RE: Caving on the Payroll tax for 2 months

RE: Caving on the Payroll tax for 2 months (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Caving on the Payroll tax for 2 months (12/23/2011 8:55:12 PM)
Even the bill is labeled as a temporary tax cut. H.R.3630 - Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3630/text

erieangel -> RE: Caving on the Payroll tax for 2 months (12/23/2011 8:56:30 PM)
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. Here's mine: When, given all other factors are constant, your net pay goes down--that is a tax increase.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Caving on the Payroll tax for 2 months (12/23/2011 8:58:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha 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. How does any of this change the fact that the rate of taxes I pay will be higher next year? It doesn't. The amount you'll pay when they revert to the "old" (and still current law) rate will be more than you're paying today, and it'll be what you paid before they arbitrarily rescinded a portion of same to put more money in your pocket, in the hopes that you'd spend it. But it's not a tax increase. The tax at 6.2% is still fully law. The feds simply gave you some (temporary) candy. They filled your punch bowl (thankfully) just when you were getting thirsty. And at some point, this, like so many other punch bowls in life, is going to be removed by the very same folks who brought it in to you on a very hot and sweaty afternoon....and when they do....you'll be left with exactly what you had before they brought in the punch bowl. Where you're having trouble with all this is....it wasn't your punch bowl.

tazzygirl -> RE: Caving on the Payroll tax for 2 months (12/23/2011 8:59:36 PM)
Its like a store having a sale. You dont say they increased the prices once the sale is over.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Caving on the Payroll tax for 2 months (12/23/2011 9:05:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel 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. Here's mine: When, given all other factors are constant, your net pay goes down--that is a tax increase. That's probably one of the more incredible things about America Bantha...you get to have an opinion about anything and everything. Even if you're wrong. You are 1 kabillion % correct on one aspect....the cash they're taking out of your paycheck at the moment is and will be less than what they'll be when the rate reverts. It's also less than what it was a year or some such back. That's called a reduction. In this particular case however....it's temporary and was stated and enacted as such, which again, means it's not permanent. Reverting back to the original income tax rate (that was in existence prior to Bush II's "temporary" rate reduction) for higher income earners is also not an "increase". It's a reversion back to the already existing rate structure, and codified law. Your Congressfolk never rescinded the 39.6% rate that higher earners pay....they simply (on a temporary basis) lowered the rate at which one pays (for very much the same reasons they lowered "temporarily" your SSI taxes)....so the money would get out in the market place and be spent. The difference between the two "temporary" reductions however is, wealthy folks neither needed the reduction, nor did they sit idly by waiting for it to be enacted.....they loudly exclaimed all over the map "keep it...we don't need the extra money....pay off the debt instead". Folks who earn paychecks on a weekly or similar basis, actually can use the money AND they're spending it on silly things like food and shelter. That's why this issue is such a firebrand issue. That's why people are so up in arms about a tax "increase". Unfortunately....it's just simply not. Now, if you want to make the argument that you need those funds and that without them, your lifestyle will decrease markedly, possibly even dangerously so....that's not a bad argument. It still doesn't make a reversion to the original tax...the one that is still fully law....an increase. Because it's not. For now, I'm glad they did this (lowered the rate for income earners), but there's a huge price to pay and it's coming due. The SSI fund which was (back in 1983) supposed to have been "fixed" and remain solvent (meaning more money was coming in than was going out in any annual/fiscal period) through 2075 if memory serves, suddenly was (as of 2006) going to be insolvent as of 2037. As of 2008, Summer I think (unemployment rate at the time....7.2%), for the first time in history (loooooong BEFORE they reduced their take by 150+ billion a year, and now with this current extension, I think the last number I heard was that it'll reduce the take by 180 billion) was short of funds....meaning, the federal govt. had to borrow from the federal treasury to get those checks out. Naturally, they came back right after that announcement and said "all is well...have no fear Social Security is just fine....run along now children....we have everything under control....all is well" Does it concern you that 4 years ago they ran out of money and today they're putting even less back in (and taking even more out).....does that sound at all like all those state pension funds in Indiana where they haven't made any payments into the fund for 9 years now, but keep promising more and more benefits? Are you aware of how many MILLONS have taken early retirement (you can do so at 62 and a half I believe, but your monthly is greatly reduced) and still more hundreds of thousands have gotten a doctors certificate to "prove" that they're incapacitated in some fashion at a level enough to let them take even earlier retirement? Why are they doing this? It's costing the treasury untold and highly unexpected billions more....monthly. Why? Because they're scared shitless. Because their jobs have moved or become irrelevant, because they can't shovel hay, shit or concrete, sling a hamburger or any other skill set that's in demand like they could when they were 20, they wake up in cold sweats and can't sleep because they feel like they've let their families down, they're dejected because for the first time in their adult lives, they've been rejected....over and over and over and.....and they're (rationally....for the sake of their own self preservation) grabbing at the only logical lifeline they can find. (Personally, I hope they do get the balls to revert the income tax rate back up to 39.6%....unfortunately for me, under normal economic circumstances, I'll be one of the folks who'll be affected by it. It also happens to be a fair rate for higher earners).

BanthaSamantha -> RE: Caving on the Payroll tax for 2 months (12/23/2011 9:08:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel 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. Here's mine: When, given all other factors are constant, your net pay goes down--that is a tax increase. That's probably one of the more incredible things about America Bantha...you get to have an opinion about anything and everything. Even if you're wrong. You are 1 kabillion % correct on one aspect....the cash they're taking out of your paycheck at the moment is and will be less than what they'll be when the rate reverts. It's also less than what it was a year or some such back. That's called a reduction. Reverting back to the original rate (that was in existence prior to Bush II's "temporary" rate reduction) for higher income earners is also not an "increase". It's a reversion back to the already existing rate structure. (And I hope it happens....and under normal economic circumstances, I'll be one of the folks who'll be affected by it). That wasn't my post, goofy.

BanthaSamantha -> RE: Caving on the Payroll tax for 2 months (12/23/2011 9:12:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Its like a store having a sale. You dont say they increased the prices once the sale is over. You wouldn't say that their post-sale price is any higher relative to the original price, but that's neither here nor there. Increases and decreases only matter relative to what they were immediately before.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Caving on the Payroll tax for 2 months (12/23/2011 9:18:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel 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. Here's mine: When, given all other factors are constant, your net pay goes down--that is a tax increase. That's probably one of the more incredible things about America Bantha...you get to have an opinion about anything and everything. Even if you're wrong. You are 1 kabillion % correct on one aspect....the cash they're taking out of your paycheck at the moment is and will be less than what they'll be when the rate reverts. It's also less than what it was a year or some such back. That's called a reduction. Reverting back to the original rate (that was in existence prior to Bush II's "temporary" rate reduction) for higher income earners is also not an "increase". It's a reversion back to the already existing rate structure. (And I hope it happens....and under normal economic circumstances, I'll be one of the folks who'll be affected by it). That wasn't my post, goofy. My error.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Caving on the Payroll tax for 2 months (12/23/2011 9:20:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Even the bill is labeled as a temporary tax cut. H.R.3630 - Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3630/text (Kinda says it all if you ask me :) )

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Caving on the Payroll tax for 2 months (12/24/2011 10:58:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie 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? They aren't buying the same things. Look up "hedonics". They're eating. They're driving. They're living in a home. Just like you....just a little different. Thats exactly my point. They arent paying more for the same things. Under SS they are ALREADY paying more for less. Why the fuck should they pay even more for it? But you post bullshit about buying DIFFERENT things, as if it meant something.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Caving on the Payroll tax for 2 months (12/24/2011 9:30:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie 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? They aren't buying the same things. Look up "hedonics". They're eating. They're driving. They're living in a home. Just like you....just a little different. Thats exactly my point. They arent paying more for the same things. Under SS they are ALREADY paying more for less. Why the fuck should they pay even more for it? But you post bullshit about buying DIFFERENT things, as if it meant something. Unless you're barely 17, you also buy "different things". That computer you bought 5 years ago for $2,300.00? The one you bought last year for $750.00 to replace it is 9 times the machine you left behind. Is it a different device? Nope...it does the exact same shit your old one did, plus a few....but better. And for less. Much less. That old car you replaced 3 years ago....yeah, it cost you 30% more than the one you replaced, and it gets 35% better mileage. The stereo? It now plays MP3's, WMA and CD formats. You also have a hookup for your iPod, a GPS that 10 years ago Benz drivers paid $85.00 a month for the satellite access to it (and the box that made it run took up 20% of the trunk). In your car....there's no monthly payments.....forever. The space it takes in your car? A chip. About the size of a matchbook...and half as thick. But in your case (assuming you're not Bill Gates...and it would appear fairly apparent you're not), like so many others, you're paying less for these things....the wealthy are paying more....because they can and because they choose to, and the things they find as luxuries (such as refrigerators in the 30's, color TV's in the late 60's) today...will be on your plate in 10 years (probably less) and they'll arrive as "necessities" (such as refrigerators in the 50's, color TV's in the late 70's). While it's a fact they are paying more, and there's no (rational) debate on that, they're also getting more for their money than you because...as it's been said before "the least of us in America live like Kings of old"...why? Today, much like a King 1,000 years back might have clapped his hands and said "bring me the court jester...I feel like some levity tonight", you can grab the TV clicker and choose from 15 comedy channels, half of which run 24/7. When the King of Yore wanted the finest in food....once again he'd clap his hands and his orders for the most fabulous delicacies arrived as if they were waiting for his simplest utterance. You can go to your freezer and by the time the slaves spoke their first syllable to the cooking staff....you can have Cordon Bleu on fine china, steaming hot, with wine delivered from your nearest supplier by plebes at less than 15 bucks a bottle. And how did all these riches befall you? Because those with more (the wealthy) did all the R&D spending for you 10 years ago, even over millenia....spending $1,500.00 for that Blue Ray then, so that, now mass produced, you can pick it up at K-Mart today for $89.95. (And it's a more reliable, easier to use device than the one they paid $1,500.00 for 10 years prior). Bud....if you want to argue with me...please be so kind as to step up to the plate with facts instead of hyperbole. Show up prepared or don't show up at all. (It's really kind of important). Merry Christmas.

farglebargle -> RE: Caving on the Payroll tax for 2 months (12/25/2011 8:25:15 AM)
Who was buying $2300.00 computers 5 years ago? Last time computers cost that much as an entry-level cost was like in the 80's and maybe 90's.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Caving on the Payroll tax for 2 months (12/25/2011 9:22:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Who was buying $2300.00 computers 5 years ago? Last time computers cost that much as an entry-level cost was like in the 80's and maybe 90's. I did :) Still have it.

xssve -> RE: Caving on the Payroll tax for 2 months (12/26/2011 2:06:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie 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? They aren't buying the same things. Look up "hedonics". They're eating. They're driving. They're living in a home. Just like you....just a little different. Thats exactly my point. They arent paying more for the same things. Under SS they are ALREADY paying more for less. Why the fuck should they pay even more for it? But you post bullshit about buying DIFFERENT things, as if it meant something. Unless you're barely 17, you also buy "different things". That computer you bought 5 years ago for $2,300.00? The one you bought last year for $750.00 to replace it is 9 times the machine you left behind. Is it a different device? Nope...it does the exact same shit your old one did, plus a few....but better. And for less. Much less. That old car you replaced 3 years ago....yeah, it cost you 30% more than the one you replaced, and it gets 35% better mileage. The stereo? It now plays MP3's, WMA and CD formats. You also have a hookup for your iPod, a GPS that 10 years ago Benz drivers paid $85.00 a month for the satellite access to it (and the box that made it run took up 20% of the trunk). In your car....there's no monthly payments.....forever. The space it takes in your car? A chip. About the size of a matchbook...and half as thick. But in your case (assuming you're not Bill Gates...and it would appear fairly apparent you're not), like so many others, you're paying less for these things....the wealthy are paying more....because they can and because they choose to, and the things they find as luxuries (such as refrigerators in the 30's, color TV's in the late 60's) today...will be on your plate in 10 years (probably less) and they'll arrive as "necessities" (such as refrigerators in the 50's, color TV's in the late 70's). While it's a fact they are paying more, and there's no (rational) debate on that, they're also getting more for their money than you because...as it's been said before "the least of us in America live like Kings of old"...why? Today, much like a King 1,000 years back might have clapped his hands and said "bring me the court jester...I feel like some levity tonight", you can grab the TV clicker and choose from 15 comedy channels, half of which run 24/7. When the King of Yore wanted the finest in food....once again he'd clap his hands and his orders for the most fabulous delicacies arrived as if they were waiting for his simplest utterance. You can go to your freezer and by the time the slaves spoke their first syllable to the cooking staff....you can have Cordon Bleu on fine china, steaming hot, with wine delivered from your nearest supplier by plebes at less than 15 bucks a bottle. And how did all these riches befall you? Because those with more (the wealthy) did all the R&D spending for you 10 years ago, even over millenia....spending $1,500.00 for that Blue Ray then, so that, now mass produced, you can pick it up at K-Mart today for $89.95. (And it's a more reliable, easier to use device than the one they paid $1,500.00 for 10 years prior). Bud....if you want to argue with me...please be so kind as to step up to the plate with facts instead of hyperbole. Show up prepared or don't show up at all. (It's really kind of important). Merry Christmas. Huh, I thought it was because somebody made those things to begin with. So if it weren't for rich people, nobody would do anything? I mean, I know it's good technique to take credit for the good and blame the bad on somebody else, whatever the truth is, but it's also called bullshit. It's a factor, no question but it's not the first principle.

