Trump pitched 0% payroll tax rate for the rest of the year

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: toolgal462

Because I highly doubt it is a tax cut and even if it were, I've figured out awhile back we will all more than likely end up paying more in the long run.
But, our govt has no willpower to cut enough of the spending to make up for a close to year long tax holiday.
They need money for their wall, for new ships, new airplanes, improvements on military bases, money for bombs and missiles, money for golf carts for secret service agents, money, money, money, bridges to nowhere, airports not wanted or needed, hotels in areas already oversaturated with hotels, new sports stadiums....

Its congress, and it's their job to spend money we dont have, and they are like drunken sailors on shore leave!!!

I feel so strongly about my because I watched as every danged tax and fee they could hike up get hiked up always with the excuse that they had to pay the medicaid. I watched as the neighbor across the street run her danged kid to the doctors whenever she got as much as a runny nose and hike her heat up opening all her window in the middle of winter, because well, why not she didnt have to pay her heat bill. And, we paid those taxes and fees, even during those times when money was scarce and I was driving food that was enough to feed three into four portions and going without...
And, when I needed help?? There was none!! It took a danged legislator intervening for me to get the surgery I need, better a late than never and once i got the danged bill, i just stopped the danged physical therapy. That danged bill was probably more than i have earned since then!! Well, we paid what we felt was suitable for the crappy healthcare provided and said adios after the bankruptcy.

that sounds like a lot of good reasons that none of us should be giving our useless govt. more of our money. And a tax cut is welcome so we can keep more of our money.

a reply to: toolgal462

Unless tax cuts are accompanied by spending cuts you are robbing Peter to pay paul.. Peter is our children and grandchildren.. in this case Paul's seems to be you and however much you might get in tax cuts...

a reply to: dawnstar

then we agree. I think that plenty of govt. spending should be cut.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: 1947boomer

It would offset losses businesses are taking right now because of the virus.

The EMPLOYERS.

You know... the economic effect of the virus.

Think much?

/facepalm

Actually, yes, I think quite a bit.

I realize that the intent of Trump's proposal is to have some economic effect. That's actually one of the main points I was making; there is zero public health benefit from this proposal, so any presumed benefit would have to be economic.

The problem is this is a stupid way to address the foreseeable economic effects of the pandemic. It is a classical Republican play--they've never seen a problem that couldn't be solved by a tax cut. Unfortunately, this is one problem that can't and even some Republicans realize that. That's why nobody in Washington likes it, including McConnell, Schumer, Mnuchin, and Kudlow.

A tax cut is one form of economic stimulus; it puts more money circulating into the economy. If you have a recession due to a lack of consumer demand but there is unused production capacity in the economy, then putting more money into the hands of consumers will spool up that production capacity and increase the overall size of the economy. Many recessions are of this type, and when they are, tax cut stimulus can be a rational policy.

But that's not what we're facing. When people stay home because they are ill or because they have to take care of someone who is, or because they are quarantined, or because they work in an industry that has been shuttered, they are not available to be economically productive for any amount of money. What we are going to experience in the next few months is a productivity crash. Some economists estimate that the world economy growth rate for 2020 could be as low as 1%--as compared to about 3% for 2019. If you dump a bunch of additional spending power into the economy when there is no possibility of increasing production, you are pretty much guaranteed to increase inflation. The goods and services that are available are going to cost more. The people who still have jobs will probably be able to afford the increase in costs, but the people who have lost their income for the duration of the pandemic won't.

That's the problem with this proposal in general, it helps the wrong people. The people who are lucky enough to not get sick and not lose their jobs in this pandemic won't need economic assistance. The people who have either gotten sick, lost their jobs, or experienced a significant decrease in their earning power are the ones who will need help. If the motivation is to help the people who are going to get hit hardest--both medically and economically--then government help needs to be targeted.

So, to summarize:
1) This is clearly Trump's idea; no serious economist or politician thinks it's worth a crap.
2) This proposal would have no positive public health effect on the course of the epidemic over the next few months.
3) This proposal would have no positive economic effect on the people who are going to suffer the most in the epidemic over the next few months.

