Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Regardless of who wins in November, prepare to say goodbye to the payroll tax cut   (nytimes.com) divider line 164
    More: Sad, fragile state, Senate Budget Committee, tax cuts, Capitol Hill, Christine Lagarde, wage earners  
•       •       •

2850 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Oct 2012 at 11:24 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



164 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-01 10:22:45 AM  
b.b.b.b you get to keep it if you make under 250k right?!?!
 
2012-10-01 10:39:36 AM  
"Presidebt" OBrokenpromises once again lives up to his name. On one hand he says taxes won't go up... and then he SIMPLY NEGLECTS TO MENTION THAT A TEMPORARY TAX HOLIDAY IS EXPIRING under HIS WATCH.
 
2012-10-01 10:44:08 AM  
Good. It should go too.
 
2012-10-01 10:46:05 AM  
mlkshk.com
 
2012-10-01 11:08:51 AM  
Why does Obama want to shrink the 47%?
 
2012-10-01 11:09:17 AM  
hillbillypharmacist

TEMPORARY TAX HOLIDAY IS EXPIRING under HIS WATCH (lots of drool and babbling edited).



What part of temporary is so hard to understand, shiatforbrains?
 
2012-10-01 11:11:14 AM  

Lurking Fear: hillbillypharmacist

TEMPORARY TAX HOLIDAY IS EXPIRING under HIS WATCH (lots of drool and babbling edited).


What part of temporary is so hard to understand, shiatforbrains?


Damn do you suck at snark.
 
2012-10-01 11:13:21 AM  
I'm ok with this. The extra funds gained were never going to be enough to provide effective economic stimulus for most people, and the potential long term damage to the SS trust fund was huge.
 
2012-10-01 11:19:55 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: and the potential long term damage to the SS trust fund was huge.


SS trust fund didn't lose a dime.

As with the provision that is currently in effect for 2011, the amount of revenue that is foregone to the Social Security Trust Funds because of the extension of this payroll tax reduction will be replaced with General Fund transfers of the same amount. Thus, the projected level of OASI and DI Trust Funds will be unaffected by the enactment of this bill. Link
 
2012-10-01 11:26:33 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Grand_Moff_Joseph: and the potential long term damage to the SS trust fund was huge.

SS trust fund didn't lose a dime.

As with the provision that is currently in effect for 2011, the amount of revenue that is foregone to the Social Security Trust Funds because of the extension of this payroll tax reduction will be replaced with General Fund transfers of the same amount. Thus, the projected level of OASI and DI Trust Funds will be unaffected by the enactment of this bill. Link


Which really doesn't make things that much better.
 
2012-10-01 11:27:10 AM  

GAT_00: Which really doesn't make things that much better.


Just making sure we're all on the same page.
 
2012-10-01 11:28:00 AM  
Boo.
 
2012-10-01 11:28:09 AM  
I'll survive somehow, what with being employed and all.
 
2012-10-01 11:28:55 AM  

mrshowrules: Why does Obama want to shrink the 47%?


Actually, Mitt's "47%" comment only refers to people who don't pay the federal income tax -- a lot of them still pay the payroll tax.
 
2012-10-01 11:28:57 AM  
For the love of christ, let the tax cuts die. I'm in my last semester for my degree and working and even I know that the only way this country is going to get back economically, you need to let the tax cuts die.

/electrical engineering student, not doing electrical engineering
//still end up paying me for the degree
///still not as great as getting paid incredibly well for tech support :D
 
2012-10-01 11:29:01 AM  
I read this to say Obama wants to tax the middle class more.

Thanks, Obummer.
 
2012-10-01 11:29:33 AM  
Remember how they all said it was temporary when it was passed?

This isn't new. It sucks, but it isn't new.
 
2012-10-01 11:29:44 AM  
Regardless of who wins in November, be prepared to say goodby to a lot of things.
 
2012-10-01 11:30:45 AM  

Cletus C.: I read this to say Obama wants to tax the middle class more.

Thanks, Obummer.


I read this to say that you're a moron

Thanks, Cletus
 
2012-10-01 11:31:47 AM  
silly me, I thought the constitution said only the house could tax.
 
2012-10-01 11:31:58 AM  
It sucks for me personally, but it is clearly the right thing to do from a policy perspective.
 
2012-10-01 11:32:03 AM  
Protect the job creators tax cuts at all cost.

Aarontology: Remember how they all said it was temporary when it was passed?

This isn't new. It sucks, but it isn't new.


The Bush Tax Cuts?
 
2012-10-01 11:32:09 AM  

Cletus C.: I read this to say Obama wants to tax the middle class more.

Thanks, Obummer.


Look at how stupid you are.
 
2012-10-01 11:35:25 AM  

somedude210: For the love of christ, let the tax cuts die. I'm in my last semester for my degree and working and even I know that the only way this country is going to get back economically, you need to let the tax cuts die.

/electrical engineering student, not doing electrical engineering
//still end up paying me for the degree
///still not as great as getting paid incredibly well for tech support :D


The bush income tax cuts? Sure. Even below 250k if that's the only practical way. But not all taxes are created equal.

The payroll tax is regressive, hard on small buisnesses, AND is one of the very few taxes that does directly impact job creation. Cut it more!
 
2012-10-01 11:35:50 AM  

BMulligan: It sucks for me personally, but it is clearly the right thing to do from a policy perspective.


My family will pay probably 3-4K more next year from this. Good. I want to receive SS when I retire.

The one thing I hope Obama does begin to tackle is spending cuts, militarily and domestically, and getting rid of tax loopholes, both corporate and personal. We really need to get this debt down. I think people will be surprised by how much lower the deficit is in a few years, if the US economy recovers this year and the next.
 
2012-10-01 11:36:26 AM  
What we really need is a capital gains tax cut. That way the job creators can create more jobs.
 
2012-10-01 11:36:56 AM  

Cyclometh: Cletus C.: I read this to say Obama wants to tax the middle class more.

Thanks, Obummer.

Look at how stupid you are.


Actually according to what we've been told about both tax policy plans both parties want to tax the middle class more.......yay me!
 
2012-10-01 11:37:49 AM  
It was nice while it lasted, but it needs to go.

Plus we need to raise the cap on contributions.
 
2012-10-01 11:38:05 AM  

somedude210: For the love of christ, let the tax cuts die.


There are a lot of arguments that low payrolls taxes CAN create jobs. Low income taxes on the other hand have little to do with job creation at all.
 
2012-10-01 11:39:08 AM  

Cyclometh: Cletus C.: I read this to say Obama wants to tax the middle class more.

Thanks, Obummer.

Look at how stupid you are.


True. I was stupid to believe Romney was the only one who wanted to tax the middle class more. Stupid me.
 
2012-10-01 11:40:30 AM  
I'm OK with this. If you only consider federal income tax, I only pay something like 10% due to deductions, exemptions, and credits. Which is crazy considering I'm above median household income and a single-income household.

Next year, I won't be paying quite so little thanks to a successful business venture which, thanks to the tax cycle, is going to result in having about $20,000 extra in income to tax, but hell, I'm even OK with that, because it'll be my first time making six figures a year and I'm only in my 30s.

I don't mind spending an extra $4,000 to help out the less fortunate when I'm making bank.

/and said DEMAND has resulted in me hiring people - contract work, admittedly, but still work and money in the pockets of others
//fark supply side economics
 
2012-10-01 11:41:51 AM  
We're going from 4% to 6.2% (and the self-employeds are going from 10% to 12.2%) IIRC. And because we were all paying attention, we know that the payroll tax only applies to income up to $110k. So that 2.2% means a maximum additional yearly payment of $2,420. ~$120/month. If you make $50k, it's $1,100 even (almost $100/month).

And none of that figures in the part you get back from Uncle Sam (because now you paid an extra bunch in payroll taxes, you owe less in income taxes). Does anyone have good numbers?
 
2012-10-01 11:42:27 AM  

bdub77: BMulligan: It sucks for me personally, but it is clearly the right thing to do from a policy perspective.

My family will pay probably 3-4K more next year from this. Good. I want to receive SS when I retire.

The one thing I hope Obama does begin to tackle is spending cuts, militarily and domestically, and getting rid of tax loopholes, both corporate and personal. We really need to get this debt down. I think people will be surprised by how much lower the deficit is in a few years, if the US economy recovers this year and the next.


Will there be real, measurable economic effects from lowering the deficit? Probably not. I think people will be annoyed in a few years, when we've slashed spending and raised taxes and have nothing to show for it.

Deficit reduction is not where the focus should be.
 
2012-10-01 11:42:55 AM  
The payroll witholding tax cut will expire. What is the payroll witholding tax? The income tax. So now, we will get bigger refunds, except that the Bush income tax cuts will expire too. Now that means you will pay more income tax. if you are a 47%, get ready to take home less money and give the USA less of an interest free loan.
 
2012-10-01 11:43:19 AM  
I'm ok with this.
 
2012-10-01 11:43:33 AM  

Arkanaut: mrshowrules: Why does Obama want to shrink the 47%?

Actually, Mitt's "47%" comment only refers to people who don't pay the federal income tax -- a lot of them still pay the payroll tax.


I realized that shortly after posting and was hoping nobody noticed. I assure you it seemed very clever when I posted it.
 
2012-10-01 11:43:34 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: GAT_00: Which really doesn't make things that much better.

Just making sure we're all on the same page.


Oh it's a good thing to point out. But while it is good that the trust fund isn't being cratered more, the loss to the general fund isn't exactly good either.
 
2012-10-01 11:44:23 AM  

GAT_00: Dusk-You-n-Me: GAT_00: Which really doesn't make things that much better.

