E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
President Obama and congressional Republicans remain mired in the preliminary scrimmaging over how to extend the Social Security payroll tax cut for another year.
The congressional leadership of both parties have committed themselves to passing the extension, so it seems likely to happen. But it’s not clear how it will happen, nor is it clear whether the loss of revenue would be offset by spending cuts or higher taxes on some people – or perhaps not offset at all.
Democrats say this push to extend and expand the payroll tax cut – to 3.1 percent on workers, instead of the normal 6.2 percent – is all about helping the middle class.
Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said, “House Republicans are willing to leave for the holidays and force a $1,000 payroll tax increase on 160 million middle income Americans.”
But since the Social Security payroll tax is a flat 6.2 percent tax on earnings up to $106,800 (and up to $110,100 in 2012), Congress can’t give middle-class Americans a tax cut without also giving many upper-income or relatively wealthy earners a tax cut, too.
Of course “middle class” is a subjective term – a person earning $110,000 might consider himself middle class, although in some states Tennessee, for example, a $110,000 salary would be far more than twice the average annual salary for that area.
The national average for all salaries and wages paid in 2009 was $68,110, according to Internal Revenue Service data for the most recent year available, 2009.
Factoring in some wage growth in 2010 and 2011, what that means is that many people with above-average incomes have received this year’s payroll tax cut (and would continue to get one if Congress extends the payroll tax cut for another year).
In 2009, according to the IRS data, there were 10.3 million income tax returns with salaries and wages between $75,000 and $100,000; if you go up to the taxable maximum for the payroll tax, that would add tens of thousands more high earners who are getting a tax cut.
Roberton Williams, an analyst at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington, said that “60 percent of an extended payroll tax cut would go to households making more than $100,000.”
If tax cuts for the middle class are what Congress wants, why not target a tax cut to those who are in the middle and not those at or above $100,000 in income?
Congress, in fact, did just that in the 2009 stimulus bill with a two-year, temporary tax break called Making Work Pay. Taxpayers were able to take a credit of $400 for singles and $800 for married couples filing jointly. The tax break was phased out for singles with incomes above $75,000 and for married couples with incomes above $150,000. So Congress didn’t give money to higher earners, as the payroll tax cut does.
Making Work Pay was modeled on the Earned Income Tax Credit for poor people as a way to offset to the payroll taxes they must pay. “The Making Work Pay tax credit was just an extension of that,” said Jason Fichtner, former chief economist at the Social Security Administration, who is now at the conservative-oriented Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
The payroll tax cut does have the virtue of being “immensely easier to administer” than Making Work Pay was, said Williams. Making Work Pay required filling out an extra line on the income tax return. “The IRS had extra work and the tax filer had extra work.”
But in a blog post, Williams makes a strong case that, instead of extending the payroll tax cut, Congress ought to revive and enlarge Making Work Pay, because it would “focus tax savings on low- and middle-income families, those most likely spend the extra money.”
The payroll tax cut worries some members of Congress in both parties who believe that it won’t be temporary – that Congress, next December and in the years to come, will find it very hard to raise the payroll tax rate back to where it was last year, 6.2 percent.
If Congress extends the tax cut, but cannot agree on offsetting revenue, then it will simply be borrowing money (and adding to future interest costs) to pay for the $187 billion tax break.
Donald Fuerst, a senior pension fellow at the non-partisan American Academy of Actuaries points out that this is the first time that Congress has changed the payroll tax rate in response to economic events.
Even in the recession of 1981-1982, when unemployment exceeded 10 percent for almost a year, Congress did not cut the Social Security tax.
In fact, it allowed an already scheduled Social Security tax increase to take effect, raising the tax rate from 5.08 percent on employees to 5.4 percent. If you include the Medicare part of the payroll tax, the total tax rate went from 6.13 percent to 6.7 percent – a tax increase on the “middle class” in the depths of a recession.
“If this were other than just a temporary change, it would truly be a fundamental change in how the system is financed, Fuerst said. “It’s been financed in the past almost exclusively with payroll taxes, and if this temporary change were extended, then a significant part of the funding would come from general revenues rather than the payroll tax –and that certainly is a fundamental change.”
He added, “We’re tinkering with funding here but not addressing the problems that exist… We’re using this as a tool to manage the economic conditions of today, but we’re not addressing the long-term problems that Social Security has.”
Leave a Comment:
I thought the teagags/gop(greedy one percent) signed a pledge saying they were against any taxes being raised period? What happened did grover norquist fall asleep in the chair while the republicans were licking his boots? The flip flopping party of no can't decide on anything can they.....except that they want to keep destroying america so the can blame it on the black guy. I've got news, it's not working. They didn't seem to have a problem borrowing the money from China to pay for the bush tax cuts though, did they? Hypocrites!!!!!!!!
As I read between the lines it sounds like the Republican blackmailers have won again. These greedy GOP jerks just love holding the American people hostage in all negotiations...... Wake up Americans, the Republican Party has declared economic war on you, your family, your friends and your way of life.
Big it should be clear to all, the Republicans are all about the 1% What happen to that plege they made to their God that they won't rise tax's. Oh that's right that just means not the 1%.
Well put. Obama will win and not approve the extension of the cuts! This will come about with the Democrats taking both houses. I hope Obama speeds the with draw from Afgan saving 300 billion a year!
This should be simple, but Republicans and Teabaggers are torn between doing the right thing and screwing things up to blame it on the muslim communist Kenyan anti-colonial community organizer that loves gays and hates Israel.
Dear God, either you didn't read the article or are so caught up in partisan bickering that reality escapes you or you are deliberately obtuse. Note that the democrats are behind what is essentially a tax break for the wealthy, go reread the article before posting. Then, pay attention to the last sentence, the one stating that this payroll tax break is essentially harming Social Security for very short term gains. I thought all you liberals were against messing with Social Security.
I used to be Middle Class until I was 60, then I got dumped on the side of the road for Corporate Profits and am in poverty - all savings, house, and car gone. Never would have thought this was possible in this country 40 years ago.
Same boat as you - with no paddle!
Thats exactly what the Republicans & Tea Party want, they want to destroy the middle class, so then their will only be the poor and the every rich. 2012 can't come soon enough!
' Making Work Pay required filling out an extra line on the income tax return. “The IRS had extra work and the tax filer had extra work"
...Excuuuuuuuuse me! One extra line on a 1040 is back breaking for the IRS and the taxpayer, have we become that f.....d up in this country?
Start with a one page tax bill with no exemptions, down from 16,000 pages, with three or four brackets, and the whole problem could be solved. Of course the political whores in office would resell the old exemptions again one at a time, but in the interim we likely could get our house in order again.
Laura I think you're giving the Tea party folks way to much credit, I can tell you've never met one. Your statements are true but they only apply to thoughs that supply the Kool-Aid to the tea partiers and the social conservatives. These folks don't have a clue they run to their handlers to get their daily cup of Kool-Aid.
Everyone of you are idiots. Do you not realize that they are taking money from one of your pockets and puting in in the other and calling it a tax break?
The IDIOCRACY of this county will doom us.....
Don't any of you posters get it? The tax cut was a political football that is being used to keep us fighting among ourselves. Last year it was don't let the Bush tax cuts expire the republicans yelled as the dems shouted let the rich pay their fair share, now it's turned around and the repubs are shouting, everyone start paying more again and the dems yelling don't raise taxes. What a bunch of fools we are!!!! Listen to your heart and use the brain God gave you. None of them care about us except maybe one, and thats Ron Paul. He believes in freedom and fewer taxes all together. Reducing the size of government and giving this country back to We The People. Remember, "A government that governs least governs best"
So the teaparty is composed exclusively of filthy rich people? Ditto the republicans and their only goal is to destroy the middle class? Really? Guess you think that Obama's borrowing billions to pay for programs and bennies to help the unions and his campaign supporters is the answer? Are you aware that the national debt is at fifteen TRILLION DOLLARS? Can you fathom what that means? No, apparently thinking is something too difficult to imagine, far, far easier to spew talking points.
We don't care about people making 100,000 dollars a year. We care about people making $500,000 or $1,000,000 a year.
