Dusk-You-n-Me: The biggest crisis we face right now is not the debt, deficit, or SS solvency. It's unemployment.

I want this tattooed on every lawmaker's forehead (in reverse, obviously, so they can read it while preening in front of mirrors).

Why in the hell is everyone responding so forcefully to a Red State article? It is by its very existance complete and utter horseshiat, so just RELAAAAAAAAAX.

I thought we were Taxed Enough Already™.

Dusk-You-n-Me: You fix unemployment you'll fix your revenue problem you'll fix your debt and deficit problem, and SS will become even better funded and be solvent for even longer.

Change the retirement age to 60. Raise payroll taxes for the remaining workforce, including all the new young hires. 60 year olds are less taxing medically than older folk so it will actually decrease medicare premiums. (Unlike raising the age, which would increase premiums).

Huzzah!

Just a few, honest questions:

Have you stopped beating your wife?

tricycleracer: I thought we were Taxed Enough Already™.

That's the rich. We can still squeeze some more blood from the middle class and working poor. You know, for fairness™.

A question for Republicans:

If we gave you the confederacy back, would you secede and leave the adults alone?

youLasersHurt: Just a few, honest questions:

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Have you?

Red State: In fact, Senator McConnell told reporters yesterday, "In all likelihood, we will agree to continue the current payroll tax relief for another year, but we believe it should be paid for." He has yet to divulge how they would pay for it.

I love how these morons demand that tax cuts for people who don't need them be passed without being paid for, but when it comes to tax cuts that actually give the working class more money, how dare we not pay for them.

I seriously want to punch this guy in the face repeatedly. With brass knuckles.

hubiestubert: So, we finally have an article that says that tax cuts don't increase revenue?

CBO says otherwise. The GDP is expected to increase up to $1.30 for every dollar spent on the the payroll tax cut.

For the guy with the 'Citation Please' sign ... (new window) See page 28 of the report.

tricycleracer: I thought we were Taxed Enough Already™.

Republicans are the anti-war, pro-tax party now. Somehow.

Dusk-You-n-Me: 4) Last year, the payroll tax reduction necessitated $105.4 billion in general revenue transfers to Social Security, while this year's plan will require an additional $265 billion. Does that reflect the accounting of a pay-as-you-go system or a Ponzi scheme?

Not sure what they're asking here.

The correct answer is "false dichotomy".

Remember how the Bush tax cuts for the rich didn't have to be paid for?

The republicans at the time said the 600 million in tax cuts for the rich didn't have to be pay for.

What happened to the "tax cuts pay for themselves"? How did that magically stop when Obama asked for tax cuts for working middle class?

Quick and dirty: cutting taxes or increasing spending is expansionary fiscal policy, cutting spending or raising taxes are contractionary fiscal policy. We currently have a dire need for either expansionary fiscal or monetary policy, but the public is concerned about the additional debt or inflationary pressure that such policies would entail (rightly or wrongly.)

One party wants to have expansionary fiscal policy of some type, but say that tax cuts are less effective than outlays (partially because of the marginal propensity to spend by recepients, partially because they believe such policies incentivize "cashing out" profit instead of reinvesting and expanding the company). The other party claims government outlays are contractionary while tax cuts are expansionary enough to cause a net increase in tax receipts. Since both parties only agree that tax cuts are expansionary, the party reluctant to use them suggest that they target the most regressive tax for cuts.

As far as the effect of the policy, it is essentially an attempt to raise worker income while not increasing the cost to employers. It isn't the best policy since it is meant to make demand for jobs greater (when supply of jobs not demand for jobs is the problem), but at least it does inject money into the economy for those who are most likely to spend it, fueling growth.

GAT_00: In other news, Republicans are against all tax cuts if they don't benefit the richest amongst us Democrats want them.

FIFY

Grungehamster: As far as the effect of the policy, it is essentially an attempt to raise worker income while not increasing the cost to employers. It isn't the best policy since it is meant to make demand for jobs greater (when supply of jobs not demand for jobs is the problem), but at least it does inject money into the economy for those who are most likely to spend it, fueling growth.

So it's completely ignoring the fact that the Democrats are also asking for the payroll tax to be cut on the EMPLOYER side also?

hurdboy: Corvus: Remember how the Bush tax cuts for the rich didn't have to be paid for?

The government was running a surplus (on paper) at the time. And a substantial chunk of those went to the lower brackets. Remember those $300 refund checks most people got in 2001? Refund for the retroactive reduction of the lowest bracket to 10% from 15%.

/And I contend that "payroll taxes" aren't actually taxes.....wasn't long ago people referred to them as "contributions" to Social Security and Medicare.

No it wasn't!!! They had them extended just about a year ago!!! And the other taxes to the poorer were extended by the Obama stimulus which Republicans voted against!!!

A question for the Republicans:

Say I was in an elevator with a bunch of people. All the cables snap. The breaking system fails. One guy rips out his tie, waves his arms and briefcase around screaming 'we're all going to die!' Another one huddles in a corner, sucks his thumb and cries for mommy. Before the elevator disintegrates in the pit, I get everyone to to calm down and stand up. I tell them on my mark, at the last second before impact to jump. If we all jump at the last second, will we survive?

This one pisses me off to no end that the GOp is fighting it. You don't increase taxes in a recovery. It is farking stupid, and and even idiotic coming into an election year to dangle a 2% increase in middle class taxes while people are struggling. Stop being farking morons because you don't want to agree with Obama.

hurdboy: Corvus: Remember how the Bush tax cuts for the rich didn't have to be paid for?

The government was running a surplus (on paper) at the time. And a substantial chunk of those went to the lower brackets. Remember those $300 refund checks most people got in 2001? Refund for the retroactive reduction of the lowest bracket to 10% from 15%.

/And I contend that "payroll taxes" aren't actually taxes.....wasn't long ago people referred to them as "contributions" to Social Security and Medicare.

2010 we were running a "surplus" now? Do you really want to stick with that answer?

The bill would also eliminate the payroll tax paid by employers for the last quarter of 2011 and all of 2012 on the first $50 million of a company's increased annual wage costs. In order to pay for it, they are proposing a "surtax on millionaires," which applies a 3.25 percent tax on modified adjusted gross income over $1 million, or $500,000 for a married individual filing separately.

So what I"m getting from the biatching from Red State is that now EMPLOYERS aren't job creators, but MILLIONAIRES are. Because this isn't even taking taxes away from workers. This is taking taxes away from the people who ACTUALLY HIRE workers.

hurdboy: Remember those $300 refund checks most people got in 2001? Refund for the retroactive reduction of the lowest bracket to 10% from 15%.

Everyone who maxed out that bracket got the money. *Some* of those folks didn't get a check right away. Because they already had hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) in income. Cuts to the higher brackets resulted in substantially more money in the pockets of those lucky enough to be in those brackets, but there are considerably less of them.

"In all likelihood, we will agree to continue the current payroll tax relief for another year, but we believe it should be paid for." He has yet to divulge how they would pay for it.

why is this "current tax relief", BUT, if we end the TEMPORARY reduced rate on capital gains,
OMFFSM, THOSE GREEDY LIBS WANT TO RAISE TAXES


1) If temporary payroll tax cuts are so stimulative, how do you explain its failure to create jobs in 2011? Why will 2012 be different?


Please show how the TEMPORARY tax reduction on the capital gains rate created jobs between 2003 and 2011? And, exactly how are those being paid for, sir?

EWreckedSean: This one pisses me off to no end that the GOp is fighting it. You don't increase taxes in a recovery. It is farking stupid, and and even idiotic coming into an election year to dangle a 2% increase in middle class taxes while people are struggling. Stop being farking morons because you don't want to agree with Obama.

You and I are in agreement.

/First time that has happened. Ever.
//Just wanted to point that out
///Carry on

hurdboy: Corvus: Remember how the Bush tax cuts for the rich didn't have to be paid for?

The government was running a surplus (on paper) at the time. And a substantial chunk of those went to the lower brackets. Remember those $300 refund checks most people got in 2001? Refund for the retroactive reduction of the lowest bracket to 10% from 15%.

/And I contend that "payroll taxes" aren't actually taxes.....wasn't long ago people referred to them as "contributions" to Social Security and Medicare.

Funny in 2010 they didn't need to be paid for. Are you saying we had a surplus then?

Pence agrees that tax cuts don't have to be paid for (new window)

Republicans said we didn't have to pay for them!!! In 2010!!

Social Security and its payroll tax were intended to go together as a separate institution of government. Together they would be self-sufficient and self-sustaining.

Neither was supposed to be used to stimulate the economy. They are supposed to be apart from fiscal policy. Yes, Social Security has historically used their surplus to buy bonds, but they get that money back at the end.

If you're going to break that wall down, just break it all the way down. Make Social Security welfare and disconnect it from work history, just make it a 'from the moment you're born' entitlement.

Is that what everyone wants?

TofuTheAlmighty: Dusk-You-n-Me: The biggest crisis we face right now is not the debt, deficit, or SS solvency. It's unemployment.

I want this tattooed on every lawmaker's forehead (in reverse, obviously, so they can read it while preening in front of mirrors).