Just making sure we're all on the same page.

Oh it's a good thing to point out. But while it is good that the trust fund isn't being cratered more, the loss to the general fund isn't exactly good either.


Why?
 
2012-10-01 11:45:34 AM  
The GOP will hold the debt ceil hostage to get bush tax cuts for upper incomes renewed. They are willing to default the country over this issue.
 
2012-10-01 11:47:56 AM  
As long as we don't raise taxes on job creators I'm OK with this.
 
2012-10-01 11:48:09 AM  
Why not just lift the Social Security Wage Base from $110100 to all payroll like medicare??? Everybody gets 4.2% including employers.
 
2012-10-01 11:48:57 AM  
As long as the income tax rates for the wealthy go back to pre-2001 levels, I will be ok paying more in payroll tax. Deal, Republicans?
 
2012-10-01 11:51:57 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: GAT_00: Dusk-You-n-Me: GAT_00: Which really doesn't make things that much better.

Just making sure we're all on the same page.

Oh it's a good thing to point out. But while it is good that the trust fund isn't being cratered more, the loss to the general fund isn't exactly good either.

Why?


Tax cuts don't stimulate much growth. You get much better returns on investment by creating projects and deficit spending that way, rather than handing back money to people who probably already had money in the first place. You get more by moving people from not spending to spending than by getting spenders to spend a little more.
 
2012-10-01 11:52:08 AM  
Tax the rich, feed the poor.
 
2012-10-01 11:52:33 AM  

Boxcutta: As long as the income tax rates for the wealthy go back to pre-2001 levels, I will be ok paying more in payroll tax. Deal, Republicans?


you won't be paying more. Just the same as you were previously. Temporary tax cuts and all that.
 
2012-10-01 11:52:33 AM  

mrshowrules: Arkanaut: mrshowrules: Why does Obama want to shrink the 47%?

Actually, Mitt's "47%" comment only refers to people who don't pay the federal income tax -- a lot of them still pay the payroll tax.

I realized that shortly after posting and was hoping nobody noticed. I assure you it seemed very clever when I posted it.


Happens to the best of us.
 
2012-10-01 11:52:46 AM  
I really wouldn't give a shiat if wages ever went upwards instead of mimicking Abe Vigoda's EKG or if gas prices could be tamed for more than tiny stretches at a time.

So I guess I do give a shiat and hope that Congress can work with the President to come up with a plan that keeps us off of the financial fiscal cliff and addresses all of this so that we don't stall this recovery any more than we already have.

(What the hell is in this coffee?)
 
2012-10-01 11:52:51 AM  
Most of the mouth-breathers in this country are completely oblivious to the fact that they ever received a tax-cut in the first place and damn near half the country thinks their taxes went up at some unexplained point after Obama was inaugurated. I highly doubt anyone will notice.
 
2012-10-01 11:53:01 AM  
Good. Wouldn't hurt to increase the cap gains tax while we're at it.

And while dropping the Bush tax cuts all at once would be a mess, they should definitely be phased out over the next few years.
 
2012-10-01 11:53:57 AM  

skullkrusher: Boxcutta: As long as the income tax rates for the wealthy go back to pre-2001 levels, I will be ok paying more in payroll tax. Deal, Republicans?

you won't be paying more. Just the same as you were previously. Temporary tax cuts and all that.


But it's more than we're paying now so it's a TAX HIKE
 
2012-10-01 11:54:41 AM  

DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: Boxcutta: As long as the income tax rates for the wealthy go back to pre-2001 levels, I will be ok paying more in payroll tax. Deal, Republicans?

you won't be paying more. Just the same as you were previously. Temporary tax cuts and all that.

But it's more than we're paying now so it's a TAX HIKE


I agree but semantics are fun, don't you think?
 
2012-10-01 11:55:26 AM  

Soup4Bonnie: I really wouldn't give a shiat if wages ever went upwards instead of mimicking Abe Vigoda's EKG or if gas prices could be tamed for more than tiny stretches at a time.


hey, flat wages are what is keeping your payroll tax bill flat. Be thankful.
 
2012-10-01 11:57:42 AM  

skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: Boxcutta: As long as the income tax rates for the wealthy go back to pre-2001 levels, I will be ok paying more in payroll tax. Deal, Republicans?

you won't be paying more. Just the same as you were previously. Temporary tax cuts and all that.

But it's more than we're paying now so it's a TAX HIKE

I agree but semantics are fun, don't you think?


Actually I was joking. I'd like to see some returns from all those years I've spent paying into SS and Medicare, so I'm totally OK with eliminating the temporary payroll tax cut.
 
2012-10-01 11:58:55 AM  
I want to live my life in a way so that I can look at news like this and say, "Huh. I really don't care, because my earnings are more than enough to absorb this while keeping my lifestyle comfortable."

Of course, no one is expected to live that way anymore, so whatever.
 
2012-10-01 12:00:19 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: b.b.b.b you get to keep it if you make under 250k right?!?!


*points*
*laughs*

/sorry for feeding
 
2012-10-01 12:00:44 PM  

DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: Boxcutta: As long as the income tax rates for the wealthy go back to pre-2001 levels, I will be ok paying more in payroll tax. Deal, Republicans?

you won't be paying more. Just the same as you were previously. Temporary tax cuts and all that.

But it's more than we're paying now so it's a TAX HIKE

I agree but semantics are fun, don't you think?

Actually I was joking. I'd like to see some returns from all those years I've spent paying into SS and Medicare, so I'm totally OK with eliminating the temporary payroll tax cut.


if you pay more in taxes this year than you did last year without a change in income, you're paying more in taxes. That's it. Whether it is part of a temporary cut or not, reality remains the same. Paying more in taxes is not fun. Of course, taxes are necessary and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with paying to support what are effectively insurance policies for yourself is pretty reasonable.
 
2012-10-01 12:00:54 PM  
Good. As much as I'll biatch about them on payday, the fact is we need more revenue.
 
2012-10-01 12:01:35 PM  

Oerath: Good. As much as I'll biatch about them on payday, the fact is we need more revenue and less spending.


FTFY.
 
2012-10-01 12:01:57 PM  

wotthefark: Why not just lift the Social Security Wage Base from $110100 to all payroll like medicare??? Everybody gets 4.2% including employers.


Because SS payouts are capped, too. The typical response to that proposal is that removing the contribution cap makes SS even more of a wealth-transfer type of program. Keeping payouts capped while uncapping contributions means it's a guaranteed screw-job for people making above the cap. Removing the cap on payouts as well would defeat the purpose of uncapping contributions.

I think it'd be a great idea to remove the cap on contributions, but (once again) the rich'd scream bloody murder if they had to live by the rules that normal folks do.

// did I just say the same thing 4 times?
// maybe, and also perhaps, perchance and conceivably
 
2012-10-01 12:04:17 PM  

GAT_00: Holocaust Agnostic: GAT_00: Dusk-You-n-Me: GAT_00: Which really doesn't make things that much better.

Just making sure we're all on the same page.

Oh it's a good thing to point out. But while it is good that the trust fund isn't being cratered more, the loss to the general fund isn't exactly good either.

Why?

Tax cuts don't stimulate much growth. You get much better returns on investment by creating projects and deficit spending that way, rather than handing back money to people who probably already had money in the first place. You get more by moving people from not spending to spending than by getting spenders to spend a little more.


See, but the employee side of the payroll tax overwhelming falls upon those that don't have money and will spend it if they have more, stimulating the economy. And the employer side of it increases the cost of every individual employee, raising the bar for how much profit you need to expect from a new pair of hands before you hire.
 
2012-10-01 12:07:06 PM  
I'd rather the money come from somewhere else, but it's good to see that we're starting to pull our heads out of our asses.
 
2012-10-01 12:08:05 PM  

skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: Boxcutta: As long as the income tax rates for the wealthy go back to pre-2001 levels, I will be ok paying more in payroll tax. Deal, Republicans?

you won't be paying more. Just the same as you were previously. Temporary tax cuts and all that.

But it's more than we're paying now so it's a TAX HIKE

I agree but semantics are fun, don't you think?

Actually I was joking. I'd like to see some returns from all those years I've spent paying into SS and Medicare, so I'm totally OK with eliminating the temporary payroll tax cut.

if you pay more in taxes this year than you did last year without a change in income, you're paying more in taxes. That's it. Whether it is part of a temporary cut or not, reality remains the same. Paying more in taxes is not fun. Of course, taxes are necessary and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with paying to support what are effectively insurance policies for yourself is pretty reasonable.


Yes, more is more, and it's a question of semantics, but if the effect is to help SS and Medicare pay for themselves, only morons and people trying to score political points could reasonably be against it. As evidence, look at this thread.
 
2012-10-01 12:09:03 PM  

Marine1: I want to live my life in a way so that I can look at news like this and say, "Huh. I really don't care, because my earnings are more than enough to absorb this while keeping my lifestyle comfortable."


I wish I lived in Norway too.
 
2012-10-01 12:10:20 PM  

DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: Boxcutta: As long as the income tax rates for the wealthy go back to pre-2001 levels, I will be ok paying more in payroll tax. Deal, Republicans?

you won't be paying more. Just the same as you were previously. Temporary tax cuts and all that.

But it's more than we're paying now so it's a TAX HIKE

I agree but semantics are fun, don't you think?

Actually I was joking. I'd like to see some returns from all those years I've spent paying into SS and Medicare, so I'm totally OK with eliminating the temporary payroll tax cut.

if you pay more in taxes this year than you did last year without a change in income, you're paying more in taxes. That's it. Whether it is part of a temporary cut or not, reality remains the same. Paying more in taxes is not fun. Of course, taxes are necessary and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with paying to support what are effectively insurance policies for yourself is pretty reasonable.