Mygirl1 you makes some nice points but do you really have to be such a arrogant prick?
Russ: after reading a few of your posts I think you are a great example of the pot calling the kettle black.
I don't like trolling Mygirl, but I am going to respond to your post with the intelligence it deserves.
And misinformed people, of course.
Spot on there. Well actually, they really wish to exploit us, not destroy us. Remember, they need us to carry their backs.
Yes.
The president does not use federal money to pay for his campaign. That would be illegal. And do you have evidence that he is paying "billions" to help unions?
I am aware that we are in a recession. In a recession, sometimes you have to borrow to deal with the immediate problems. Debt can be dealt with overtime, like we did in the Great Depression. I would also like to add that if it weren't for Reagan, we would not have a significant national debt.
I understand that it is roughly 100% of the GDP, not nearly as much as our WWII debt. Can you understand this? http://www.lcurve.org/
And that is why two people (one of which is someone who is on your side) have reported you. Discuss in a civil manner or get out.
Mr. Anon: So gracious of you to 'inform' me of my misinformation. I'm grateful that you took the time to inform me that the teaparty is 'misinformed.' I suppose you are of the belief that the bigger the Federal Government, the better your life will be, that the immensity of the national debt is inconsequential when compared to WWII ( note that the government took over all enterprises and industries during that time and placed the nation on rationing for the wartime 'effort') and that short of another World War the odds of returning our economy to sustainability are rather bleak.
Thank you for 'reporting' me for having a differing political viewpoint. It is very indicative of your belief system, apparently it is one that cannot abide or understand anything that doesn't fall within a very narrow scope.
mygirl .You are wasting your time...
I did not inform you of your misinformation, but rather the Tea Party's misinformation. Because your post was merely rhetorical questions, I can't call it "misinformation".
Perhaps you are right - I shouldn't spend time trying to correct the rhetoric you spew. There are better things I can do. Still, part of me denies that you are a lost cause, so I will persist.
Clarify "bigger the Federal Government". I certainly don't support increased military when it is not necessary. Rather, I support bigger government when I know it will make my life better. Social Security, for example.
After WWII the debt was 120% of the GDP. That was paid down until Reagan took over. That is a fact, not an argument.
Yes, and the Depression ended. Again, it is undeniable that spending (whether on the New Deal or War Bonds) got us out of the Great Depression.
Says who? The unemployment rate was worse during parts of Reagan's time. Besides, your insistence on cutting from education and social programs is not helping.
I reported you for personal attacks. I also reported Russ there for the same thing, even though he is a liberal.
Premise is false (as shown above) therefore argument is unsound.
3.1% doesn't even have an effect. Let all the tax cuts expire and let's get this debt down. Multiple wars and a tax cut at the same time? Damned foolish. Put everything on the table--cut Defense by 50% and go back to Clinton Era tax rates.
EDD: Yeah, entrenched myopia and deliberately willful adherence to failed ideologies regardless of facts is hard, if not impossible, to overcome.
Mr. Anon: Nice that you have taken on the mantle of 'reporter' and arbiter of what is acceptable. As to 'my insistence on cutting education and social programs.' Since when have you developed the ability to read minds? You have no idea what my thoughts are on those matters, you make false and huge assumptions. Because I am a fiscal conservative doesn't mean I decry social or educational services. That you make such sweeping assumptions about someone based on a few posts should, perhaps, cause you to reexamine your ideologies.
MSNBC has a "report" function. I will use that function to report posts I find unacceptable. I have used this function on both liberals and conservatives here. I will not hesitate to use it on the likes of you if you are going to start calling anyone who disagrees with you stupid. Note that this time I had the courtesy to inform you of the fact that I reported you, because at least one other user made it clear that they found your posts unacceptable. Plenty of us here argue our points in a civil manner. From a rhetorical standpoint, you only make yourself sound like a troll by personally attacking us.
Also, I based my assumption that you were opposed to social/education services based on this rhetorical statement:
If you support social and educational services, then you admit that increasing government can improve life.
In addition, you have yet to refute my other statements that I have made, and you resort to attacking me for reporting one of your post. The move is yours.
Nice of you to tell me and ol' Russ that you're reporting us. How were you when you were a kid?
mygirl1 - Since you seem to be such an expert.. WHY don't you run for President, and show us your plan to fix this nation.
This is another stupid class warfare from Obama and Democrats with the intention to cause a political damage to Republicans to prevent the lost of the Senate, the tax cut won't do anything to middle class it is just a lie , reduce the payroll tax it is actually against the middle class and the elders that depend on us to pay for their retirement like we will depend of our child's, because this is how the system work. SS is not a tax , is a payroll tax that will work in our future benefit. Social Security is a social insurance program that is primarily funded through dedicated payroll taxes called Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA).. So is stupid continue defending this so call tax cut, Obama is politicizing something that never should be done from the first time. If he want to cut tax to the middle class is simple REDUCE THE INCOMETAX.
Hmmmmm
I thought the teabaggee/Libbies (incompetent OWS) stated they were against any taxes being lowered. What happened did Barrack fall asleep in his chair as the limp little Libbies were sucking his toes? The true Party of NO, Hairy Reed/Nanny/Piglosi/et al, who haven’t passed a budget in 943 days and haven’t proposed any solid economic plan IN WRITING YET, can't seem to decide if it’s time to want higher or lower taxes. Of course the Libbies will claim they care but then their true racism, hate, fear-mongering and vitriol explodes when someone tries to take away their sacrosanct handouts that the successful in our society have to keep funding because Democrats/Liberals/Progressives are incapable.
The Liberals claim the Bush tax cuts weren't paid for, even though between 2002--after the Clinton recession and 9/11--and 2008 before the Democratic caused housing collapse, revenue had almost returned to pre recession levels. Now they want to continue the Payroll Tax Cuts WITHOUT paying for them.
HYPOCRITES!!!!
As the Liberals try to claim they are for the poor and exploited they actually keep them downtrodden in their pathetic land of entitlements and social program Nirvana. The war on poverty started with a poverty rate of 14% in 1960. After we have spent over $12 TRILLION Dollars (actually estimates are between $12 TRILLION and $19 TRILLION dollars) over 47 years, the poverty rate is 14.3%.
So answer me this Libbies, how much more of our tax dollars do we have to keep giving to our criminal government before you realize it’s time to take your panties off and put your man pants on and get to work? The Republicans are proposing the cuts be accompanied with the Keystone XL pipeline being moved along faster to provide tens of thousands of REAL JOBS, not those sham "shovel ready" jobs Barrack lied to us about. But then again the little Teabaggee Libbies never want to actually work, they want everyone else to work as they collect their social entitlements because they have no pride to get out of mommy’s basement and actually work for a living.
As most Liberals believe money does grow on trees--IN CHINA--they keep borrowing to pay for their unsustainable welfare programs because they are too handicapped by their indoctrination that they shouldn't have to work.
Hypocrites!!!!!
Oh, by the way, if you limp Libbies want to pay for the $187 BILLION Dollars these tax cuts will cost, perhaps you should tell your boy-toy Barrack that Donald Berwick, outgoing Director of CMS, stated that between $125 Billion and $250 BILLION Dollars can be saved by eliminating the WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE IN YOUR PATHETIC ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS, MEDICARE AND MEDICAID, PER YEAR!!!!!!
Politicians have only been telling us about this waste, fraud and abuse for over 3 decades and of course nothing is better.
Buffoons!
ABO (Anybody But Obama) 2012
(By the way, a “teabaggee” is the one who accepts the bag from the teabaggers. You can find a more descriptive definition here, urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=teabaggee)
Mr. Anon you've been reported also as I didn't like your posts.
Two major points this article makes:
1: Roberton Williams, an analyst at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington, said that “60 percent of an extended payroll tax cut would go to households making more than $100,000.”
2: “It’s been financed in the past almost exclusively with payroll taxes, and if this temporary change were extended, then a significant part of the funding would come from general revenues rather than the payroll tax –and that certainly is a fundamental change.”
SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT
Are the Liberals here blaming the tea party and the republicans for blocking a tax cut that defunds medicare and Social Security so that 60% of the savings can go to people earning more than 100k per year?
