U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-07-2013, 12:07 AM
 
4,628 posts, read 3,242,398 times
Reputation: 2932

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
Payroll Tax Cut: Some Republicans Willing To Back Obama's Proposal



So was Obama serious when he wouldn't offer the specific reductions in spending and changes in SS to get a consensus on extending the tax holiday? Or was it more campaign style smoke screening? Up to the individual I guess. Am I correct you are willing to allow more stress on the stability of SS or are you supporting raising the retirement age? Please don't start the lifting the cap as that is just more taxation and wealth transfer.
I would call a two year payroll tax cut more than a smoke screen. At the end of 2011 the GOP had to be shamed into coming back to Washington to approve the extension. It was never meant to be permanent and with all the issues at the end of 2012 it was time to let it go.

Why is allowing the payroll tax cut (a temporary measure) to expire OK with the GOP, but allowing the Bush tax cuts (temporary measures) to expire is characterized as a tax increase?

The far right GOP members made it very clear they would have performed deficit reduction entirely on the back of Medicare and Social Security (entitlements) with NO increase in revenues.

And what of the massive wealth transfer that has occurred over the past thirty years? It seems any effort to slow the massive transfer to the wealthiest among us is now viewed as a bad thing?

"...the top 1 percent has done progressively better in each economic recovery of the past two decades. In the Clinton era expansion, 45 percent of the total income gains went to the top 1 percent; in the Bush recovery, the figure was 65 percent; now it is 93 percent."

Unless you are in that top 1% (or believe in "trickle down" voodoo) it is hard to see why anyone would defend wealth transfer to the wealthy while the middle class continues to lose ground.

Last edited by shaker281; 01-07-2013 at 12:45 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-07-2013, 12:17 AM
 
4,628 posts, read 3,242,398 times
Reputation: 2932
Quote:
Originally Posted by dshawg1 View Post
Actually I think the age should be lifted, benefits cuts are my personal preference (YES, a bush proposal!), partly privatizing. Unfortunately the latter will never happen. SOMETHING needs to be done. It is unacceptable this congress is worthless and nobody has any confidence anything will happen.
There is no doubt that the SS and Medicare ages will be increased and benefits will be cut. As to privatizing, should we let the same folks who did so well with derivatives, credit default swaps, mortgage backed securities and pension funds handle the process?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2013, 12:27 AM
 
4,628 posts, read 3,242,398 times
Reputation: 2932
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
This is very real. My wife works in an environment where most employees are quite hostile to President Obama. One woman she works with refused to accept the fact he was really an American citizen even after his birth certificate was made public. There are more people out there like this than one realizes and they believe some pretty strange things. All the logic and evidence in the world won't persuade them. I think its because hatred can really take on irrational dimensions.

When there is a republican in office next time, some democrats will probably do the same thing.

I'm getting a little tired of party politics. I used to think it was a good thing. I'm starting to believe it may turn out to the ruination of the USA.
I don't see it as party politics. I think it has to do with ignorance and narrow-mindedness. To many, the concept of compromise is evil. Look at what is going on within the GOP. Individual factions and ideology are set to tear that party to shreds. If they try and adapt, there may well be a major split in the party that could deal it a death blow. If they don't change their message, they are certain to continue losing ground.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2013, 06:50 AM
 
706 posts, read 1,205,404 times
Reputation: 369
The House GOP hopefully will moderate sum with the turnover, we will see....GOP still runs the house though...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2013, 07:41 AM
 
31,028 posts, read 37,114,091 times
Reputation: 13325
Quote:
Originally Posted by dshawg1 View Post
The House GOP hopefully will moderate sum with the turnover, we will see....GOP still runs the house though...
Yup and fiscal matters are suppose to originate there.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2013, 07:45 AM
 
31,028 posts, read 37,114,091 times
Reputation: 13325
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281 View Post
I would call a two year payroll tax cut more than a smoke screen. At the end of 2011 the GOP had to be shamed into coming back to Washington to approve the extension. It was never meant to be permanent and with all the issues at the end of 2012 it was time to let it go.

Why is allowing the payroll tax cut (a temporary measure) to expire OK with the GOP, but allowing the Bush tax cuts (temporary measures) to expire is characterized as a tax increase?

The far right GOP members made it very clear they would have performed deficit reduction entirely on the back of Medicare and Social Security (entitlements) with NO increase in revenues.

And what of the massive wealth transfer that has occurred over the past thirty years? It seems any effort to slow the massive transfer to the wealthiest among us is now viewed as a bad thing?

"...the top 1 percent has done progressively better in each economic recovery of the past two decades. In the Clinton era expansion, 45 percent of the total income gains went to the top 1 percent; in the Bush recovery, the figure was 65 percent; now it is 93 percent."

