Reply With Quote
The intent is to destroy SS, not stimulate the economy.
HUGE up by Barry to link SS cuts to economic stimulus, played right into Wall St's hands (maybe that's what he wanted).
Apparantely the payroll tax cut failed to stimulate the economy because the 2% reduction simply wasn't big enough, nor were sufficient tax cuts for corporations included.
........ would like to expand the cut so that workers would only pay 3.1%, down from 4.2%.link....also proposed cutting the employer's portion of the Social Security payroll tax to 3.1% on the first $5 million that company's pay in wages. In addition, they would exempt employers from paying any Social Security tax on increases in their payroll -- up to a cap -- in the fourth quarter of this year and all of 2012.
The intent is to destroy SS, not stimulate the economy.
HUGE up by Barry to link SS cuts to economic stimulus, played right into Wall St's hands (maybe that's what he wanted).
Often the obvious answer is the right one.
He's not stupid, right?
The intent is to win an election. Nothing more.
It was the only way he could "cut taxes" on the 50% that already don't pay income tax.
No .
Look...
I'm ready to pay an extra $1,600 to $1,800 in SS insurance for this next year. They need to stop ing around in DC and realize, there is no one solution. We need them to make an more cost effective reason for manufactures to stay here, and move back.
We need more tax payers. Just that simple.
So the GOP doesn't want to keep these cuts but will fight like to keep the cuts on the millionaires? Yeah, Boehner...you are chicken .,
"reason for manufactures to stay here, and move back."
iow, keep forcing Human-Americans down to working for Chinese wages, no benefits, no workplace safety, etc, etc.
It's simple. Some people pay too little of their income to the treasury, some people pay too much. Yes, we will argue what is too much and too little, but please at least allow us the respect of a differing view.
"allow us the respect of a differing view"
aka, false equivalence.
your blind ideological, pro-establishment, protect-those-persecuted wealthy stances are NOT the equivalent of the grievances of OWS.
LOL...
Really now. You are simply so far off, I'm surprised you haven fallen off the edge already. Just because my views are extremely to the right of you, doen't mean I am pro establishment. Did I support the bailout? Do I support corporations outsourcing labor and factories?
Now you mention OWS... A group that has some valid concerns, but allowed themselves to be overrun by anarchists... Really now...
The GOP has their tax cuts that they like, democrats have their tax cuts that they like. They may differ on the intended recipients, but conceptually there's complete bipartisan agreement that tax cuts are the way to stimulate the economy.
A differing view that's failed repeatedly
The view George Bush had that rich people pay too much in taxes for 8 years got us in the mess we're in.
Dok: What? What mess exactly?
It is not the view that rich people pay to much. What propaganda are you listening to? The top marginal rates are too high. Now the people who have no deductions but make lots of money do pay too much. However, there are plenty who have substantial deductions that reduce their overall rates. Then there is the fact that normally, these people are not the top 5% or so who don't pay very much percentage wise. Capital gains are a different rate, and increasing the tax rate on normal tax tables won't do squat to get more out of them. You have to know where to differentiate between types of taxes. There is no reason for the top marginal rate to be higher than the 28% during the Reagan years. Just remove all the loopholes so some people aren't paying 35% of the wages in federal taxation when those with dedications only pay 12%. Make them all pay about 26% after normal deductions.
The median workers make $29K. 50% make less than $29K. The bottom 50% number of people is much larger than number of people the top 50%.
So you want someone making $29K to pay 25% income tax and 6 (or 10) % = 31%+ ?
aka, a flat tax which is always punitively regressive, as the earning wealthy always wanted.
Boutons, you are such a tool. No one that advocates a flat tax is advocating that it start on the first dollar of earnings. They all take in consideration that the tax will have to start at some agreed on point above the poverty level.
Also, most flat tax proposals do not advocate one rate...they usually consider a couple of progressive step rates...the main attraction to a flat tax is that they totally eliminate deductions and congresses ability to manipulate deductions/credits for political/financial gain. You make X amount of dollars you pay Y tax regardless of how you earned it or spent it. You could do your tax return on a post card.
Accountants aren't going to like that.
a flat tax with progressive steps, straight from the Ministry of Propaganda.
Why is the wealthy, like Forbes, are always pushing for a flat tax? It's obvious shifting the tax burden from them to the non-wealthy. I'm sure whatever changes to the tax code, the wealthy will buy their continuing gaming of the system and Congress will deliver.
Not from first $?
People on here, in response to the VRWC lie that 47% don't pay taxes, said everybody pay taxes, meaning from dollar one.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...233215330.htmlU.S. companies are booking higher profits than ever. But the number crunchers in Washington are puzzling over a phenomenon that has just come into view: Corporate tax receipts as a share of profits are at their lowest level in at least 40 years.
Total corporate federal taxes paid fell to 12.1% of profits earned from activities within the U.S. in fiscal 2011, which ended Sept. 30, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's the lowest level since at least 1972. And well below the 25.6% companies paid on average from 1987 to 2008.
It looks like the idiots in congress don't understand the impact of their legislation.
what legislation?
Corporate profits are up, the unemployment rate is down. I guess this means Obama's trickle-down economic policies really do work.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
