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.
Obama wants to cut payroll taxes down to 3.1% for both employers & employees. This will help the middle class like nothing we've ever seen before...yet conservatives and some liberals are mysteriously opposed to it. Could it be that this legislation doesn't help the ultra rich which is the reason for resistance? The Tea Partys supposed to be about the middle class,you bozos.
Well, as a conservative, I can tell you I'm opposed to this tax cut b/c it's the only thing funding SS, and in case you haven't noticed, SS is in the crapper.
You don't need to work for big oil or whatever to be able to use one's brain.
While the moves add to the deficit, the administration has said the trust fund would not be affected because the money would be shifted from the general fund and because the change is temporary.
They have already proven they cannot be trusted. They're like kids with their hands in a gigantic cookie jar with SS.
The previous payroll tax cut failed to stimulate the economy and the Obama administration is suggesting to just do more of the same failed policies? I'm shocked, just shocked!
Could it be that this legislation will steal even more revenue from an already financially troubled Social Security program (which will help the elderly)? Or, is the OP in the "push Granny over the cliff" camp?
The Tea Party is about fiscal responsibility. There is nothing fiscally responsible about robbing Peter to pay Paul just to get Paul's vote (which is exactly what this legislation is aimed to accomplish).
Sure, but it's okay in its current form to rob Paul (young workers overpaying into SS) to pay Peter (current people benefiting unfairly from SS taxes that younger workers like Paul will most likely never see)???
The current payroll tax cut was only 2% on the employee side...which we haven't even seen the full benefit of yet. This is 3% on both the employee AND employer side. HUGE Difference. This will work, albeit temporary...if were still in the gutter in Q4 '12, it can be extended again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed
I forgot to mention that no American has a right to the SS money they contributed, it can be denied to you even if you have paid into it since you were 16 or younger.
Exactly, and more of a reason that the middle class SS tax liability should be reduced accordingly.
Sure, but it's okay in its current form to rob Paul (young workers overpaying into SS) to pay Peter (current people benefiting unfairly from SS taxes that younger workers like Paul will most likely never see)???
No one even has to say it ...It's the reality of the current SS system.
Actually, that's not at all what she said....
Yes, that's the reality, but it doesn't have to be that way. If liberals would stop screaming about Repubs wanting to off granny, we might get somewhere with SS reform.
Obama wants to cut payroll taxes down to 3.1% for both employers & employees. This will help the middle class like nothing we've ever seen before...yet conservatives and some liberals are mysteriously opposed to it. Could it be that this legislation doesn't help the ultra rich which is the reason for resistance? The Tea Partys supposed to be about the middle class,you bozos.
Let me see, Social Security started in 2010 to pay out more then they take in.
With millions of people NOT working, therefore NOT contributing to FICA causing even less money to come in.
The Baby boomers are retiring adding a big influx of people getting Social Security.
And you think we should REDUCE what the Social Security admin takes in?
While the moves add to the deficit, the administration has said the trust fund would not be affected because the money would be shifted from the general fund and because the change is temporary.
just between you and me, Social Security payments are currently drawing from the general fund.
I guess you didn't know the dems started that years ago when they decided ALL Social Security monies go to the general fund BEFORE handing some over to the Social Security Admin.
Yes, that's the reality, but it doesn't have to be that way. If liberals would stop screaming about Repubs wanting to off granny, we might get somewhere with SS reform.
Alright then what did she say?
As I read it, she prematurely declared StimII a failure; even though the full effects of this haven't even been realized yet (fiscal effect will last til Spring 2012). Then ironically claimed this legislation is attempting to "steal"... and would rather force people in the pyramid scheme that is SS, to keep paying 6.2% (really 12.4%) of their income towards it. How did you read it?
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.
