The payroll tax-cut extension by Niki2

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The payroll tax-cut extension

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Friday, December 2, 2011 05:46
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1009
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, December 1, 2011 8:32 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Republicans: Senate Republicans would pay for their extension -- estimated to cost close to $120 billion -- and further reduce deficits over 10 years by $111 billion, according to McConnell's outline.

The Republican proposal would institute a three-year freeze on federal civilian worker pay; reduce the size of the federal civilian workforce by 10% through attrition; prohibit millionaires from receiving unemployment benefits or food stamps (I wonder how many of those poor folk get food stamps?); and require millionaires to pay full fare for Medicare Parts B and D (do millionairs/billionaires actually USE Medicare?? If I was one, I'd sure have my own fluffy health insurance!).

According to the GOP, 2,360 tax filers with adjusted gross incomes over $1 million received a total of $20.8 million in unemployment benefits in 2009 (THAT's just disgusting!).

The Republican plan also includes a proposal from Sen. John Thune that invites millionaires and billionaires, such as Warren Buffett, who feel they aren't taxed enough to voluntarily pay more to reduce federal deficits. To assist in the effort, a new line on the federal income tax return would be created for such voluntary donations. Republicans say the change would reduce deficits by $124 million over 10 years.

Democrats: Obama and Senate Democrats have proposed to pay for their expanded payroll tax cut -- estimated to cost roughly $265 billion -- by imposing a surtax on millionaires.

Republicans have made it clear a millionaire surtax is a non-starter.

Obama and Senate Democrats have proposed to pay for their expanded payroll tax cut -- estimated to cost roughly $265 billion -- by imposing a surtax on millionaires.

Republicans have made it clear a millionaire surtax is a non-starter.

So let's see. The Republicans, who keep talking about job creation, want to cut MORE jobs, rather than TOUCH the ultra-wealthy "job creators". They keep calling them that, but in these difficult times, I have yet to see what jobs these guys have create or are creating. Mostly I see them KILLING jobs, government jobs, union jobs, and many, many others. So once again, it's "yeah, we'll allow the majority a pittance, but you gotta cut from them to do it" or we'll screw the majority. Just like extending the Bush tax cuts, or unemployment benefits, or helping out first responders. Same old, same old.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 9:09 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I think several aspects of the Republican proposal have merit.

First, if I understand it correctly, reducing staff by attrition means that when people leave, they are simply not replaced. The banks did a lot of this over the past few years, which reduces the amount of layoffs needed. A certain percentage of workers leave for any number of reasons, and if you simply don't hire replacements, then you haven't actually fired anyone.

On the issue of pay freezes, I think that might be negotiable into a cost of living raise situation, where pay increases are 'frozen' at the same level by locking them to inflation. This would prevent people from getting paid less each year. I myself haven't gotten a pay increase sufficient to cover the cost of living since 2008, so that would be a nice deal for public employees.

Ending welfare for millionaires seems like a no-brainer.

Voluntary tax donations is a fair reply to those who would like to be taxed more. I suggest a similar option be made available to low and middle-class families when the government would like to tax them more. We can all choose to donate extra if we agree. If not, we can keep our money.

I'm not seeing a lot of downside to the Republican proposal, honestly. One little tweak, and I'd say it's embraceable.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 9:21 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Question: If you don't replace people who leave (the attrition thing), who does their work? Other employees, doing more work for the same (or less) money? Not to mention the fact that it DELETES a job, rather than saving or creating one....remember the jobs thing?

Yes, the proposals for welfare to millionaires is a no-brainer. But it's equally brainless in that (aside from the unemployment insurance thing, which never should be in the first place) millionaires don't use food stamps (!), and I doubt many of them use Medicare because the kind of plush health insurance companies most of them have don't TAKE Medicare. Now, if they wanted to cut the taxpayer-provided health care the wealthy in Congress get, that would be another matter...but will never be considered, of course.

They're not talking about pay being frozen with cost of living taken into account; they're talking about FREEZING it, period.

As to voluntary tax donations, that's a joke; it's already IN your tax forms. They're apparently talking about yet another addition to tax forms for contributions JUST to pay down the debt. Whoopee.

In other words, aside from the unemployment thing (which boggles my mind that it even exists!), what they propose has zero impact on the wealthy, and cuts jobs from the middle class. As usual.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 9:57 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Question: If you don't replace people who leave (the attrition thing), who does their work? Other employees, doing more work for the same (or less) money? Not to mention the fact that it DELETES a job, rather than saving or creating one....remember the jobs thing?"