Seriously, is that what you're saying?
Face it, Obama is willing to damage SS and Medicare just to score political points and get re-elected.
That's what's up people. I would think any self respecting liberal would be STRONGLY AGAINST this so called "tax cut". You should thank ANYONE who helps to block this monstrous abrogation of fiscal responsibility, no matter which letter they put in front of their name.
mygirl.your obviously intelligent.what appeals to you about the republicans.i can understand a bunch of slackjawed limbaugh listeners following the republican party line.you just seem to smart to be taken in by their bs.are you wealthy.if so i can understand your allegiance.isnt it obvious to you that they only represent the rich.the countries credit rating downgraded to save the wealthys tax cut.the super committee failure because the republicans wanted to give the rich another tax cut.the republicans are shameless in their support of the rich at the expense of everyone else
So JohnQ, are you in favor of cutting funding for SS and Medicare to give a tax break that will be 60% favoring those who make MORE THAN 100k per year?
id like to see social securtiy paid on all earnings.no upper limit
As much as I liked the extra 2% in my paycheck, it should never have happened. It gave people a false sense of what they should be getting. Now, to reset it back to where it was, everyone calls it a tax increase. It's not! You just got a break in 2011. We can't continue to print BS money.
And Social Security should have a cap as the benefit is capped. Nobody should have to pay 6.2% of their income and not receive the benefit. That is Socialism in it's purest form!
If you want true tax reform and fairness, stop have the top 5% wage earners paying 50% of all federal and state income taxes! Flat tax!! Everyone pays the same percentage - period. Might make the career burger flipper decide to work a little harder and do something better in life than live off others.
Wow, real mature there.
johnQcitizen
OK John Q, I’m gonna go out on a limb here and guess you’re a Liberal Obama supporter right?
So, Republicans want to cut taxes and cut spending whereas you want to raise taxes and spend more. Right?
You realize that raising tax brackets on the upper incomes has NEVER generated more revenue. Revenue as a percentage of GDP has consistently stayed about 18%. Even when our upper rates were over 70% in the 50’s-70’s. The only way to increase revenues is to broaden the base by adding tax paying jobs or to increase payroll taxes. Unfortunately, historically, raising Social Security taxes by 1% results in a 0.1% increase in unemployment also. Thus is our current conundrum with the debate about the payroll tax.
The reason revenues stay consistently around 18% of GDP is because of our criminal 72,000+ page progressive tax code. 3 ½ stories of paper that is rife with every tax avoidance instrument possible. You Liberals, somehow, believe that this can be fixed. How? Explain it to me. And don’t even waste your time telling me that eliminating a few deductions, exemptions and loopholes will do it. Our tax code changes at LEAST once a day, every day. You know as well as I that the next legislation that comes through will be filled with NEW ways of tax avoidance for those who can afford it.
Now, the recurring criminal excuse that our incompetent Congress can’t find anything to cut is BULLS**T!!!!
Donald Berwick, the outgoing director of CMS, recently reported that we have between 20-30% of waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare/Medicaid EVERY YEAR. This is $150 BILLION to $250 BILLION dollars a year. Or, $1.5-2.5 TRILLION over 10 years!
Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them–costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually–fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve. Or, $1.23 TRILLION over 10 years.
The Congressional Budget Office published a “Budget Options” series identifying more than $100 billion in potential spending cuts. Or, $1 TRILLION over 10 years.
Audits showed $34 billion worth of Department of Homeland Security contracts contained significant waste, fraud, and abuse. Or, $340 BILLION over 10 years.
In 4 (FOUR) steps I have just eliminated $4.5 TRILLION dollars of our debt in 10 years. Without cutting any services.
Now, if I can do this, WHY CAN’T OUR POLITICIANS???????
Because they don’t want to. To them it’s just money. Money that buys them votes. Votes which will just cost us MORE of our tax dollars as they continue to waste our tax dollars.
Wake up.
freedom you left out part of the sentence.republicans want to cut taxes{on the rich}.why is it the republicans proponents always seem to forget that part of the sentence.the republicans want to cut spending{on social security and medicare and exempt their biggest campaign contributors the defence industry}.you see when you omit many salient points you change the meaning completely
i should have added im a left leaning independent.president obama is a disappointment.if ron paul is the republican candidate ill be voting for him otherwise itll be obama.the longer i watch the republicans fight for only the rich the more im perplexed as to why the average man casts a vote for one.i used to be a republican when Reagan was president.i see very little of what he stood for in today's republicans.they spend as much or more then Democrats. they just have a different ever expanding segment of government.
johnQcitizen
It doesn't change my point.
You "left leaning independents" (read: Liberal in absentia) still don't understand.
IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT TAX BRACKET RATE YOU RAISE THE RICH, MEAN, GREEDY UP TO!!!
The revenues don't change enough to make a difference. You Liberals just can't stand that some people have worked harder, risked more and succeeded. Now your envy is obvious. It's no longer about tax brackets, is it? It's about how much everyone has left AFTER they pay taxes.
It's not even class warfare any longer. It's even more pathetic, it's class envy. This is your shame.
Yes we DO want our military left alone, improvements can be made in waste fraud and abuse, but it IS one of the Constitutionally mandated requirements of our Federal government. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid/Medicare Part-D are NOT. They have created $116 TRILLION Dollars in Unfunded Liabilities. This is more than 100 times the cost of our military. Why are you Liberals so afraid of managing your own money? Why are you so pathetically submissive to a government filled with elitists who could give a rats a$$ about you or your family as long as you keep giving them your hard earned money to waste more and more.
It's time to grow up and finally become responsible and independent.
If you wait too much longer it may be too late.
The primary difference between a conservative vs. a liberal mindset is that the conservative mindset, in general, looks to the individual to take responsibilty for themselves and society at large. The liberal mindset looks to others to take responsibilty, it is a collective mindset vs. an independent mindset.
The government, in the liberal worldview, is generally the head of this collectivist organization and the citizenry look to the government to take responsibility for aging, health, environment etc.The conservative mindset looks to the individual and their families and friends as well as social organizations to take care of the elderly, poor, etc.
It is the extremists of both groups who cause the problems. With extremists all is either black or white, there are no shades of grey. Government is necessary, massive bloated bureaucracies are anathema to intelligent governance. We have a massive, bloated, corrupt and inept government and have had so for a very long time. Looking to such an entity to impose order is absurbd.
To those of you who question my attitudes and politics and ideologies, I can sum it up rather succinctly: I don't trust our current crop of politicans, neither party. They are self- serving and corrupt drones for the most part, I have no faith that any legislation currently coming from the administration or the congress will be impartial, intelligent and in the best interests of the nation as a whole. We are at a crossroads and fiscal responsibility is necessary to avoid the quagmire currently confronting the EU. We are at a crossroads on many issues, to continue the Nanny state would be disastrous. To continue crony capitalism is also disastrous. There is no room for extremists, not for the theocratic conservatives or the marxist liberals. It is the moderates in both groups who need to find common accord, the rest should be politely but firmly ignored.
Absolute.Idiocracy, don't do this. You're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
FreedomRingsLouder,
Your stand that taxing the rich more simply does not hold water. Taxing the wealthy worked under President Clinton. And if the wealthy were not shielded from higher taxes I would be willing to pay a percentage more without complaint. What I am talking about is a different tax bracket for each income level.
Wars are expensive, a country can not wage a two front war and not expect to be broke unless revenue is increased. I blame our current cash crunch on the two needless wars Bush got the country into, and his unwillingness to increase taxes. We all must share as much of pain involved in fixing the economy, the wealthy included.
Hey G-Man,
I guess you skipped the part where it says BOTH parties are worried about a temporary tax break.......
"The payroll tax cut worries some members of Congress in both parties who believe that it won’t be temporary – that Congress, next December and in the years to come, will find it very hard to raise the payroll tax rate back to where it was last year, 6.2 percent."
BTW, you need professional help getting over your race issues because, in case you FORGOT, Obama was elected by a whole lot of white people!
