Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 168

Thread: GOP may OK tax increase that Obama hopes to block

  1. #31
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: GOP may OK tax increase that Obama hopes to block

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    I am a little confused by the article in the OP, but the hypocrisy of the GOP is not surprising.

    Its not hypocrisy at all....its TYPICAL of the GOP. They will fight tooth and nail to protect the wealthiest of Americans, yet have no problem when it comes to screwing the middle and working class. Any middle/working class person who votes for the Republican party deserves what they get. Unfortunately, their willingness to bend over affects us all.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  2. #32
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: GOP may OK tax increase that Obama hopes to block

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    So...they want people to start contributing at the originally higher (by about 2%) level into a fund for a program that is looking at insolvency in less than 20 years....and people are railing on politicians for this?

    When serious proposals to alter or redirect the path of social security are shot down without consideration, when people use inflammatory language like "throwing grandma off a cliff" or "to hell with old people, right?", and people avoid reality for political expediency, it's frustrating to me that this has become just one more political power play. "Quick, let's throw them under the bus as hypocrites and hope people don't remember that every proposal to change social security to make it solvent has been DOA".


    Tired of the childish games. This slight tax "increase" will not be the end of the world. It never should have been inacted in the first place. If we aren't serious about fixing the problem we should damn sure not take actions that will exacerbate it.
    oh really. they ARE hypocrites, period. this was a break for the poor and middle class, and because it doesn't affect the wealthy (miniscule %), the gop want's to take it away. i cannot believe people could now ever argue that the gop is for lower taxes...they are for lower taxes on the wealthy, period. this is despicable beyond belief. we should be making the ss tax PROGRESSIVE, not regressive as it is. utter, complete, bull**** given to us by the "f*ck the middle class" gop. once again, balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and middle class. how can ANYONE think this is not hypocritical?

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  3. #33
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: GOP may OK tax increase that Obama hopes to block

    Quote Originally Posted by mike2810 View Post
    So as the article stated the 46% who pay no federal income tax, yet will draw Social Security when eligable. will have their rate go back to 6.2%. "Workers normally pay 6.2 percent of their wages toward a tax designated for Social Security. Their employer pays an equal amount, for a total of 12.4 percent per worker.

    As part of a bipartisan spending deal last December, Congress approved Obama's request to reduce the workers' share to 4.2 percent for one year; employers' rate did not change. Obama wants Congress to extend the reduction for an additional year. If not, the rate will return to 6.2 percent on Jan. 1."

    Do the 46% who pay no federal income tax, want SS to be around to draw upon or not? We know SS is in trouble.
    um, seriously. EVERYONE pays social security tax.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  4. #34
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: GOP may OK tax increase that Obama hopes to block

    Quote Originally Posted by mike2810 View Post
    Were they not talking about federal income tax?. That is what I though Obama wanted to change on the "rich". The article refers to the one year reduction of the payroll tax for SS as part of the stimulas package Obama wanted.

    So you are for less revenue going into SS by not having the rate go back to the way it was one year ago? Hope you don't plan on drawing SS then.
    get your facts straight before you argue your points.
    Last edited by liblady; 08-22-11 at 01:06 PM.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  5. #35
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

    Re: GOP may OK tax increase that Obama hopes to block

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    oh really. they ARE hypocrites, period. this was a break for the poor and middle class, and because it doesn't affect the wealthy (miniscule %), the gop want's to take it away. i cannot believe people could now ever argue that the gop is for lower taxes...they are for lower taxes on the wealthy, period. this is despicable beyond belief. we should be making the ss tax PROGRESSIVE, not regressive as it is. utter, complete, bull**** given to us by the "f*ck the middle class" gop. once again, balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and middle class. how can ANYONE think this is not hypocritical?
    Those who pay into the SS fund from the "middle class" will usually pay in less than they will end up receiving once they hit retirement age. A man who makes 250k will typically pay in more than he'll receive, even with the tax cutting off at 106k. So that man is already helping cover other recipients. But people making more than 106K aren't as common as poeple think, and that's why the system is insolvent. Eventually, the fund will run out of money. We are already expecting trillion+ deficits YEARLY for the forseeable future. There is no where else in the current system to get the money to make the programs solvent and yet when somebody makes the pragmatic assertion that we can't keep a intentionally temporary cut in place if we expect to fund the program, people want to get up in arms and act as though this is some high crime.