Yes, more is more, and it's a question of semantics, but if the effect is to help SS and Medicare pay for themselves, only morons and people trying to score political points could reasonably be against it. As evidence, look at this thread.


it's still a matter of economics. Tax increases in a recession is a bad idea. It has always been a bad idea. It is still a bad idea. You take an extra $1,000 out of the average worker's pockets, you are taking $1,000 out of the economy. Bad juju
 
2012-10-01 12:11:03 PM  

Marine1: Oerath: Good. As much as I'll biatch about them on payday, the fact is we need more revenue from higher income earners and less spending on stupid shiat like wars and oil subsidies.

FTFY.


FTFBOY

/wait, that's obama's platform
///oh shi-
 
2012-10-01 12:11:13 PM  

Marine1: Oerath: Good. As much as I'll biatch about them on payday, the fact is we need more revenue and less spending.

FTFY.


And you'll get cuts. If Obama wins, it's $500B to defense. If Romney wins, it'll be to food stamps and other things that help the needy.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/defense-spending/
 
2012-10-01 12:15:50 PM  

skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: Boxcutta: As long as the income tax rates for the wealthy go back to pre-2001 levels, I will be ok paying more in payroll tax. Deal, Republicans?

you won't be paying more. Just the same as you were previously. Temporary tax cuts and all that.

But it's more than we're paying now so it's a TAX HIKE

I agree but semantics are fun, don't you think?

Actually I was joking. I'd like to see some returns from all those years I've spent paying into SS and Medicare, so I'm totally OK with eliminating the temporary payroll tax cut.

if you pay more in taxes this year than you did last year without a change in income, you're paying more in taxes. That's it. Whether it is part of a temporary cut or not, reality remains the same. Paying more in taxes is not fun. Of course, taxes are necessary and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with paying to support what are effectively insurance policies for yourself is pretty reasonable.

Yes, more is more, and it's a question of semantics, but if the effect is to help SS and Medicare pay for themselves, only morons and people trying to score political points could reasonably be against it. As evidence, look at this thread.

it's still a matter of economics. Tax increases in a recession is a bad idea. It has always been a bad idea. It is still a bad idea. You take an extra $1,000 out of the average worker's pockets, you are taking $1,000 out of the economy. Bad juju


yeah, unless the economy suddenly gets a shiat ton better in the next 6 months they should hold off on this increase until later.
 
2012-10-01 12:18:11 PM  

Epoch_Zero: Marine1: I want to live my life in a way so that I can look at news like this and say, "Huh. I really don't care, because my earnings are more than enough to absorb this while keeping my lifestyle comfortable."

I wish I lived in Norway too.


Oh, there are plenty of Americans who have made that work. They just realized that ultimately, the government sucks at changing their fortunes around and looked in each and every nook and cranny for an idea that would change something.

I'm not for the boostrappy position, but there's some truth to that working.

Epoch_Zero: Marine1: Oerath: Good. As much as I'll biatch about them on payday, the fact is we need more revenue from higher income earners and less spending on stupid shiat like wars and oil subsidies.

FTFY.

FTFBOY

/wait, that's obama's platform
///oh shiathose things I agree with. On the other hand, there are things that the President needs to do that he won't. Reforming SS is one thing. Finding away to twist the arms of some groups that underperform in society is another thing as well.

Uncle Eazy: Marine1: Oerath: Good. As much as I'll biatch about them on payday, the fact is we need more revenue and less spending. On the other hand, I don't know if leaving Afghanistan to be overrun by religious extremists is the best idea, which will happen if we don't snuff those motherfarkers out once and for all. We need to find a better way to pay for it, though.

FTFY.

And you'll get cuts. If Obama wins, it's $500B to defense. If Romney wins, it'll be to food stamps and other things that help the needy.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/defense-spending/


Nice neutral source there, Lou.
 
2012-10-01 12:18:17 PM  

Headso: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: Boxcutta: As long as the income tax rates for the wealthy go back to pre-2001 levels, I will be ok paying more in payroll tax. Deal, Republicans?

you won't be paying more. Just the same as you were previously. Temporary tax cuts and all that.

But it's more than we're paying now so it's a TAX HIKE

I agree but semantics are fun, don't you think?

Actually I was joking. I'd like to see some returns from all those years I've spent paying into SS and Medicare, so I'm totally OK with eliminating the temporary payroll tax cut.

if you pay more in taxes this year than you did last year without a change in income, you're paying more in taxes. That's it. Whether it is part of a temporary cut or not, reality remains the same. Paying more in taxes is not fun. Of course, taxes are necessary and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with paying to support what are effectively insurance policies for yourself is pretty reasonable.

Yes, more is more, and it's a question of semantics, but if the effect is to help SS and Medicare pay for themselves, only morons and people trying to score political points could reasonably be against it. As evidence, look at this thread.

it's still a matter of economics. Tax increases in a recession is a bad idea. It has always been a bad idea. It is still a bad idea. You take an extra $1,000 out of the average worker's pockets, you are taking $1,000 out of the economy. Bad juju

yeah, unless the economy suddenly gets a shiat ton better in the next 6 months they should hold off on this increase until later.


Or unless those increases can be offset by income tax cuts for the middle class
 
2012-10-01 12:18:52 PM  

Marine1: Epoch_Zero: Marine1: I want to live my life in a way so that I can look at news like this and say, "Huh. I really don't care, because my earnings are more than enough to absorb this while keeping my lifestyle comfortable."

I wish I lived in Norway too.

Oh, there are plenty of Americans who have made that work. They just realized that ultimately, the government sucks at changing their fortunes around and looked in each and every nook and cranny for an idea that would change something.

I'm not for the boostrappy position, but there's some truth to that working.

Epoch_Zero: Marine1: Oerath: Good. As much as I'll biatch about them on payday, the fact is we need more revenue from higher income earners and less spending on stupid shiat like wars and oil subsidies.

FTFY.

FTFBOY

/wait, that's obama's platform
///oh shiathose things I agree with. On the other hand, there are things that the President needs to do that he won't. Reforming SS is one thing. Finding away to twist the arms of some groups that underperform in society is another thing as well.

Uncle Eazy: Marine1: Oerath: Good. As much as I'll biatch about them on payday, the fact is we need more revenue and less spending. On the other hand, I don't know if leaving Afghanistan to be overrun by religious extremists is the best idea, which will happen if we don't snuff those motherfarkers out once and for all. We need to find a better way to pay for it, though.

FTFY.

And you'll get cuts. If Obama wins, it's $500B to defense. If Romney wins, it'll be to food stamps and other things that help the needy.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/defense-spending/

Nice neutral source there, Lou.


Damn I fail at HTML tags this morning...
 
2012-10-01 12:20:20 PM  

skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: Boxcutta: As long as the income tax rates for the wealthy go back to pre-2001 levels, I will be ok paying more in payroll tax. Deal, Republicans?

you won't be paying more. Just the same as you were previously. Temporary tax cuts and all that.

But it's more than we're paying now so it's a TAX HIKE

I agree but semantics are fun, don't you think?

Actually I was joking. I'd like to see some returns from all those years I've spent paying into SS and Medicare, so I'm totally OK with eliminating the temporary payroll tax cut.

if you pay more in taxes this year than you did last year without a change in income, you're paying more in taxes. That's it. Whether it is part of a temporary cut or not, reality remains the same. Paying more in taxes is not fun. Of course, taxes are necessary and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with paying to support what are effectively insurance policies for yourself is pretty reasonable.


It would be nice if one day we could have an honest discussion about what the *proper level of taxation* was, rather than the debate about whether they need to be raised or if we can afford to keep them low, or if we can't afford to raise them, or if it's political suicide to lower them or raise them...

We killed ourselves by simplifying taxation to a relativity game. For like... 20 years... it became an issue for people to "raise taxes". And now that we've kicked that can down the road for a generation of people who literally hadn't been BORN yet when this debate started, we still can't seem to talk about taxes in any other terms than "CUT EM!" & "RAISE EM!"

The change in taxation, especially at the federal level, over the course of my life has amounted to less change than the net change in farking Federal Interest Rates.

Honestly, the president himself could declare by holy edict that all federal taxes will be capped at 10 dollars, and people would biatch at high gas prices. Likewise, he could mandate a 90% confiscatory tax policy and people would biatch about high gas prices. People don't understand taxes, and it's not really surprising when you consider the third grade level of coverage taxation receives in the media.
 
2012-10-01 12:20:32 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Headso: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: Boxcutta: As long as the income tax rates for the wealthy go back to pre-2001 levels, I will be ok paying more in payroll tax. Deal, Republicans?

you won't be paying more. Just the same as you were previously. Temporary tax cuts and all that.

But it's more than we're paying now so it's a TAX HIKE

I agree but semantics are fun, don't you think?

Actually I was joking. I'd like to see some returns from all those years I've spent paying into SS and Medicare, so I'm totally OK with eliminating the temporary payroll tax cut.

if you pay more in taxes this year than you did last year without a change in income, you're paying more in taxes. That's it. Whether it is part of a temporary cut or not, reality remains the same. Paying more in taxes is not fun. Of course, taxes are necessary and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with paying to support what are effectively insurance policies for yourself is pretty reasonable.