LEONA - Don't confuse them with facts, it only makes their heads spins and their mouths run with more talking points they do not even begin to understand.
I personally do not think they should extend this payroll tax cut. It is a feel good move, but it ignores the fact that the Social Security system is already facing a major funding shortfall and this will only make it worse. The social Security funding is supposed to be separate from the general fund and this only makes it easier to blur the line and allow the continued theft of funds from social security to fund other programs. This theft has been going on for a long time to the point where the Social Security trust fund has nothing in it but IOUs from the general fund. In addition, this tax cut largely goes to the people who really do not need it, since the more you make, the bigger the tax cut you are getting (up to the $110,100 cap of course). There are better ways of helping the middle class without giving a tax break to every wage earner in the country. This is not a middle class tax break, it is a tax break for everyone with a wage.
Wow musta been welfare check day, all the loberal wackos are out.
What...IF...I already paid my taxes....TAX ME AGAIN.....KMA...yes I said it...kiss my a$$
That's why 9-9-9 is STUPID
Don't worry big mac, Cain's out of the race now.
So they want to cut the payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare (which also helps pay for Medicaid).
Perhaps some simple facts need to be considered.
What is the REAL problem with the Deficits?
Just for perspective, I looked at President Obama's 2012 Budget projections, and here is what it shows with regard to just the health care entitlements - Medicare/Medicaid;
Total projected Revenues for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years = $2.730 Trillion.
Total projected Costs for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years = $10.530 Trillion.
That's a net Deficit in just the Medicare/Medicaid programs of $7.790 Trillion.
It's interesting to note that the same Budget projections by Obama for the same 10 year period (2012-2021) show a TOTAL Deficit of $7.206 Trillion, so if it were not for the health care Deficits, we would actually show a net SURPLUS of $584 Billion over the next 10 years. These figures include the added cost of Obama's new entitlement for Obamacare. The revenues and spending projected by Obama can be verified at the following White House link - See Table S-3;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf
It's obvious that underfunded Medicare/Medicaid is the REAL problem with the Deficits.
If we LOWER the payroll taxes, it will just make the Deficits that much worse.
commonsensedude-1080861, you're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
Not to worry the Republicans/Tea Party will not help the Middle Class no matter what, they are the Party of the Rich for the Rich
Tax cuts for the rich OK , need to fund it NO just put it on the DEBT
Tax cuts for the Middle Class NO need to fund it YES, how by laying off More Federal Workers, freezing their pay
Drop unemployment Insurance to 40 weeks
Republicans/TEA PARTY are for the RICH, KOCH Brothers, Carl Rove, Dick Army , Eric Cantor,Crying Man ,
They hate the American Worker, Middle Class, OLD POOR
I am not a tea party person nor am I rich. I suppose the progressive, socialist democrats carrying a flag with a hammer and a sickle on it have the answer. Maybe when Obama care kicks in you can get back on your meds.
The Bush tax cuts gave the lower brackets a higher percentage cuts than the upper/. The article states bot parties will pass the cuts, but both parties are playing partisan politics here.
So how about no cut for the rich!
Tracy so called Obama care has kicked in and most people are benefiting from it. I don't know if the so called social democrates have the answer but I sure as hell know you freaking social consevtive fascist morons don't.
@Russ Purcell
Thank you! Well said.
Obamacare DOES NOT kick in until 2013 ! try using some facts !!!
Check your facts. Parts of what todays so called "conservative" like to call Obamacare have already kicked in and has helped many people.
Thanks Just a thought, I should have put some of the so called Obama care has kicked in, that's what I meant.
The mandate that insurance companies use 80% of their income to pay medical expenses has already kicked in. That's why the big push to raise the premiums prior to the mandate. Obamacare becomes fully effective in 2014 at which time the cost of eligible new Medicaid enrollees will be almost fully covered by the Federal Government. Problem is that Obamacare doesn't provide the states any money for those new enrollees who will now be eligible. Of course the mandate that everyone buy insurance will off-set the insurance co. losses since millions of people will be forced to buy health insurance or, unless the mandate is reversed, go to jail or be hit with heavy fines.
Thank you to all of you that think Obama care is helping so many others. Just a thought though, how many of you pay all of your own health insurance. I'm willing to bet most of you get it through you job. Well those of us that are self employed have seen our premiums skyrocket and all because of adding so many more people to the pool when we all know that as soon as they get coverage they are going right to te Drs office and he will give them a ton of tests. No way in hell will their premium cover what the Dr gives and that my friends will now get paid by all of us.
Jackson: Yup, but then, many of those folks who have employer paid insurance may discover that their employer won't be able to afford paying for their insurance. Interesting how so much of responsibility for people is laid on the backs of employers. Soon only really huge corporations will be able to afford the costs of hiring someone and most of them started outsourcing years ago.
Even you do not know WTF you are talking about.
Kind of fuzzy math there Don,
Not true Jackson, I work for myself and I pay all of my healthcare premiums and they have not gone up that much in the last two years..
A higher percentage of nothing is still nothing dude.... As far as I'm concerned this country is tax cutted out and everybodys taxes must be put back the way they were in the 1970's.
Do I want the extra money? Hell yes, but not if they have to close schools, lay off teachers, firefighters, etc. I'll give mine back with no problem at all, I can't say the rich ba$$tards of this country feel the same...
Lee, the Republicans and the Tea Party are two different things.
Now, let's see they are only for the rich? Hmmmmm. They are for limiting government in my pocket. I want to keep my money and not share the wealth, you Democ-RATS love to do. Get real and grow up.
I have watched with some anticipation to see any sign of how the Bush administration's tax cuts have stimulated the economy of the United States or have shown any evidence of increasing the number of jobs or of creating any significant number of new jobs. So far, all I have seen is an increasing desire on the part of ultra conservatives of insisting that "they don't mind if they lose, as long as you and I don't win". What we really need now is a middle ground where common folks can feel reassured and confident. Neither party will approach that goal until there is some compromise, however, slight.
DeePeeBee: Yes, but you must admit he is endeavoring to communicate...albeit in a rather round-about manner.
I paid FICA my whole life. Obama is out to deplete Social Security resources.
FICA is all that funds Social Security..
Name one Tea Party Democrat. Or better yet, name one Republican candidate who has not stated their support for the Tea Party.
Guys, we are already paying for the uninsured. When they are deadly ill and go to an emergency room those costs flow to our costs through insurance. Think about it.
Also, anyone who works in the Insurance Industry or just has common sense can understand the law of large numbers. This law states that the more insured the more you can spread the risk and the lower the costs. (Why auto insurers Really want good drivers.)
Both of these reasons speak to the wisdom of everyone being covered under national healthcare.
Just think for yourselves, just think.
Oh, and by the way, insurance premiums are going up before the full implementation of the health care law is because the insurance companies have been taking insane profits and the new law will not let them do that in the future. They are getting all they can now.
Do I sound like someone who knows? I do, I have worked in this Industry for over 30 years, and yes I am part of the 1%. That's why I know this law is the best that has been passed in 50 years.
Guys, we are already paying for the uninsured. When they are deadly ill and go to an emergency room those costs flow to our costs through insurance. Think about it.
Also, anyone who works in the Insurance Industry or just has common sense can understand the law of large numbers. This law states that the more insured the more you can spread the risk and the lower the costs. (Why auto insurers really want good drivers.)
Both of these reasons speak to the wisdom of everyone being covered under national healthcare.
Just think for yourselves, just think.
Oh, and by the way, insurance premiums are going up before the full implementation of the health care law because the insurance companies have been taking insane profits and the new law will not let them do that in the future. They are getting all they can now.
Do I sound like someone who knows? I do, I have worked in this Industry for over 30 years, and yes I am part of the 1%. That's why I know this law is the best that has been passed in 50 years.
Well in life payback is a bit_h and the GOP will get that Boot right up their butts come 2012 the people are not as stupid as they would like, but what American really needs it to cut their retirement in fact if possible do away with it they can collect SS like every other America along with Medicare, these people need to see how We the people really live, new regulations are needed right there in congress and the senate, these blood suckers need to live like We the people .................. I feel to understand the People you truly have to be one of the people Middle class or poor, if you are the 1% you can only see their side of the picture ....
tracy-957476, Russ Purcell, first rule:
You're each suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
Leona-.........,
"BTW, you need professional help getting over your race issues because, in case you FORGOT, Obama was elected by a whole lot of white people!"
