Extending the Payroll Tax Cut
 

Isn't this simply the equivalent of reducing your IRA/401K contribution, converting it into spending money and putting part of the payment for your healthcare policy on a credit card? And if we want to help small business why in the world are they excluded from the cut? Smoke and mirrors I wish. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for tax cuts but this is far from a tax cut and is just one more example of complete lack of fiscal responsibility. The solution to the deficit problem, nearing Greece in regards to GDP, isn't that difficult and certainly a payroll tax reduction, the equivalent of stealing from SS isn't the answer.

SS is in far more trouble than any politician is willing to admit. Using SS data from 1957-2010 http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html the following was noted and a bit ominous:

* Not once from year to year (in 53 years) have payroll contributions ever decreased until 2008-2009 ($4.86 billion) and 2009-2010 ($29.97 billion) the first time ever interest on the account decreased was also 2009-2010.

* Despite the decreased payroll contributions received from 2009-2010 benefits paid out increased by $26.12 billion. $60 billion 2008-2009. For a total of over $86 billion in 2 years. A 12% increase or 6% per year average. Also noting never once since the start of the chart have benefits paid out ever decreased. At the rate of a 6% increase each year benefits paid out in 5 years 2016 should total just under $942 billion up $240 billion from 2010.

With the housing market crash and unemployment rates at their peak I'd suspect the loss of many retirement portfolios have put more in the position that they will rely on SS for a good portion of life in retirement. Considering the whole thought process behind SS as being a security net because privately investing in the stock market is too risky doesn't seem to jive with reducing contributions to retirement and using the money for everyday spending.

The fact, the recently downgraded US Treasury, holds the entire operation in an IOU account while acting as a investment bank ie Goldman Sachs Lehman Bros would, making loans and investments in such stellar performers as Fannie and Freddie, Solyndra, GM perhaps the IMF, etc. etc should set off alarms everywhere. In other words as a portfolio manager they suck. Social Security being in a lockbox and this plan continuing is a complete joke/ripoff.

Last year, when the Republicans went to the mat defending the wealthy, and refused to allow the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthiest Americans only to expire, the trade-off bargained by the Dems agreeing to allow the Republicans richest Americans to keep their tax break on the highest of incomes, was to also temporarily initiate giving poor and middle class families a tiny tax break of their own, about $1000 a year more cash in their pockets, during the recession.

Oh. The Horror.

Now, the Republicans say the Dems can't continue that tiny tax break for the poor unless the Dems offset the cost. Which is really strange, because the Republicans have always directly and deliberately refused to offset the far greater cost of the massive 10-year-long Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthy, which directly helped put our country trillions into deficit.

Occupy The Voting Booth. The choice is really clear.

If the wealthy, say top 25% of wage earners weren't already paying 85% or the top half paying over 95% of all personal income taxes you may have point. Sadly they do pay that and thus you don't have a point. What should the top 1/4 pay, 90%-95-100% of the total tab?

Why did the top wealthiest 1% get this special tax cut in the first place? The wealthiest shouldn't have received a special tax cut. Especially one that directly pushed this country into a deficit. Don't you agree?

to right a wrong and no I don't agree

You know because almost half of what the top quarter pays comes from the top 1% (36.7% of all personal income tax paid) and while collectively 1%ers Adjusted Gross Income represents 16.9% of all income they are paying 37% of all collected personal income taxes. Look, no one here including me will likely ever meet much more be one of the 1,379,000 people filing returns that make up the 1% yet it doesn't make it right to covet even more of their money. They're doing quite enough as is. IMO and deserve a big THANK YOU rather than a payment due notice

Wow. Talk about being grateful for the crumbs from the lord's table.

He's learned his lesson well.

The following chart is from 2006 (it's worse now). Please tell me how much money one has to earn to be in the bottom 90-95% of American wage earners.

"It's the inequality"
 

Winner take all: see the chart on the right? See the lines going down on the right? That's your "real income" over the past 30+ years (if you are not a millionaire or better)





http://motherjones.com/politics/2011...ca-chart-graph

Okay - so you are in favor of that special unfinanced tax cut to the wealthiest of Americans, that pushed this country into trillions of deficit. And you are defending that.

