• 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

The Giant Noodle

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
7,332
Reaction score
2,011
Location
Northern Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The GOP now want to hurt everyone BUT the wealthy. Great job guys! :lol:


News flash: Congressional Republicans want to raise your taxes. Impossible, right? GOP lawmakers are so virulently anti-tax, surely they will fight to prevent a payroll tax increase on virtually every wage-earner starting Jan. 1, right?
Apparently not.
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.
The tax break extension they oppose is sought by President Barack Obama. Unlike proposed changes in the income tax, this policy helps the 46 percent of all Americans who owe no federal income taxes but who pay a "payroll tax" on practically every dime they earn.
There are other differences as well, and Republicans say their stand is consistent with their goal of long-term tax policies that will spur employment and lend greater certainty to the economy.
"It's always a net positive to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn," says Rep. Jeb Hensarling, "but not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again." The Texas lawmaker is on the House GOP leadership team.

CONTINUED: GOP may OK tax hike that Obama hopes to block - politics - msnbc.com
 
Yes, because MSNBC doesn't hate the GOP at all... What is the tax break extension specifically?
 
Yes, because MSNBC doesn't hate the GOP at all... What is the tax break extension specifically?
A temp reduction in the employee paid for part of SS
 
Yes, because MSNBC doesn't hate the GOP at all... What is the tax break extension specifically?

What is your point? Most everyone who ISNT a GOPer hates them. They are incompetent, hypocritical fools that seem to deep-six America when they hold office. (minus Ron Paul)
 
GOP may OK tax increase that Obama hopes to block - Yahoo! News

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.


The tax break extension they oppose is sought by President Barack Obama. Unlike proposed changes in the income tax, this policy helps the 46 percent of all Americans who owe no federal income taxes but who pay a "payroll tax" on practically every dime they earn.


There are other differences as well, and Republicans say their stand is consistent with their goal of long-term tax policies that will spur employment and lend greater certainty to the economy.


"It's always a net positive to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn," says Rep. Jeb Hensarling, "but not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again." The Texas lawmaker is on the House GOP leadership team.

........ seriously? SERIOUSLY?
 
I am a little confused by the article in the OP, but the hypocrisy of the GOP is not surprising.
 
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.
 
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.
 
It's probably to get the democrats to "compromise" on the bill that would extend the tax break. For example, we'll extend the SS tax holiday if you add to the bill an extension of bush tax cuts. Or elimination of capital gains tax. Or... whatever.
 
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.

I agree even though this increases the tax burden on those making less than 106k per year.

And that will not play well in public.
 
What some on the GOP want to raise taxes now!! According to a select few that means that those who want to raise taxes are "socialists" igniting "class warfare"!!!! AHHHHHHHHH:scared:
 
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.

Wealth does indeed trickle up. Putting the squeeze on the middle and working classes means that these people will not be buying the products that corporations produce. The corporation executives are essentially shooting themselves in the foot. Greed causes people to do very strange things.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Maybe we can have 10 threads based upon the same article all at once?
 
Maybe we can have 10 threads based upon the same article all at once?
 
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?

Ups, yeah, the threads should be combined.
 
Last edited:
What about that "no tax increase" pledge that most of the GOP took? Either they just want to disagree with Obama, or they only care about the richest 2%, either way this is not good.
 
What about that "no tax increase" pledge that most of the GOP took? Either they just want to disagree with Obama, or they only care about the richest 2%, either way this is not good.
Maybe there is more to it than the article explains?
 
How many understand this the payroll tax for SS?

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."

This tax is for anyone being paid legally. Is it not fair that everyone working pay into SS at the same percentage rate? Seems the 46% who pay no federal income tax would want to do their fair share to ensure SS is around when they are able to collect SS.
 
What about that "no tax increase" pledge that most of the GOP took? Either they just want to disagree with Obama, or they only care about the richest 2%, either way this is not good.

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.
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Threads merged.
 
Back
Top Bottom