BTW, in case you forgot, those were Democrats. I'm sure he was referring to the other guys, the ones standing in the way.
Not that I really care but he is also half white.
Obviously you do care Tracy, because you are the one who mentioned that he is "also half white".
Tracy bull@!$%# you care.
Russ, my bear of little brain, nobody cares if Obama is black, white, or arabian; we only care that he is a disciple of Saul Alinsky, whose teachings of Marxist philosophy are well known. One of Alinsky's first lessons is to create "class warfare" and Obama is an expert at it. This subject is a perfect case in point; it make no fiscal sense to take from an already bankrupt Social Security fund but that is where payroll taxes go; you do know that, don't you? Oh, never mind, I'm talking to a liberal whose only reference point on any issue is how they "feel" about it. What a mental midget......
Tracy sees a little propoganda being spouted and she points it out and the villagers come after her with pitchforks. Kind of funny. I don't care if he's green, blue, or purple, he's a Bush clone and he's destroying this country.
Well, you have an example of of the progressive mindset on this particular posting thread. Lots of comments collapsed, vast majority are of the non-progressive mindset. Irony is how the term 'progressive' or 'liberal' has been used to categorize a mindset that is anything but open minded and liberal and progressive. Perhaps 'regressive' and 'oppressive' would be more apt since those of the 'progressive' mind cannot abide anything but their own soundtrack and will do whatever is necessary to shut out any and all 'non-liberal' viewpoints.
If is so important to reduce the payroll tax to help the middle class and create more jobs, why not to eliminate the payroll tax, it is because is insane to do it , like it is to reduce the payroll tax equally insane. If Obama is worry about jobs he should allowed to continue the pipeline that can bring thousand of jobs . Republicans want jobs but the oobstructionism of this administration even agaist the demand of the unions from oil industry, to let them to work is inadmissible to the point that Republican had to use this bill to put pressure to Obama who is willing to veto the payroll tax cut if Republicans made an amendment to the law.
Someone mentioned something about a "black guy". I don't see the post anymore, but that is what I was referring to.
I don't care what color he is. He is the most divisive president I have seen in my life time. (50 years)
It is so sad that so many people are fooled by his head games.
When he was running for office the country had the worse economy since the great depression. (He forgot about the Carter years, I didn't)
Now that he was running for office again he says the economy needs another boost, leaving out the real danager awaits us after the next election. Why the delay?
Has compared himself to several presidents. FYI Theadore Roosevelt was a closet Progressive.
I have noticed that most opposing posts are collapsed as well.
Now that I have made another post you can now start the name calling and nasty posts to try and twist what I have said. Oh and Merry Christmas!
tracy, The Carter years recession? It lasted 6 months with 7.8 % unemployment. Maybe your thinking of Reagans recession which lasted 1 year 4 months with 10.8% unemployment rate. And he spent his way out of it which tripled the national debt. There's your reality check for the day.
Tracy let me catch you up.
The GOP-Tea Party of No’s mantra of one term for President Obama being their first foremost and only goal, the Republicans have stalled, stonewalled, drug their feet, huffed and puffed without ever doing a single thing for the United States for two years.
The GOP have been living off the government dole, collecting pay, using benefits, sending crotch shot cell phone pictures back and forth but never working a single moment for their tax payer paid salaries and tax payer paid top notch health care.
The GOP shortened their appearances in the House of Congress to 100 days for 2012 simply because they are not intending to work for the entire 2012 fiscal year either.
If being hated by the GOP is what is so decisive about President Obama then it will remain decisive until the 2012 elections explain just how unhappy 80% of the voters are with the GOP Congress attempt to shut down the United States Government this year.
The current crop of GOP hopefuls running for President have displayed everything distasteful in US politics and they haven’t even decided which one of them is the poorest choice for a president they can come up with.
(Sorry Representative Paul you will not be allowed to be the GOP candidate so you must be lumped in until you decide for yourself to step away)
So Tracey, I haven’t called you a name, nor would I, I haven’t stuck my nose into the GOP run off either, I am waiting to see what and who finally comes out on top of this never ending train wreck that has been feeding the late night comedians for months.
The only folks divided are the same folks who were already polarized before President Obama was ever elected.
I’m not divided; I am simply bidding my time, holding on to as much as I can until the 2012 elections end this discussion.
There is something truly wrong with many of the people who post in this forum. Anyone reading these comments would think we are back in the days of Jim Crow and lynching. Its really shameful. Why not go post your messages of hate over at Fox News where they are welcome and appreciated. They like to talk about lynching black people over there.
COMPUTERDOCTORHC
"Obviously you do care Tracy, because you are the one who mentioned that he is "also half white"."yone should care, especially racists who think he is black.
Ever since and before he was elected tried to play the race game. He is half and half which makes him what? Only black for those racists who voted for him. He has written about his denial of his white half.
But it makes no difference. White, black, pink , yellow. All the same. Those who voted for him only want to see him as black - the first black president. But he is not the first black president. He is the first president to deny his heritage. Those who played his game don't want to wake up. He is a man who really has no race but is smart enough to use his color to fool those who voted for him into thinking he is something he is not.
Just watch MSNBC collapse or delete the truth because it is the truth. They can't have the truth hear. Just wouldn't fit.
It is obvious Obama has a race and is smart usinghis mixted race in politics too. When he is in Chicago shows his color of the skin , when he goes to the west he refer to his white mother and white grand father.
I do not understand why Obama (and the rest) want to raise taxes out of one side of their mouth and cut taxes out the other side.
They will never vote a tax increase. So, to get their revenue, why not just let these particular things simply expire, the payroll tax cut and the so-called "Bush tax cuts."
Spending is the problem. Many in our government are exposed being dirty. Start with Obama, who has trifled away billions of our money so that his contributors in marginal and failed businesses like Solyndra get their bonuses. This has got to stop.
This is false. Obama advocated for extension of the Bush Tax cuts for those making under $1,000,000 a year.
What is the REAL problem with the Deficits?
Just for perspective, I looked at President Obama's 2012 Budget projections, and here is what it shows with regard to just the health care entitlements - Medicare/Medicaid;
Total projected Revenues for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years = $2.730 Trillion.
Total projected Costs for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years = $10.530 Trillion.
That's a net Deficit in just the Medicare/Medicaid programs of $7.790 Trillion.
It's interesting to note that the same Budget projections by Obama for the same 10 year period (2012-2021) show a TOTAL Deficit of $7.206 Trillion, so if it were not for the health care Deficits, we would actually show a net SURPLUS of $584 Billion over the next 10 years. These figures include the added cost of Obama's new entitlement for Obamacare. The revenues and spending projected by Obama can be verified at the following White House link - See Table S-3;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf
It's obvious that underfunded Medicare/Medicaid is the REAL problem with the Deficits.
Lowering the payroll taxes will just make the Deficits worse. This is nothing more than 'pandering for votes' while adding more debt for our children and grandchildren to pay back. It seems to be quite popular to spend our children's future now, but is it RESPONSIBLE?
if you recall the budget was balanced when clinton left office g.w. cut everything all
regulation's for wall street and oil buddie's not to mention the damn war's open your eye's and mine.mine are .i paid my share 66 and trying to enjoy life.congress bite's they should all be recalled lets take there pay we pay them too much for nothing.
Whoa, a Winnie-the-Pooh insult. That's kind of cute.
Less so. J.H. Moore, you're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
WHY DON'T WE LOOK AT THE FACTS fact this so called tax break is in social security , social security is all ready in trouble so they are going to reduce funding for it , so who really pays , WE will either pay with increases latter , or the those on social security will see a reduction in pay , this will also speed up the end of social security do the math only those who are making over $50,000 a year will see much of any benefit , BUT as social security is not taxed on regular federal or state income taxes , these taxes will go up Add to the Fact that the 16th amendment was never legally ratified therefore congress does not have the authority to collect income taxes .
