Republicons and Taxes

[bigbadberry3]

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-may-ok-tax-in ... 16578.html



They like bush era tax cuts because it helps the rich, but when it's 46 percent of the Americans not so much.

[IBCoupe]

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

It's not class warfare when Republicans do it.

[szh]

Curiosity question since I don't know the answer: The article says from one source that $120 billion would be the "cost", if the reduction continues for another year ... what is the cost for the lowered amount that the other tax reduction "for the wealthy" caused?

(Which, btw, this Republican ... me ... am/was in favor of letting expire, so don't get in an uproar - I am asking a real question above.)

Also, not to change the subject too much - maybe it should be split out - there is another interesting comment in that article: "The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says payroll tax reductions give the economy a short-term boost. But it says the benefit is bigger if employers get the tax break instead of, or along with, workers."

Say what? The nonpartisan CBO believes in the mis-labeled "trickle-down economics" theory?

Z

[stebo0728]

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

It's not class warfare when Republicans do it.

Does the statement you quoted not sound a little off to you? The plan would help a segment of people who already pay ZERO income tax? It would cut their payroll taxes, which are used for what again? Oh welfare, thats right, oh and that fictitious retirement we're all being promised when we're old. So how is it you cut FICA revenue of 46% of the base, NOT cut the spending of the entitlements it supports, and come out AHEAD?

Fuzzy math is fuzzy.

[IBCoupe]

Oh welfare, thats right, oh and that fictitious retirement we're all being promised when we're old.

That's not how Social Security has ever worked. You have not been promised anything.

So how is it you cut FICA revenue of 46% of the base, NOT cut the spending of the entitlements it supports, and come out AHEAD?

By acknowledging reality: poor people spend all of their money. It's the inverse of trickle-down economics (which isn't, as Z suggested, about payroll tax cuts for employers, but income tax cuts for rich people and corporations - drastically different incentives). This is a measure that might increase revenues, and will spur growth.

The problem with our economy is that there's no demand, because unemployment is high and fear of unemployment is higher. Because demand is down, employers have nothing better to do than to sit on piles of cash until demand goes back up. Demand won't go back up until employers, en masse, stop sitting on cash and start hiring. It's a prisoner's dilemma.

But you can always count on the poor: they spend just about every dollar they have, because (1) their expenses take up a larger portion of their income and (2) a crappy life is made less crappy by immediate expenditure, and not long-term planning.

Cutting the actual entitlements, which go right back into the economy, is, in the view of all the things you could do, the absolute worst thing you could possibly do, unless your goal is to hurt (a) the poor, or (b) the US economy.

[AZhitman]

Cutting the actual entitlements, which go right back into the economy, is, in the view of all the things you could do, the absolute worst thing you could possibly do, unless your goal is to hurt (a) the poor, or (b) the US economy.

IF this is true, then it will rank up there with my opposition to drug testing welfare recipients on my "Things That Sound Good All Day Long But Fail Under Much Closer Scrutiny" list.

No matter how much sense it makes, it doesn't make sense.

[telcoman]

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-may-ok-tax-in ... 16578.html



They like bush era tax cuts because it helps the rich, but when it's 46 percent of the Americans not so much.

The solution is simple.
Extend the 4.2% for workers earning under $150k and raise the present FICA cap on $106k of wage earnings to unlimited on wages and extend FICA to those earning over $100k in dividends and capital gains.

Social Security problem solved.

Telcoman

[stebo0728]

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-may-ok-tax-in ... 16578.html



They like bush era tax cuts because it helps the rich, but when it's 46 percent of the Americans not so much.

The solution is simple.
Extend the 4.2% for workers earning under $150k and raise the present FICA cap on $106k of wage earnings to unlimited on wages and extend FICA to those earning over $100k in dividends and capital gains.

Social Security problem solved.