Unless you are in that top 1% (or believe in "trickle down" voodoo) it is hard to see why anyone would defend wealth transfer to the wealthy while the middle class continues to lose ground.
Yeah I do believe in trickle down if you are willing to accept the drip. Many folks aren't and would rather fight the system instead of participating in it. We each have to decide and it really is truly more than the top one percent who are prospering a lot more. I just wish pundits would spend more time trying to teach and help the middle class with wealth accumulation instead of consumption. We could do so much more for people if we encouraged intergenerational wealth accumulation and supported the traditional family structure more so it could take hold again. Did the president ever try to see if he could get the Republicans on board for letting the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone and not just those above a certain income level. Now what was the problem with the sequester again? Was it a short term or long term problem/solution.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2013, 09:58 AM
 
22,769 posts, read 27,840,773 times
Reputation: 14617
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
It wasn't increased; it reverted back to where it was 2 years ago.
how pedantic can you be ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacerta View Post
Yeah, this is my biggest problem with "tax holidays". Everyone thinks that when they expire, the government is "raising taxes". It isn't a tax raise, it is just an expiration of a temporary tax break.
If people would pick one definition and stick with it, then I would agree with you. However it seems as though the majority of people flip-flop on this issue depending on whether the temporary tax change benefits them or not. See the "Bush tax cuts" as an example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
FICA today needs to be shored up because tomorrow's seniors won't have any retirement income by the looks of things. The older boomers are the last breed to live "beneath" their means and save while everyone else jumped on the DEBT WAGON (a/k/a credit).

That's reality folks, like it or not.
That's not reality. Congress+Gov't could eliminate FICA entirely, print the money to run SS, and the system would work just fine.

Having the payroll tax just screws the working class (in particular the upper-middle), by allowing most of the major financial players in the U.S. economy to simply "opt-out" of this glorified welfare scheme. Our current FICA system ensures that the $100k'ers are supporting the $10k'ers so the $500k'ers and $7 million/year earners don't have to.

Last edited by le roi; 01-07-2013 at 10:10 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2013, 10:01 AM
 
19,346 posts, read 17,010,220 times
Reputation: 7519
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281 View Post
In that case, no one actually gets paid or receives any benefits from their labor, because it is all passed on to the consumer.

Junk logic.
I can't even understand what you are trying to say. If it costs me $20 per hour to provide for a worker, I am going to need the gross receipts to be above $20 just to pay for labor . If the marginal profit is $1 and then suddenly "da guberment" decides I need to contribute $1 more to SS, I have reached the break even point. That is typically when staff reduction begins to occur and/or wages are frozen.

No employer cares what you make, just what you cost them. FICA costs them.


You will learn that in any introductory micro economics course, and having had a business of my own, I see no reason that I would disagree with it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2013, 10:18 AM
 
Location: Grosse Ile Michigan
28,941 posts, read 69,057,426 times
Reputation: 35383
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
It wasn't increased; it reverted back to where it was 2 years ago.

That was a "tax holiday", not a tax change and was only supposed to be in place for 1 year.
FICA funds your future retirement. We should have been upset that it was lowered to begin with.
If anything it should be raised IMHO. With pensions gone and 401K savings lackluster, future generations are going to depended on SS as their primary retirement income, not as supplemental retirement income.

And 2% doesn't amount to much really if you do the math..$20/week for a $50K/year salary.

Not mine. I am only 49. I will never see any social security payout. However it is funding my Dad's retirement and several older friend's. My brother is getting panicky over this. He is in his 50s and has no retirement. No pension, no 401K and it looks like he will not get social security. My plan is to work until I die, but he may not be able to. His work is physical and he has some stiffness issues already. I do not think he has any long term disability insurance. I guess he could get welfare if he has to retire. He already lives without gas or electricity (heats with kerosene and uses a propane powered fridge). He may end up better off with welfare. Maybe welfare is the new retirement plan for some people.

For our family the ss increase s a couple of hundred dollars a month less per check. Because of the recession, and constantly declining pay (I am making just over half of 2008 salary), we have cut and cut. I am not sure where we are going to cut another $200/month, but we will figure it out. There are some other new taxes or fees or whatever people want to call them (money leaving my check and going to government coffers - call it whatever makes you feel better. To me it is taxes by a different name). I am not sure of the full impact yet. Definitely a downturn in our income.

On the plus side, we may now qualify for some tax credits we could not get when our income was higher.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2013, 10:36 AM
 
19,346 posts, read 17,010,220 times
Reputation: 7519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldjensens View Post
Not mine. I am only 49. I will never see any social security payout. However it is funding my Dad's retirement and several older friend's. My brother is getting panicky over this. He is in his 50s and has no retirement. No pension, no 401K and it looks like he will not get social security. My plan is to work until I die, but he may not be able to. His work is physical and he has some stiffness issues already. I do not think he has any long term disability insurance. I guess he could get welfare if he has to retire. He already lives without gas or electricity (heats with kerosene and uses a propane powered fridge). He may end up better off with welfare. Maybe welfare is the new retirement plan for some people.

For our family the ss increase s a couple of hundred dollars a month less per check. Because of the recession, and constantly declining pay (I am making just over half of 2008 salary), we have cut and cut. I am not sure where we are going to cut another $200/month, but we will figure it out. There are some other new taxes or fees or whatever people want to call them (money leaving my check and going to government coffers - call it whatever makes you feel better. To me it is taxes by a different name). I am not sure of the full impact yet. Definitely a downturn in our income.

On the plus side, we may now qualify for some tax credits we could not get when our income was higher.
Why do you think people will not get social security payments? Its not a fiscal or solvency issue. There is no financial issue at all. The issue is a political one. It is also dependent upon what the buying power of the payment will have.


All we need is a pay-as-you-go retirement system as a transfer payment more akin to welfare that is linked to the demographic, not age. Set a sustainable worker to retiree ratio like 4 or 5 workers to 1 retiree and pay out for basic food and housing. Tossing old people out on the street will destroy the country. Who would want to live and work here or join the army? However it can't be 1 to 1 ratios with 30 year retirements which is what SS was turning into.

All this pseudo saving up for the future is just an unnecessary tax since I see nothing on the supply side for it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top