THE QUESTION who is providing solutions , in that lies the ANSWER
If you want to know how the Dems will pay for SSI search 2008, Dems , IRA,GRA !
Re "social security is not taxed": most people who pay federal income tax abd collect social security are taxed on 85% of the social security benefit (on the federal return).
Darrel, It's Bull SH/< , If you make over 30something thousand a couple you PAY TAXES ON YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY!! IMPEACH EVERYBODY IN THIS GOVERMENT AND START OVER!!!!!!!!! Why in the hell are they giving anybody a decrease in their SS taxes? This goverment is actually MAKING A FAILURE OF SS!!! It's a no brainer!!!!! We have a bunch of do nothing, no gooders, selfish idiots running our country. Time to put them to work in the rock quarries.
Look the bottom line is. We need to increase revenues. i am not for paying a lot of extra money right now simply because I am tired of Congress wasting it. I would rather pay my social security tax and even pay an xtra couple of percent to see it solvent but also to have congress stay the hell out of that money it is not theirs to use under ANY circumstance!!! Congress needs to get their heads our of their ass. go to a flat tax and fun the things that need to be funded. Shrink the stuff that does not need to be their business. Everyone pays their fair share. If you make 10 k a year you pay your 5 percent. If you make a billion you pay your 5 percent. Period. And if there is left over money it goes to the poor and needy. If you get caught committing fraud you get 10 years in prison and forfeit Social Security and Medicare until you pay back every dime you took. Stop squeezing the doctors and honest people and go after fraud and waste in the systems. Well that is my barrel of apples
no social security is paid on any amount made over....106 thousand.why not do away with the cap.you pay social security on everything you earn
Bob-741513
"Darrel, It's Bull SH/< , If you make over 30something thousand a couple you PAY TAXES ON YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY!! IMPEACH EVERYBODY IN THIS GOVERMENT AND START OVER!!!!!!!!! Why in the hell are they giving anybody a decrease in their SS taxes? This goverment is actually MAKING A FAILURE OF SS!!! It's a no brainer!!!!! We have a bunch of do nothing, no gooders, selfish idiots running our country. Time to put them to work in the rock quarries."
Bob, Hi. I am Bob too.
I have been doing taxes pro bono for friends for a while. Have also been self employed for half my career. The employee share of SSI is the half of what keeps SSI floating. Everyone who knows and has paid attention to the world around them that the governmet, starting with Johnson, has already raided the SSI fund. Much of what it keeps "borrowing" came from the SSI fund.
Those of you who keep wanting government to support you when you don't do anything for yourself, You are a huge part of the problem. You know who you are. You are the ones who felt sorry for yourselves and decided to be dependent upon government, for whatever stupid reason. I am sure some will be following.
Back on track. For those who think they will ever get SSI, reducing your support will only kill any chance that you will ever reap from what you sow. Of course the very wealthy are the culprits, those that employ you still have to pay their full share while you get to slide. You are your own worst enemy. Because you want something for nothing. Something never comes from nothing.
I see some people on here still think someone else should be wiping their ..... for them.
You are oh so lovely.
See it for what it is. President Obama is still buying votes.
I have a brother that works 3 jobs and pays a boat load of taxes. He works with a lady that has one kid and pays next to nothing in taxes but she gets a tax returns of nearly $5000.
Maybe someone should be concerned with the 47% that pay no taxes. After all we want everyone to pay their fair share.
Tracy, don't you know that the 47% who pay no federal income taxes are entitled not to? How dare you take food out of their children's mouths. What, you want to starve the elderly? Wow, as I write these things I have to wonder if the libs actually belive what they are saying?
Good luck arguing with a democrat, as all of their positions are based on "feelings" and not facts or logic. It's like talking to a recalcitrant teenager.......
Tracy,
You've obviously proved that you hate Obama because of his race (#4.1). Quit your ranting and go back to your KKK meeting.
The 47% statistic is not all Americans that pay no taxes, but single filers who will pay no federal income taxes. And that is because they dont even make enough money! Its so easy to cherry pick the facts that only make your argument look good...
Medinaa, do they make an income? They should pay something, even if it's 5 cents. Why should I pay taxes when I'm barely eating, and they get to skirt the taxes. They use the libraries and roads the same as I do. Maybe they should stop buying computers and phones, and buy food instead. I drive through the low income housing and I see alot nicer cars than I own, yet I work 12 hours and get paid for 6, the other half goes to pay for others and they don't appreciate it and want more! Freedom means being free not to pay for others.
The 47% is of all households (not just single filers). It relates only to Federal Income Tax (i.e. they still social security and medicare taxes). It's true if they made a lot more money they would have to pay some tax but a lot of them make quite a bit of money but have a lot of dependents, etc.
Earned Income Tax credits are paid to people who don't pay taxes, go figure.
Did you people know that a family of 4 making 50,000 per year can pay NO INCOME TAX and actually get $31 refund??
Do you want to know how? It is very easy.
50,000 minus 11,400 Standard Deduction leaves 38,600
38,600 minus 3,650 Deduction for each person leaves 24,000
Tax on 24,000 is 2769.
Now there is a Tax Credit of 1,000 for each child under 17.
That makes it 2,769 minus 2000 leaves 769.
Now the Make Work Pay Tax Credit of 800,if filing jointly,leaves the US Government owing them $31
Is that THEIR FAIR SHARE??
I'm retired my wife and I made 53,000 retirement last year. We PAID about 4,000 in TAXES LAST YEAR. IS THAT OUR FAIR SHARE???
COMPUTERDOCTORHC
Sorry but you are wrong. What a little mind you have that you have to resort to name calling and character bashing.
Take your blinders off and see the whole picture. You are being led around by the nose or you are 20 years old and still living off mom and dad.
COMPUTERDOCTORHC, you're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
I think the real headline here should be 100-grand isn't what it used to be. My gut tells me a million is going to be middle-income pretty quick unless there is some tightening of monetary policy.
I agree. Its scary what will happen when the government starts printing money to pay all the bills coming in . I think we need to be way more afraid of this than any reforms to Medicare or SS.
Wow someone making over 110,101 may actually get some of the tax break (be it a lower %) targeted for those who make under 110,090. Can't have that. Make them give it all back.
This article points out exactly what my problem is with the current tax code. There are areas in the tax code where you take home more money if you earn less. This article shows the logic behind the decisions that caused this. This is the logic
If you want to target a tax cut you simply lower the lower end tax bracket and then adjust a higher bracket to compensate. That way someone who is between the tax brackets only pays the additional amount on the income earn over the bracket. I am sorry our congress seems to have forgotten what the basic structure of the tax code is.
By the way, I thought the rich definition is those making 1 million or those making over 250,000. I thought these people were not paying their fair share because payroll was capped. If they are not paying the tax how does a cut to the tax they are not paying help. So who's definition changed today.
Payroll
taxes is what fund Social security, and Democrat have no plans for social security
reform other than raising taxes like all of their other plans. 7 trillion TARP
and we end up paying the bill
TARP was implemented under Bush but dont let facts get in the way of your Fox News provided opinion.
Tarp was agreed to by both administrations at the tail end of Bush term. Democrats controlled Congress at that point. TARP has been mostly paid back with interest by banks and helped save consumers from banks defaulting on accounts. The unemployment rate may have gone much higher without TARP when folks starting panic after banks ran out of money. They were given LOANS so they could stay in business and honor your stuff.
TARP was paid back and tax payers earned 10 billion as of June 2011. So bill to tax payer for TARP is 0. Not sure where you got the 7 trillion estimate.
wow uninformed public gotta love it.
TARP has been paid back and the total allowed was 700 billion thats well short of 7 trillion. Also not all of the money was given out. Many banks didn't take the money and rode out the storm.
takingmiddleground
Ask an hourly employee what they think about Overtime pay and how its taxed. They always say its almost not worth working OT since so much is taken via taxes. At that point I remind them the "rich" are taxed at or above thier OT taxes. Puts things into prospective.
Also this article shows how the liberal mind works, Million = rich , Obama 200K = rich , This article 110K = rich. At what point don't you deserve your hard earned cash and should be taxed to death??
