It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GOP wants to end payroll tax break, Obama wants to keep it.

page: 1
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Impossible, right? GOP lawmakers are so virulently anti-tax, surely they will fight to prevent a payroll tax increase on virtually every wage-earner starting Jan. 1, right? Apparently not. Many of the same Republicans who fought hammer-and-tong to keep the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts from expiring on schedule are now saying a different "temporary" tax cut should end as planned. By their own definition, that amounts to a tax increase.


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.



Obama cited the payroll tax in his weekend radio and Internet address Saturday, when he urged Congress to work together on measures that help the economy and create jobs. "There are things we can do right now that will mean more customers for businesses and more jobs across the country. We can cut payroll taxes again, so families have an extra $1,000 to spend," he said.



"It's always a net positive to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn," says Rep. Jeb Hensarling, "but not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again." The Texas lawmaker is on the House GOP leadership team.



House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., "has never believed that this type of temporary tax relief is the best way to grow the economy," said spokesman Brad Dayspring.


news.yahoo.com...

Well, i don't know if it's because I just woke up, but I can't believe what I'm reading.

This article is correct, if you go by the rhetoric Republicans say, the ending of a temporary tax break is the same as a tax increase. That's all we've heard about the Bush tax cuts the last few years.



Many Democrats also are ambivalent about Obama's proposed tax cut extension. They are more focused on protecting social programs from deep spending cuts. Some worry that a multiyear reduction in the tax designated for Social Security could undermine that program's health and stature. For decades the payroll tax generated more revenue than the Social Security paid out in benefits. The excess was used to fund other government operations. Last year, however, Social Security benefits began outstripping revenue from its designated sources, forcing the program to start tapping its "trust fund" of government obligations.


Well I see the problem here. Extending this tax cut may (or will) hurt the finances of Social Security.
edit on 21-8-2011 by David9176 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 

Sweet Lincoln's mullet (Nod to Ron Burgandy)

Just say good bye to all the GOP who vote for this. I guess the whole "spend less" thing just isn't catching on in D.C..
Losers. The whole lot of them!



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


Kind of funny isn't it?

The payroll tax break helps the poor and middle class a little too much I guess.

They are against the tax cuts that are proven to help people and the economy by increasing demand but are for the tax cuts for the so called 'job creators' that do little if anything at all.
edit on 21-8-2011 by megabytz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
My college instructor said, "you cannot tax yourself out of debt".

This is true because you have to deal with why you are in debt in the first place......For those who say that raising taxes will help,,,,,,it won't......

The spending is killing us. The taxes are just fine and possibly a little too high right now



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
As undesirable as it might sound, we are going to have to raise taxes. There is no way around it.
As much as I hate to see my checks shrink each month, I know it's for the best.

It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
My college instructor said, "you cannot tax yourself out of debt".

This is true because you have to deal with why you are in debt in the first place......For those who say that raising taxes will help,,,,,,it won't......

The spending is killing us. The taxes are just fine and possibly a little too high right now


Taxes too high on who? On the middle class and poor yes they are too high for the wealthy taxes need to be raised to where they are paying the same as everyone else. This country needs a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Unpossible! A Taxocrat wants to cut taxes and a Regurgitan wants to (effectively) raise them on wage-slaves? I think my head esploded.



/TOA
edit on 21-8-2011 by The Old American because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
This just goes to show; the GOP is all for tax cuts for the WEALTHY ONLY.


Any tax cuts that help the little guy can fall by the wayside because the average voter can't send the money saved into their campaign funds.

I'm really getting sick of all those so-called conservatives and their "pledge" to never raise taxes. It seems the only tax increases they really oppose are the ones that affect their big corporate sponsors and this proves it.

Besides the fact that this tax break doesn't help their corporate masters, the fact that it was introduced by President Obama is probably the main reason they oppose it. The GOP will oppose anything he has accomplished just on principle. It doesn't matter if it is keeping people's heads above water in this disaster economy all of their deregulation has created. If it comes from Obama, it must be opposed, no matter how much good it does for the country.

If Obama were to embrace every "conservative" policy the GOP loves tomorrow, the GOP would fight him tooth and nail anyway to keep him from being reelected.



Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
As undesirable as it might sound, we are going to have to raise taxes. There is no way around it.
As much as I hate to see my checks shrink each month, I know it's for the best.

It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it.



I think we're going to need to raise taxes as well in order to get us out of this economic mess but, I don't think it should be raised on the most economically vulnerable; the poor and the middle class.

The super rich and mega corporations got us into this mess by hoarding the wealth at the top while keeping wages for the bottom 90% stagnant. If they had paid a living wage to their employees instead of reaping all the profits for themselves, the economy would be in much better shape.

I'd like to see taxes skyrocket for the super rich, not in order to increase revenues for the government but, in order to force them to distribute the profits from their companies more fairly. If we tax the hell out of the overpaid CEOs, they will do whatever it takes to make sure all their profits aren't taken away by the government, even if this means giving their workers a fair wage.

The super rich and the big corporations are the ones who put us into this predicament; they should be the ones to pay for fixing it.


edit on 8/21/11 by FortAnthem because:



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
edited for brain meltdown

edit on 21-8-2011 by David9176 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


Bravo. Every word you said is true!



