awhile we will have bi partisan support to never restore the pay roll tax and continue to run up massive amount of debt to pay off current recipients.
In the end SSI will either be scaled back dramatically or just wither on the vine where our gvt is so broke it no longer exist. Keep in mind the SC has ruled that there is no legal obligation for the gvt to pay you anything. After years and years of no one putting money into SSI our leaders can justify you did not pay into and it went broke.
So what do you think ? are our leaders letting SSI wither on the vine and the pay roll tax will never be restored ?
I think the GOP has really exposed its hyporcisy by saying that the payroll tax cut increases the deficiet. Yes, it does. That's why I'm against it. I'm also against all Bush tax cuts because they increase it as well. If the GOP was as concerned about the debt as they pretend to be, they'd be willing to increase taxes.
I think the GOP has really exposed its hyporcisy by saying that the payroll tax cut increases the deficiet. Yes, it does. That's why I'm against it. I'm also against all Bush tax cuts because they increase it as well. If the GOP was as concerned about the debt as they pretend to be, they'd be willing to increase taxes.
I can meet you half way on this. During the Reagan years tax rates were cut dramatically and the U S had stronger production. Now the economy is being gassed by 72% consuming but only 28% production. As we all know the U S is not really the biggest benefactor of a consumer economy. And the fundamentals of our economy are out of whack.
So much so there always has to be some kind of stimulus under Clinton,Bush and now Obama. What would take place if there is no gimmicks or stimulus ? our GDP as sorry as it is would be worse.
The 110 billion plus is nothing to sneeze at but it is a band aid to our real problems. I would not argue that it is not a factor in gassing the economy but it just hides the true nature of where we really are. I am for restoring the payroll tax because it does not fix anything and is running up debt. As far as taxes we need to scrap the whole Marxist system.
The 110 billion plus is nothing to sneeze at but it is a band aid to our real problems. I would not argue that it is not a factor in gassing the economy but it just hides the true nature of where we really are. I am for restoring the payroll tax because it does not fix anything and is running up debt. As far as taxes we need to scrap the whole Marxist system.
Right - temporary tax cuts don't fix anything. They need to be permanent. The Bush tax cuts have basically become permanent; getting rid of them would be the same as a tax increase.
The payroll tax cut is simply taking money from the SS trust fund, requiring SS benefits to be paid from general revenue further running up debt.
Michelle Bachman made a solid point on why she did not vote for the pay roll tax holiday, it ran up 110 billion in debt. And if passed again it will run up another 112 billion in debt. In other words this is like a back door stimulus for our poor excuse of a economy. When there is less money being put into the the so called trust fund it has to come out of the general budget to pay current retiree"s.
We all know there is not a single thin dime in the trust fund and both parties are guilty of spending the money.
To me this looks like a attempt to let SSI wither on the vine. If the {R}s vote to restore the pay roll tax they will be on record as voting for a tax increase. They will be slammed by the {D}s as wanting to give tax cuts to the rich and tax increases to the poor. We are hearing that rhetoric right now.
So this argument could go on year after year and new ones will be created such as the economy is too weak to restore the pay roll tax. And after awhile we will have bi partisan support to never restore the pay roll tax and continue to run up massive amount of debt to pay off current recipients.
In the end SSI will either be scaled back dramatically or just wither on the vine where our gvt is so broke it no longer exist. Keep in mind the SC has ruled that there is no legal obligation for the gvt to pay you anything. After years and years of no one putting money into SSI our leaders can justify you did not pay into and it went broke.
So what do you think ? are our leaders letting SSI wither on the vine and the pay roll tax will never be restored ?
Swingblade, thank you for highlighting the major philosophical can of worms that was opened by the payroll tax cut. Social Security proponents over the past seventy years maintained a strict adherence to the "insurance" aspects of the plan: people paid in, and received benefits back in some proportion to their contributions. This is the ONLY difference between Social Security and plain old welfare.
Public support for Social Security ultimately depends on this distinction. Tens of millions looked forward to the day when they could collect their SS benefits; almost nobody thinks fondly ahead to the day when they can collect welfare.
And let's not bother with the nuance that the payroll tax cut is "paid for" by a tranfer from the general funds. The fact is, the distinction between Social Security and welfare has been weakened by the tax cut. For purposes of this discussion, forget about the need for adjustments to keep it working over the long term, too. That is a separate question.
I am convinced that the payroll tax cut was put in place for different reasons by different politicians. Some were motivated by the express purpose of weakening the political compact between the people and the government that has supported Social Security all these years. Others wanted to "help the poor" or downtrodden middle class. The Dems were short-sighted in pursuing their objective; the Republicans were farsighted in allowing the can of worms to be opened.
One aspect of this that comes out in the current debate: Obama recently said it would be "a catastrophe" if the payroll tax cut is not extended. Some economists think it will hurt the economy. But what if, instead of a payroll tax cut, Washington came out with a credible plan to put Social Security on a sound basis for decades to come, with some future adjustment in benefits and an immediate moderate payroll tax increase? Wouldn't most of us feel better and more confident about the future? Sure, we'd have a tiny bit less money in our paycheck, but our confidence would be better. I think this would be the best thing to do with Social Security right now, and would strengthen the economy, not hurt it.
Right - temporary tax cuts don't fix anything. They need to be permanent. The Bush tax cuts have basically become permanent; getting rid of them would be the same as a tax increase.
The payroll tax cut is simply taking money from the SS trust fund, requiring SS benefits to be paid from general revenue further running up debt.
You might agree when a situation changes what worked real good in the past could turn out not to work so good in the future. Case in point, the Reagan tax cuts where rates were cut dramatically when the top rate went from 70% to 28% { guessing} No doubt with such a shift it created growth in the economy.
Take way one year and the treasury also took in more revenue due to the fact there was low UE and massive job creation. Move along to the Clinton years when the top rate was increased and the {R}s were screaming about it will slow the economy. Did that take place, no. Why, we had a boom in I T remember Y2K all the technology?
What was driving the economy in the Bush years ? was it the tax cuts ? or was it the housing boom ? I would say that the housing boom had more to do with gassing the economy then the tax cuts. With the Bush tax cuts still in place we had a crash.
Poor Obama he has no boom driving the economy, so he cuts the payroll tax to try to create one. And what do we have ? are we seeing a boom in hiring ? is our GDP really any better or is it smoke and mirrors ? is the U S benfitting more from the tax cut then China? Since the economy is so out of whack Obama is right it would be devatasting to the economy when consumers have less in their pockets.
There is other factors then tax cut/increase, and we can keep raising and lowering and adding to the deficit.
I'm also against all Bush tax cuts because they increase it as well.
The tax cuts did not create budget deficits. Your spending on wars created those deficits, and you need those wars to maintain your life-style, unless you're willing to give up your life-style.
I sure as hell don't want it to wither. I may need it when I retire, in 2031. The way it is going, it will not be there at all. Which would be a real screw job, as I have been paying into it for over 30 years.
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.