G-Man,
Get a clue. This is the only way the current Admin. can give money to those that don't pay federal income taxes (47%) those people do pat FICA taxes. The problem is the lose of funds to the SSI TRUST FUND. This is not an entitlement. It has been paid for by those that expect to collect it. Can you say nationalize 401K's? think before you post. They, ALL politicians want what ever you have and will do anything to get it and make us dependant on them,
The younger generation has been informed in the fine print in their SSI statements that without changes to the system, the SSI TRUST FUND will be exhausted by the time they retire.
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the SSI TRUST FUND catches extra payments by current workers if all payroll taxes are not used by current retirees in a year. Most if not all of the tax payer's payroll tax is spent on the current retirement payments, if the is any money left it then goes into the fund. If the retirees payments exceed the payroll tax, then the payments are drawn from the SSI TRUST FUND or general budget. In my opinion, the biggest short fall in the system is that the first recipients of SSI did not pay into the system. Also SSI has not been adjusted to handle the demand on it.
So the tax payers payroll tax does not get put in the SSI TRUST FUND piggy bank until that tax payer retires. SSI is not a nationalized 401K. The supreme court has ruled that SSI is not required to pay out what the tax payer put in. This is how SSI differs from a 401K. In a 401K the money the payee contributes is saved in whatever investments (low risk money market ... high risk stocks) he/she chooses until the payee is ready to retire.
The younger generation has been informed in the fine print in their SSI statements that without changes to the system, the SSI TRUST FUND will be exhausted by the time they retire.
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the SSI TRUST FUND catches extra payments by current workers if all payroll taxes are not used by current retirees in a year. Most if not all of the tax payer's payroll tax is spent on the current retirement payments, if the is any money left it then goes into the fund. If the retirees payments exceed the payroll tax, then the payments are drawn from the SSI TRUST FUND or general budget. In my opinion, the biggest short fall in the system is that the first recipients of SSI did not pay into the system. Also SSI has not been adjusted to handle the demand on it.
So the tax payers payroll tax does not get put in the SSI TRUST FUND piggy bank until that tax payer retires. SSI is not a nationalized 401K. The supreme court has ruled that SSI is not required to pay out what the tax payer put in. This is how SSI differs from a 401K. In a 401K the money the payee contributes is saved in whatever investments (low risk money market ... high risk stocks) he/she chooses until the payee is ready to retire.
WHAT ABOUT SS ???
Everyone is so happy about not paying the SS tax, well, so what funds SS? Is the Social Security Trust Fund getting more money or less money? Does this keep SS solvent longer or hasten the crisis?
Instead of merely jumping on the bandwagon, just because it happens to be rolling, perhaps we, as a nation, should THINK FIRST.
Good point! The way to fund this is tax the super rich and lower the tax for middle income! This will happen as it did with Regan, Bush senior and Clinton!
Super, look up how much money taxing the rich will give and then compute how much would be needed to save the dozens of things Obama wants to use the money for. I am sure you would be appalled at how little this would help.
I agree Greg,
I'm not for them gutting SS at all. I just don't get one thing about the SS tax, Why doesn't everyone pay the same percentage of SS tax on all they earn???? Wouldn't that be Fair?????
Who decided the rich jerks should stop paying in when they hit $106,000??????????????????
The assumption was made that people earning above a certain income level would have enough money in later years to avoid needing Social Security. Also, currently congress pays itself $170,000. per annum and gives themselves a pension for life...along with free medical...nuff said?
agree on the ss. you can only ever claim a certain level so the cap on social security and medicare has a cap. The rest of the payroll taxes should be a flat tax. That way everyone pays a fair share. No deductions. Fund the system and if there is left overs you hep the poor and needy and after that government can refund any surplus <yeah i know fat chance at that> but the only system that I see being fair.
Congress sets a maximum benefit a person can draw from Social Security. It would be unfair to tax a person in excess of that amount, so SSI taxes are capped at an amount that funds the maximum benefit. If we want to tax successful and productive people more than we do, we must in fairness raise the benefit they will receive at retirement in return. Otherwise we would just be abusing the tax system to penalize the successful and productive in order to subsidize the unproductive and indolent.
Wow. You are making the assumption that one's wealth and income is directly tied to one's social productivity. That's just not the way things work in America anymore buddy. The facts are simple. The rich have just gotten too rich. The only way a complete collapse of our society is going to be prevented is if the rich start giving more back. Republicans especially just need to get that point through their thick heads.
Define 'rich.' Who is 'rich' in your book? This is the crux of the problem. Who are the rich? What consititutes rich? Over a million, a billion or, anyone making $170,000.00 or anyone who makes or has more than you?
Money is how we keep score in the "social productivity" game. If you aren't scoring high enough to suit you, you aren't very good at playing the game. Wanting to change the rules so it is easier for you to score is just cheating.
Don't destroy social security with this move. My suggestion to bolster social security financing is in the first year of payout in Social Security, treat the recipient like a Federal retiree and only give a full COLA to those who retire in January. Those who retire in November only get 2 months / 12 months or 1/6 of the first COLA. This will save the government money over the lifetime of the retiree as each year his future full COLA will be affected by the fact that he didn't get the full COLA the first year. It works for the federal worker, so why can't it work for everyone else? Oh yeah, the federal worker is a minority so you can pick on him, but not on the majority.
It's definitely a better idea than using social security to provide payroll bonuses, but social security is in the best shape of any government program we have. With $2.6 trillion in the bank, its only real problem is the politicians who can't keep their hands out of the cookie jar.
Exactly, that money is never intended to be used for anything else and doing so is nothing but theft from the people that pay in. That money should be allowed to grow and if there is extra be paid to those that spent 40 years paying into it.
tracy-957476
Take a break. You have exceeded the recommended limit of three angry, meaningless rants per hour.
Maybe turn on Fox News and and git all that fired up on wat that commy darkie got goin' now!
Lee said - Tax cuts for the rich OK , need to fund it NO just put it on the DEBT
A little lesson Lee, tax cuts are not an expenditure that needs to be funded. A tax cut means the government is agreeing to confiscate less of the money a person earned. Bloated government agencies are expenditures that need to be cut. Now if there is a tax cut, you can say that spending must be cut to make up for the loss of revenue and you would be making sense. One more time, tax cuts means a person keeps more of the money he/she earned. It is not an expense to the government. Hope you can follow that.
We don't care! Hope you can follow that!
Of course you don't care super. It is much easier to rant against anyone you envy than it is to use logic and common sense.
It is truly staggering how far the Republican Party will go to protect the very wealthy - but when it comes to the Middle Class they could not care less...
This is why they will go down to defeat in 2012 and both Houses will come under Democratic control. Less wars and Obama will not extend the Bush tax cuts saving 3.6 trillion from future budgets
Super, Obama has already extended the Bush tax cuts and won't ask to stop them. to save 3.6 trillion over the next ten years ALL Bush/Obama tax cuts need to go. since the lower brackets account for most of the money, cutting only the top bracket gives squat.
I give up. I am going to generate my own tax cut and just stop paying federal taxes. Or at least that portion that accounts for the un-Constitutional items, like SS, Farm Subsidies, Welfare,etc. Move over Wesley, here I come.
Nukeman: Think you're onto something.
Obama wont save anything get rid of all of them and start over.
Good luck with that.
Not that hard Mr. Anon, work off the grid, if enough did that the IRS couldn't get us all. TGhe reason this country, THE USA, started was to stop paying unfair taxes.
Nukeman -- Good idea, think of the free room and board you'll get in the Federal pen.
I can't tell whether this is serious or not. Even Al Capone, the greatest criminal of all time, couldn't avoid being arrested for tax evasion. Even the wealthiest Americans can only store so much in offshore accounts without looking suspicious.
A suggestion to solve the whole tax issue. Lets buy Trump and Gingrich for what they are really worth and then sell them for what their ego's tell them they are worth. The profit will wipe out the national debt and we won't have to pay any Federal taxes for at least a decade.
Really fun and funny. Great comment
Git er done- I have a feeling that I disagree with your politics but giving credit where due that was a funny comment.
