When is a tax hike not a tax hike?

[rb336]

When the GOP says it isn't. or, more precisely, when it targets those least able to afford it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44218846...a-hopes-block/

[TKshreve]

When the GOP says it isn't. or, more precisely, when it targets those least able to afford it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44218846...a-hopes-block/

Those hypocritical pieces of $hit. They cry and cry about tax hikes with every chance they get, but when it comes to taking the last few nickels of a poor mans paycheck, it's feeding time. Who do they think is going to buy their overseas manufactured crap and sloppy fast food when you take the last few dimes of discretionary income from the McJobbed lower class?

What's even more ironic is the GOP is more or less approving an addition to Social Security as well with this position. Wow, thought you guys wanted to cut/defund Social Security because it's insolvent and a drain on spending.

I came from a predominantly Republican family, but they couldn't keep the wool over my eyes for that long. The GOP is a sham who cries wolf at every turn. While the Dems are not much better, it's certainly no mystery who has the average American citizen in their best interest.

[Whitehouse]

Who in their right mind can still vote for the GOP, and their retarded cousin the Tea Party? What good did the tea part do since they can make a fist? Even more gridlock in politics. Making sure the Democrats could not govern and then blaming them for not getting results. If Bachmann was a man she would probably be remembered as a second Dan Quayle...

[mjs]

Who's going to tell the future masses that "deserve entitlements" because they "worked hard their whole life" that there's no medicare and social security left for them?

Year-to-date, the federal government has collected $835 billion in payroll taxes to fund $827 billion in medicare expenditures and $717 billion in social security. That means that so far in 2011, they have spent 185% of what they've brought in! That is adding $83 billion a month to our deficit or $10 trillion over the next decade if we continue to budget this way. Thats far more important than some meager $1.5 trillion committee magic show.

If we want these programs, WE MUST FUND THESE PROGRAMS! To do that, the payroll tax must go up from the 6% it was before Captian Expansion Entitlement reduced it to 4% and raise it up to 7.5%. I'm sorry, that's the math. Retirement income isn't about just working; its also about responsible sacrifice for the future. You still want to expand entitlements?

This country has 139 million workers supporting 312 million citizens of which 66 million are on social security and 47 million are on food stamps. State, local, and Federal debt combined is $55 trillion. That is $394,000 per worker. When is enough deficit spending enough?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[TKshreve]

Year-to-date, the federal government has collected $835 billion in payroll taxes to fund $827 billion in medicare expenditures and $717 billion in social security. That means that so far in 2011, they have spent 185% of what they've brought in! That is adding $83 billion a month to our deficit or $10 trillion over the next decade if we continue to budget this way. Thats far more important than some meager $1.5 trillion committee magic show.

If we want these programs, WE MUST FUND THESE PROGRAMS! To do that, the payroll tax must go up from the 6% it was before Captian Expansion Entitlement reduced it to 4% and raise it up to 7.5%. I'm sorry, that's the math. Retirement income isn't about just working; its also about responsible sacrifice for the future. You still want to expand entitlements?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Granted, there is plenty of room for cuts in Medicare. That point is moot seeing that it was the number one victim of the debt ceiling legislation. It was partisan. However, regarding SS your friends at wiki have this to say:

Federal social insurance taxes are imposed equally on employers and employees consisting of a tax of 6.2% of wages up to an annual wage maximum [[$106,800 in 2010) for Social Security and a tax of 1.45% of all wages for Medicare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax

Little bit or revenue lost on every individual if it does not add to SS by taxing anything over $106,800 of a persons salary. Would that be the responsible sacrifice you're referring to?

I'll assume you'll suggest they shouldn't have to contribute that much since they will most likely not use it as much, right? Well, to put it into apples to apples context; Figure that for most americans, they pay SS & Medicare payroll taxes on ALL of their income. Whereas, the creme' de la creme' pay it on a fraction of their income. Shared sacrifice? I think not.

[rb336]

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

yes, I trust anonymous sources on the internet.

[mjs]

rb336. You're free to present any information you deem trustworthy, but I don't see any.

TKshreve, I'd actually consider the $106,800 amount to be as irresponsible of a sacrifice as any other contribution to any other pyramid scam, but you're the one that supports entitlement programs. I consider responsible behavior to be personal savings and living within our means rather than stimulating the economy with $4 coffees, large homes for everyone, and government bailouts. You would be better off putting your 6% contribution and half of your company's 12% into an IRA so you can retire on twice as much as social security claims they will be offering. The remaining 6% from your evil employeer is plenty to fund a real program for the truelly needy.

If we were to uncap the max, exactly how low do you think the rate could be while fully funding that monstrosity? I can tell you there's absolutely no way in hell 4% would ever cut it, nor the 6% all the other Presidents managed to collect. Maybe Obama's economy fixing, employment for all, budget neutralizing, magic math speech is going to announce funding it at 2%.

Mr. President, GET US OUT OF OUR WARS! Please, please, please tell me thats what you are going to announce after labor day.

[DetroitPole]

This is why I could never vote Republican as long as the party stays what it is, no matter how "conservative" I become: They are simply the party of the extremely weathy. They are beholden to them. They toss around some social conservativism to keep the masses happy, but ultimately they are nothing but a corporatist party. They have no one's interest in mind except the ultra-rich and the corporation, and they certainly don't bother themselves with social welfare.

The wealthy are far more likely to save their money instead of spending it, unlike the lower classes. The lower classes would spend this tax cut, thus they are the real job creators here.

Instead they refuse to cut tax-breaks for corporate jets and oil companies, telling the public that the only way to save the economy is to suck millionare's dicks and pray that out of the kindness of their ostensibly protestant christian hearts they'll create jobs instead of hoarding the money we save them. I can't see how any self-respecting American could vote Republican.

[coracle]

The report highlighted by rb336 says 46% of all Americans pay no federal taxes so it's clear why they want to share wealth. I think it's a good idea to reinstate the Payroll tax level and make sure everybody has got increasing "skin" in the game and not just penalize successful people with taxation to pay their "share".

[ghettopalmetto]

The report highlighted by rb336 says 46% of all Americans pay no federal taxes so it's clear why they want to share wealth. I think it's a good idea to reinstate the Payroll tax level and make sure everybody has got increasing "skin" in the game and not just penalize successful people with taxation to pay their "share".

Warren Buffett pays a lower effective tax rate than I--and probably you--do. Who's being penalized?

[rb336]

The report highlighted by rb336 says 46% of all Americans pay no federal taxes so it's clear why they want to share wealth. I think it's a good idea to reinstate the Payroll tax level and make sure everybody has got increasing "skin" in the game and not just penalize successful people with taxation to pay their "share".

i don't buy the "46%" unless they are counting children, spouses, etc.

Does it not make sense that the people who control 90% of the wealth pay 90% of the cost to support the country that made them so wealthy? right now they pay no where NEAR that. Meanwhile, tax and deregulation policies over the last 30 years has put increasing numbers of people below the poverty line, slashed benefits, etc. etc., all so those at the top can siphon off ever increasing amounts from the economy. American workers are the most productive in the world, our productivity has increased greatly over the last thirty years. has it benefitted the workers, who are aske to give up more and more? no, it benefits the wealthiest, who keep demanding more and more and more. Talk about "entitlement mentality."

[Zacha341]

Is 'extreme wealth' exclusive to the repubs? Are there not elite, ultra rich corporatists named among the dems? Sure there are... yeah it'd be nice and 'tidy' where things otherwise.

We keep buying the partisan hype that certain behaviors, motivations, monetary quotients and fiscal advantages - money grabs are 'hard-wired' to one party. LOL!

That's indeed how we are being 'bought' while both sides accumulate their power - and given a pass to do so.

While we loyal partisans are given our low hanging fruit with 'promises' of more........

This is why I could never vote Republican as long as the party stays what it is, no matter how "conservative" I become: They are simply the party of the extremely weathy. They are beholden to them. They toss around some social conservativism to keep the masses happy, but ultimately they are nothing but a corporatist party. They have no one's interest in mind except the ultra-rich and the corporation....

[Detroitej72]

Cons always say the way to create jobs is to cut taxes, so if that's true, the last 8 years should have been a boom for job growth. We have the lowest tax rate since the 50's and the opposite has happened. The progressive's need to point this out every time some moron uses the lie that we need more tax cuts for the wealthy.

[TKshreve]

Cons always say the way to create jobs is to cut taxes, so if that's true, the last 8 years should have been a boom for job growth. We have the lowest tax rate since the 50's and the opposite has happened. The progressive's need to point this out every time some moron uses the lie that we need more tax cuts for the wealthy.

My sentiments exactly. It is the lie of all lies. And it keeps the brainwashed, middle class cons around the kool aid dispenser all day.

We should be drowning in jobs. Instead our jobs have all drowned being shipped overseas for a half % point of increased revenue. Shared sacrifice. No sir.......it's the bottom line of capitalism. The almighty beast who has no friends or loyalties.

[rb336]

Cons always say the way to create jobs is to cut taxes, so if that's true, the last 8 years should have been a boom for job growth. We have the lowest tax rate since the 50's and the opposite has happened. The progressive's need to point this out every time some moron uses the lie that we need more tax cuts for the wealthy.

the tax rates in the 50s were pretty damn high - topping out in the 70% area

[firstandten]

My sentiments exactly. It is the lie of all lies. And it keeps the brainwashed, middle class cons around the kool aid dispenser all day.

We should be drowning in jobs. Instead our jobs have all drowned being shipped overseas for a half % point of increased revenue. Shared sacrifice. No sir.......it's the bottom line of capitalism. The almighty beast who has no friends or loyalties.

I agree with you, however you have folks like Jack [[ I'm proud to be a Repub) Welsh who as CEO of GE goes over to India and thinks out loud

"You know we could move all our back office operations over here, lay off all the peons working for me back home and save a boatload of money, and that should help ME get my multi-million dollar bonus for the year'.

But Jack what about all the people in the US that will not have a job ?

"Don't worry, capitalism is self-correcting they will find a job somewhere else, if not they can go on welfare., hell lets give them a tax cut also that will make them happy.

Of course Jack didn't say it in that way, but thats basically the attitude of people like him which is a major reason we don't have jobs now

[oladub]

I agree with you, however you have folks like Jack [[ I'm proud to be a Repub) Welsh who as CEO of GE goes over to India and thinks out loud

"You know we could move all our back office operations over here, lay off all the peons working for me back home and save a boatload of money, and that should help ME get my multi-million dollar bonus for the year'.

But Jack what about all the people in the US that will not have a job ?

"Don't worry, capitalism is self-correcting they will find a job somewhere else, if not they can go on welfare., hell lets give them a tax cut also that will make them happy.

Of course Jack didn't say it in that way, but thats basically the attitude of people like him which is a major reason we don't have jobs now

firstandten, if you didn't like Jack Welch, you will no doubt approve of Jeffery Immelt the new CEO of GE who is not only a Democrat, he is also President Obama's new jobs czar. Things got off to a bit of a rocky start when the Obama's Jobs Czar shipped off GE's medical imaging division off to China. GE explained that it would be hiring thousands of Chinese engineers; lots of new jobs but they are in China. All is forgiven though. GE continues to pay no federal taxes and has been granted a waiver so it can escape from paying certain Obamacare costs. This will make GE even more competitive against other US competitors who operate without the proper corporatist connections.

[TKshreve]

Double post - Edit

[TKshreve]

I agree with you, however you have folks like Jack [[ I'm proud to be a Repub) Welsh who as CEO of GE goes over to India and thinks out loud

"You know we could move all our back office operations over here, lay off all the peons working for me back home and save a boatload of money, and that should help ME get my multi-million dollar bonus for the year'.

But Jack what about all the people in the US that will not have a job ?

"Don't worry, capitalism is self-correcting they will find a job somewhere else, if not they can go on welfare., hell lets give them a tax cut also that will make them happy.

Of course Jack didn't say it in that way, but thats basically the attitude of people like him which is a major reason we don't have jobs now

This is the line in the sand that we "The People" need to draw that will tax and tariff the snot out of companies who think they can pick up and leave - only to turn around and sell their widgets back to the country in which they were originally established. It's borderline treason. It fosters wealth disparity. It also breeds poverty and hatred. Powered by simple, raw utter greed.

The $100,000 question is how do we consolidate the masses to denounce these pratices, and furthermore, then demand of our elected representatives that eradicating these practices is a mandatory task they are to follow through upon if/when taking office.

[firstandten]

firstandten, if you didn't like Jack Welch, you will no doubt approve of Jeffery Immelt the new CEO of GE who is not only a Democrat, he is also President Obama's new jobs czar. Things got off to a bit of a rocky start when the Obama's Jobs Czar shipped off GE's medical imaging division off to China. GE explained that it would be hiring thousands of Chinese engineers; lots of new jobs but they are in China. All is forgiven though. GE continues to pay no federal taxes and has been granted a waiver so it can escape from paying certain Obamacare costs. This will make GE even more competitive against other US competitors who operate without the proper corporatist connections.

But Oladub, don't you see the beauty in all this. He gets a guy who's company hoards cash, sends jobs overseas, barely pays taxes and relied on taxpayer bailouts and tells the business community I just took away your biggest criticism of me I reached out to the business community. Now Immelt do your patriotic duty and help me fix this thing.

Immelts theories will either work, or he and his corporate buddies will be exposed big time.

Either way works for Obama

[oladub]

firstandten, The only reason Obama was bankrolled was that he was acceptable to the mega-bankers and their corporate interests as were Hilary and McCain. Perry will be in the same category. Perry or Obama; either way it is a win for corporate interests. Goldman Sachs was Obama's second largest contributor. GE and its new chairman, hand selected by Obama to be the new Jobs Czar, are not a fluke. The wars and giveaways to bankers under the Bush and Obama administrations are but homage to corporatist interests. I don't see anyone going after Soros or Bufton's wealth, raise GE's taxes, or try to keep jobs in the US. If Democrats are different than Republicans regarding such issues, the differences are minute.

[rb336]

. If Democrats are different than Republicans regarding such issues, the differences are minute.

Difference between most repubs and most dems:
Republicans use the religion angle to con people into voting for them while ignoring their corporatist actions.
Democrats use the labor angle to con people into voting for them while ignoring their corporatist actions.

There are only two real progressives in the congress, and only one is a democrat [[ and the party would love to see him disappear)

[Papasito]

Everyone who makes an income should pay something.
If everyone takes from the system but does not put in, it does not work.

[Detroitej72]

firstandten, The only reason Obama was bankrolled was that he was acceptable to the mega-bankers and their corporate interests as were Hilary and McCain. Perry will be in the same category.

But wait, I thought Obama is a socialist? I guess socialism is fine for the mega-bankers and corporations, just not the average person.

[firstandten]

There are only two real progressives in the congress, and only one is a democrat [[ and the party would love to see him disappear)

And it just might happen once the districts in Ohio have been reapportion. When the music stops in the game of musical chairs there might not be a chair for him.