Yes, more is more, and it's a question of semantics, but if the effect is to help SS and Medicare pay for themselves, only morons and people trying to score political points could reasonably be against it. As evidence, look at this thread.

it's still a matter of economics. Tax increases in a recession is a bad idea. It has always been a bad idea. It is still a bad idea. You take an extra $1,000 out of the average worker's pockets, you are taking $1,000 out of the economy. Bad juju

yeah, unless the economy suddenly gets a shiat ton better in the next 6 months they should hold off on this increase until later.

Or unless those increases can be offset by income tax cuts for the middle class


Based on the news it's not going to be the case but accompanied by other increases
 
2012-10-01 12:20:51 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Headso: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: Boxcutta: As long as the income tax rates for the wealthy go back to pre-2001 levels, I will be ok paying more in payroll tax. Deal, Republicans?

you won't be paying more. Just the same as you were previously. Temporary tax cuts and all that.

But it's more than we're paying now so it's a TAX HIKE

I agree but semantics are fun, don't you think?

Actually I was joking. I'd like to see some returns from all those years I've spent paying into SS and Medicare, so I'm totally OK with eliminating the temporary payroll tax cut.

if you pay more in taxes this year than you did last year without a change in income, you're paying more in taxes. That's it. Whether it is part of a temporary cut or not, reality remains the same. Paying more in taxes is not fun. Of course, taxes are necessary and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with paying to support what are effectively insurance policies for yourself is pretty reasonable.

Yes, more is more, and it's a question of semantics, but if the effect is to help SS and Medicare pay for themselves, only morons and people trying to score political points could reasonably be against it. As evidence, look at this thread.

it's still a matter of economics. Tax increases in a recession is a bad idea. It has always been a bad idea. It is still a bad idea. You take an extra $1,000 out of the average worker's pockets, you are taking $1,000 out of the economy. Bad juju

yeah, unless the economy suddenly gets a shiat ton better in the next 6 months they should hold off on this increase until later.

Or unless those increases can be offset by income tax cuts for the middle class


and what would that accomplish?
 
2012-10-01 12:22:32 PM  

BeesNuts: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: Boxcutta: As long as the income tax rates for the wealthy go back to pre-2001 levels, I will be ok paying more in payroll tax. Deal, Republicans?

you won't be paying more. Just the same as you were previously. Temporary tax cuts and all that.

But it's more than we're paying now so it's a TAX HIKE

I agree but semantics are fun, don't you think?

Actually I was joking. I'd like to see some returns from all those years I've spent paying into SS and Medicare, so I'm totally OK with eliminating the temporary payroll tax cut.

if you pay more in taxes this year than you did last year without a change in income, you're paying more in taxes. That's it. Whether it is part of a temporary cut or not, reality remains the same. Paying more in taxes is not fun. Of course, taxes are necessary and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with paying to support what are effectively insurance policies for yourself is pretty reasonable.

It would be nice if one day we could have an honest discussion about what the *proper level of taxation* was, rather than the debate about whether they need to be raised or if we can afford to keep them low, or if we can't afford to raise them, or if it's political suicide to lower them or raise them...

We killed ourselves by simplifying taxation to a relativity game. For like... 20 years... it became an issue for people to "raise taxes". And now that we've kicked that can down the road for a generation of people who literally hadn't been BORN yet when this debate started, we still can't seem to talk about taxes in any other terms than "CUT EM!" & "RAISE EM!"

The change in taxation, especially at the federal level, over the course of my life has amounted to less change than the net change in farking Federal Interest Rates.

Honestly, the president himself could declare by holy edict that all federal taxes will be capped at 10 dollars, and people would biatch at high gas pric ...


for most people, that 3rd grade level coverage is enough - it is enough to know that this policy will result in less $ for you and your family or that one will give you more money to spend. That's all most people really give a shiat about anyway.
 
2012-10-01 12:22:36 PM  

BeesNuts: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: Boxcutta: As long as the income tax rates for the wealthy go back to pre-2001 levels, I will be ok paying more in payroll tax. Deal, Republicans?

you won't be paying more. Just the same as you were previously. Temporary tax cuts and all that.

But it's more than we're paying now so it's a TAX HIKE

I agree but semantics are fun, don't you think?

Actually I was joking. I'd like to see some returns from all those years I've spent paying into SS and Medicare, so I'm totally OK with eliminating the temporary payroll tax cut.

if you pay more in taxes this year than you did last year without a change in income, you're paying more in taxes. That's it. Whether it is part of a temporary cut or not, reality remains the same. Paying more in taxes is not fun. Of course, taxes are necessary and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with paying to support what are effectively insurance policies for yourself is pretty reasonable.

It would be nice if one day we could have an honest discussion about what the *proper level of taxation* was, rather than the debate about whether they need to be raised or if we can afford to keep them low, or if we can't afford to raise them, or if it's political suicide to lower them or raise them...

We killed ourselves by simplifying taxation to a relativity game. For like... 20 years... it became an issue for people to "raise taxes". And now that we've kicked that can down the road for a generation of people who literally hadn't been BORN yet when this debate started, we still can't seem to talk about taxes in any other terms than "CUT EM!" & "RAISE EM!"

The change in taxation, especially at the federal level, over the course of my life has amounted to less change than the net change in farking Federal Interest Rates.

Honestly, the president himself could declare by holy edict that all federal taxes will be capped at 10 dollars, and people would biatch at high gas pric ...


The fact that the tax code is what it is doesn't help, either.
 
2012-10-01 12:22:54 PM  

skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: Headso: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: Boxcutta: As long as the income tax rates for the wealthy go back to pre-2001 levels, I will be ok paying more in payroll tax. Deal, Republicans?

you won't be paying more. Just the same as you were previously. Temporary tax cuts and all that.

But it's more than we're paying now so it's a TAX HIKE

I agree but semantics are fun, don't you think?

Actually I was joking. I'd like to see some returns from all those years I've spent paying into SS and Medicare, so I'm totally OK with eliminating the temporary payroll tax cut.

if you pay more in taxes this year than you did last year without a change in income, you're paying more in taxes. That's it. Whether it is part of a temporary cut or not, reality remains the same. Paying more in taxes is not fun. Of course, taxes are necessary and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with paying to support what are effectively insurance policies for yourself is pretty reasonable.

Yes, more is more, and it's a question of semantics, but if the effect is to help SS and Medicare pay for themselves, only morons and people trying to score political points could reasonably be against it. As evidence, look at this thread.

it's still a matter of economics. Tax increases in a recession is a bad idea. It has always been a bad idea. It is still a bad idea. You take an extra $1,000 out of the average worker's pockets, you are taking $1,000 out of the economy. Bad juju

yeah, unless the economy suddenly gets a shiat ton better in the next 6 months they should hold off on this increase until later.

Or unless those increases can be offset by income tax cuts for the middle class

and what would that accomplish?


Yeah that seems backwards. Raising income taxes to offset lowered payroll taxes seems smarter to me. I mean, if you're just going to pointlessly tweak tax policy.
 
2012-10-01 12:23:07 PM  

skullkrusher: and what would that accomplish?


It would keep people's after-tax incomes relatively steady instead of reducing it.
 
2012-10-01 12:28:40 PM  
By the Republicans definition, this constitutes raising taxes. Where is your Grover now?
 
2012-10-01 12:29:01 PM  

BeesNuts: Yeah that seems backwards. Raising income taxes to offset lowered payroll taxes seems smarter to me. I mean, if you're just going to pointlessly tweak tax policy.


It's true. I guess I'm living in the past - I keep hoping that money going into the SS & Medicare coffers will actually go to pay for those things instead of being siphoned away & replaced with useless IOUs from Congress. At this point, it doesn't really matter what we call the taxes - they all end up going into the same pot.
 
2012-10-01 12:29:17 PM  

Marine1:

And you'll get cuts. If Obama wins, it's $500B to defense. If Romney wins, it'll be to food stamps and other things that help the needy.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/defense-spending/

Nice neutral source there, Lou.


I figured you would be boot strappy enough to click through to the videos. Obviously TPM is Brietbarting the video of Ryan saying this.

How about this from noted liberal rag USA Today:
Ryan did not offer details of what would be in the sequester-replacement package, though he noted the House voted on a Republican plan earlier this year that Democrats vigorously opposed. That bill shifted budget cuts from Defense programs to social programs like food stamps.

Best part? RETROACTIVELY!

If Romney is elected president, "in January our intention is, if we don't fix it in a lame duck, is to fix it retroactively once a new Congress takes office," Ryan said.
 
2012-10-01 12:29:41 PM  

skullkrusher: for most people, that 3rd grade level coverage is enough - it is enough to know that this policy will result in less $ for you and your family or that one will give you more money to spend. That's all most people really give a shiat about anyway.


And lord knows, when your job is to keep people informed, it's smart to give people just enough that they are satisfied. Any more and they might turn off the news and watch Honey Boo Boo.

IF people can have the NFL ref lockout explained to them, they can have the difference between federal, state and local taxes explained to them. I mean, how many people even understand the REALLY stupid shiat, like "Property Taxes Fund Public Education in the Townships they are Paid" and "Gas Taxes Build Roads"? How many people know what payroll taxes ARE? Or how they are deducted and withheld? Or who pays how much of them?

How many people know what "progressive taxation" or could identify what taxes THEY PAY as regressive or progressive?

Basically, fark people. Especially fark people who say shiat like "Y U raise taxes?" They get spurned now. I'm out of energy as far as that conversation's concerned. When that person is a CPA, they get super-spurned. And when that person is a tax professional, they get laughed at. Brazenly.
 
2012-10-01 12:29:54 PM  
The attacker wearing military camouflage

Camo hoodies are now "military camouflage?" The Czech army is stylin!
 
2012-10-01 12:30:04 PM  
Sad? You teabaggers can't simultaneously complain about the debt/deficit AND want lower taxes.
 