    You can't have it both ways. You can't demand a steady stream of tax-funded entitlements and not provide enought tax coverage to make them work. Taxes suck, period. But when nobody is willing to fix what's wrong with Social Security, the most illogical step you can take is to decrease the funding for it. This is a tax that already existed, and a cut that wasn't meant to be permanent.

    A man making $50,000 a year (roughly median income) will see an increased tax obligation of $83.33 a month. Most people being paid bi-weekly or twice monthly means that you're looking at either $38.46 or $41.67 a paycheck. So that's one dinner out, or dropping the home phone line, or taking lunch to work instead of eating fast food, or shopping for clothes at bargain stores instead of JC Penney, or cutting weekend driving by doing errands on the way home after work, or setting the thermostate 1 degree higher in the summer and 1 degree lower in the winter while unplugging appliances when you aren't home. It's making a very small concession so that the retirement you're depending on is available to you when you need it. It's your future financial stability that's being threatened because somebody thought it would be a good idea in the first place to make a cut in the taxes that fund a program that's already at risk of being underwater.

    Hypocrites in the GOP? Yeah, probably. That's like saying grass is green or rain is wet. It's also like saying there are hypocrites on the left. The fact still remains, this is a tax that is supposed to directly benefit the person paying it, even if not immediately. And since we (in general) are so damned bad and protecting our own retirements through investments and savings, we can either bitch about how crappy our politicians are, or we can swallow the pill and hope to GOD they don't screw SS up further before we retire, so that this money being contributed is still available when we need it.
    Last edited by tessaesque; 08-22-11 at 01:17 PM.
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


  6. #36
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,741

    Re: GOP may OK tax increase that Obama hopes to block

    I think both the Bush tax cuts and SS tax "holiday" should expire. Whether you call that "raising taxes" or "letting temporary cuts expire" is irrelevant.

    But when a Democrat proposes letting the Bush tax cuts expire, it's class warfare. But also 47% of people paying no federal income tax - a situation created by these very tax cuts in the first place - is unfair. Sigh.
    Last edited by Deuce; 08-22-11 at 01:39 PM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  7. #37
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: GOP may OK tax increase that Obama hopes to block

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    Those who pay into the SS fund from the "middle class" will usually pay in less than they will end up receiving once they hit retirement age. A man who makes 250k will typically pay in more than he'll receive, even with the tax cutting off at 106k. So that man is already helping cover other recipients. But people making more than 106K aren't as common as poeple think, and that's why the system is insolvent. Eventually, the fund will run out of money. We are already expecting trillion+ deficits YEARLY for the forseeable future. There is no where else in the current system to get the money to make the programs solvent and yet when somebody makes the pragmatic assertion that we can't keep a intentionally temporary cut in place if we expect to fund the program, people want to get up in arms and act as though this is some high crime.

    You can't have it both ways. You can't demand a steady stream of tax-funded entitlements and not provide enought tax coverage to make them work. Taxes suck, period. But when nobody is willing to fix what's wrong with Social Security, the most illogical step you can take is to decrease the funding for it. This is a tax that already existed, and a cut that wasn't meant to be permanent.

    A man making $50,000 a year (roughly median income) will see an increased tax obligation of $83.33 a month. Most people being paid bi-weekly or twice monthly means that you're looking at either $38.46 or $41.67 a paycheck. So that's one dinner out, or dropping the home phone line, or taking lunch to work instead of eating fast food, or shopping for clothes at bargain stores instead of JC Penney, or cutting weekend driving by doing errands on the way home after work, or setting the thermostate 1 degree higher in the summer and 1 degree lower in the winter while unplugging appliances when you aren't home. It's making a very small concession so that the retirement you're depending on is available to you when you need it. It's your future financial stability that's being threatened because somebody thought it would be a good idea in the first place to make a cut in the taxes that fund a program that's already at risk of being underwater.

    Hypocrites in the GOP? Yeah, probably. That's like saying grass is green or rain is wet. It's also like saying there are hypocrites on the left. The fact still remains, this is a tax that is supposed to directly benefit the person paying it, even if not immediately. And since we (in general) are so damned bad and protecting our own retirements through investments and savings, we can either bitch about how crappy our politicians are, or we can swallow the pill and hope to GOD they don't screw SS up further before we retire, so that this money being contributed is still available when we need it.
    as someone else posted......taking that money out of the middle class and poor's pockets is stupid as it directly affects their ability to purchase. you like the tax cuts for the wealthy, but not the poor?

    and as i posted, this tax is regressive. a person making 250k is certainly paying a far, far, far smaller percentage of their salary to social security. THAT's what needs to change. i don't think it's fair to only ask SOME people to swallow the pill, why do you?

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  8. #38
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,470

    Re: GOP may OK tax increase that Obama hopes to block

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    The temporary reduction in the payroll tax has reduced cash inflows to Social Security. It has had an actuarial impact on the program's long-term imbalances. Moreover, the Social Security Disability Insurance program is nearing insolvency. Unless some offset is found to focus on Social Security's long-term future, which is vital given the importance of the program, I don't necessarily disagree with allowing the temporary tax reduction to expire. This, in my opinion, is a clear example where the long-term should take precedence over the short-term.
    Unless they are basically slicing the SS tax, I don't see how it's possible. I really don't see how Making Work Pay should bankrupt SS in itself. Payroll tax could refer to a lot of things. That's why I said the article in the OP isn't clear.

  9. #39
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

    Re: GOP may OK tax increase that Obama hopes to block

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    as someone else posted......taking that money out of the middle class and poor's pockets is stupid as it directly affects their ability to purchase. you like the tax cuts for the wealthy, but not the poor?

    and as i posted, this tax is regressive. a person making 250k is certainly paying a far, far, far smaller percentage of their salary to social security. THAT's what needs to change. i don't think it's fair to only ask SOME people to swallow the pill, why do you?
    Everybody's swallowing the pill. Did you completely ignore the first part of my post? People making more than 106k are already paying for themselves and a portion of somebody else, in terms of social security. And somebody making the median income, at the standard rate of 6.2% doesn't pay in enough to cover their benefits from 66 until death (assuming average life expectancy).

    I have never said I propose cutting taxes for the wealthy and not for anybody else. Not once. You're making stupid assumptions based on a stupid bias you've developed thanks to political talking points. Think and act for yourself, not for labels. What I do not support are taxes that would put a heavier burden on specific income levels based solely on an arbitrary income (i.e. $250k in every state, county, city, etc, despite standard of living and cost of living variations) in defense of "easing the strain on the middle class", as though punishing success is going to encourage growth in any capacity.

    The "rich" will not likely need social security. The middle class will. And part of the reason they will is because they don't prepare for their own futures. People in America are practically famous for spending everything they earn (and then some) without planning for future needs. And we've been taught that social security will keep us comfy in retirement. This is a program we're expecting to support us, but wait....we want somebody else to pay for that protection? Why do we get to shirk our responsibilities to ourselves simply because we aren't "rich"? What the hell logic is that?
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


  10. #40
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: GOP may OK tax increase that Obama hopes to block

    The bottom line is that this is a temporary tax cut designed to stimulate the economy. If the economy goes completely in the tank it will have a far greater effect on SS's viability than this temporary tax cut.

Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •