Senate-Passed Deal Means Higher Tax on 77% of Households

See my signature line!

Enough said.

 

Too bad it's not 100% of households.

Americans voted for nanny-state, so all Americans should feel the nanny.

 

The economic effects of this payroll tax increase will be disastrous. The solvency of Social Security is not going to be an issue until at least 2016, and only based upon the last Trustees Report from the Social Security Administration. There is no immediate need to eliminate the payroll tax cut which is provide at least some extra disposable income for average households, facilitating some degree of needed consumption spending.

 

SS is fine and the pay roll tax will be fixed before anyone feels it.
This is nothing more than pissing and moaning by the right in hopes to once again shift the blame to someone else.

 

You can blame the GOP for this one. Don't forget the republicans were fighting tooth and nail to have the payroll taxes increased months ago, which would raise taxes on the working class and the democrats fought back, and won. The GOP now again went after the working class with the fiscal deal and refused to allow any taxes to be raised on the rich, unless the working man got the shaft.

 

I disagree.

For the 7% unemployed this is no change at all.
For those making the median income the change is $17 a week.
About the cost of a trip to MCD for a family of 4.

The long term stability of SSI is too important. Allowing the system to go deep in the red gives ammunition to those who would privatize or eliminate the program altogether.

I'm not looking forward to a $70+ dollar reduction in my paycheck every two weeks but I will just count it in with the other 30% of my gross I invest for retirement.

 

And to the OP....

What are you (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about? According to you people who pay payroll taxes aren't paying taxes. Therefore, the entire basis of your thread is false.

 

By improving the economy, the system will become more resilient. Revenues from payroll taxes will increase as GDP, and henceforth, GDP per capita increases. At this point, payroll tax increase does nothing to improve the economy over the short-run, but is an inappropriate austerity measure.

 

Is that so? Well, if you are paying attention to the fiscal cliff negotiations, you will notice that the bill passed by the Senate, The American Taxpayers Relief Act of 2012, does not extend the two percent payroll tax cut. It also allows the top estate tax rate to increase. Neither policy is good for the economy.

 

The payroll tax cut was only meant to be temporary anyway. That's the sole funding source for Social Security. Anyway, if you recall, the election wasn't about policies that were good for the economy or boosting GDP or reducing unemployment, it was about income inequality and sticking it to rich. If that happens to hurt the economy in the process, well, that's what people voted for.

 

I've self-corrected. 501C charity started, donate 100% of my paycheck to it. Claim 20 personal exemptions. Buy cars and fun stuff with it 501C funds. Write it all off. Pay myself 100% of remaining funds, through 1099.

No profits. No tax.

I win.

 

Again, I disagree,

The revenues will decrease deficits. Decreases in deficits means the government borrows less. This frees investment capital which will chase other "safe" investments. This will decrease yield and force capital into more risky investments. Those investments will eventually lead to the economic growth that creates jobs.

If we want immediate impact then spend on infrastructure. Build bridge and roads. Build a couple of dozen nuclear power plants. Build high speed rail. Put people to work building the things we will need for the next 75 years. In terms of cost and financing it will never be cheaper.

 

Of course I am kidding...

 

The fact of the matter is that boosting GDP or reducing unemployment will reduce income inequality and stick it to the rich. This is why despite I have a love-hate relationship with politics. The ineptitude of our country's electorate is astounding.

 

Yes, the revenues from the payroll tax increase with decrease SS deficits. However, like all stabilization policy, especially tax measures, there is a significant limit on what revenues will be generated. I would much rather take my chances by improving the state of the economy, not by implementing austerity measures.

 

The GOP always attacks and targets the working man.

 

Again, I remind you that the American people didn't vote for reducing unemployment or boosting GDP. And frankly, it doesn't look like they did such a great job sticking it to the rich. As far as I can tell, from the income tax increases on this bill, Warren Buffett probably won't be paying a dime more.

 

SS is fine and the pay roll tax will be dealt with within the week.

I see that and now it's being debated in the House. Can you explain how this can be since all appropriations bills have to come from the House?
If you've been paying attention you will know the answer.

Yes I know, but that does not mean it can't be brought back to the floor.

The estate tax? You mean the one no one ever pays be cause it's the easiest tax to avoid and since 99% of the population will NEVER have to even try and avoid it? That tax?

 

I agree, hence the comment, "The ineptitude of our country's electorate is astounding."

 

I see, so by that logic there has not been a growing income disparity in this country for the last 30 years? Is that what you are attempting to sell?

Based on this post I would have to agree.

 

That tax cut was bad idea from the beginning and it was temporal for a reason.

 

Eliminating the payroll tax cut will have two positive effects. First it helps seniors. This is an unalloyed positive thing.

Second it will tend to reduce personal spending in the private sector. The net effect of that fact will be to limit obama's policy options.

 

Of course not. There are always other factors at play. The increased division between labor demand and human capital development, a series of financial crises, and improper fiscal and monetary policy are all competing factors which have contributed to greater income disparity. There are many more, yet I do not feel obliged to list them all. What you do not understand is that all other things being equal, increasing GDP and reducing unemployment correlates to reduction in income inequality and, therefore, sticks it to the rich. Paul Krugman would wholeheartedly agree with me, but you are more than welcome believe contrary to basic macroeconomic theory.

 

Deal contains $ 41 in tax revenues for every $ 1 of spending cuts. It's not a compromise, it's the Democrats pressuring the Republican House to reject prior to Markets Opening & the News Cycle condemning the Republicans in the AM.

 

So I just looked at drudge, now I know where you nutters are getting these made up numbers, beirtbart. I thought is was the big fat lying drug addict but it's the other liar.
Now it makes sense.
Made up numbers, lies and more lies, the staff of life for the hard right.