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
of course. all they care about is pleasing their bosses, the top 2%. now they have to do what they have known all along, raise revenue. just not on the top 2%

if you are not in the top 2%, the GOP does not represent you

open your eyes



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
The only surprising here is that anyone paid attention. This is the typical republican. All the soapbox preaching about "Job creators" or whatever they want to call the wealthy.. Its all BS. This is same party that waged 2 simultaneous wars, paid for it with credit and bankrupted us and blame Obama for not being able to unscrew us now. They think Americans have a short memory and sadly it seems they do. People lining up in droves to put these people back in power. Stupid stupid stupid...
edit on 21-8-2011 by spliff4020 because: missing words



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
The GOP has never really been as anti-tax as the media tries to make them out to be.

Reagan increased taxes [ss tax], Bush [father] increased taxes, Bush [the son] increased inflation which is an extra tax. In 2013 Rick Perry will increase taxes too, I bet.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


The calling of these payments to the government as a tax is totally misleading. They should rightfully be called contributions, since that is what they are - your contribution to social security and medicare. Contributions by the way that do not even come close to what the average person takes out of those systems.

Cutting the "payroll" tax further erodes the fiscal health of those programs, hence is never a good idea. As a long term solution, they are non starters, hence there should be a serious reluctance to eliminating them.

You can't get too worked up on what either side is doing at the moment regarding the budget. Most of it is trial balloon activity to gauge popularity and to stake out a negotiating stance for the upcoming budget negotiations. In this kind of thing, it is not odd for someone to propose exactly the opposite of what they ultimately want as a negotiating strategy.

Negotiation 101 - fight very hard early on for things that you either don't care about or want to lose anyway. Lose on those items purposefully after putting up a tough fight and then negotiate for the things you really do want. You're seen as being flexible for giving in already, when in fact you did not give a rip about the item in question. Its all a game.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
It's like twenty bucks. A quarter tank of gas a week.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by type0civ
It's like twenty bucks. A quarter tank of gas a week.



For some people, that's the difference between having enough gas to get to work or paying for food for their family for a day or two.

Any cut in the amount of money the government steals out of the little guy's pockets is a good thing IMO, no matter how small.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
of course. all they care about is pleasing their bosses, the top 2%. now they have to do what they have known all along, raise revenue. just not on the top 2%

if you are not in the top 2%, the GOP does not represent you

open your eyes


They represent more than just the wealthy, for instance, if you're a Christian non-gay fetus who plans on getting a concealed carry permit fresh from the womb.

edit on 21-8-2011 by the owlbear because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by type0civ
It's like twenty bucks. A quarter tank of gas a week.


My gas tank is on empty


It might not be a big deal to you, but not everybody is well off.......



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


It is a tax.It's not a long term solution.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


TPTB might say this...

We make the laws ...for you to follow.
We have our own set of laws.


Why would I bring up the Code of Hammurabi?

Well in reading it I noticed that from the very beginning there is an ingrained inequality that continues to this day. It is a subtle and simple way to differentiate classes and apply completely different sets of rules and regulations - one for the rich and another for the poor.
Officials, royalty and priests are above patricians and land owners who were above freeman who were above slaves.
The laws written below do not even APPLY TO ROYALTY, OFFICIALS OR PRIESTS.
These are laws to govern and CONTROL the population of freemen and slaves. They went on to be the laws applied to the Roman Empire and modeled the Republic which our system is based on. They made some changes of course but when you are beginning with 2 separate rulebooks to begin with - YOU WILL NEVER HAVE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD - these players will never be on equal ground together BECAUSE THERE IS ALWAYS 2 GAMES GOING ON.
It is much the same today.

That group of officials and priests are now the smallish group of those top percentile of corporate and business magnates. I believe they are the Bilderburgs who try their best to control the world. They are our own powerful rich.

It is in legislative matters like this that the division between rich and poor is maintained and enforced.
We have two different sets of laws and priorities in this country one for the rich and another for the poor. Those are your class divisions, those are your party divisions, it is not GOP and Democrat. Happens to be most of the rich are Republicans and so naturally they are going to make the laws that AFFECT THEM easy and the laws that affect the lower echelon or the poor a little different. This is how the upper tier keeps above the fray and how these two will never met on an even playing field.
There are 2 worlds, 2 sets of laws and we knew it all along. We see it everyday.



The Code of Hammurabi is a well-preserved Babylonian law code, dating to ca. 1700 BC (short chronology). It is one of the oldest deciphered writings of significant length in the world.

The sixth Babylonian king, Hammurabi, enacted the code, and partial copies exist on a human-sized stone stele and various clay tablets.

The Code consists of 282 laws, with scaled punishments, adjusting "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (lex talionis)[1] as graded depending on social status, of slave versus free man.[2]

Nearly one-half of the Code deals with matters of contract, establishing for example the wages to be paid to an ox driver or a surgeon.

Other provisions set the terms of a transaction, establishing the liability of a builder for a house that collapses, for example, or property that is damaged while left in the care of another.

Approximately a third of the code addresses issues concerning household and family relationships such as inheritance, divorce, paternity and sexual behavior.

Only one provision appears to impose obligations on an official; this provision establishes that a judge who reaches an incorrect decision is to be fined and removed from the bench permanently.[3]

A handful of provisions address issues related to military service.


en.wikipedia.org...

I know this is a little far out but when you study how our laws and civilization came into being you will find where the errors were made. You will see they were never corrected. You will GET why we still model ourselves after laws that were different for free-men and slaves.

And a whole other set of laws applied to the royalty, the priests and "officials" (today we might call them politicians) and these OTHER laws were none of the business of the freemen and slaves.

Same as we have today.
A privileged class, and then there's the rest of us.


edit on 21-8-2011 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join