BF2S Forums The socialists are running out of other peoples money.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Monkey Spanker wrote:

if you are earning surely you should have your own pension scheme you pay into monthly. That would be the proper way to plan for an retirement you have known would be tricky financially. Or is that me being retarded.

To be invested in what?

Last edited by Monkey Spanker (2011-08-22 10:57:23)

Kmar wrote:

This was an interesting Oped. Is related.

News flash: Congressional Republicans want to raise your taxes.

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.

There are other differences as well, and Republicans say their stand is consistent with their goal of long-term tax policies that will spur employment and lend greater certainty to the economy.

"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.

The debate is likely to boil up in coming weeks as a special bipartisan committee seeks big deficit reductions and weighs which tax cuts are sacrosanct.

At issue is a tax that the vast majority of workers pay, but many don't recognize because they don't read, or don't understand their pay stubs. Workers normally pay 6.2 percent of their wages toward a tax designated for Social Security. Their employer pays an equal amount, for a total of 12.4 percent per worker.

As part of a bipartisan spending deal last December, Congress approved Obama's request to reduce the workers' share to 4.2 percent for one year; employers' rate did not change. Obama wants Congress to extend the reduction for an additional year. If not, the rate will return to 6.2 percent on Jan. 1.

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.

Social Security payroll taxes apply only to the first $106,800 of a worker's wages. Therefore, $2,136 is the biggest benefit anyone can gain from the one-year reduction.

The great majority of Americans make less than $106,800 a year. Millions of workers pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes.

The 12-month tax reduction will cost the government about $120 billion this year, and a similar amount next year if it's renewed.

That worries Rep. David Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, and a member of the House-Senate supercommittee tasked with finding new deficit cuts. Tax reductions, "no matter how well-intended," will push the deficit higher, making the panel's task that much harder, Camp's office said.

But Republican lawmakers haven't always worried about tax cuts increasing the deficit. They led the fight to extend the life of a much bigger tax break: the major 2001 income tax reduction enacted under Bush. It was scheduled to expire at the start of this year. Obama campaigned on a pledge to end the tax break only for the richest Americans, but solid GOP opposition forced him to back down.

Many Republicans are adamant about not raising taxes but largely silent on what it would mean to let the payroll tax break expire.

Republicans cite key differences between the two "temporary" taxes, starting with the fact that the Bush measure had a 10-year life from the start. To stimulate job growth, these lawmakers say, it's better to reduce income tax rates for people and for companies than to extend the payroll tax break.

"We don't need short-term gestures. We need long-term fundamental changes in our tax structure and our regulatory structure that people who create jobs can rely on," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., when asked about the payroll tax matter.

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.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says payroll tax reductions give the economy a short-term boost. But it says the benefit is bigger if employers get the tax break instead of, or along with, workers.

Some top Republicans have taken a wait-and-see approach, expecting the payroll tax issue to be a bargaining chip in the upcoming debt reduction talks.

Neither House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, nor Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has taken a firm stand on whether to extend the one-year tax cut.

Most GOP presidential candidates also are treading lightly.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney did not flatly rule out an extra year for the payroll tax cut, but he "would prefer to see the payroll tax cut on the employer side" to spur job growth, his campaign said.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich said Republicans will fall under increasing pressure to extend the payroll tax cut. If they refuse, he said in a recent speech, "we're going to end up in a position where we're going to raise taxes on the lowest-income Americans the day they go to work."

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.

FEOS + Drunkface + Me wrote:

Taxes talk

Ty wrote:

FEOS + Drunkface + Me wrote:

Taxes talk

You're looking at the wrong picture FEOS. I'll explain what I'm looking at.

Your numbers are correct, the top 1% of Americans accounted for 40.4% of total reported income taxes. Of course income tax only accounts for half of federal taxes and only one-fifth of taxes at all levels of government.