2012-10-01 12:30:26 PM  

DarwiOdrade: BeesNuts: Yeah that seems backwards. Raising income taxes to offset lowered payroll taxes seems smarter to me. I mean, if you're just going to pointlessly tweak tax policy.

It's true. I guess I'm living in the past - I keep hoping that money going into the SS & Medicare coffers will actually go to pay for those things instead of being siphoned away & replaced with useless IOUs from Congress. At this point, it doesn't really matter what we call the taxes - they all end up going into the same pot.


They don't. Really. But whatever.
 
2012-10-01 12:30:31 PM  
oh, damn it
 
2012-10-01 12:36:32 PM  
Hey, guys, I read EnviroDerp's post at 11:42, and it looks to me like he's having a stroke. Do you suppose we should call for help?

No, I didn't think so, either, Carry on.
 
2012-10-01 12:39:01 PM  

BeesNuts: Basically, fark people. Especially fark people who say shiat like "Y U raise taxes?" They get spurned now. I'm out of energy as far as that conversation's concerned. When that person is a CPA, they get super-spurned. And when that person is a tax professional, they get laughed at. Brazenly.


largely a function of public goods, I think. People like them but figure someone else can pay for them
 
2012-10-01 12:39:22 PM  
You assholes who are ok with this actually think you're going to get a dime back when you retire? Tards....
 
2012-10-01 12:39:48 PM  

DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: and what would that accomplish?

It would keep people's after-tax incomes relatively steady instead of reducing it.


revenue neutral though... why not just extend the payroll tax cut?
 
2012-10-01 12:41:59 PM  

Uncle Eazy: Marine1:

And you'll get cuts. If Obama wins, it's $500B to defense. If Romney wins, it'll be to food stamps and other things that help the needy.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/defense-spending/

Nice neutral source there, Lou.

I figured you would be boot strappy enough to click through to the videos. Obviously TPM is Brietbarting the video of Ryan saying this.

How about this from noted liberal rag USA Today:
Ryan did not offer details of what would be in the sequester-replacement package, though he noted the House voted on a Republican plan earlier this year that Democrats vigorously opposed. That bill shifted budget cuts from Defense programs to social programs like food stamps.

Best part? RETROACTIVELY!

If Romney is elected president, "in January our intention is, if we don't fix it in a lame duck, is to fix it retroactively once a new Congress takes office," Ryan said.


Who said I like Romney?

Guy's a AAA-grade douche. Same goes for Ryan.

On the other hand, I'm tired of hearing about how wonderful Obama is, or at the very least, the seeming lack of correlation between negative things the government is doing and his leadership.

Why is marijuana still illegal? Wasn't Holder going to stop raiding dispensers? If Obama had been arrested under the laws he currently enforces (and has the ability to repeal), he would not be President of the United States of America. Period. He'd be Barry Obama, former inmate and currently unemployed man. That's what happens to young black men caught with marijuana, and it's by pure luck that Obama didn't get that fate considering his drug use in his youth. Everyone laughs at it and says, "Boy, he had his wild days", and moves on. Where's the scrutiny at the national level?

Why are there so many domestic surveillance programs? So-called "warrantless wiretaps" have exploded during Obama's administration. IIRC from an article I read earlier today, there have been more of these wiretaps under his administration than the entire ten-year period before he came into office. That's at least mildly concerning.

TSA... why is it still here? Horrifically ineffective, incredibly expensive, and constantly stepping on the civil rights of Americans, it's a major blemish on American law enforcement. Instead of moving to a more efficient, less-intrusive system, Obama has continued to fund the agency.

He's a man that seems very comfortable with the status quo on a number of important issues. Furthermore, I'm worried about the constant insistence that government is the answer on a large number of problems. If it actually is the solution, then so be it, but there's a lot of things where it's not.
 
2012-10-01 12:46:52 PM  

skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: Boxcutta: As long as the income tax rates for the wealthy go back to pre-2001 levels, I will be ok paying more in payroll tax. Deal, Republicans?

you won't be paying more. Just the same as you were previously. Temporary tax cuts and all that.

But it's more than we're paying now so it's a TAX HIKE

I agree but semantics are fun, don't you think?

Actually I was joking. I'd like to see some returns from all those years I've spent paying into SS and Medicare, so I'm totally OK with eliminating the temporary payroll tax cut.

if you pay more in taxes this year than you did last year without a change in income, you're paying more in taxes. That's it. Whether it is part of a temporary cut or not, reality remains the same. Paying more in taxes is not fun. Of course, taxes are necessary and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with paying to support what are effectively insurance policies for yourself is pretty reasonable.

Yes, more is more, and it's a question of semantics, but if the effect is to help SS and Medicare pay for themselves, only morons and people trying to score political points could reasonably be against it. As evidence, look at this thread.

it's still a matter of economics. Tax increases in a recession is a bad idea. It has always been a bad idea. It is still a bad idea. You take an extra $1,000 out of the average worker's pockets, you are taking $1,000 out of the economy. Bad juju


Good thing the recession is over. So you're on board with increasing taxes now right?
 
2012-10-01 12:51:28 PM  

RobertBruce: You assholes who are ok with this actually think you're going to get a dime back when you retire? Tards....


Some of us are actually fiscally responsible. Not just idiots who don;t think certain constitutional amendments were ratified and stomp around loudly come debt ceiling votes. Bills need to be paid, you tool.
 
2012-10-01 12:56:46 PM  

Blue_Blazer: Good thing the recession is over. So you're on board with increasing taxes now right?


lulz. I love when people find themselves smart because they adhere to the technical, textbook definition of "recession". What do you think suddenly taking $1,000 out of the hands of the average American worker will do to our non-recessionary economy?
 
2012-10-01 01:00:10 PM  

RobertBruce: You assholes who are ok with this actually think you're going to get a dime back when you retire? Tards....


You sound like you are in the 47%.

Use your boot straps more.
 
2012-10-01 01:00:52 PM  
Good. Need to pay for those nice things you want, dear.
 
2012-10-01 01:02:41 PM  

ultraholland: oh, damn it


Like most Fark Cons, they are exhausted.
 
2012-10-01 01:04:12 PM  

skullkrusher: Blue_Blazer: Good thing the recession is over. So you're on board with increasing taxes now right?

lulz. I love when people find themselves smart because they adhere to the technical, textbook definition of "recession". What do you think suddenly taking $1,000 out of the hands of the average American worker will do to our non-recessionary economy?


Going by the figures someone posted above, you would have to make $100k to see a $1000 increase. That is not "average American."
The average American will get most or all of the payroll tax back in April. Please don't conflate upper-middle class with "average."
 
2012-10-01 01:04:49 PM  
Yes. Say goodbye to the tax cut that was starving an already critical Social Security system. It was just as much of a sham as the Bush $300 tax refund. Sooner or later, you were going to pay it back anyway.
 
2012-10-01 01:05:29 PM  

Blue_Blazer: skullkrusher: Blue_Blazer: Good thing the recession is over. So you're on board with increasing taxes now right?

lulz. I love when people find themselves smart because they adhere to the technical, textbook definition of "recession". What do you think suddenly taking $1,000 out of the hands of the average American worker will do to our non-recessionary economy?

Going by the figures someone posted above, you would have to make $100k to see a $1000 increase. That is not "average American."
The average American will get most or all of the payroll tax back in April. Please don't conflate upper-middle class with "average."


going by the figure from the 3 paragraph of TFA

"Independent analysts say that the expiration of the tax cut could shave as much as a percentage point off economic output in 2013, and cost the economy as many as one million jobs. That is because the typical American family had $1,000 in additional income from the lower tax. "

I'm not
 
2012-10-01 01:12:09 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Yes. Say goodbye to the tax cut that was starving an already critical Social Security system.


Nope.
 
2012-10-01 01:13:33 PM  

skullkrusher: Blue_Blazer: skullkrusher: Blue_Blazer: Good thing the recession is over. So you're on board with increasing taxes now right?

lulz. I love when people find themselves smart because they adhere to the technical, textbook definition of "recession". What do you think suddenly taking $1,000 out of the hands of the average American worker will do to our non-recessionary economy?

Going by the figures someone posted above, you would have to make $100k to see a $1000 increase. That is not "average American."
The average American will get most or all of the payroll tax back in April. Please don't conflate upper-middle class with "average."

going by the figure from the 3 paragraph of TFA

"Independent analysts say that the expiration of the tax cut could shave as much as a percentage point off economic output in 2013, and cost the economy as many as one million jobs. That is because the typical American family had $1,000 in additional income from the lower tax. "

I'm not


Alright I'm convinced. This is one of those things where Democrats and Republicans both agree on ending the extension. I pretty much never trust anything that has the support of both parties (SOPA NDAA etc).
 
2012-10-01 01:13:56 PM  
Ah, politics at its purest: government trying to bribe us with our own money.
 
2012-10-01 01:15:10 PM  

Blue_Blazer: skullkrusher: Blue_Blazer: skullkrusher: Blue_Blazer: Good thing the recession is over. So you're on board with increasing taxes now right?

lulz. I love when people find themselves smart because they adhere to the technical, textbook definition of "recession". What do you think suddenly taking $1,000 out of the hands of the average American worker will do to our non-recessionary economy?

