• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Anyone else see themselves take a sizable pay impact this month?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Yep, took a hit. House Republicans esteem for the middle class strikes again.

And surprise surprise, the usual crowd is hellbent on pining GOP fail on Obama, regardless of how stupid it makes them look.
 
kage69 said:
Yep, took a hit. House Republicans esteem for the middle class strikes again.

And surprise surprise, the usual crowd is hellbent on pining GOP fail on Obama, regardless of how stupid it makes them look.
Click to expand...

Neither side, short of a few, were willing to extend this.
 
Mine is up 106/month, just as a direct comparison from December of last year to January of this year. Most of it was an increase in Social Security, and about $13 was federal tax witholdings . .
 
After reading through the thread . . does anyone know the historical reason for caping SS earnings at ~$113k? I mean if Obama wanted more revenue from the rich, why not remove the cap but keep the rate at 4% for everyone? Don't you think that would have generated more net revenue yet kept the campaign promise of not hurting the middle class?
 
No matter the facts, perception of reality is sometimes greater than the realty itself,

That is why many people on the street are calling this an Obama tax, when they looked at their smaller paychecks.
 
Lithium381 said:
After reading through the thread . . does anyone know the historical reason for caping SS earnings at ~$113k? I mean if Obama wanted more revenue from the rich, why not remove the cap but keep the rate at 4% for everyone? Don't you think that would have generated more net revenue yet kept the campaign promise of not hurting the middle class?
Click to expand...

Two big reasons:

First, the money from payroll taxes goes directly to social security, not the general fund. We don't really need a lot more SS revenue.

Second, we need more revenue from the baseline. Remember, for the last 4 years or so Obama has actually cut your payroll taxes. It was never intended to be permanent. While I agree in uncapping SS contributions, the result of your plan would still have just been a big overall tax cut.
 
kage69 said:
Yep, took a hit. House Republicans esteem for the middle class strikes again.

And surprise surprise, the usual crowd is hellbent on pining GOP fail on Obama, regardless of how stupid it makes them look.
Click to expand...

Fail. Please take a time out and cure your ignorance before you hurt yourself of someone else.

Engineer said:
Neither side, short of a few, were willing to extend this.
Click to expand...

This

TerryMathews said:
Oh really? The Senate passed a SS payroll tax cut? Link please, I hadn't seen that.
Click to expand...

And this. Obama or the Senate dems never demanded that the cut be continued, so yeah lets go blame the HoR reps.
 
TerryMathews said:
Oh really? The Senate passed a SS payroll tax cut? Link please, I hadn't seen that.
Click to expand...

It was part of Obama's stated negotiating position that was dropped as they went on. It was never part of the Republicans' position.

If you want to argue that Obama including it was part of a stealth way to get rid of it later...well...ok. There's no way anyone can prove or disprove that.

From a rational examination of each side's position as stated however it is clear that the Republicans didn't want it. Why is admitting this such a problem?
 
eskimospy said:
It was part of Obama's stated negotiating position that was dropped as they went on. It was never part of the Republicans' position.

If you want to argue that Obama including it was part of a stealth way to get rid of it later...well...ok. There's no way anyone can prove or disprove that.

From a rational examination of each side's position as stated however it is clear that the Republicans didn't want it. Why is admitting this such a problem?
Click to expand...

Obama is the leader of the Democratic party, correct?

Just be honest, for once. Neither party really wanted that tax cut, which affects all the proles.

That's real bipartisanship. They finally agreed on something.
 
TerryMathews said:
Obama is the leader of the Democratic party, correct?

Just be honest, for once. Neither party really wanted that tax cut, which affects all the proles.

That's real bipartisanship. They finally agreed on something.
Click to expand...

It's the nature of politicians to not accept responsibility. Obama and the dems are no exceptions to this.
 
TerryMathews said:
Obama is the leader of the Democratic party, correct?

Just be honest, for once. Neither party really wanted that tax cut, which affects all the proles.

That's real bipartisanship. They finally agreed on something.
Click to expand...

Just so I'm clear, your argument is that if something is in your initial bargaining position and you later give it up to reach a compromise that it means you never wanted it to begin with and that it is the same as never wanting it in the first place?

That is baffling. Once again, some things are just objective reality.
 
eskimospy said:
It was part of Obama's stated negotiating position that was dropped as they went on. It was never part of the Republicans' position.