LOL! Best. Suggestion. Ever.
The "make work pay" tax credit, which was line 63 of the Form 1040 and line 40 of the Form 1040A, for both 2009 and 2010, which paid single people up to $400 and married couples up to $800, is the way to go. It provides a bigger refund, which could be given in advance on payroll checks just like this proposed social security payroll tax credit, and it doesn't short change the social security trust fund.
If memory serves me I believe the democrats were claiming that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would not be considered a tax increase since it was only temporary in nature and it would return to its original rates. Well, the payroll tax can not be considered a tax increase because it is only going to the same rate as it was prior to the temporary cut.
Don't you find this interesting that the republican/tea bag party is concerned about Social Security. They hated it from the time it started. There concern is the biggest pile of bulls#!t ever. This is the party that wanted to privatize Social Security after junior bush was reelected. Think of where we would be if that happened. A small adjustment to the income of the "job creators" (the rich) would take care of Social Security's ills. That small increase wouldn't hurt the rich in any way. How much money do you need to be happy?
They never said they hate SS. I think Republican don't agree with the way its run similar to Mafoff's ponzi scheme and tried to fix that, but they never said they hate the idea.
I agree that its sad that we are promising benefits and not setting aside money to pay for it in the future. Privatizing it would have put money in an account in your own name so the government could not pilfer and possibly save it. It won't be sustainable without reform.
Don I trust the United States Government before I trust anyone on wall street or or a tarp taking bank!
SS is not in trouble and has contributed 0 cents to the deficit. A payroll tax cut is not healthy to sustain SS in the long term, however.
Healthcareforall You got that right. Thats not what the republican/tea bag party wants you to think. They make it sound like it its draining the system dry.
I used to trust the government, but now much less. I think politicians are running us down the toilet. WE criticized bankers for not stopping writing mortgages when real estate was way overpriced, but I am afraid the mess we are getting into with Medicare and the deficit may may the housing problems pale in comparison.
When I look at politicians track record for managing money, I am not sure I agree they are better that Wall Street people.
Social Security has just started paying out more than it takes in and this will get way worse. THe trust fund was all moved into the general fund in the 1960"s and has been "pay as you go " ever since. So it is now starting to add to the problem.
Don, you need to stop trying to compare the government to banks or business. They're all in it together. Make the connection, and everything will start making sense.
The 800lb gorilla in the room is that we have essentially a fascist state, whereby the corporations (banks et al) are the one's determining and directing the governing bodies.
Wow, I make less than $40,000 a year, I THOUGHT I was in the "Middle Class". That's considered GOOD pay in these parts... According to this article, $68,110 is the average salary. I can't help but feel a bit cheated. I'm a professional with 27 years service in my field... So, now I find out that the "Middle Class" wage earners are making half again, to twice as much as I am. Who comes up with these numbers? Thanks to the "too big to fail" companies, my home is in danger of foreclosure AGAIN. I've never missed a payment but every time they sell my mortgage to a new company, the paperwork gets "lost" and there's no record of my payments. Even though it's direct pay from my bank... So what can be done? A bunch of millionaires are deciding my fate. How could they possibly understand what us "Middle Class" people are going through? Will a tax cut save my home? NO. Would holding those greedy corporate leaches accountable for their fraud? NO. It would take too long. My home goes up for auction on Jan 3rd. I cant get a hold of anybody with the finance company... Go figure. BTW, I wasn't notified until the the day before Thanksgiving. Good luck finding ANYBODY to help me figure out WHY it's happening this time of year. All I can say is "WOW". Thanks Congress, Thanks Mr President. Thanks Corperate America. And to all the rest of the folks in a similar situation to mine... God Bless you all. My thoughts and prayers are with you all. Hey Congress, Hey Pres... Karma... Watch fer it...
Joseph you forgot Governor Good hair Parry of your state of Texas
Joseph: You need to get a lawyer and file against the bank for corrupt business practices and file a cease and desist order. They cannot foreclose on your home if you have proof that payments were made to the lender of record.
smitty: It's Perry, not Parry and...he doesn't have anything to do with the national foreclosures although he does indeed have good hair and a steely jaw and a mind like a sprung steel trap.
mygirl I was watching a television show where the commentator said we should spell Gov. Good hairs name with a A. So to agree with the commentator, that is how one should spell Parry. Thank You Stephen!!!!
He doesn't 'parry' very well.
For those of us who work in payroll, this is a nightmare. How do I compute Jan 3 payroll checks if I don't know the SS rate? Which ever rate I use, it won't be the right one.
If the politicians really care, why not make the rate for employees and employers match. Why the different rate for employees and employers? If a tax on the richest Americans means a loss of jobs, couldn't a cut in employment taxes create jobs?
An additional minimal tax on the wealthiest of the wealthy would not result in job losses. They have paid minimal taxes for thirteen years and have not created any jobs, except in China!
A quick way out of this mess is to slap an extra fat tax on those who are so obscenely overpaid as to shock virtually anyone. I just heard on the radio about a baseball player signing on for a $254 million contract. (Yep, a quarter billion wasn't enough -- they had to tack on that extra $4M.) Then there are all the Wall Street banksters, CEOs, hedge-fund managers, IPO beneficiaries, etc. Heck, there are even college football coaches getting (note I didn't say "earning") over $2M a year. This would all add up rather quickly, even without a particularly large number of such extreme cases.
So terrible. Just another cost of the Bush wars leaving the country in shambles and no decent paying jobs. Read where the Banks were going to evict a 103 year old lady from her house. The sheriff refused to serve the papers!
The wars on terror were bipartisan approved by Congress, After 9/11 many American had flags on their cars and most agreed with defending ourselves.
Yes, but they were led to believe that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. Im pretty sure that they wouldnt have been so supportive if they knew what Bush knew.
The Democrats with Clinton still in office were threatening to invade IRAQ for not allowing NATO nuclear inspectors and Bush followed through. I did not agree with this, but I do realize that criticizing after the fact is easier than making a "real time" decision as he did. Monday morning quarterbacking is the easiest thing in the world.
That was Deutschebank doing the evicting. As in a german bank. Not that there's a whole hill of beans difference since they all get their money from the Fed these days.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” Rep.
Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003
What do the above off topic posts have to do with have to do with a payroll tax cut?
Social Security and Medicare tax should be levied on all earned income, period!
Many of the wealthy take a one dollar salary, then are compensated with dividend income or bonuses. They also are issued stock which they can then sell.
Social Security was set up mainly as a savings plan for non government employees to save for retirement and there was no intent to be a wealth distribution thing. Benefits are based on what one pays in, so the wealthy are not getting away with anything here.
To raise the cap would also increase why higher income people collect, so would not help anyway.
Non of this is going to matter at all. IF the GOP gets their guy (whomever he is) in the Whitehouse again. They will finish what they began working so earnestly on as soon as they had complete control of all branches of the government under Bush. They will wipe out the middle class. They've already managed to create the highest number of Americans living in poverty since records have been kept. 46 MILLION Americans live at or below the poverty level. I'm saying they did it because it's the result of the destructive policies and legislature the installed when they were in control. It's the direct result of the crash of our economy in 2008. This is a proven fact though I know the right wing will not admit it. They've been spending way too much money on this plan to just end it especially since they haven't accomplished ALL of it yet. They have much more damage planned.
The Republicans want to get their greedy and dirty hands on Social Security. They want to hand it over to their partners in crime on Wall Street. Anyone who doesn't believe this is living in a bubble way out there in space!
If the Republican front runner in the run up to 2012 election, Newt Gingrich, gets into the Oval office we will see our end come swiftly. Just think. He wants to do away with child labor laws. He wants to make kids work for their education as janitors!! He wants to lower wages more than they are now. He thinks the minimum wage is too high! Gingrich looks at the middle class as worker bees. He wants to take us back to the last century. Don't let him!
THE payroll tax should not be extended these politicians are just hastening the ruination of social security and our country. The only tax that funds this program is the payroll tax. This program pays out by how much the person puts in.
CUTTING this tax will hurt those that depend on social security in the futur. COMMON SENSE
AMEN!