quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


If the rate isn't higher than it was previously, by definition, it's not an increase.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

It's fairly simple actually....a tax increase is one wherein which a larger tax than what was previously being assessed is attached to your earnings or income.  A redemption of a previously existing tax that has been lowered and then at some point in the future lapses (as was planned when they lowered a tax for some predefined period) is simply going back to a previously agreed to tax.

It's not an increase....it's a lapse or cancellation if you prefer, of the provided reduction in said tax.

Ok. How long does it take before a restoration to a prior level becomes an increase? 5 minutes? A year? A year and 2 months? 9 years?

Well, seeing as how cons were calling the proposed expiration of the Bush tax breaks for the rich an increase, I don't see as how you have a leg to stand on.


Expiration of a break for the rich is an increase but the payroll tax for middle income folks going back to its former levels is NOT an increase?

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT

Got any bridges ya wanna buy? I'm a licensed Real Estate broker.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


They already do in many cases.

If you're wealthy, you're probably not driving a a 97 Chrysler mini van....so your car very likely requires Supreme.

If you're wealthy, you probably don't live in a 1,400 sf rambler on a 15,000 sf lot, and you therefore more than likely heat a somewhat larger residence.

If you're wealthy....you're probably eating steak....or eating out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


If the rate isn't higher than it was previously, by definition, it's not an increase.

Define 'tax increase' as simply and as concisely as you can.

Here's mine.

Tax Increase - When, given all other factors are constant, your net tax bill goes up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


They already do in many cases.

If you're wealthy, you're probably not driving a a 97 Chrysler mini van....so your car very likely requires Supreme.

If you're wealthy, you probably don't live in a 1,400 sf rambler on a 15,000 sf lot, and you therefore more than likely heat a somewhat larger residence.

If you're wealthy....you're probably eating steak....or eating out.

Total bulllshit. They arent paying more for the same thing and you fucking well know it. Graduated from the TG school of debate, didja?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


If the rate isn't higher than it was previously, by definition, it's not an increase.

Define 'tax increase' as simply and as concisely as you can.

Here's mine.

Tax Increase - When, given all other factors are constant, your net tax bill goes up.

Wow.

It's almost moronically simple:

When the rate (percentage) at which you pay taxes to (an agency) are larger as a percentage, than they were the last time you paid the same tax at the same income level....that's a tax increase.

I really don't know how to make this more concise (or simple) for you other than to suggest that maybe you spend some time with either a mathematician or an accountant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pleasurepleasing

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

hes got his so he doesnt think about anyone else

Actually, I don't (yet).  My goal currently is keeping my businesses afloat long enough for the economy to turn, and working my tail off to make sure that we can both, never lay anyone off, continue to pay their full medical with no contributions from them whatsoever, and hopefully add some staff in the not too distant future.

However, I'm confident if I work hard and plan for tomorrow....I'm hopeful I can do well enough when it's all over and I'm pushing myself around with a walker and soaking my teeth at night....that I won't have to eat cat food.

And frankly, whether I was as wealthy as Bill gates or as poor as a church mouse, doesn't change the facts one iota.

SSI is not a retirement fund.  It never was, and anyone who believes (or believed) it ever was....forgot to read the instruction manual.

SSI means you cannot work full time as a normal productive citizen. To the extent that any are able to 'contribute' to society, as it were, they are worth it.

To the similar extent that govt. such makes orneriness requirements upon small business and its correspondingly higher tax rate, makes small business America both responsible for and the engine of new growth with a corporate subsidy as its ball and chain.

Interesting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


If the rate isn't higher than it was previously, by definition, it's not an increase.

Define 'tax increase' as simply and as concisely as you can.

Here's mine.

Tax Increase - When, given all other factors are constant, your net tax bill goes up.

Wow.

It's almost moronically simple:

When the rate (percentage) at which you pay taxes to (an agency) are larger as a percentage, than they were the last time you paid the same tax at the same income level....that's a tax increase.

I really don't know how to make this more concise (or simple) for you other than to suggest that maybe you spend some time with either a mathematician or an accountant.

You could have simply quoted my definition. It says what yours says in far fewer words and with no need of italics or underlining.

Though, I am happy to see you essentially concede you argument was flawed, as your definition of a tax increase doesn't fit your definition.

If there is no extension passed this year, my SS payroll tax percentage will be 6.2%. The last time I paid the same tax and had the same income level was last year; I had a 4.2% tax rate then. That is an increase in my rate (percentage) that I pay to an agency. Therefore, it is a tax increase under your own definition.

I give you mad kudos from backing down from your propsition. It takes big balls to do that, especially online, yet you did it. Good for you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pleasurepleasing

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

hes got his so he doesnt think about anyone else

Actually, I don't (yet).  My goal currently is keeping my businesses afloat long enough for the economy to turn, and working my tail off to make sure that we can both, never lay anyone off, continue to pay their full medical with no contributions from them whatsoever, and hopefully add some staff in the not too distant future.