Since Trump is the one who created this plan, and it has no realistic chance of helping the people who are going to suffer the most from the epidemic--either medically or economically--you have to ask, who it is intended to help?

Nancy Pelosi just said the US House will not go along with eliminating or lowering the payroll tax.

If you recall, Nancy Pelosi hates anything that puts more money in the pockets of everyday Americans.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Deplorable

Can't argue with more money!

Money talks, but it doesn't listen.

You have to ask, though, where all the extra money that the government doesn't get from payroll tax anymore, is going to come from?

Oh noes, that means government will have to get smaller and more efficient!

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Deplorable

They should tax capital gains, not living wages or other neccessities.

The tax should come from profit. That means that if the government can increase everyone's profitability, then the government gets a stronger economy and more money.

Ours was already one of the highest. Even higher than "Socialist" Scandinavian countries.

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Deplorable

Can't argue with more money!

Money talks, but it doesn't listen.

You have to ask, though, where all the extra money that the government doesn't get from payroll tax anymore, is going to come from?

What if we stopped paying billions of dollars into welfare for illegals? It wouldn’t hurt if the House stopped spending millions of dollars on manufactured hatred, that money could go to better causes, like the situation we’re in now.

What, and force other countries to take care of the citizens better?! Think of the lost votes man!

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Deplorable

Can't argue with more money!

Hell, I wish they would make it permanent and just do national sales tax for revenue.

If it goes through, im fairly certain it would be permanent, youre not going to be able to put that genie back in the bottle when people see how much more money they get

Even the socialists

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: chr0naut
You have to ask, though, where all the extra money that the government doesn't get from payroll tax anymore, is going to come from?

Social Security and Medicare which, let's be rational here, will have significantly less immediate importance if Coronavirus is as brutal against elders and the chronically afflicted as experts are saying it seems to be. Meanwhile, the consumer confidence and spending driven stock market has absolutely immediate importance now and later to anyone with gainful employment as well as *most* retirees.

We should be allowed to opt out of Social security if we've already got plans in place for retirement.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: chr0naut
They should tax capital gains...

Sort of like how New Zealand, your home country, doesn't?

A country has to have gains before they can be taxed, no?

Actually, NZ is REALLY business-friendly and practices free market capitalism.

Something some of their citizens don't seem to understand, although they have no problem bragging about their freedom index as a country.

Careful, you might inadvertently bring about a rehash of the Obama "you didn't build that" argument.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Why am I not surprised to see people actually upset over the idea of people keeping more of what they earn.

It just goes to show that leftists and the leftist ideology is just a front for communism.

Some people want to be charitable at the end of a gun. It absolves them of the guilt of not wishing to be charitable otherwise.

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Deplorable

Can't argue with more money!

Money talks, but it doesn't listen.

You have to ask, though, where all the extra money that the government doesn't get from payroll tax anymore, is going to come from?

What if we stopped paying billions of dollars into welfare for illegals? It wouldn’t hurt if the House stopped spending millions of dollars on manufactured hatred, that money could go to better causes, like the situation we’re in now.

No, the situation you are in now is that the rich people rule you and they have always done so and they want to protect their money from you, but always be able to get money from you.

WTH? In context I don't see how that has anything to do with our current CV situation.

Just stop paying welfare to non-citizens who make no attempt for years to become citizens. That is the solution to that.

No, that is not a solution, that is a problem. Why should I pay welfare to people/criminals that enter into our country illegally and then wait for years to see if they decide they want become legal or not? That's just asinine backwards thought that creates more debt and problems.

If they have not registered to become a legal immigrant, don't pay them welfare.

originally posted by: carewemust
Nancy Pelosi just said the US House will not go along with eliminating or lowering the payroll tax.

If you recall, Nancy Pelosi hates anything that puts more money in the pockets of everyday Americans.

Imagine that, they're so predictable.

