• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP may OK tax increase that Obama hopes to block

So a couple of things here I'm wondering then my thoughts...

Liberals. All thorughout the Bush Tax Cut debate in December many steadfastly stated that not extending the Bush Tax Cuts was not a tax INCREASE but rather simply letting tax rates go back to what they were supposed to be since it was just expiring. As such, is what the Republicans doing a tax increase or is it simply letting the tax rates go back ot what they were supposed to be?

Similarly, to conservatives. Throughout the Bush Tax Cut debate in December many of you stated that regardless of the way it happened, the actions of the Democrats would cause taxes to increase and thus they were pushing a tax increase. Are the republicans now pushing a tax increase?

Here's my view on this...

Yep, its a tax increase. Its also one I have no huge issue with. I think the economic benefit of the additional money it puts into the market is largely negated by the short term nature of it, which I think is likely to lead it to be saved or simply used to pay down debt rather than actually significantly reinvested back into the economy on the near term. One or two year temporary tax holidays do little but let people have money they know is temporary and tenuous during a troubled time for the economy. What helps to stimulate is conrete, stable, secure economic conditions and a short term drop doesn't really do that.

Do I have a huge issue with the payroll tax holiday occuring? Not at all. I don't have an issue with it being passed. I'm not necessarily angry if it doesn't get passed either because I can objectively look at, understand, and agree with the reason for opposing it.

I do find it a wonderfully delicious bit of hypocrisy on BOTH sides, though I find utmost and distinct humor in the fact that the AP via MSNBC decided to...shockingly...focus only on the republicans. On one side, you have Republicans pushing against something that would cut taxes and put money into peoples pockets. On the flip side, you have Democrats pushing for something that will reduce revenue during a time when they say its most important to increase revenue.
 
A temp reduction in the employee paid for part of SS

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.
 
wealth trickles up, as well. the GOP seems to spend less time thinking about that possibility.

that being said, i don't see a way to make social security solvent without increasing revenue. my opinion is that raising the contribution ceiling is the most feasible solution.

I would like to see the reduction lapse AND remove the ceiling...
 
The terminology of letting the tax holiday expire is irrelevant. It boils down to the fact that more revenue is needed to keep social security solvent; even more revenue than will be generated by the end of the tax holiday. The best solution I see is to raise the ceiling.
 
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.
So...you are a GOPer???
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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:
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:
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:
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Are you really surprised that the GOP would oppose gimmick tax cuts that rob SS for another year when they plan to simplify the entire tax code ASAP?

So now the GOP cares about saving SS... :lamo
 
So now the GOP cares about saving SS... :lamo

Yeah, except for GOP candidates like Rick Perry who says that SS is unconstitutional. :roll:
 
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?
You want the wealthy to be taxed more to pay for social security benefits of the poor? Is that the gist of it? As I understand it now people are currently capped at income levels based primarily on what their level of return of investment is. Someone that makes over...what is it...$104k is taxed the same as someone that makes $500k...because the rate of return will be the same regardless. So you believe that regardless of the capped rate of return, those that make more than $104k should have to pay more into a retirement account that they will never possibly receive a benefit from. Am I tracking you correctly?
 
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.

The employees SS tax was 6.2 in 2010...

What is the Social Security tax rate for 2010? | AccountingCoach.com Q&A
 
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.

You mean it's OK for General Electric to pay no tax, and get handouts from the government on top of that, but it's not OK to have workers' tax burdens reduced? Sounds kind of robber baronish to me.
 
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.
Youre right! And the wealthy should pay for it with a 10% tax increase. They can afford it. Im tired of selfish people. Im also tired of shelfish people.

(BTW there are selfish liberals too that are in poverty and CAN help it. Im not dismissing them. But THEY dont have any money to help)
 
Last edited:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-08-21-09-31-18

Many of the same Republicans who fought hammer-and-tong to keep the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts from expiring on schedule are now saying a different "temporary" tax cut should end as planned. By their own definition, that amounts to a tax increase.]News from The Associated Press

Nothing like the Right's "intellectual consistency." It really just confirms to me exactly what's wrong in Washington -- Our idea = good, their idea=bad. This tax cut wasn't the GOP's idea, therefore it is bad.


(Knee-jerk defense starting in 3,2,1)
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Two threads merged
 
Youre right! And the wealthy should pay for it with a 10% tax increase. They can afford it. Im tired of selfish people. Im also tired of shelfish people.

(BTW there are selfish liberals too that are in poverty and CAN help it. Im not dismissing them. But THEY dont have any money to help)

So you want to control people from being selfish? How about angry people - 10% tax on them too?
 
Back
Top Bottom