But you are against continuing a much smaller temporary tax cut for everyone else who is not wealthy (middle class and poverty level). And you want the middle class and poverty level to pay more taxes.

But you say you are a libertarian.

the top 1% controls about 42% of the money, perhaps they should pay 42% of the taxes as well. they can certainly afford it!
that's not coveting, i'm certainly not going to get a penny of it.

fortunately we apparantly have come a long way as according to 2009 IRS data the bottom 90% includes filings for people who make about $120K and less. BTW a full 30.7% of returns filed were for between $50K and $200K (Middle Class)

Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saaz drawings maybe should be taken with a grain of salt.

You really don't get it.

Do you suppose a union, say the teachers union, got a 2% raise for its teachers, but an equal reduction to be made in contributions to the pension fund, it would be happy?

This is no tax break this is just moving money from your right pocket to your left hoping you don't lose any in the transfer.

If taxes are to be paid on what one 'controls' then yes that would seem logical. And that may be a way to go. But then again we'd tax foundations, what stock and retirement portfolios one might have equity in home(s), commercial real estate and what businesses are worth. Not too business or investment friendly though. And would be a shame to tax two guys who work side by side and earn the same wages 50K and 5K because the guy taxed 5K had a few DUI's and made a couple of bad investments, has no home or retirement savings while the other guy saved as much as he could, worked a second job and invested in rental properties in lieu of lawyer fees and fines.

Meanwhile we tax by earned Adjusted Gross Income and while the top 1% earn 17 percent of all income they pay 37% of all taxes. So should their taxes be reduced by over half?

the tax code needs revisiting. things need to be changed. people talk about job creation; that should be the thing that gets you the biggest deduction, not a donation to an art museum for example. the more people working, and getting paid a good wage, the better off everyone and everything is.

and i'd love to see my retirement grow to the point i'm in the 1%. yeah, not holding my breath.

:D No. Income inequality has not improved since 2009 as you profess, it has worsened.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/daily...uality-america

Watching you jump through hoops to defend a plutocracy is simply amazing.

Me? :D You are the one who professes to be "libertarian", yet you are blindly defending and trying to maintain an unfunded tax cut for the wealthy that cost this country trillions and put us in debt, while on the other hand trying to justify the poor and middle class paying increased taxes.

Honestly Dell, one doesn't need charts and graphs and articles by scholars to see that the wealth gap is increasing at the expense of the poor, there are two Americas today, the one inhabited by the rich and the one where the rest of us live. All the propaganda in the world won't change that fact and sooner or later folks are gonna tire of watching the wealthy grow wealthier while they struggle and find it impossible to give their kids the same as they were given by their parents. When that day comes there will be revolution and it won't be pretty!

Life 40-70 years ago: You worked, you saved, you retired. Your personal savings paid 5% interest, you got a pension from your company, and you got Social Security and Medicare. Three pillars of retirement: savings, pension, SS. Your house was paid off and increased in value over the years, you sold it when you were very old to pay for the nursing home care.

Life now: You worked. The three pillars that created a middle class are gone. Savings accounts pay 0.25%. Your real income has not increased, it has fallen precipitously over the past 40 years - you work longer hours, but make less in "real" money. Companies no longer give pensions. Republicans want to take away your Social Security and give that money to Wall Street to gamble with, in spite of the fact they've lost 1/3 or more of the value in private retirement accounts over the past 10 years. Your house is underwater. Republicans also want to take away your Medicare.

Whose fault is this? That 90% of Americans don't control the wealth of this country? That there is hardly a middle class left? According to the Republicans, it's the fault of firefighters, policemen, and kindergarten teachers.

Wake up, America. We live in a plutocracy. Herman Cain is a failed restaurant lobbyist owned by the Koch brothers. Newt Gingrich is the poster boy for Washington Insider Lobbyist who will sell his soul for a dollar and only cares about the rich, and blames the poor for being poor. Bachmann, Santorum and Perry trade on religious fear and singularity, and hate of "gays" and "brown people" and "Muslims"

And no, I am not exempting guilty Democrats from the selfsame sins.

It's already happening, and it's Occupy. In America, in Europe, in South America. Some will not be sheep any more.