VideoAdminGamma -> RE: Caving on the Payroll tax for 2 months (12/26/2011 6:02:00 AM)
Fast Reply I hope everyone had a great holiday. Please remain on topic, this means comments about other posters are not on topic. Thank you all for contributing to the forums. VideoAdminGamma

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Caving on the Payroll tax for 2 months (12/26/2011 12:41:50 PM)
While those Grand Old Pranksters were jerking off over the thought of keeping a few dollars out of the hands of 160 million (+/-6 or so) spenders, they were attending to some REALLY IMPORTANT shit, such as Installing a Bust of Winnie in the Capitol Building. Any you all thought those assholes don't care about the commoners. [8D]

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Caving on the Payroll tax for 2 months (12/26/2011 9:31:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve Huh, I thought it was because somebody made those things to begin with. So if it weren't for rich people, nobody would do anything? No, I'd find that hard to agree with, however, if it weren't for "first" investors...whether it was clay ovens or autoclaves, TV's or court Jesters, automobiles or shoe leather (or for that matter, the wheel)....there'd be a whole lot of things all of us wouldn't enjoy today....each of which had early purchasers of....until they became ubiquitous, and cheaper. I mean, I know it's good technique to take credit for the good and blame the bad on somebody else, whatever the truth is, but it's also called bullshit. I've heard that said before (you wouldn't be the first). It's a factor, no question but it's not the first principle. Of?

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Caving on the Payroll tax for 2 months (12/26/2011 9:33:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster While those Grand Old Pranksters were jerking off over the thought of keeping a few dollars out of the hands of 160 million (+/-6 or so) spenders, they were attending to some REALLY IMPORTANT shit, such as Installing a Bust of Winnie in the Capitol Building. Any you all thought those assholes don't care about the commoners. [8D] Where did you get the (unusual) impression that those in Washington gave a rats ass about you?

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Caving on the Payroll tax for 2 months (12/27/2011 12:28:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster While those Grand Old Pranksters were jerking off over the thought of keeping a few dollars out of the hands of 160 million (+/-6 or so) spenders, they were attending to some REALLY IMPORTANT shit, such as Installing a Bust of Winnie in the Capitol Building. Any you all thought those assholes don't care about the commoners. [8D] Where did you get the (unusual) impression that those in Washington gave a rats ass about you? Why do you think I have that impression?

Musicmystery -> RE: Caving on the Payroll tax for 2 months (12/27/2011 11:50:00 AM)
quote: a two-month extension of tax cuts for all workers But notice how it's discussed (and repeated in the news) as a "tax increase"? Exactly what I predicted when the one year holiday was announced. Another de facto permanent revenue gap.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625