Telcoman

Great so your suggestion is to flip the financial tables. One group of people pays little, and gets what amounts to a great benefit, relatively speaking. Then another group pays an exorbitant amount into the system, only to collect that same mundane, relatively speaking, benefit in the future. Great plan, redistribute much? Spread the wealth much?

[IBCoupe]

Also, those people continue to get the functioning economy that's allowed them to flourish so far. And no guillotines. So there's that.

I'm not saying I agree with Howie so much as I'm taking issue with your characterization of what the wealthy get from entitlements for the poor.

[stebo0728]

Also, those people continue to get the functioning economy that's allowed them to flourish so far. And no guillotines. So there's that.

I'm not saying I agree with Howie so much as I'm taking issue with your characterization of what the wealthy get from entitlements for the poor.

Those poor have the potential to benefit from the economy just as much as the wealthy. Do you owe more for something just because you made better use of it? Policy like this quickens the onset of diminishing returns.

[IBCoupe]

Whether they should pay more is separate from whether they benefitted more. I think the notion that the poor had equal potential is laughable and dangerous ideology, but we've been over that in the past.

[R/T Hemi]

Great so your suggestion is to flip the financial tables. One group of people pays little, and gets what amounts to a great benefit, relatively speaking. Then another group pays an exorbitant amount into the system, only to collect that same mundane, relatively speaking, benefit in the future. Great plan, redistribute much? Spread the wealth much?

How do you get that from Telco's post? You completely missed the effect of inflation on the system, among other things. You really need to spend some time at factcheck looking into the SS myths you're fostering.

[stebo0728]

Great so your suggestion is to flip the financial tables. One group of people pays little, and gets what amounts to a great benefit, relatively speaking. Then another group pays an exorbitant amount into the system, only to collect that same mundane, relatively speaking, benefit in the future. Great plan, redistribute much? Spread the wealth much?

How do you get that from Telco's post? You completely missed the effect of inflation on the system, among other things. You really need to spend some time at factcheck looking into the SS myths you're fostering.

Inflation may support an INCREASE in the cap. Telco did not advocate an INCREASE in the cap, he advocated REMOVAL of the cap, big difference.

...raise the present FICA cap on $106k of wage earnings to UNLIMITED...

[IBCoupe]

Depends on inflation. There might not be that much of a difference.

[stebo0728]

So lets see, we remove the cap altogether, people making ANY amount of income pay 7.5% on 100% of their income. Couple that with the inevitable "means testing" thats coming our way, and you end up with a gang rape of the wealthy.

A side note for Telco. Does the employer also now have to pay their 7.5% FICA on 100% of their employees income? Did that even occur to you? What would that do to the economy?

[IBCoupe]

Isn't it 6%?

[Encryptshun]

I think what finally got me moved from the conservative side back to the moderate liberal side was finally understanding a fundamental difference between how most (not all) Republicans and/or conservatives in general view people with economic conditions beneath middle-class (75% of the population, in other words).

To them, anyone who is not successful looks like this:



When, in fact, most of them (overwhelmingly so) look like this:



Apologies for any racial or gender generalizations implied in these pictures. It's just very difficult to find public domain images that are both racially and gender comprehensive for these stereotypes.

[Cold_Zero]

I guess my question is this, why are their 'sacred cows' on either side that are exempt from paying a little extra? If it 'patriotic' to pay taxes according to our Vice President and everyone will have to sacrifice to some extent according to our President, where is the shared burden across the board? The thing I struggle with, in the context to the current 'Tax' issue is what do we hope to fix? I think this question has to be answered first because the conversation keeps drifting off into tangents. Do we:
Want to lower the National Debt?
Want to kick start the economy?
Want to cut spending?
Want to keep the Federal Government running?
Want to exact political revenge on rich Corporate Executives?
Want to help middle and lower income families get by?
Want to help the rich?

To me it seems that everyone is spinning their wheels on hypothetical situations and we really have no vision as a country as to what we want to do.

[szh]

Isn't it 6%?