Going by the figures someone posted above, you would have to make $100k to see a $1000 increase. That is not "average American."
The average American will get most or all of the payroll tax back in April. Please don't conflate upper-middle class with "average."

going by the figure from the 3 paragraph of TFA

"Independent analysts say that the expiration of the tax cut could shave as much as a percentage point off economic output in 2013, and cost the economy as many as one million jobs. That is because the typical American family had $1,000 in additional income from the lower tax. "

I'm not

Alright I'm convinced. This is one of those things where Democrats and Republicans both agree on ending the extension. I pretty much never trust anything that has the support of both parties (SOPA NDAA etc).


now you're learning! :)
 
2012-10-01 01:24:50 PM  

Dr Dreidel: We're going from 4% to 6.2% (and the self-employeds are going from 10% to 12.2%) IIRC. And because we were all paying attention, we know that the payroll tax only applies to income up to $110k.


oh shiat.. i totally forgot that... holy crap
 
2012-10-01 01:32:10 PM  

Dr Dreidel: wotthefark: Why not just lift the Social Security Wage Base from $110100 to all payroll like medicare??? Everybody gets 4.2% including employers.

Because SS payouts are capped, too. The typical response to that proposal is that removing the contribution cap makes SS even more of a wealth-transfer type of program. Keeping payouts capped while uncapping contributions means it's a guaranteed screw-job for people making above the cap. Removing the cap on payouts as well would defeat the purpose of uncapping contributions.

I think it'd be a great idea to remove the cap on contributions, but (once again) the rich'd scream bloody murder if they had to live by the rules that normal folks do.

// did I just say the same thing 4 times?
// maybe, and also perhaps, perchance and conceivably


Social Security has what it calls "bend points" above which every additional dollar of earnings yields a smaller increase in your monthly benefit. For instance, in 2012, the first $767 of average monthly earnings produces a benefit of $0.90 per dollar, while additional earnings up to $4,624 boosts monthly payments by $0.32 and income above that increases a payment by $0.15.

If the assumption that benefits will continue at their current levels left unchecked, benefits would have to drop by about a quarter in the year 2033 because of shortfalls between the amount of payroll taxes collected and benefits owed to retirees.

So add another bend point on those that make above $110100. Make it .05 it still is more cost effective to cut lower income contributions. If they give a shiat about "the job creators" then cutting payroll tax contributions to lower income workers from the employer is beneficial to everyone. You get higher demand form the "middle class" and lower tax expenses in which companies can invest in more capital and use more employees.

"It ain't rocket surgery". Social Security is a bad deal for anyone who has been in the job market since 1995.

www.blogcdn.com

The only "benefit" is to single earner couples because of spousal benefits. Increase the amount with no limit on the $110100 and the "benefit" becomes greater with more solvency. You are getting screwed any way. The majority of employees on payroll are making less than $60,000 a year. Cut that by 2 percentage points to the employer and increase the limit. Tada.

It's a "tax cut" for employers and employees. It's a tax hike for those making over $110100.
 
2012-10-01 01:32:38 PM  

Marine1: [crybaby stoner]


get a job, and a life.
 
2012-10-01 01:40:38 PM  

skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: and what would that accomplish?

It would keep people's after-tax incomes relatively steady instead of reducing it.

revenue neutral though... why not just extend the payroll tax cut?


No reason - just going on the assumption that the payroll tax cut will expire.
 
2012-10-01 01:40:41 PM  

NateGrey: ultraholland: oh, damn it

Like most Fark Cons, they are exhausted.


Going to need a judge's ruling.

Judge: They are exhausted = you sound tired.

Drink!
 
2012-10-01 01:47:07 PM  

wotthefark: can invest in more capital and use more employees.


companies hire when they need additional workers, not when they have spare money laying around. trickle down economics don't work - we have farking 30 years of evidence for that. stop being a jackass.
 
2012-10-01 01:50:12 PM  

Cletus C.: NateGrey: ultraholland: oh, damn it

Like most Fark Cons, they are exhausted.

Going to need a judge's ruling.

Judge: They are exhausted = you sound tired.

Drink!


You have my sympathy Cletus, you have to spend all day across so many threads defending Romney.

Have you talked to the campaign about hiring more help?
 
2012-10-01 01:54:08 PM  

Kazan: crybaby stoner


attacking Obama's backwards stance on marijuana is what legitimate criticism looks like.
 
2012-10-01 01:55:15 PM  

DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: and what would that accomplish?

It would keep people's after-tax incomes relatively steady instead of reducing it.

revenue neutral though... why not just extend the payroll tax cut?

No reason - just going on the assumption that the payroll tax cut will expire.


oh gotcha
 
2012-10-01 01:57:00 PM  

NateGrey: Cletus C.: NateGrey: ultraholland: oh, damn it

Like most Fark Cons, they are exhausted.

Going to need a judge's ruling.

Judge: They are exhausted = you sound tired.

Drink!

You have my sympathy Cletus, you have to spend all day across so many threads defending Romney.

Have you talked to the campaign about hiring more help?


You need to pay attention. Defending Romney isn't the same thing as laughing at the predictable liberal outrage spilled here or finding fault with Obamallmighty.
 
2012-10-01 01:57:55 PM  

Kazan: wotthefark: can invest in more capital and use more employees.

companies hire when they need additional workers, not when they have spare money laying around. trickle down economics don't work - we have farking 30 years of evidence for that. stop being a jackass.


cutting the cost of labor would make the threshold for increased hiring lower.
 
2012-10-01 02:01:35 PM  

Cletus C.: You need to pay attention. Defending Romney isn't the same thing as laughing at the predictable liberal outrage spilled here or finding fault with Obamallmighty


You really are just a plain old mouthbreather, aren't you?
 
2012-10-01 02:12:40 PM  

Cyclometh: Cletus C.: You need to pay attention. Defending Romney isn't the same thing as laughing at the predictable liberal outrage spilled here or finding fault with Obamallmighty

You really are just a plain old mouthbreather, aren't you?


No - he's a mouthbreather with the stamina of a marathon runner.
 
2012-10-01 02:23:42 PM  

skullkrusher:

cutting the cost of labor would make the threshold for increased hiring lower.


Hmm so you favour the south-east asian model for your country? Extremely low wage workers in vast numbers with a tiny oligarchy of rich ruling classes?

Nice to know what your end-game is. The only question I have to ask is what new first-world economy is going to buy the products of your vast new second-world manufacturing economy? Your current consumer base is going to earn fark all in this mode.
 
2012-10-01 02:24:59 PM  

gaspode: skullkrusher:

cutting the cost of labor would make the threshold for increased hiring lower.

Hmm so you favour the south-east asian model for your country? Extremely low wage workers in vast numbers with a tiny oligarchy of rich ruling classes?

Nice to know what your end-game is. The only question I have to ask is what new first-world economy is going to buy the products of your vast new second-world manufacturing economy? Your current consumer base is going to earn fark all in this mode.


that was an explanation of how cuts to payroll taxes could boost demand for labor. Do you favor being an idiot?
 
2012-10-01 02:33:03 PM  
NateGrey: Like most Fark Cons, they are exhausted.

huh?
 
2012-10-01 02:33:20 PM  

skullkrusher: Do you favor being an idiot?


What's it pay?
 
2012-10-01 02:38:13 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: skullkrusher: Do you favor being an idiot?

What's it pay?


I'm afraid it is payment in kind in the form of lead paint chips. You smart, Soup. You don't want that job.
 
2012-10-01 02:49:35 PM  

ultraholland: NateGrey: Like most Fark Cons, they are exhausted.

huh?


Apologies, highlighted the wrong post to reply, the one under:

Hey, guys, I read EnviroDerp's post at 11:42, and it looks to me like he's having a stroke. Do you suppose we should call for help?

No, I didn't think so, either, Carry on.
 
2012-10-01 03:01:19 PM  

skullkrusher: BeesNuts: Basically, fark people. Especially fark people who say shiat like "Y U raise taxes?" They get spurned now. I'm out of energy as far as that conversation's concerned. When that person is a CPA, they get super-spurned. And when that person is a tax professional, they get laughed at. Brazenly.

largely a function of public goods schools, I think. People like them but figure someone else can pay for them


Fixed that for you.

/Three available courses on the evolution of rock n roll.
//One available course on "social studies" covering the history of earth from 1200 AD to present day.
 
2012-10-01 03:01:32 PM  
Meaningful defense cuts still off the table?
All walls, no castle.
how could this plan go wrong?
 
2012-10-01 03:04:16 PM  

Kazan: Marine1: [crybaby stoner]

get a job, and a life.


Dude... I don't touch weed and have a job.

It's just a fact that there are some good policies that Obama has just ignored.
 
2012-10-01 03:05:41 PM  

BSABSVR: RobertBruce: You assholes who are ok with this actually think you're going to get a dime back when you retire? Tards....

Some of us are actually fiscally responsible. Not just idiots who don;t think certain constitutional amendments were ratified and stomp around loudly come debt ceiling votes. Bills need to be paid, you tool.


Get back to me when the cap gains tax is the same rate as the payroll tax.
Paying the bills isn't just for the working class.
 
2012-10-01 03:06:25 PM  

meat0918: It was nice while it lasted, but it needs to go.

Plus we need to raise the cap on contributions.


How about we keep it and raise the contribution cap to $200,000? After all, that's where Romney says middle income starts.
 
2012-10-01 03:14:01 PM  

Cletus C.: NateGrey: Cletus C.: NateGrey: ultraholland: oh, damn it

Like most Fark Cons, they are exhausted.

Going to need a judge's ruling.

Judge: They are exhausted = you sound tired.

Drink!

You have my sympathy Cletus, you have to spend all day across so many threads defending Romney.

Have you talked to the campaign about hiring more help?

You need to pay attention. Defending Romney isn't the same thing as laughing at the predictable liberal outrage spilled here or finding fault with Obamallmighty.


U guys realize ultraholland's post was about him posting in the wrong thread right?

Little bit above the 'oh damnit' comment was about the airsoft assasination attempt.

/thnx for the lulz anyway
 
2012-10-01 03:28:34 PM  

Marine1: Kazan: Marine1: [crybaby stoner]

get a job, and a life.

Dude... I don't touch weed and have a job.

It's just a fact that there are some good policies that Obama has just ignored.


i dislike both sides of the drug argument.. one is whiny, and the other is controlling. and neither side's solution is acceptable for me.
 
2012-10-01 03:29:56 PM  

Kazan: Marine1: Kazan: Marine1: [crybaby stoner]

get a job, and a life.

Dude... I don't touch weed and have a job.

It's just a fact that there are some good policies that Obama has just ignored.

i dislike both sides of the drug argument.. one is whiny, and the other is controlling. and neither side's solution is acceptable for me.


pot should be legalized, regulated like alcohol and taxed. Next.
 
2012-10-01 04:15:33 PM  

skullkrusher: Kazan: Marine1: Kazan: Marine1: [crybaby stoner]

get a job, and a life.

Dude... I don't touch weed and have a job.

It's just a fact that there are some good policies that Obama has just ignored.

i dislike both sides of the drug argument.. one is whiny, and the other is controlling. and neither side's solution is acceptable for me.

pot should be legalized, regulated like alcohol and taxed. Next.


I would settle for it being decriminalized at least.
 
2012-10-01 04:19:45 PM  
It's been said up-thread, but I think it merits restatement:

farking GOOD.

Kazan: i dislike both sides of the drug argument.. one is whiny, and the other is controlling. and neither side's solution is acceptable for me.


So which side is which? Because from what I've seen the folks in favor of the drug war are both whiny and controlling, and the people in favor of complete deregulation of currently illegal drugs are too dim to manage either.

I'm assuming those are how you're defining the "sides", since like 90% of the people with an opinion just thing that simply doing a ctrl+c/ctrl+v with alcohol or tobacco law would be fine and primarily object to the drug war on the grounds that it's stupid expensive and has had no impact on the prevalence of drugs beyond redirecting the money to organized crime instead of legit farmers and chemists.
 
2012-10-01 04:28:40 PM  

mrshowrules: skullkrusher: Kazan: Marine1: Kazan: Marine1: [crybaby stoner]

get a job, and a life.

Dude... I don't touch weed and have a job.

It's just a fact that there are some good policies that Obama has just ignored.

i dislike both sides of the drug argument.. one is whiny, and the other is controlling. and neither side's solution is acceptable for me.

pot should be legalized, regulated like alcohol and taxed. Next.

I would settle for it being decriminalized at least.


better than the status quo. I'd prefer something similar to alcohol. Homegrown is tax free and can share with your friends.
 
2012-10-01 04:36:52 PM  

skullkrusher: mrshowrules: skullkrusher: Kazan: Marine1: Kazan: Marine1: [crybaby stoner]

get a job, and a life.

Dude... I don't touch weed and have a job.

It's just a fact that there are some good policies that Obama has just ignored.

i dislike both sides of the drug argument.. one is whiny, and the other is controlling. and neither side's solution is acceptable for me.

pot should be legalized, regulated like alcohol and taxed. Next.

I would settle for it being decriminalized at least.

better than the status quo. I'd prefer something similar to alcohol. Homegrown is tax free and can share with your friends.


I think they should use weed in sentencing. Your 4th arrest for D&D or assault? Instead of court-mandated anger management, chill out in the back with these two doobs (take 'em to the face, brah) and DVDs of either Disney or porn.

// not both, because EWWWWWW
// maybe Judd Apatow or Monty Python
 
2012-10-01 04:55:45 PM  

skullkrusher: pot should be legalized, regulated like alcohol and taxed. Next.


as long as you don't turn it into a persistent aerosol (primarily through combustion) then I don't really care, legally.

Jim_Callahan: It's been said up-thread, but I think it merits restatement:

farking GOOD.

Kazan: i dislike both sides of the drug argument.. one is whiny, and the other is controlling. and neither side's solution is acceptable for me.

So which side is which? Because from what I've seen the folks in favor of the drug war are both whiny and controlling, and the people in favor of complete deregulation of currently illegal drugs are too dim to manage either.

I'm assuming those are how you're defining the "sides", since like 90% of the people with an opinion just thing that simply doing a ctrl+c/ctrl+v with alcohol or tobacco law would be fine and primarily object to the drug war on the grounds that it's stupid expensive and has had no impact on the prevalence of drugs beyond redirecting the money to organized crime instead of legit farmers and chemists.


So basically - as long as you don't smoke it, i'm legally fine with it. Smoking it makes it affect other people, violating the rights of those people. If druggies want their right to be druggies respected, they need to respect the right so others to NOT be druggies.

I take issue with them turning anything (cannabis, tobacco, etc) into a persistent aerosol (that is, an aerosol that hangs around for a bit - doesn't swiftly settle out of the air). particularly ones laced with a large number of non-threshold toxicants and carcinogens (inb4butbutCARS! cars exhaust, and grilling, etc release different chemicals that all have known levels of safety. cannabis and tobacco combustion release many chemicals that have no level at which they've been able to find no effect)
 
2012-10-01 04:57:02 PM  

Citrate1007: Cyclometh: Cletus C.: I read this to say Obama wants to tax the middle class more.

Thanks, Obummer.

Look at how stupid you are.

Actually according to what we've been told about both tax policy plans both parties want to tax the middle class more.......yay me!


But one of the two wants to cut taxes for the wealthy.
 
2012-10-01 05:03:22 PM  

Kazan: as long as you don't turn it into a persistent aerosol (primarily through combustion) then I don't really care, legally.


don't start this shiat again ;)
 
2012-10-01 05:08:57 PM  

Kazan: wotthefark: can invest in more capital and use more employees.

companies hire when they need additional workers, not when they have spare money laying around. trickle down economics don't work - we have farking 30 years of evidence for that. stop being a jackass.


And I as I pointed out the tax cut would be for those making under the threshold thus creating more demand within the market place currently as they have access to more funds. I'm stating that businesses and consumers benefit from raising the threshold. The only people getting farked under lifting the maximum taxable wage are individuals that currently make over $110100.

www.aei.org

Only around 6 percent of earners have earnings above the tax max in a given year. Reduce Social Security benefits for middle and high earners while encouraging greater individual saving and longer work lives. Don't tax any SS income (which is bullshiat). If you do both then SS survives and less burden is placed on low income and employers. It is shifted to higher income workers.

This is the opposite of trickle down.
 
2012-10-01 05:27:47 PM  

skullkrusher: Kazan: as long as you don't turn it into a persistent aerosol (primarily through combustion) then I don't really care, legally.

don't start this shiat again ;)


once upon i time i actually posted about 3 posts worth of citations for it. didn't make a difference, all the farkwits just ignored the science.

someday i'll be pissed enough to do full citations again. then i'll save that biatch in a txt file, and every time it comes up again. BOOM KNOWLEDGE BOMB.

wotthefark: ....


i misread your post, apologies.
 
2012-10-01 05:32:33 PM  

Kazan: once upon i time i actually posted about 3 posts worth of citations for it. didn't make a difference, all the farkwits just ignored the science.

someday i'll be pissed enough to do full citations again. then i'll save that biatch in a txt file, and every time it comes up again. BOOM KNOWLEDGE BOMB.


you find a citation that proves risks to your health if someone is smoking a joint in their house and we'll talk. You've never done that.
 
2012-10-01 05:38:26 PM  

skullkrusher: you find a citation that proves risks to your health if someone is smoking a joint in their house and we'll talk. You've never done that.


actually i did. dunno if you were in the thread.

here's the in short:

a) no known lower limit threshold for harm [cited]
b) nose is far less sensitive than scientific instruments [obvious]
c) if can smell, being harmed [a+b=>c]
e) can smell neighbor being a skank ass in my house [direct observation.. not the only person to report this. could get EPA concentration numbers to back it up]
f) therefore being harmed. [c+e=>f]


unless your house has a negative pressure filtration system.....
 
2012-10-01 05:49:56 PM  

Kazan: skullkrusher: you find a citation that proves risks to your health if someone is smoking a joint in their house and we'll talk. You've never done that.

actually i did. dunno if you were in the thread.

here's the in short:

a) no known lower limit threshold for harm [cited]
b) nose is far less sensitive than scientific instruments [obvious]
c) if can smell, being harmed [a+b=>c]
e) can smell neighbor being a skank ass in my house [direct observation.. not the only person to report this. could get EPA concentration numbers to back it up]
f) therefore being harmed. [c+e=>f]


unless your house has a negative pressure filtration system.....


yeah I think that was our bone of contention. You claimed to be able to smell your neighbor smoking a cigarette in his house with the windows closed which is obviously not true.
 
2012-10-01 05:52:44 PM  
Wait...cigarettes or joints? Because this matters.
 
2012-10-01 05:54:05 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Wait...cigarettes or joints? Because this matters.


the discussion we had a while back was tobacco but it is apparently being applied to pot too.
 
2012-10-01 06:10:30 PM  

skullkrusher: . You claimed to be able to smell your neighbor smoking a cigarette in his house with the windows closed which is obviously not true.



for all you claiming "obviously not true" - it farking happened. unless you're arguing houses are air tight?

now.. i will point out these houses are in older homes in a state with shiattier building regs....

i don't think that same thing would happen in my new house. however I should be able to go out in my yard without having to partake in someone else' drug habit.

fortunately none of my direct neighbors are smokers.. and there is only one smoker in the entire cul-de-sac .. and she is trying to quit i believe (and their house was damaged by a tree and they don't live in it right now)
 
2012-10-01 06:10:35 PM  
What is this "payroll tax" to an employee? It's an income tax. It's a tax of a percentage of the employee's income. An employee doesn't have a payroll. He has an income. And that's what's taxed.

