• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Payroll Tax Closer To Being Extended

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,530
271
136
lol Asshat. I don't get it to begin with so I am not passing it up. Besides with the strings attached I wouldn't want it anyways. That $1000/yr is costing us how much in interest on the debt. Gotta pay for that sometime. You are right though who cares, you just want your "free" money right?
I never said you did, just thought it was funny you thought $1000 wasn't notable.

Gotta pay for it sometime? Like when?
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,833
1
0
lol Asshat. I don't get it to begin with so I am not passing it up. Besides with the strings attached I wouldn't want it anyways. That $1000/yr is costing us how much in interest on the debt. Gotta pay for that sometime. You are right though who cares, you just want your "free" money right?
How do you not get it? You don't pay payroll tax?
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,530
271
136
Democrats and Obama will get blamed if it expires, it will be under their watch and a new republican president will be prepping to undo all Obama's destruction so it will be easy and even highly enjoyable to blame them.
Wait, have you already conceded Obama's going to win this election? That's good if you're already coming to terms with the likely reality, congrats!
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,530
271
136
From CNN:

Monday's decision by House GOP leaders to drop their insistence that the tax cut extension be paid for by offsetting spending cuts was a sharp turnaround for House Republicans. Top party members previously insisted that a failure to fully pay for the tax break would be financially reckless.

But the debate over whether and how to extend the tax cut has been a political loser so far for the Republicans, who publicly questioned its value last year. Democrats have gleefully highlighted the GOP's reluctance, using the issue to portray Republicans as defenders of the rich who are indifferent to the plight of the middle class.

Political analysts believe the showdown over the payroll holiday has eroded GOP strength on the party's core issue of lower taxes. Fearing negative repercussions, Republican leaders have now backtracked on the issue twice: dropping their opposition to the two-month extension last December and dropping their insistence on paying for a longer extension on Monday.


"December was a debacle," Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said Wednesday. "We don't want to repeat that."

"I think the GOP has read the writing on the wall when it comes to the payroll tax cut," said Brown University political scientist Wendy Schiller. "Americans are benefiting from it, and to take it away at this juncture leaves them open to charges of raising taxes. ... It would severely hamper the GOP presidential nominee's effort to defeat Obama."

Boehner and other top House GOP leaders tried Monday to separate the payroll tax extension from provisions dealing with unemployment benefits and the doc fix, but quickly backed away from the proposal. Democrats objected loudly to the idea.
lol.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
Of course its a political loser for republicans. Once voters realize that they can plunder the public treasury by voting a certain way, the other side is sure to lose. Also, this historically has been when/where all democracies fail.
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,313
2
0
And yes, $40 is a lot of money to most people.
$40 as a single fund is actually not a lot to virtually anybody. If it were weekly it would be a lot to a person making $20k/year, but as eaglekeeper already mentioned, that amount only comes when you're making around a hundred K/year, and $40/week to such an earner is virtually noise. In any case, the majority of wage earners make a salary much lower than that, so the amount is more like $40 every couple of weeks or less. It's really not much either way, but it is money that has to be paid by somebody somewhere, since no parallel reduction in government coverage has occurred. I wonder how support for this would change it it had an immediate, promised reduction in future social security payouts. Then the proles would be like "hey, I don't want to have less future benefits, just pay less taxes now, don't you get it?" And then the person who passed grade 3 math is like "Yeah, well sorry that's not how math works, bro."
 
Last edited:

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,833
1
0
$40 as a single fund is actually not a lot to virtually anybody. If it were weekly it would be a lot to a person making $20k/year, but as eaglekeeper already mentioned, that amount only comes when you're making around a hundred K/year, and $40/week to such an earner is virtually noise. In any case, the majority of wage earners make a salary much lower than that, so the amount is more like $40 every couple of weeks or less. It's really not much either way, but it is money that has to be paid by somebody somewhere, since no parallel reduction in government coverage has occurred.
For me it's $47/paycheck which is $94/month. That's a lot when your take home pay is only $2000/month.

I'll be happy to pay more taxes in the future... When I have an actual job that pays a living wage.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,703
1,009
126
So xBiffx, since the Bush tax cuts were unfunded and have put us trillions into the red all by themselves, I assume you want them repealed in toto in order to save our democracy?
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,148
1
76
For some of us $40/paycheck is a lot.
And for those same somebodies, that will not be $40.

It is a stupid proposal.

The focus should be on Capital Gains and the like. While moderate earnings (say, less than $50K/yr) should remain at 15%, if you are earning $1M/yr off your investments, you should be paying more than 15%..... There is a risk, so it should not be as high as, say, the Reagan Era upper bracket (~40%?), but say something along the line of 30%. If you want, you can even tier it. Wanna go further? Make a loss on the market deductible for X years. A limited carryover of deductions on losses.

Our main problem nowadays is our immediate models for financial gain AND for revenue generation. Maybe if the Government had a more long-term policy for tax collection rather than its yearly parade we would have a better, STEADY flow of funds that would be less likely to crush the unwary or ignore the overly savvy.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
4
0
So xBiffx, since the Bush tax cuts were unfunded and have put us trillions into the red all by themselves, I assume you want them repealed in toto in order to save our democracy?
and cut spending by the same amount
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY