Payroll Tax will not be cut!

That's it folks. Democrats and Republican in Congress didn't agree a deal to cut the Payroll tax. This means:

1. Over 160 million Americans who are unemployed will not see their unemployment benefits after Janunary 1 2012.

2. An increase payroll taxes in your paystubs from Social Security to FICA!

Be prepare for the first wave of financial apocalypse!

Congress is going home to spend time with the families in their nice warm homes with all the solid gold goodies all over. They will see their gifts under the Christmas Tree. The poor, out of work people can't pay their bills, lose their homes and out of the streets real soon.

WORD FROM THE STREET PROPHET

Maybe if Congress come back from their nice homes they would fix the payroll problem temporary.

For the 99 Percenters and Guy Fawkes, Neda, I miss you so.

Merry Christmas Congress and a Happy New Year! Thanks for the messing up this nation. We The People of the United States are sick and tired of a divided government. We will vote you out in the 2012 election and replace you all with new people who can reform government.

Can I nominate this for best post of the year?

Compare and contrast to a year ago, when the GOP fought so hard to preserve tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.

If you're not from the Plantation Set, they don't give a fuck about you. Simple as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danny

That1. Over 160 million Americans who are unemployed will not see their unemployment benefits after Janunary 1 2012.

---

lol, there are only 155 million people in the US work force...

How is it possible that there are more UNEMPLOYED people than there are total people in the workforce?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 313WX

lol, there are only 155 million people in the US work force...

How is it possible that there are more UNEMPLOYED people than there are total people in the workforce?

---

Well, there are about 310 million Americans. In the most technical, hair-splitting sense, Danny isn't wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Compare and contrast to a year ago, when the GOP fought so hard to preserve tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.

If you're not from the Plantation Set, they don't give a fuck about you. Simple as that.

---

add to that sticking the Keystone Pipeline garbage into the bill. This would grant eminent domain to an oil company that could then force people to sell their property to the company at terms the company would dictate. That, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly the kind of BS the Occupy movement should focus on, and how the republicans want to cede control of the country to the oligarchs in ever more transparent ways

Our debt is so large that Republicans would be wise to resume taxes on the rich. If Republicans hate Social Security and the "middle class tax cut" comes out of reduced Social Security funding, then Republicans should extend the middle class cut as long as possible so Social Security collapses as soon as possible. Federal spending should also be cut back to 30% above what it was when Clinton left office to account for population growth and inflation.

I had a thought on Danny's statement that 160m Americans are unemployed. Nancy Pelosi summed it up by explaining that “The unemployment insurance extension is not only good for individuals. It has a macroeconomic impact. As macroeconomic advisers have stated, it would make a difference of 600,000 jobs to our economy.” Unemployment is therefore good for the economy if we print enough money give it a positive macroeconomic impact. Has anyone seen a white rabbit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rb336

add to that sticking the Keystone Pipeline garbage into the bill. This would grant eminent domain to an oil company that could then force people to sell their property to the company at terms the company would dictate. That, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly the kind of BS the Occupy movement should focus on, and how the republicans want to cede control of the country to the oligarchs in ever more transparent ways

---

Whatever happened to that "no more earmarks" bullshit? Oh wait--they only meant no more earmarks for helping flesh-and-blood people. Corporate people are a whole different animal who deserve bags and bags of cash and government interference in the free market heaped upon them.

Oladub, I think that 600,000 job figure represents the number of people who retain a job strictly to retain health insurance. These people would presumably no longer work BY CHOICE if they were able to have health insurance independent of employment. These jobs could then be filled by people who actually need to work for the income.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rb336

add to that sticking the Keystone Pipeline garbage into the bill. This would grant eminent domain to an oil company that could then force people to sell their property to the company at terms the company would dictate. That, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly the kind of BS the Occupy movement should focus on, and how the republicans want to cede control of the country to the oligarchs in ever more transparent ways

---

It's funny [[but mostly sad) to listen to Speaker Boehner and Huntsman throwing out figures of 20,000 to 100,000 jobs being created by this pipeline. Why not be honest for once about the actual job creation from this pork pie insert.

The jobs are temporary and the figures are juked way out of hand to include "spin off" job creation.

Quote:

---

Among the list of jobs that would be created: 51 dancers and choreographers, 138 dentists, 176 dental hygienists, 100 librarians, 510 bread bakers, 448 clergy, 154 stenographers, 865 hairdressers, 136 manicurists, 110 shampooers, 65 farmers, and [[our favorite) 1,714 bartenders.

---

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/o...tml?page=1&c=y

Another thing you should know about the biased mathematical skills of these Corporate spinsters:

Quote:

---

But TransCanada numbers count each job on a yearly basis. If the pipeline employs 10,000 people working for two years, that's 20,000 jobs by the company's count.

The estimates also include jobs in Canada, where about a third of the $7 billion pipeline would be constructed.

---

http://www.wgal.com/r/29986422/detail.html


Is this the kind of jobs we want? I don't think so. Be very wary of who actually does.

Quote:

---

Among the list of jobs that would be created: 51 dancers and choreographers, 138 dentists, 176 dental hygienists, 100 librarians, 510 bread bakers, 448 clergy, 154 stenographers, 865 hairdressers, 136 manicurists, 110 shampooers, 65 farmers, and [[our favorite) 1,714 bartenders.

---

51 dancers and choreographers? They need choreographers for pole and lap dancing? [[or do YOU see pipefitters and construction crews supporting a modern dance troop or the ballet?)

This just in - background on the oil sands

http://www.vancouversun.com/business...992/story.html

Good news fellas! source: NBC Politics


Boehner announces deal with Reid on end to payroll tax impasse

By Tom Curry, msnbc.com National Affairs WriterHouse Speaker John Boehner announced Thursday that he had agreed with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on a two-month extension of a package including a payroll tax cut and an extension of unemployment benefits.
Boehner said in statement he and Reid "reached an agreement that will ensure taxes do not increase for working families on Jan. 1 while ensuring that a complex new reporting burden is not unintentionally imposed on small business job creators."
He said the Senate "will join the House in immediately appointing conferees, with instructions to reach agreement in the weeks ahead on a full-year payroll tax extension. We will ask the House and Senate to approve this agreement by unanimous consent before Christmas.”
Answering a reporter's question at a press conference Thursday afternoon, Boehner said he did not know if there would be unanimous consent to the accord from all the Republican House members, but said he would bring the House members back to Washington next week for a vote, if it proves to be necessary.
The unanimous consent motions were scheduled for Thursday morning. If any member of the House or Senate objects, the motion would fail.
In a statement released by the White House, President Barack Obama said, "This is good news, just in time for the holidays. This is the right thing to do to strengthen our families, grow our economy, and create new jobs."
In his statement, Reid cautioned that "there remain important differences between the parties on how to implement these policies." He said, "Two months is not a long time, and I expect the negotiators to work expeditiously to forge year-long extensions of these critical policies."
This news of the accord came after two of Boehner’s GOP members called on him to allow the two-month extension to proceed.


This is sure political victory for the Democrats! Their scare tactic worked. The GOP don't like tax hikes and we gave them the deal. Like President Obama says... " Get it done."

Danny, I think the 'tax cut' amounts to less money being set aside for Social Security so technically it is a deferred tax rather than a tax cut. Assuming there is still an interest in funding Social Security, some future Congress is going to have to make up for this tax cut. Cutting taxes can only be done in conjunction with a balanced budget and a balanced budget requires either more taxes, including re taxing the rich, or spending cuts. Perhaps President Obama's remark about getting it done refers to implementing the Cloward and Piven strategy. He also extended Bush's tax cuts on the rich.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

Cutting taxes can only be done in conjunction with a balanced budget and a balanced budget requires either more taxes, including re taxing the rich, or spending cuts.

---

That never stopped the GOP!!!

Don't let the door hit your math on the way out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

That never stopped the GOP!!!

Don't let the door hit your math on the way out.

---

Did someone bring up the GOP? I didn't although Ron Paul has a plan to cut federal spending $1T in the first year of his presidency. The rest of them are more like Bush with regards to spending. In other words, closer to the Democrats' end of the spending continuum.

I'll give you some of your Cloward and Priven Strategy math. Remember the huge fight on Capitol Hill in August regarding increasing the federal debt ceiling $2.1T? Since then, President Obama has announced that Congress isn't doing what he wants and so has implemented new programs and spending without the consent of Congress. Without the benefit of Congress ever addressing the promised budget cuts they would make that led to the agreement to raise the debt ceiling, it looks like our President is going to push through another $1.2T debt ceiling increase without even involving Congress. Republicans did agree to exempting Congress from such decisions in their last phony charade at preventing the debt ceiling from increasing. Even I am surprised at how fast our Constitutional republic form of government is being flushed by the Obama administration. At least this brings us back to your math comfort zone of going further into debt every time Democrats, and a lot of Republicans, can't have everything they want immediately without paying for it.

Obama to ask for debt limit hike: Treasury official

The idea of reinstating the financial transaction tax is growing on me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old guy

The idea of reinstating the financial transaction tax is growing on me.

---

According to Alan Newman of cross-currents.net, the dollar volume of trades was 400% of GDP in 2006. GDP was $13 trillion. 400% [[or 4x) is $52 trillion 2.5% tax = $1.3 trillion, or one third of the 2011 budget. And that is just the securities markets. The dollar volume of trades hasn't really been hit -- the dollar value comes from sells and buys, and the gross skyrocketing of trade volume is fueled by speculators. buh-bye deficit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rb336

According to Alan Newman of cross-currents.net, the dollar volume of trades was 400% of GDP in 2006. GDP was $13 trillion. 400% [[or 4x) is $52 trillion 2.5% tax = $1.3 trillion, or one third of the 2011 budget. And that is just the securities markets. The dollar volume of trades hasn't really been hit -- the dollar value comes from sells and buys, and the gross skyrocketing of trade volume is fueled by speculators. buh-bye deficit

---

Or maybe buh-bye demand for stocks resulting in a plummeting market. Hello depression.

Hooray for more taxes for struggling working low and middle income Americans!

http://www.climatefund.info/

Quote:

---

The Copenhagen Accord had this to say about climate funds: "We decide that the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund shall be established as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention to support projects, programme, policies and other activities in developing countries related to mitigation including REDD-plus, adaptation, capacity-building, technology development and transfer."

---

Obama is all for taxing us in hopes the same people who can't predict whether or not it's going to rain tomorrow can alter the temperature changes of the globe.
Whether they can or not, we will be paying dearly...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

Or maybe buh-bye demand for stocks resulting in a plummeting market. Hello depression.

---

no, merely goodbye speculators who create the nasty bubbles. Wall Street trading has virtually NO impact on job creation except on wall street

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rb336

add to that sticking the Keystone Pipeline garbage into the bill. This would grant eminent domain to an oil company that could then force people to sell their property to the company at terms the company would dictate. That, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly the kind of BS the Occupy movement should focus on, and how the republicans want to cede control of the country to the oligarchs in ever more transparent ways

---

I'm not sure that the eminent domain issue applies here. I think the landowners still own the land but have to make sure the pipeline company has a right of way. The landowners make some kind of money on it.
There are a lot of union guys I know who are wondering why this project is being delayed. They stand to make a lot of money on this.
The thing is, this oil is going to be developed whether or not the pipeline is built and somebody [[China) is going to be buying it.
Everybody is always talking about reducing our dependence on foreign oil. There are no easy solutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinary

I'm not sure that the eminent domain issue applies here.

---

TransCanada has told Nebraska landowners [[PDF) it will claim eminent domain if they don't let its pipeline pass through their land. "Some of the neighbors, they just said, 'There's no way to fight an oil company—we just have to sign off,'" says Merrick County farmer Randy Thompson.

Click on the PDF link above and see the letter from TransCanada to the land owners explaining that they will use eminent domain if they don't sign off.

The big deal is, the Keystone pipeline actually went into operation last year. This is actually about another Keystone XL pipeline they want to add and it runs directly through the Ogallala Aquifer which is a pretty big deal if you farm or drink water in Nebraska or several other states nearby.

I can't understand why they can't move it to the east a few hundred miles. Fresh water is becoming a scarce commodity around the world, possibly faster than oil.

Thanks for that information. I don't understand why they can't move it and honestly I think the whole idea of obtaining oil from the tar sands is nasty. But there are already a whole bunch of pipelines carrying who knows what that run over the Ogallala Aquifier.
My point is that the oil is going to be developed regardless of this particular pipeline. If you drive by the Marathon refinery, the construction on that is going great guns. And I would venture to say that most of the upgrade there is because of the tar sands oil.
Obama is not going to make a decision on the pipeline before the election because he's going to piss people off no matter what he decides.
I think I'm beginning to stray too much from the original topic of this post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rb336

no, merely goodbye speculators who create the nasty bubbles. Wall Street trading has virtually NO impact on job creation except on wall street

---

According to your link, the new tax is 2.5% on transactions. Anyone who invests in something for a year has to pay $250 per $10,000 investment or twice that if "every transaction' means buying and selling stocks. All stock then becomes worth less because of the additional transaction cost reducing demand for stocks. It might reduce speculation of course. I'm not sure if everyone is willing to pay a 2.5 or 5 percent tax to reduce speculation. It is arrogant to assume most people would. In the long run, speculators just temporarily exaggerate markets and markets will self correct. Speculators often lose too. This seems like more of an excuse to loot the citizenry than to accomplish anything very useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

According to your link, the new tax is 2.5% on transactions. Anyone who invests in something for a year has to pay $250 per $10,000 investment or twice that if "every transaction' means buying and selling stocks. All stock then becomes worth less because of the additional transaction cost reducing demand for stocks. It might reduce speculation of course. I'm not sure if everyone is willing to pay a 2.5 or 5 percent tax to reduce speculation. It is arrogant to assume most people would. In the long run, speculators just temporarily exaggerate markets and markets will self correct. Speculators often lose too. This seems like more of an excuse to loot the citizenry than to accomplish anything very useful.

---

sorry, but the stock market has been exaggerated by speculators rather severely for the last few years. That is why there is so little stability in the market, why there is so many wide swings. it is not based on investment strategies any more -- it is based on speculation-based strategies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rb336

sorry, but the stock market has been exaggerated by speculators rather severely for the last few years. That is why there is so little stability in the market, why there is so many wide swings. it is not based on investment strategies any more -- it is based on speculation-based strategies.

---

What are normal swings? When did they last exist? Aren't all investors speculators if they don't have an inside track? What are the other types of strategies you suggest? Where did you gain all you insight from, the Daily Kos or the DU?

Supply demand suggests that the more something costs, the less of it will be bought. Tack 2.5 or 5% taxes on it [[which is it?) and other investments start looking more attractive while stock prices lapse. Lapsing stock prices mean less money to spend and jobs are cut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

Supply demand suggests that the more something costs, the less of it will be bought. Tack 2.5 or 5% taxes on it [[which is it?) and other investments start looking more attractive while stock prices lapse. Lapsing stock prices mean less money to spend and jobs are cut.

---

Sorry, I was looking at the original transaction tax that was imposed from 1914 - 1966 when it was 0.1% when stocks were issued and 0.04% on transfers. Right now there's a transaction tax [[Section 31 fee) of 0.0034% that raises about 2 billion dollars a year that's used to finance the Securities and Exchange Commission, but it's more income than they need to run it.

I was thinking of the 0.04% tax on transactions because it's almost negligible to buying stocks but would slow down speculation on the transfers. It's also thought that it would raise about 40 billion a year and be less susceptible to tax evasion. Not a huge sum of money but it has been suggested that half could go to debt reduction and half to infrastructure projects.

Not a fix all, but a good starting point. The stock market didn't seem to suffer when it was in place before and so many of these small parts of the puzzle have been removed for the financial sector, we don't have much to work with anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

What are normal swings? When did they last exist? Aren't all investors speculators if they don't have an inside track?

---

$800 swings over two days, repeatedly, is certainly NOT normal. There is a difference between speculators and investors. speculators are in it for the quick buck. It is THEIR activity I would like to see taxed, both through transaction taxes and a sliding cap gains tax. Say, hit them with a transaction tax on investments held less than a year. and start cap gains at 45% for less than a year, sliding down to 10% after 5

There are already short term vs. long term profits and they are taxed at different rates in part to discourage so called speculation. I like the 10% after five year idea. It would be good for buyers of utility stocks. I'm not sure of what it would do to high tech stocks which are riskier investments in a field where there is rapid change. it might starve them of capital.

RE: that pipeline

There is a question of its fouling the Ogallala aquifer, one of the largest aquifer's in the world which we have been pumping out faster than it can replenish itself for decades. Kiss the bread basket goodby if the Ogallala gets sullied..

Someone correct me if I am wrong. The payroll tax cut was extended. The money that was supposed to go into Social Security will not be replaced. I have heard that a small percentage will be added to people taking out loans from Fannie May or Freddie Mac. It is included in the interest rate charged. It was supposed to be used to reimburse SS. Instead it will go into the general fund. So have both parties and the president come to an agreement to let the program go broke? The tax cuts will never be restored. And we all know that the IOU's in the fund are worthless. Have the Dems turned their backs on older people now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

There are already short term vs. long term profits and they are taxed at different rates in part to discourage so called speculation. I like the 10% after five year idea. It would be good for buyers of utility stocks. I'm not sure of what it would do to high tech stocks which are riskier investments in a field where there is rapid change. it might starve them of capital.

---

There is a graduated cap gains tax? not really. there are some cap gains taxed at higher rates -- essentially on property that has been depreciated [[25%) which is dome so the seller doesn't get a double tax break, or some small business stock that you hold for 5 years for which you can exclude half the value [[28%).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rb336

There is a graduated cap gains tax? not really. there are some cap gains taxed at higher rates -- essentially on property that has been depreciated [[25%) which is dome so the seller doesn't get a double tax break, or some small business stock that you hold for 5 years for which you can exclude half the value [[28%).

---

You need to acquaint yourself with schedule D parts 1 and 2.

How do you like President Obama's move to cut military pay and benefits? I found a place where Ron Paul will outspend Obama; veteran benefits. A voting booth choice in Michigan tomorrow.

OBAMA TO CUT HEALTHCARE BENEFITS FOR ACTIVE DUTY AND RETIRED US
MILITARY

RON PAUL ISSUES OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA CONCERNING CUTS TO VETERANS’ BENEFITS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

You need to acquaint yourself with schedule D parts 1 and 2.

---

those simply expand upon the two exceptions I mentioned below.

Quote:

---

How do you like President Obama's move to cut military pay and benefits?

---

I don't

There are an assortment of capital gains tax rates depending on a variety of circumstances. For example, short term capital gains are taxed at one's ordinary income tax rate. Collectibles are taxed at 28% [[and the IRS argues that gold, silver, etc. should be taxed at this rate). The standard long term capital gains rate is 15% but, depending on your other income and deductions, can be as low 0%. There are numerous IRS rulings on what should be considered a capital gain and how that gain should be taxed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lpg

Someone correct me if I am wrong. The payroll tax cut was extended. The money that was supposed to go into Social Security will not be replaced. I have heard that a small percentage will be added to people taking out loans from Fannie May or Freddie Mac. It is included in the interest rate charged. It was supposed to be used to reimburse SS. Instead it will go into the general fund. So have both parties and the president come to an agreement to let the program go broke? The tax cuts will never be restored. And we all know that the IOU's in the fund are worthless. Have the Dems turned their backs on older people now?

---

No information or opinions ?????