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  
•       •       •

2842 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Oct 2012 at 11:24 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 164 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report