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.
The decrease should never have been given in the first place. Even the 2% for the first two years of his term I would give him, but not an extension after that. If anything, those with a 401K who either aren't contributing at all or aren't contributing enough can offset their taxable income by contributing more to their 401K. If you were running your budget under cost as it is, the only affect something like this has is that it will prevent you from keeping that extra two percent to do with it as you wish.
Which means I buy less goods...which means the companies I purchase from sell less goods...which means they employ fewer people....which means they have even less to buy goods...which means companies sell less goods....
An no, we can't just up our 401K contribution to offset the 2%. Do you even think before you post? If a family can't afford the 2% tax increase, what makes you think they can afford to up the contribution to a 401K enough to elminate that tax increase? Most of us haven't had a raise in several years.
Hopefully, 2% is small enough to be absorbed but we will see people buying less as a result but it will impact the economy. Dh and I have to find a way to spend $2500 less this year beause that's how much less we'll have. I don't know about you but $50/week is significant to my budget. For us, it means that eating out just went from once a month to zero times a month, clothing allowances will be cut and I'll cut what I spend on my classroom (sorry kids, you will not get to do the S'mores lab this year because your teacher can't afford the ingredients and Mrs. ombummer says the school can't pay for the Hershey bars because it's junk food. Sadly, this is the best way I've found to teach limiting reactants so that the kids UNDERSTAND it. They get it when they can't make more S'mores....oh well...)
Wait a second, when the payroll tax cut was put up, weren't you among those saying it would not help people as it was an insignificant gesture? Now you are saying it will hurt people to take it away? Please clarify.
i will clarify for you.
it will hurt spending in a SERVICE economy, and give the money to crooks who will then blow it on raises for themselves.
so far they have blown every penny they ever collected, and now are gambling with future pension money.
It is in the sense that obummer could have extended the expiration or made the cuts permanent. He chose not to so he chose for taxes to go up.
It is really not for the president to adjust tax rates, it is for the Congress. Write to your Congressman and tell them you want temporary stimulus programs to become permanent. People like you love the "stimulus", but you do not understand we cannot afford to stimulate the economy on permanent bases. This is why such programs are temporary.
it will hurt spending in a SERVICE economy, and give the money to crooks who will then blow it on raises for themselves.
so far they have blown every penny they ever collected, and now are gambling with future pension money.
is that clear enough?
The problem is that we have not seen raises in the past few years. So people already can afford less. The assumption was that the economy would grow and that people would get raises before the tax cuts expired. If that had happened, the cuts expiring wouldn't matter but it didn't so it does. Especially in a service economy.
Don't get me started on the waste in the government. You could cut the buget by 25% and not reduce services if you actually made people do their jobs.
Heaven forbid that working people should actually have a few 100 more $ to do with as they wish. Even if they don't use it for rent, food, winter clothes, medicine, a child's education, crazy stuff like that, it would be selfish and downright Un-American to allow us to spend money on frills like [gulp !] a vacation, home renovations, a new computer, or other unnecessary crud.
You have to raise taxes and cut spending. It's the only way out. Pain now, gain later. But they don't want to do both. The 2% deduction wasn't necessary and was only used as political good will/to buy votes, in my opinion. Fair taxation, of course, but this obsession with cutting taxes religiously by the Republicans and Democrats I will never understand. First rule of business, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" and all that kind of stuff does is produce the fake economies we've had.
Which means I buy less goods...which means the companies I purchase from sell less goods...which means they employ fewer people....which means they have even less to buy goods...which means companies sell less goods....
An no, we can't just up our 401K contribution to offset the 2%. Do you even think before you post? If a family can't afford the 2% tax increase, what makes you think they can afford to up the contribution to a 401K enough to elminate that tax increase? Most of us haven't had a raise in several years.
Hopefully, 2% is small enough to be absorbed but we will see people buying less as a result but it will impact the economy. Dh and I have to find a way to spend $2500 less this year beause that's how much less we'll have. I don't know about you but $50/week is significant to my budget. For us, it means that eating out just went from once a month to zero times a month, clothing allowances will be cut and I'll cut what I spend on my classroom (sorry kids, you will not get to do the S'mores lab this year because your teacher can't afford the ingredients and Mrs. ombummer says the school can't pay for the Hershey bars because it's junk food. Sadly, this is the best way I've found to teach limiting reactants so that the kids UNDERSTAND it. They get it when they can't make more S'mores....oh well...)
If 2% is going to make or break you then you cannot AFFORD to have a family. Kids are a LUXURY and people one or two paychecks from bankruptcy should have saved more before taking the plunge.
If 2% is going to make or break you then you cannot AFFORD to have a family. Kids are a LUXURY and people one or two paychecks from bankruptcy should have saved more before taking the plunge.
Good grief. Take a reading comprehension course. I didn't say it's going to break me. I said I will have to budget more which means I spend less which means less goods are purchased...now multiply by every middle class family out there. This WILL have a negative impact on the economy. THAT's what I said. Most families will have to adjust spending accordingly and that means fewer goods and services will be purchased. As a teacher, it means I'm not supplying pencils and paper to your kids anymore and we're not doing the labs I spend out of pocket to do (like the S'mores lab my students are looking forward to because I'm not buying the chocolate and graham crackers...). For my family, it means we will elminate going out to dinner once a month and spend less on clothes.
AND whether or not I can still afford my family isn't up for debate. They are here and I have to take care of them. Period. It's not like I can go back in time and prevent the births of my kids. Do you even read what you wrote before you hit the post button? Let's say you're right and I can't afford my family. What would you propose I do?? Shoot them?
Good grief. Take a reading comprehension course. I didn't say it's going to break me. I said I will have to budget more which means I spend less which means less goods are purchased...now multiply by every middle class family out there. This WILL have a negative impact on the economy. THAT's what I said.
AND whether or not I can still afford my family isn't up for debate. They are here and I have to take care of them. Period. It's not like I can go back in time and prevent the births of my kids.
That is not the case with everyone, it is true only with people like you who spend all their money on purchasing stuff. Such people will spend less, but fiscally conservative people like me will have the choise to either spend 2% less, or save 2% less.
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.
Sadly, this is the best way I've found to teach limiting reactants so that the kids UNDERSTAND it. They get it when they can't make more S'mores....oh well...)
Most families will have to adjust spending accordingly and that means fewer goods and services will be purchased. As a teacher, it means I'm not supplying pencils and paper to your kids anymore and we're not doing the labs I spend out of pocket to do (like the S'mores lab my students are looking forward to because I'm not buying the chocolate and graham crackers...). For my family, it means we will elminate going out to dinner once a month and spend less on clothes.