Now when you look at the payroll taxes, (which accounts for Medicare and social security, unemployment all that stuff we've been talking about,) the rich are being left far far behind in terms of their contributions. This is because once you reach the yearly income threshold of $106,800 you pay no more for social security. The richest person in America pays a payroll tax rate at the same level as someone earning $106,800. The result of this is that Social Security, Medicare and unemployment is pretty much the burdan of the lowest 90% of earners.

FEOS, you talk about the richest Americans' contribution of the amount but you don't take into account that incomes for this group have been absolutely skyrocketing while their actual tax burden has been slashed - mostly due to loopholes, deductions, tax breaks, international tax havens that sort of thing. The actual share of the income that people who earn over a million, (the top 400 earners,) actualy pay in federal taxes? In 2007 it was 16.6%. That is miniscule, especially considering that the average American pays approximately, (again going by 2007 figures,) 22.5% of their income in federal taxes.

I'm not very clued in on taxation and economics. In fact I just barely passed Economics in school, they wouldn't let me take it the year after. But I can look at the actual average amount of total income being paid in tax by the super rich and yeah, 16.6% seems low to me. Doesn't it to you?And yet there seems to be this concern about the rich being bled dry. What evidence is there of this? The rich are earning more than they ever have, they're paying themselves millions in bonuses for a bad year. Meanwhile average Americans are paying more in tax and, get this, it looks like they won't even benefit from the systems and services these taxes are supposed to fund. I mean... what the fuck's going on here?

Ty wrote:

See now we're finding some common ground - but you'll notice I didn't say in the part you highlighted that I thought the rich paid too little income tax, just too little tax overall. I stand behind this. The burden of income taxes may be largely on the super rich but like I said, that's only a fifth of overall taxes which America's rich can hardly be said to pay their fair share when comparing apples with apples, (by which I mean the fact that average Americans pay more of their total income in tax than the rich do.)

But you're right again, the taxation code is the problem here, it's not simply a matter of too much of too little tax for whichever pay bracket. It's certainly not about Lowing's favourite line 'taxing ourself into prosperity' or punishing the rich for succeeding or levelling the playing field or any of those popular sound bites. Don't get me wrong, the whole matter with increasing income disparities in America is a significant problem - but the tax system itself is the relevant issue here and the truth is it has so many holes in it that it's no wonder nothing floats.

I would also like to see real ground-up tax reform in America but yeah, it's not gonna happen.

rdx-fx wrote:

My generation is going to be living much like my grandparent's generation.
The generation of living large is over. 
Work your ass off, pay for food/shelter/education/transportation, take care of your family, save money for retirement, and be happy if you can take a week or two off a year.
Responsibility. It's this funny concept my grandparent's generation took rather seriously - and my parent's generation seems to have laughed at.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Bascially we'll be back to earning just enough to pay for food and shelter - food is going to skyrocket along with oil.
Also dying cold and hungry.

SEREMAKER wrote:

Jay wrote:

In my eyes, the fundamental flaw in the whole tax system is that it fails to define what wealthy is accurately. According to the tax code, a family making $200k a year is wealthy. In NYC that's just comfortable, upper middle class at best. Until they start adjusting for cost of living I can't agree with any form of progressive taxation system.

degree of wealthy needs to be adjusted for state/local level and not federal level ......... S200K for NYC has you said upper class, $200K in my area is rich

SEREMAKER wrote:

Jay wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

degree of wealthy needs to be adjusted for state/local level and not federal level ......... S200K for NYC has you said upper class, $200K in my area is rich

It needs to be adjusted at the federal level, and cost of living taken into account. You're right, $200k in North Carolina is wealthy. So tax them at a higher rate than you would someone making the same amount and living in NYC.

So you would dish it out at the fed level, I go more for more state and local level but its mainly due to me being sympathetic toward local gov, my area of NC almost get no funding on the state and fed level

Last edited by Jay (2011-08-23 10:09:16)

DrunkFace wrote:

But why?

Here, if anything, the same job in the country would pay more then the city for the sole reason no one wants to live there.