Hello,

Well, it deletes a job, but it doesn't create an unemployed person in the process, which is a compromise, but not one that ruins somebody. Doing more work for the same money is SOP in this economy. In some cases, less work gets done. In some cases, more efficient processes are discovered. I'm not going to complain too much about government being forced to discover more efficient ways to do things. If I had my way, there'd be a lot more than mere attrition happening to Federal jobs, so this is a very gentle proposal.

"Yes, the proposals for welfare to millionaires is a no-brainer. But it's equally brainless in that (aside from the unemployment insurance thing, which never should be in the first place) millionaires don't use food stamps (!), and I doubt many of them use Medicare because the kind of plush health insurance companies most of them have don't TAKE Medicare."

I think you might be appalled to discover just what sorts of things wealthy people might be doing with their food supplement and medicare welfare. If a couple thousand people are getting 20 million in goods and services, you'd best bet they've found some way to benefit from it.

"Now, if they wanted to cut the taxpayer-provided health care the wealthy in Congress get, that would be another matter...but will never be considered, of course."

It'll be considered if enough people suggest it! I'm on board with that one. Maybe your 99% crowd could write a sign about it: "Less 4 Congress, More 4 the People!"

"They're not talking about pay being frozen with cost of living taken into account; they're talking about FREEZING it, period."

Yeah, I know. And that's a starting point for negotiation. I'd counter that a true freeze requires cost of living increases, or else it's not a freeze, it's a reduction. I think the Dems could get them to move on this if they accepted the rest.

"As to voluntary tax donations, that's a joke; it's already IN your tax forms. They're apparently talking about yet another addition to tax forms for contributions JUST to pay down the debt. Whoopee."

I don't think voluntary donations are a joke. There are people clamoring to pay more taxes. We should facilitate that. And when they come asking US to pay more taxes, we can point out that there is a voluntary donation option available to us if we wish to do so.

"In other words, aside from the unemployment thing (which boggles my mind that it even exists!), what they propose has zero impact on the wealthy, and cuts jobs from the middle class. As usual."

Yes, aside from the thing that impacts the wealthy a tiny amount, there's no impact for the wealthy. But 'impacting the wealthy' isn't a design goal, 'paying for a tax cut' is a design goal. I'm quite content to let government shrink a bit, and if we can guarantee our public employees get a cost of living increase (something I think could be obtained from negotiation) I think it'd actually be a good deal.

If I got my way, I'd halve the Defense budget, and that would kill a lot more public jobs than anything on the table currently. It would kill so many jobs it'd turn your blood cold.

But this proposal? Easy to swallow. I think the government could do more with less, and I'd be happy to see such come to pass.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 10:15 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"If I got my way, I'd halve the Defense budget, and that would kill a lot more public jobs than anything on the table currently."

Side question - do you happen to know who pays for mercenaries? Oh, I guess I mean contractors. If I were to eliminate military jobs, those would be the first to go, as they are incredibly expensive, and literally no-account forces, in that they aren't accountable under the Geneva Conventions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 10:20 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I'm sure they come out of the Defense budget somewhere. And good riddance, if we were to get rid of them.

But many of these, too, are lost jobs.

I guess you could say I'm not against killing jobs if it means eliminating certain undesirable inefficiencies in the system.

I could cut tens of thousands easily, and without remorse.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 10:35 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

I have problems with the payroll tax cut as a whole. It sort of obsoletes the whole "Pay as you go" theory of Social Security, and just makes it another line on the annual budget.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.htm

BTW, when Federal employees retire under a Reduction in Force, some other Federal employee who otherwise would be fired due to lack of senority gets their job and gets to keep working.

Outside of RIFs, they often fill the slots of retiring Federal employees with private contractors. In my case, this was a net gain in jobs since it took three contractors to replace me.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 11:54 AM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I feel the Repubs have some good points in there, but there are some flaws. In some fields there are enough people to pick up the slack if someone retires, but what about DHS (remember the thread about that?) they are already overworked and so they don't approach each case properly to begin with, much less if they had even less caseworkers working there. The more overloaded caseworkers get the more likely mistakes are to be made and when it comes to kids and families mistakes can be an awful thing.

I'm okay with the freezing pay for three years thing.

I'm not okay with hiring mercinaries when our own warriors can do it. Why would we want to pay War Stuff Inc. instead of giving our folk the money and equipment to do what they need to do? Its just not right.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 2:39 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I have problems with the payroll tax cut as a whole. It sort of obsoletes the whole "Pay as you go" theory of Social Security, and just makes it another line on the annual budget.

I actually agree with you on this. If Social Security is in such dire straits, cutting its revenue does nothing to solve its solvency issues.

