Dear America: Your Higher Payroll Taxes Are Not The Result Of A Tax Increase!!

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:51 AM
link   
WOW, its typical here i guess to sound the alarm of a payroll tax increase as being that the taxes are going up for millions. However, I am not a fan of Obama it just irks me that people try to cause a stir with miss information. So to set the record straight in the year 2011 Obama and senete supported a bill to allow americans a bit of relief from the econmic pressures of the time. They decided for a temporary meausre to reduce payroll taxes to from 6.2% to 4.2% allowing individuals to take home more in their checks.

However, They were not a PERM reduction. They were TEMPORARY. Hello! wake up your representatives agreed to reduce it of course they are going to go back up. It just happen to conicide with the fiscal cliff deal that was in the making.


As a reminder, while the fiscal cliff deal extended the income tax rates for 99% of Americans, one expiring provision that was not given new life by the 11th hour negotiations was the 2% reduction to an employee’s share of Social Security payroll taxes. For 2011 and 2012, employees paid only 4.2% of their wages towards Social Security. Beginning January 1, 2013, that burden has reverted back to 6.2%. As a result, if you earn a salary, you may have noticed that your first paycheck in 2013 was 2% lighter than your last check in 2012, assuming equal pay.


www.forbes.com...
edit on 15-1-2013 by Kadmiel because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Kadmiel
 


If you say that people can't call their taxes going back up an increase, then we can't logically call their originally going down a reduction, can we??

If the temporary decrease was a "reduction" then it goes to follow that when it expired, it caused an "increase".



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by GMan420
 


Exactly just a play on words to distort the facts



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   
No Americans making under X amount will see their taxes go up. Obama and Biden and their loony MSM have preached that for years. But our taxes continue to go up.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Kadmiel
 


How can taxes going up not be taxes going up? Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining.
edit on 1/15/13 by NthOther because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   
That reduction in the Social Security tax was a bad idea in the first place. It was a way of borrowing from the future again to help stimulate the economy. It just added to what the feds owe social security and raised the national debt.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Whether taxes have increased or not, something is wrong when the amount taken from my husbands biweekly check is three times our monthly mortgage payment.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Only an big gov authoritarian hack would try to claim an increase is not an increase but simply a return to a previous normal.

You'd think finances were like water tables.

If all measurement is now based on a relative baseline, one that can be moved depending on agenda, then what's the point of measurement?

If Johnny has 3 apples and Susie has 1 apple then Johnny gives Susie 2 apples by how many did Susies number of apples increase?

What's that you say? Susie had 3 apples last week? Oh, so no increase then.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Kadmiel
 


Yes, it was a temp cut to SS.

But, as 0bama's promises have not been upheld or fulfilled, he promised TAXES would not be raised, except on the "evil"rich.

So, if you are working in Semantics land, then I guess it is correct, TAXES weren't raised.
But, living in reality, taxes did go up.

Again, the 0bama-bots are out in full force trying to push the BS that 0bama and company hasn't kept another promise.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Unfortunatly to stimulate the current economy it was done. It did add huge amounts to the national debt which we will pay for for generations. However, it seems pretty clear that when they say, To help our economy we are not going to take as much money from you right now. However in a couple of years we will go back to our current rates.

It seems everyone is in a up roar over the prospect of paying the same excat tax they were 2 years ago. They got use to the free gift and never thought or planned for the future. Is it fair? of course not it just the principal of the thing



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Kadmiel
 


It really doesn't matter... almost everyone this effects will get it all back in their annual wealth redistribution check, or more commonly called a tax "refund".



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by Kadmiel
 


It really doesn't matter... almost everyone this effects will get it all back in their annual wealth redistribution check, or more commonly called a tax "refund".


I doubt that. We have two children and hardly got a thing back last year and the amount that couples get back per child has actually decreased. Couples with children are getting hit hard, and it doesn't surprise me. The traditional family unit has been under attack for a long time now. It's hard to brainwash kids that have two attentive parents.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


"annual wealth redistribution check" I like that
edit on 15-1-2013 by Kadmiel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kadmiel
reply to post by GMan420
 


Exactly just a play on words to distort the facts


It's less a "play on words" and more a "words have meanings" kind of thing here IMHO.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   
it's double taxation.

Tax our payroll, and tax our income?

When does this theft stop? When are we going to stop putting up with it?



Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
Business License Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines (indirect taxes)
Dog License Tax
Estate Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money)
Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Payroll Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and
local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Toll Bridge Taxes
Toll Tunnel Taxes
Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
Trailer Registration Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax

Workers Compensation Tax
edit on 15/1/13 by xstealth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
That reduction in the Social Security tax was a bad idea in the first place. It was a way of borrowing from the future again to help stimulate the economy. It just added to what the feds owe social security and raised the national debt.



Yep, it was just done to buy votes, ahm, no I meant "stimulate the economy". Funny how it was set to expire after the election.

It was a horrible idea, SS has been in trouble for a long time. Wonder what Obama will do now to jump in and "save the day", that is what I am worried about, except he has four more years, so no hurry, right?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Obama made a big deal about $40 per pay check to help people.

Now that $40 isn't needed anymore. Unemployment is 0.4% with only the mentally insane not working. Millions of jobs were saved and not shipped overseas to China. Manufacturing is on the increase in the United States.

What other lies can I think of?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Kadmiel
 


wello. i knew right off that the temporary rollback of employee percentage of weekly withholding for Social Security taxes was going to be slammed as a tax increase when the 2013 payroll dates started


see... that temporary rollback was part of the Øbama Stimulus package

BUT... the real reason that the chief executive cut the SS special tax was to be abe to say that the Social Security payroll outgo was larger than the infllow of resources (weekly taxes)...so he could tap into the general fund monies & SAVE a bankrupted Social Security fund


he deliberately caused the underfunding of social security so he could get his socialist mitts on the fund...for whatever reason

he has something crooked or else sinister in the works, which i have not yet figured out...but i will
he just had to let the general revenue fund bail out the shortfalls of the social security fund in 2011-2012


maybe it has to do with the Øbama=care health care mess that still needs to unfold...see, once he breached the firewall of social security trust fund monies... he can go back and restructure the whole thing because the Federal government general fund has 'taken over' the funding operations


duck & cover, fellow citizens
edit on 15-1-2013 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



One thing that is not remarked on... the 2% reduction of everyones annual social security contribution will reduce their retirement check in the future...maybe not by mush... but a $10 month reduction of payouts for the expected 2 million of annual retirees, would be a tidy sum that the Treasury will not have to pay out to future retirees/ or disabled recipients
edit on 15-1-2013 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by GMan420
 





If you say that people can't call their taxes going back up an increase, then we can't logically call their originally going down a reduction, can we?? If the temporary decrease was a "reduction" then it goes to follow that when it expired, it caused an "increase".


Semantics.

It wasn't a "reduction" it was a "TEMPORARY REDUCTION" I'm not sure why that is so hard to grasp. It was a temporary reduction that would be reversed at the end of the temporary term. At the end of the term, it went back to it's original amount.

You can try to ignore the fact that it was temporary, but it just makes you look silly.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by Kadmiel
 


It really doesn't matter... almost everyone this effects will get it all back in their annual wealth redistribution check, or more commonly called a tax "refund".


I havent gotten a "refund" in over a decade. Almost got one last year. It was eighty cents but I later found out that if your refund is under one dollar they dont send it. They just keep it.

"Refunds" are a scam. Basically amounts to "we took too much so here's a little back." I'd prefer they not take any of it.





top topics
 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join