If you want to argue that Obama including it was part of a stealth way to get rid of it later...well...ok. There's no way anyone can prove or disprove that.

From a rational examination of each side's position as stated however it is clear that the Republicans didn't want it. Why is admitting this such a problem?
Click to expand...

I am fairly confident that if it was included in a bill that also extended the benefits to all it would have been approved.

Remember the two sides were at considerable odds, and continue to be....

Obama wanted to make an example of the top percentile so that taxes eventually can be raised on the middle class, even if gradually it will have a larger effect with regards to revenue generation....he was only keeping the SS rate in there if he got his way and those making 200 ind or 250 household and above got hit....otherwise everyone has to feel the pain....

The repubs on the other hand as we all know wanted to extend the current rates for all and if they didn't get that, then they were going to do as little as possible for everyone else.

Regardless, paying more in taxes by the middle class in a down economy is something the electorate seemingly wanted, so that is what we get.

My big beef is with all this to do around the "middle class"....the fact of the matter is the middle class is, and will continue to be the most exploited demographic there is, the bs about how "important" the group is only extends for how much tax revenue can be generated to pay for further expanding government, social programs, and the liberal "base"

Rant off
 
Last edited:
I do say "thanks Obama". It was nice bringing home more money, but the Social Security trust fund has already been spent, by both parties, and to keep the program solvent even a few more years requires we go back to our original schedule. The cut might have helped, but it needed to go away.
 
eskimospy said:
Just so I'm clear, your argument is that if something is in your initial bargaining position and you later give it up to reach a compromise that it means you never wanted it to begin with and that it is the same as never wanting it in the first place?

That is baffling. Once again, some things are just objective reality.
Click to expand...

My argument is that Mr. Obama, as the head of the Democratic party, could have insisted on the SS tax cut if he was really interested in keeping it.

He could have instructed his lackeys in Congress and the Senate to draft a budget according to his wishes and then put it up for a vote.

Stop covering, it makes you look like a partisan hack. Neither side cared about the middle. I can freely admit my side didn't give a damn. What does that say about you? I think we all know the answer.
 
Are you insane? He couldn't just have whatever he wanted, it was a long, drawn-out process where it wasn't clear they could cut any kind of deal until the very last minute. He gave up some things in the negotiation, additional stimulus in ways such as the payroll tax holiday extension being one of them. The Republicans gave up things too, such as the reversion to Clinton-era rates for those above $400k. Does that mean the Republicans didn't really want permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, because they gave them up to make a deal?
 
TerryMathews said:
My argument is that Mr. Obama, as the head of the Democratic party, could have insisted on the SS tax cut if he was really interested in keeping it.

He could have instructed his lackeys in Congress and the Senate to draft a budget according to his wishes and then put it up for a vote.

Stop covering, it makes you look like a partisan hack. Neither side cared about the middle. I can freely admit my side didn't give a damn. What does that say about you? I think we all know the answer.
Click to expand...

It just tells me that you're once again attempting to employ a false equivalency. If you're in a negotiation and then attempt to implement the thing you just agreed not to implement, you are negotiating in bad faith. I do not view Obama not choosing to negotiate in bad faith over this to be evidence that his inclusion of a payroll tax cut in his initial offer was part of a convoluted ruse to introduce something he didn't want.

Not choosing to indulge evidence free flights of fancy is exactly that and nothing more. People accuse others of partisanship when they don't have a good argument of their own.
 
berzerker60 said:
He couldn't just have whatever he wanted, it was a long, drawn-out process where it wasn't clear they could cut any kind of deal until the very last minute.
Click to expand...

I saw political posturing on both sides, so Obama or anyone else in the negotiations could have pushed to have this tax break remain in place. Yet no one ever mentioned extending the tax break.

I knew they would come to an agreement that magically saved our rears whilst kicking the can down the road.
 
Londo_Jowo said:
I saw political posturing on both sides, so Obama or anyone else in the negotiations could have pushed to have this tax break remain in place. Yet no one ever mentioned extending the tax break.

I knew they would come to an agreement that magically saved our rears whilst kicking the can down the road.
Click to expand...

This is not correct. Extending this tax break was in Obama's initial offer.
 
I wonder how many people out there who don't follow a single shred of news will be shocked by their first paycheck of the year in the next day or so...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top