Put it on a sledge hammmer, and I'll volunteer to "imprint" the message.

hurdboy: Eliminate the mortgage interest deduction.

That's thousands a year for my wife and i (we are NOT part of the 1%). That deduction is one of the things that helps people buy homes and get out of the racket that is renting. Renting is much like flushing 1/3 or more of your income down the toilet. At least with a home you collect SOME equity.

Eliminating that deduction would hurt the middle class tremendously, and will little benefit to the tax base.

Home ownership is a HUGE deal in terms of financial freedom, and therefore... freedom.

1) Money is the right to have rights
2) Money is debt
so... our rights will fizzle away at about 6% per year (compounding).

If you want to make a dent in the deficit (and eliminate the debt) what you want is The Monetary Reform Act. It would make the Fed Reserve (which is as federal as FedEx, and has no reserves) and free up about 450 billion per year, that's about half the national defense budget. We could keep our toys AND social security funded in one fell swoop.

Petey4335: A question for the Republicans:

Say I was in an elevator with a bunch of people. All the cables snap. The breaking system fails. One guy rips out his tie, waves his arms and briefcase around screaming 'we're all going to die!' Another one huddles in a corner, sucks his thumb and cries for mommy. Before the elevator disintegrates in the pit, I get everyone to to calm down and stand up. I tell them on my mark, at the last second before impact to jump. If we all jump at the last second, will we survive?

Laying down and relaxing is your best impact-preparation idea in that scenario and jumping will only get more people injured more severely. The dude sitting in the corner has the right idea, albeit it won't end well for the thumb when you hit.

So if that was intended as an analogy rather than a non-sequitir I suspect it doesn't say quite what you think it says.

3) If we can forego the revenue to Social Security for two years, how much longer will we continue extending the payroll tax without regard to Social Security? Why not extend it indefinitely, which will, at least, provide some pro-growth stimulus. Why not eliminate it completely?

Forget it Jim, it's dead. The SS payroll tax will never revert back to its previous level.

apeiron242: hurdboy: Eliminate the mortgage interest deduction.

That's thousands a year for my wife and i (we are NOT part of the 1%). That deduction is one of the things that helps people buy homes and get out of the racket that is renting. Renting is much like flushing 1/3 or more of your income down the toilet. At least with a home you collect SOME equity.

Eliminating that deduction would hurt the middle class tremendously, and will little benefit to the tax base.

Home ownership is a HUGE deal in terms of financial freedom, and therefore... freedom.

1) Money is the right to have rights
2) Money is debt
so... our rights will fizzle away at about 6% per year (compounding).

If you want to make a dent in the deficit (and eliminate the debt) what you want is The Monetary Reform Act. It would make the Fed Reserve (which is as federal as FedEx, and has no reserves) and free up about 450 billion per year, that's about half the national defense budget. We could keep our toys AND social security funded in one fell swoop.

Could you explain this? It seems like you're missing a word or something.

Dusk-You-n-Me: 4) Last year, the payroll tax reduction necessitated $105.4 billion in general revenue transfers to Social Security, while this year's plan will require an additional $265 billion. Does that reflect the accounting of a pay-as-you-go system or a Ponzi scheme?

Not sure what they're asking here.

It basically is the paying back of the SS Trust Fund with money from the general fund. In years of SS surplus the money left over is used to buy bonds (IOUs) and that money spent in the general fund. Since the SS payroll cut, that process is reversed. Now the taxpayer is on the hook through the general fund since we do not have enough money coming in for payroll taxes to cover SS benifits.

SS can be compared to a ponzi scheme in many ways (it also has its dfferences), In any case, this process just basically tranfers intragovernmental debt to public debt.

GentDirkly: Yes, Social Security has historically used their surplus to buy bonds, but they get that money back at the end.

Kind of. SS surplus money buys bonds, which are IOUs and that money is spent in the general fund. In order to pay that money back, money has to be taken from the general fund. Don't mistake the SS Trust Fund as some great big pot of money just waiting to be used up when the time is needed.

The 'Lockbox' has been raided, folks

hawcian: The Monetary Reform Act

The Monetary Reform Act basically gives the power to make new money back to the treasury and puts it under Congressional Oversight where it belongs. It's a good idea.

EWreckedSean: This one pisses me off to no end that the GOp is fighting it. You don't increase taxes in a recovery. It is farking stupid, and and even idiotic coming into an election year to dangle a 2% increase in middle class taxes while people are struggling. Stop being farking morons because you don't want to agree with Obama.

This will not be a tax increase. This is the reversion of a tax cut. yadayadayada talking point about the removal of the Bush tax cuts not being a tax increase.