Employer matches whatever the employee pays in, is my understanding.

When I ran my own consulting gig (as an individual consultant) for four years - some two decades ago - I paid double ... 15%.

Both "my share" and the "employer" share, even though I did not have an employer.

I believe that this is still true today.

Z

[Cold_Zero]

The other thing that drove me batty was that the Republican Candidates during the last debates (Iowa?) did everything in their power to use other terms for 'raising taxes' when asked if they had in the past raised taxes. My wife and I just looked at each other and were perplexed. I honestly think, as a conservative, that we need a moratorium on the whole ‘no tax increases, ever’ policy. I just don’t think this is a sustainable policy.

[szh]

The other thing that drove me batty was that the Republican Candidates during the last debates (Iowa?) did everything in their power to use other terms for 'raising taxes' when asked if they had in the past raised taxes. My wife and I just looked at each other and were perplexed. I honestly think, as a conservative, that we need a moratorium on the whole ‘no tax increases, ever’ policy. I just don’t think this is a sustainable policy.

Yup, agreed.

We need to think in terms of raising and lowering taxes wherever it makes sense to do so. Call it adjustment, perhaps.

Z

[Encryptshun]

Even when I was playing on the conservative side of the court, I couldn't figure out why Republican and Libertarian candidates promised or even promoted half the things they talked about.

[telcoman]

I honestly think, as a conservative, that we need a moratorium on the whole ‘no tax increases, ever’ policy. I just don’t think this is a sustainable policy.

Bingo

You finally woke up

Now what about all your misguided buddies

Telcoman

[Encryptshun]

The funny thing is that everyone in this country has the ability, at any time, to pay more taxes than they are required to pay.

I understand why the people who want to pay less would want to do that, but is the opposite true?

[IBCoupe]

I believe that this is still true today.

It is. It's part of the downsides to operating your own business or forming an LLC.

[IBCoupe]

The funny thing is that everyone in this country has the ability, at any time, to pay more taxes than they are required to pay.

I understand why the people who want to pay less would want to do that, but is the opposite true?

Would you want to pay more taxes if you knew it wouldn't make a damned bit of difference? The tragedy of the commons: we all recognize that we need to take into account the full costs of the government we desire, but it's in none of our interests to take on those costs by ourselves.

I can recognize that the government needs more money without being willing to write Quixotic checks to the IRS.

[szh]

I believe that this is still true today.

It is. It's part of the downsides to operating your own business or forming an LLC.

I guess so.

As an individual consultant, I had not incorporated - the costs (and increased corporate tax rates) were not worth it to me.

Yeah, 15% social security payment took a big chunk of money. I knew this going in, so it was not unexpected, but still hurt - particularly the first year when I was getting all set up.

Z

[IBCoupe]

Yeah, I bet. I'm not surprised it wasn't in your interest to incorporate. You likely would more often than not get the benefit of limited liability. Because you're theonly guy operating it and you're the only owner, if you did get sued for anything, you'd likely still be liable.

[szh]

Yeah, I bet. I'm not surprised it wasn't in your interest to incorporate. You likely would more often than not get the benefit of limited liability. Because you're theonly guy operating it and you're the only owner, if you did get sued for anything, you'd likely still be liable.

Costs in California to incorporate were simply too high for me to go for it. And I did not want to pay corporate tax rates my first year out - my personal tax rates were much lower.

Plus, the systems analysis planning work I was doing, did not have a high likelihood of lawsuits against me. Fortunately, in the almost four years I was an independent consultant, I did not have any issues ...

Z

[telcoman]

Great so your suggestion is to flip the financial tables. One group of people pays little, and gets what amounts to a great benefit, relatively speaking. Then another group pays an exorbitant amount into the system, only to collect that same mundane, relatively speaking, benefit in the future. Great plan, redistribute much? Spread the wealth much?

The uber successful should be paying more
If not them then who?

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ ... f=business

Telcoman