The employer has a payroll and a payroll tax. The employee has an income and an income tax that's called something else to hide the fact that they pay shiat tons in income tax to the federal government.
 
2012-10-01 06:18:04 PM  

Kazan: skullkrusher: . You claimed to be able to smell your neighbor smoking a cigarette in his house with the windows closed which is obviously not true.


for all you claiming "obviously not true" - it farking happened. unless you're arguing houses are air tight?

now.. i will point out these houses are in older homes in a state with shiattier building regs....

i don't think that same thing would happen in my new house. however I should be able to go out in my yard without having to partake in someone else' drug habit.

fortunately none of my direct neighbors are smokers.. and there is only one smoker in the entire cul-de-sac .. and she is trying to quit i believe (and their house was damaged by a tree and they don't live in it right now)


No, houses aren't airtight but unless you're sitting on his porch with him or your houses are 10 feet apart and he's smoking next to an opened window and you also have an open window, I say bullshiat. The escaping smoke from a crack in the foundation that crosses the air between houses and sneaks in your old window is not gonna be detectable
 
2012-10-01 06:18:57 PM  

Kazan: a) no known lower limit threshold for harm [cited]
b) nose is far less sensitive than scientific instruments [obvious]
c) if can smell, being harmed [a+b=>c]


Um, you fail at step c. I'm gonna be charitable and say you realize that "we don't know the lower limit for harm" in no way implies that said limit is below the detection range of smell and you're just intentionally trolling, because the thought that our education system has failed you so badly that you're incapable of basic logic would just be depressing.
 
2012-10-01 06:21:23 PM  
Even in the incredibly unlikely scenario that this is true, it is not reason to ban smoking. It's reason for your neighbor to not smoke in conditions you can smell. Which is apparently a vacuum sealed bubble made of kryptonite on the moon
 
2012-10-01 06:42:46 PM  

skullkrusher: No, houses aren't airtight but unless you're sitting on his porch with him or your houses are 10 feet apart and he's smoking next to an opened window and you also have an open window, I say bullshiat. The escaping smoke from a crack in the foundation that crosses the air between houses and sneaks in your old window is not gonna be detectable


leaky windows bro, leaky windows.


Jim_Callahan: Um, you fail at step c. I'm gonna be charitable and say you realize that "we don't know the lower limit for harm" in no way implies that said limit is below the detection range of smell and you're just intentionally trolling, because the thought that our education system has failed you so badly that you're incapable of basic logic would just be depressing.


no.. because you would be in error - we know the limit of harm is below the limit of the sensitivity of the human nose. we know the limit of harm is below the threshold of the limit of sensitivity of the canine nose

because the limit of the threshold of harm is below the level at which scientific instruments can measure that the chemical is present at all.

but given the lack of context i can see why you thought i was committing argumentum ad ignorantium

"The Threshold Theory"

Although some have argued that tobacco smoke cannot cause cancer below a certain level, there is no evidence that this threshold exists. In the absence of such evidence, carcinogens at any level are considered by EPA to increase risk somewhat, although the degree of risk certainly is reduced as exposure decreases. The increased risks observed in the secondhand smoke epidemiology studies are further evidence that any threshold for secondhand smoke would have to be at very low levels.

Link


Thesmall airway epitheliumdetectsandresponds to low
levels of tobacco smoke with transcriptome modifications. This
provides biologic correlates of epidemiologic studies linking lowlevel
tobaccosmokeexposure to lung health risk, identifies the genes
most sensitive to tobacco smoke, and defines thresholds at which
the lung epithelium responds to low levels of tobacco smoke.

http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/content/182/12/1524.full.pdf
 
2012-10-01 06:43:37 PM  
I just have to make this analog about the people who call letting temporary tax cuts expire "a tax hike."

It's as if they call their favorite aunt Mabel "Aunt Mabel, we're having a little trouble making ends meet, can you help us out."

Aunt Mabel, bless her heart, sends a $50 check every month. Finally Aunt Mabel dies and the checks stop coming.

So you sue her estate for restoration of the $50 it is now stealing from you every month.
 
2012-10-01 06:45:16 PM  

skullkrusher: Even in the incredibly unlikely scenario that this is true, it is not reason to ban smoking. It's reason for your neighbor to not smoke in conditions you can smell. Which is apparently a vacuum sealed bubble made of kryptonite on the moon


a negative pressure air filter is neither exotic, nor particularly expensive these days. it just means an air filtration system that filters the air in a building by sucking air into the filter from inside the building, and exhausting the filtered air to the outside - keeping the inside of the building at a lower ambient air temperature than the surroundings. this ensures that all exhaust air has gone through the filter

now.. in a perfect world i would support this technique (it is legal only when used in a building with suitable filtration). however realistically people would still be poisoning their neighbors - because they wouldn't listen to the regs, and i'm not OK with ceding my rights. I would think someone who claims to be a libertarian would understand not wanting to cede their rights.
 
2012-10-01 07:11:51 PM  
1.) Nobody is getting any credit for it so....
2.) (because) few even know it's happening
3.) (because) few are actually seeing bigger take home pay since the insurance companies increased rates and/or business owners (probably with the guidance of the US Chamber of Commerce) adjusted the employee's contribution proportionally.

In short, the payroll deduction stimulus was stolen. I lived it.
 
2012-10-01 07:13:23 PM  

bdub77: BMulligan: It sucks for me personally, but it is clearly the right thing to do from a policy perspective.

My family will pay probably 3-4K more next year from this. Good. I want to receive SS when I retire.


How do you know one will cause the other? I'd rather bank that money myself, rather than wonder if they're going to raise the retirement age to higher than I'll live to.
 
2012-10-01 08:14:47 PM  

Kazan: lower ambient air temperaturepressure



ftfm
 
2012-10-01 08:37:25 PM  

AcneVulgaris: How do you know one will cause the other? I'd rather bank that money myself, rather than wonder if they're going to raise the retirement age to higher than I'll live to.


Even if they change nothing at all on retirement age nor benefits, you'd receive about 70% of the benefits you'd otherwise get if funding was no issue.

Really, they should raise the retirement age by one or two years again - it should track life expectancy, so that on average people will spend the same percentage of their lives working. That would easily solve the sustainability problems of SS indefinitely.
 
2012-10-01 10:03:06 PM  

Kazan: I would think someone who claims to be a libertarian would understand not wanting to cede their rights.


oh, I completely understand. I am completely supportive of non-smoker rights and concerns. I just don't believe that you can smell someone smoking from their own closed house in your closed house. See the issue?
 
2012-10-01 11:18:04 PM  
I don't get why this is sad. That was the stupidest thing Obama ever did and it needs to go away. I WANT my dollars to be taxed for that so there might be some farking money in Social Security in 20 years when I become eligible.
 
2012-10-01 11:19:25 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: "Presidebt" OBrokenpromises once again lives up to his name. On one hand he says taxes won't go up... and then he SIMPLY NEGLECTS TO MENTION THAT A TEMPORARY TAX HOLIDAY IS EXPIRING under HIS WATCH.


And you are too farking ignorant to realize that a temporary tax holiday expiring does not equate to raising taxes.

/how the fark do you get so far off on reading comprehension?
 
2012-10-01 11:20:47 PM  

Cletus C.: I read this to say Obama wants to tax the middle class more.

Thanks, Obummer.


Then you too fail at reading comprehension.
 
2012-10-02 09:27:10 AM  

skullkrusher: oh, I completely understand. I am completely supportive of non-smoker rights and concerns. I just don't believe that you can smell someone smoking from their own closed house in your closed house. See the issue?


your disbelief of something that happened doesn't mean it didn't happened. and as i pointed out - a house build now probably wouldn't leak enough for it to happen. both houses involved were 40 years old (as of this year) in iowa.

ignoring this silly argument - what about the summer when we both open our windows. are they not infringing my rights (health and property) when their cancer cloud wafts onto my property?
 
2012-10-02 10:11:42 AM  

Kazan: ignoring this silly argument - what about the summer when we both open our windows. are they not infringing my rights (health and property) when their cancer cloud wafts onto my property?


sure
 
2012-10-02 02:28:45 PM  

Kazan: a) no known lower limit threshold for harm [cited]
b) nose is far less sensitive than scientific instruments [obvious]
c) if can smell, being harmed [a+b=>c]
e) can smell neighbor being a skank ass in my house [direct observation.. not the only person to report this. could get EPA concentration numbers to back it up]
f) therefore being harmed. [c+e=>f]



Newsflash: there is no known lower threshold for harm with cannabis.
DoubleNewsflash: There is no known upper threshold for harm with cannabis.

/If only weed were legal so we could conduct research and ... you know... find out these unknowable truths.
//Maybe don't hinge your argument on ignorance reinforced by the conclusion of your argument?
 
2012-10-02 04:49:46 PM  

BeesNuts: Newsflash: there is no known lower threshold for harm with cannabis.
DoubleNewsflash: There is no known upper threshold for harm with cannabis.

/If only weed were legal so we could conduct research and ... you know... find out these unknowable truths.
//Maybe don't hinge your argument on ignorance reinforced by the conclusion of your argument?



you replied before reading my elaboration - it isn't a lack of knowledge, it is knowledge of lack of threshold. that same knowledge is true for cannabis, and despite claims to the contrary extensive research has been done on the subject.
 
Displayed 164 of 164 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report