However, I'm confident if I work hard and plan for tomorrow....I'm hopeful I can do well enough when it's all over and I'm pushing myself around with a walker and soaking my teeth at night....that I won't have to eat cat food.

And frankly, whether I was as wealthy as Bill gates or as poor as a church mouse, doesn't change the facts one iota.

SSI is not a retirement fund.  It never was, and anyone who believes (or believed) it ever was....forgot to read the instruction manual.

SSI means you cannot work full time as a normal productive citizen. To the extent that any are able to 'contribute' to society, as it were, they are worth it.

To the similar extent that govt. such makes orneriness requirements upon small business and its correspondingly higher tax rate, makes small business America both responsible for and the engine of new growth with a corporate subsidy as its ball and chain.

Interesting.

Nookie, I wasnt talking about you... you are a long way from what I was talking about actually.. you have compassion and make sense (it would appear, you and I are the only ones that agree with that LOL).. I apologise if you thought I meant you personally.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverBoat

"Why not do the right thing for the American people even though it's not exactly what we want."
 
That's a direct quote from Boehner. Just exactly who are those other people, that "we" he was talking about, what did they want, and why was (up until now, by his own words) doing what they wanted instead of what was right for the American people?

Did he swear an oath to those people (whoever they are) or to America?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

Actually, the tax rate is and remains at 6.2%.

It has been temporarily reduced.

When it reverts to the original rate....it hasn't nor did it increase.

It went back to the original.

(Good try though...wasn't actually a bad argument....although entirely flawed).

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

A permanent change wouldnt need congressional approval to continue, would it?

quote:

A temporary tax cut is essentially saying, "I will lower your taxes now, but will raise them later," a notion conceptually no dfferent from permanently

quote:

ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

Actually, the tax rate is and remains at 6.2%.

It has been temporarily reduced.

When it reverts to the original rate....it hasn't nor did it increase.

It went back to the original.

(Good try though...wasn't actually a bad argument....although entirely flawed).

Yeah, the government disagrees with your analysis.

"For 2011, the law reduced the employee’s share of the Social Security payroll tax by 2 percent. Employers still contribute the same tax rate as in 2010."
http://ssa.gov/pubs/10003.pdf

You'll note the charts very clearly label the tax rate as 4.2%, not 6.2%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

A permanent change wouldnt need congressional approval to continue, would it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

Actually, the tax rate is and remains at 6.2%.

It has been temporarily reduced.

When it reverts to the original rate....it hasn't nor did it increase.

It went back to the original.

(Good try though...wasn't actually a bad argument....although entirely flawed).

Yeah, the government disagrees with your analysis.

"For 2011, the law reduced the employee’s share of the Social Security payroll tax by 2 percent. Employers still contribute the same tax rate as in 2010."
http://ssa.gov/pubs/10003.pdf

You'll note the charts very clearly label the tax rate as 4.2%, not 6.2%.

Noted.

Doesn't change the facts....but, again, noted.

And just so you can have a much fuller understanding of both the temporary rate reduction as well as the amendment to a Bill of law that caused this to happen....the PDF you linked is a simplification of the entire Bill (again, it was actually an amendment to a Bill, not an actual Bill)...it is not the entirety of the amendment, nor was it intended to be, since most humans wouldn't read a document as long as that one is (nor did any of our Congressmen and women prior to signing it), it did not permanently reduce the rate, rather, as I've stated I think more than clearly, it was temporary.

That means (by definition) it wasn't permanent, ergo, the old rates remain, but were held in abeyance for a temporary period.

Ergo, the law that requires the previous 6.2% from the employee's share is and remains law, and it is currently being superseded (but not replaced) by another amendment which (for a time) lowers the rate at which you have deductions removed from your paycheck.

If you want, you can find in the same sources that you found that PDF, exact and clear evidence that the current law is still very much in force....but temporarily lifted, rather....altered slightly and in the original amendment, it had a "sunset" clause, i.e., a statement that the rate would at some specified date go back to its original and previous rate...now being extended once again.

The law however requiring 6.2% is still completely in effect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

A permanent change wouldnt need congressional approval to continue, would it?

I don't see how that is germaine. A temporary tax cut is essentially saying, "I will lower your taxes now, but will raise them later," a notion conceptually no dfferent from permanently (as permanent as laws can be) lowering taxes for a time then permanently raising them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha


Yeah, the government disagrees with your analysis.

"For 2011, the law reduced the employee’s share of the Social Security payroll tax by 2 percent. Employers still contribute the same tax rate as in 2010."
http://ssa.gov/pubs/10003.pdf

You'll note the charts very clearly label the tax rate as 4.2%, not 6.2%.