Trump should've said that he wanted to raise payroll taxes, then the left would be tripping over themselves to cut payroll taxes.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Deplorable

Can't argue with more money!

Money talks, but it doesn't listen.

You have to ask, though, where all the extra money that the government doesn't get from payroll tax anymore, is going to come from?

What if we stopped paying billions of dollars into welfare for illegals? It wouldn’t hurt if the House stopped spending millions of dollars on manufactured hatred, that money could go to better causes, like the situation we’re in now.

No, the situation you are in now is that the rich people rule you and they have always done so and they want to protect their money from you, but always be able to get money from you.

WTH? In context I don't see how that has anything to do with our current CV situation.

Just stop paying welfare to non-citizens who make no attempt for years to become citizens. That is the solution to that.

No, that is not a solution, that is a problem. Why should I pay welfare to people/criminals that enter into our country illegally and then wait for years to see if they decide they want become legal or not? That's just asinine backwards thought that creates more debt and problems.

If they have not registered to become a legal immigrant, don't pay them welfare.

They need to show that they can support themselves and not be a burden to our country's support systems. I shouldn't have to pay welfare to anyone that shows up at the border wanting citizenship.

This is also a topic for another thread, so not to derail, I'm out on this topic. Besides I'm way off base thinking the billions of dollars we spend on illegals should be spent on actual citizens and legal immigrants. What was I thinking?

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: chr0naut
You have to ask, though, where all the extra money that the government doesn't get from payroll tax anymore, is going to come from?

Social Security and Medicare which, let's be rational here, will have significantly less immediate importance if Coronavirus is as brutal against elders and the chronically afflicted as experts are saying it seems to be. Meanwhile, the consumer confidence and spending driven stock market has absolutely immediate importance now and later to anyone with gainful employment as well as *most* retirees.

We should be allowed to opt out of Social security if we've already got plans in place for retirement.

What if those plans go up in smoke like it did with the great depression. Or gets confiscated for the war effort?

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: chr0naut
You have to ask, though, where all the extra money that the government doesn't get from payroll tax anymore, is going to come from?

Social Security and Medicare which, let's be rational here, will have significantly less immediate importance if Coronavirus is as brutal against elders and the chronically afflicted as experts are saying it seems to be. Meanwhile, the consumer confidence and spending driven stock market has absolutely immediate importance now and later to anyone with gainful employment as well as *most* retirees.

We should be allowed to opt out of Social security if we've already got plans in place for retirement.

I was early in high school when Clinton & Ross Perot were both loudly stating that Social Security would be insolvent by like 2025 or 2030, something like that. I recall the vast majority of teenagers at that time just automatically assuming Social Security wouldn't be there for us anyway. The issue then, same as now, seemed to be more of a "you gotta pay for the older generation today... but hey, the next generation will be forced to pay for you all down the road" ponzi scheme than anything else.

a reply to: JON666

Then they go on welfare, food stamps, hud, ect..
Or, their kids end up struggling to foot the bill.
But, since no one is truly willing to roll grandma off that cliff.. someone will be hit with the cost of their "poor planning"

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Ya.. and I probably remember when your high school was built to replace the old worn out buildings that were built probably in the 1800s. And when they were tearing down the old worn out building in downtowns across the country and building nice new strip malls and the like.
Where do you think they got the funds for all that? My bet was they traded the cash in the social security accounts for treasury notes and once the social security wasn't bringing in a surplus for them to raid and would soon be expecting the govt to pay back some of the money they borrowed, well, that's it, social security is broke!!
No it isnt, the govt is broke and their prize cash cow isnt producing anymore. Time to send it to the slaughterhouse and make cat food out of it for our seniors to eat.

a reply to: dawnstar

WTF are you rambling on about? I wasn't suggesting leaving the elderly without SS, I was saying MY GENERATION (I'm sort of between Gen X and Millenials) grew up not expecting SS to even exist when MY GENERATION starts retiring. That was all I was saying there. Calm yourself.