The only way I'd agree to cut payroll tax rates is if the cap were lifted to expand the base of who's paying those taxes.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 2:52 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Perhaps I am in a misunderstanding.

Isn't replacing lost revenue the point of the aforementioned reductions? i.e. Since we're not getting money from A, we'll take it from B?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 3:03 PM

DREAMTROVE

I concur, the republican proposal looked generally sound. Dems can tweak here and there, but I don't have a major problem with it.

As to the welfare to millionaires, an appalling amount actually. I don't have the figures because last time I did it was a few years ago, and those would be out of date, but it does amount to a number in the ballpark of what they're talking about cutting.

Anthony, your cat looks like Inara. I wouldn't have thought so, but when I switched pages, Inaras face appeared right next to where puss n boots was, and it's really a little eerie. Not too strong a resemblance, but it's there.

ETA:

Mike,

The problem here is that the cap is set at the upper middle class/upper class barrier, a barrier which my brother defines as "not quite rich enough to influence policy/rich enough to influence policy" which is around 100k. IF you're over this, you don't individually influence policy, but you're a member of some group that does, even if it's just the AMA.

It's just not very feasible to get a tax passed on people over that line. Outside of that, it's a terrific idea, remove the cap, and then do what the GOP is suggesting here which is essentially means testing on recipients (they'd probably never use that term) then you can solve the problem. You can actually means test out 2/3 of recipients, and you can reduce the tax rate by further by killing the cap, so the net rate under 1%. Passing such a law is another matter.

My overall take on this is if you can't pass it federally, do it by state. Rich people won't leave NY just because they have to pay half a percent more tax.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 2, 2011 3:18 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Perhaps I am in a misunderstanding.

Isn't replacing lost revenue the point of the aforementioned reductions? i.e. Since we're not getting money from A, we'll take it from B?

--Anthony

But the big idea behind Social Security is that it is supposed to be self-funding. That's why you hear about the Social Security Trust Fund, and such.

When you cut the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and pay for the shortfall out of general revenue, that seems to be heading in the direction of just providing everyone with a guaranteed income from the government, which idea hasn't historically had much traction in the U.S.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 2, 2011 5:39 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
In some cases, less work gets done. In some cases, more efficient processes are discovered. I'm not going to complain too much about government being forced to discover more efficient ways to do things.

I think the former is the result FAR more often than the latter, in reality.

Quote:
It'll be considered if enough people suggest it!

I'm afraid, in my opinion, that's false. "Enough" of the American population is clamoring for the ultra-wealthy to be taxed to help bring down the deficit, yet the Republicans are flatly against ANY kind of tax increase for them. I don't believe reducing health-care coverage for Congress will NEVER be considered, no matter how many "suggest" or even "demand" it.

Quote:
There are people clamoring to pay more taxes

A small group of the wealthy are saying they should pay more taxes. I don't consider that "clamoring", nor do I consider them as representing enough to make much impact.

I agree with Kiki, big time!

Anthony's right; the proposal to extend the payroll tax holiday on both sides includes was to "pay for" the cut, to ensure that Social Security gets the same amount of money. It's HOW to pay for it that differs

Geezer, considering the Social Security fund has been robbed time and time again to use it in the General Fund, I don't think your argument holds much water. Wouldn't it just be giving back to the SS fund a teeeeny portion of what's been stolen from it? It was SUPPOSED to be self-funding, but in reality it hasn't been able to be because it's been robbed so many times.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 2, 2011 5:43 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Perhaps I am in a misunderstanding.

Isn't replacing lost revenue the point of the aforementioned reductions? i.e. Since we're not getting money from A, we'll take it from B?

--Anthony

But the big idea behind Social Security is that it is supposed to be self-funding. That's why you hear about the Social Security Trust Fund, and such.

When you cut the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and pay for the shortfall out of general revenue, that seems to be heading in the direction of just providing everyone with a guaranteed income from the government, which idea hasn't historically had much traction in the U.S.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Hello,

My understanding is that Social Security has been robbed blind, used to support General Revenue. Putting money back from General Revenue seems logical to me. Am I mistaken?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 2, 2011 5:46 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

""Enough" of the American population is clamoring for the ultra-wealthy to be taxed to help bring down the deficit, yet the Republicans are flatly against ANY kind of tax increase for them. I don't believe reducing health-care coverage for Congress will NEVER be considered, no matter how many "suggest" or even "demand" it."

Hello,

No. You don't have enough. Not nearly enough. But you might, someday.

You call yourselves the 99 percent, but the movement perhaps has lukewarm support from 33 percent, and any kind of active support is far, far lower.

Enough people is always enough to change policy, but you don't yet have enough people. You only have a lot of people. But so do your opponents.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE