GOP raising our taxes. Happy holidays!

[johnnyrodgers20]

The Republicans seem to have absolutely no ability to pick their battles.

 

When half of a legislative body only sees things in absolutes, everything becomes a battle.

 

And the committee suggestion by Boehner is merely a stall tactic in all of this--this tool, common during the Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton administrations, would be beneficial. It fell out of use during the W. Admin, and is only being brought up now as a way to sideline the bill.

 

The capital gains tax should be lower. You have people risking their money and they sometimes make money but they can lose it all too. You understand risk/reward don't you? They are risking their money and then when they make some you want to take it. If they put their money in a savings account and got 1% you wouldn't be clamoring to raise their taxes on the interest gained would you? They take a chance and if they do you want to penalize them for their hard work, that is insane!! You penalize the hard worker to give it to others who may be doing nothing to better themselves!!

 

History says that is incorrect--Capital Gains tax was significantly higher during the 80s and early 90s, and investment activity levels are on par with today's volumes.

 

Additionally, CNBC covered this topic the other day and a little this AM. Lowering Capital Gains tax was a tactic used to spur entrepreneurship and investment, but the unintended consequences are that it drove investors to the sidelines, as they didn't want to get involved now and have the taxes go back up to 1980/early 1990 levels.

 

This sentence makes no sense to me. So you are saying people did not want to make a profit when it was cheaper because they were afraid taxes would get higher. So they waited until higher taxes to jump in so they wouldn't have to pay higher taxes, that is mindbloggling!!

Again, you have the most important investor in the world (a Nebraskan, no less), calling for the taxes to be raised on Capital Gains and overall income for the 1%. I do believe he would be in a better position than you to speak on this issue.

 

Well, if you are going to use a billionaire for your argument I am sure there are plenty of them that think my point of view is better.

[johnnyrodgers20]

So it's a done deal?

 

Not quite. Rather telling that the Republican Party finally found a tax cut that they don't like . . . one that benefits the middle class.

 

As soon as a tax break would help the middle class, the Republicans do a 180 degree turn and have started to like taxes.

 

 

Wrong, they want to extend them for a year not two months. You do the math and see who wants to give the

tax payers more of a tax break?

Not true. They twice opposed a 1 year extension. This is a matter of public record . . . not to mention that this was just a few short weeks ago.

 

Now the House GOP has even lost the support of the Senate GOP. Extraordinary times we live in. It's just a matter of time before the American public experiences a prolonged bout of buyers remorse over the new crop of Tea Party extremists in the House.

http://www.washingto..._over034264.php

 

 

So you are saying the house doesn't want to extend the payroll tax for a year?

[johnnyrodgers20]

Although I think the payroll holiday is extremely damaging to the government's ability to fund Social Security and Medicare (i.e. the largest source of deficit spending), it's hard to figure out who's running the house Republican PR. This is the same group that fought bitterly to extend the Bush tax rates and passed the Ryan budget that cut the top marginal tax rate in half and capital gains rates to zero. Every partisan victory seems to come at a staggeringly high price in the long term.

Not according to the chief actuary of Social Security:

http://www.ssa.gov/o...ey_20111206.pdf

 

 

Social security is screwed, do you really think the person in charge of that program is going to say that and start a mass panic?

[carlfense]

So you are saying the house doesn't want to extend the payroll tax for a year?

They do realize that they can do both, right? Obama wanted it as a 1 year extension . . . GOP rejected it. They don't want to give Obama any sort of victory even if it is good for the American people. They've been rather transparent about that. Remember, the Senate GOP leader said that the number 1 priority of Congress is to make sure that Obama is not re-elected. I think there are a lot of people in this economy who should be offended by that.

[carlfense]

Although I think the payroll holiday is extremely damaging to the government's ability to fund Social Security and Medicare (i.e. the largest source of deficit spending), it's hard to figure out who's running the house Republican PR. This is the same group that fought bitterly to extend the Bush tax rates and passed the Ryan budget that cut the top marginal tax rate in half and capital gains rates to zero. Every partisan victory seems to come at a staggeringly high price in the long term.

Not according to the chief actuary of Social Security:

http://www.ssa.gov/o...ey_20111206.pdf

 

 

Social security is screwed, do you really think the person in charge of that program is going to say that and start a mass panic?

Who would you go to if you wanted to find out the financial effect on Social Security? Sean Hannity? Serious question. If you don't trust the chief actuary of the program then I don't know what to tell you.

 

Apparently you are going to believe whatever you believe . . . facts be damned.

[zoogs]

This is that bill that got an 89% consensus in the Senate. And the House Republicans just feel like sticking it to them.

 

I cannot comment on this bill too specifically, but over the past few years this has been the entire Republican party modus operandi. Stand in the way of things getting passed, for the sake of standing in its way. Pure political gamesmanship aimed at fighting against the White House, which has compromised again and again...never minding anything about national welfare.

[krill]

Although I think the payroll holiday is extremely damaging to the government's ability to fund Social Security and Medicare (i.e. the largest source of deficit spending), it's hard to figure out who's running the house Republican PR. This is the same group that fought bitterly to extend the Bush tax rates and passed the Ryan budget that cut the top marginal tax rate in half and capital gains rates to zero. Every partisan victory seems to come at a staggeringly high price in the long term.

Not according to the chief actuary of Social Security:

http://www.ssa.gov/o...ey_20111206.pdf

 

The letter summarizes the legislation...cover lost payroll tax revenue (which goes directly into the trust fund) with general funding and credit workers benefits not actually paid.

 

Anyway, the point I was getting at is that at some point the payroll tax break will have to end and the longer it goes, the more unpopular it will be. In the mean time, it's a double hit to the social security trust fund at a juncture where it's moved from surplus to deficit, drawing off surplus year bonds, and is now being funded with additional general funding to cover lost revenue.

 

I'm definitely not against relief for the middle class, I'm just looking at the big picture long term goal of Republicans to erode the fiscal health of Social Security and Medicare to the point where a coup de grâce is palpable, and what the arguments will be for an extension of the Bush tax rates and various other tax issues. I don't see how this improves the situation at all.

[johnnyrodgers20]

Although I think the payroll holiday is extremely damaging to the government's ability to fund Social Security and Medicare (i.e. the largest source of deficit spending), it's hard to figure out who's running the house Republican PR. This is the same group that fought bitterly to extend the Bush tax rates and passed the Ryan budget that cut the top marginal tax rate in half and capital gains rates to zero. Every partisan victory seems to come at a staggeringly high price in the long term.

Not according to the chief actuary of Social Security:

http://www.ssa.gov/o...ey_20111206.pdf

 

 

Social security is screwed, do you really think the person in charge of that program is going to say that and start a mass panic?

Who would you go to if you wanted to find out the financial effect on Social Security? Sean Hannity? Serious question. If you don't trust the chief actuary of the program then I don't know what to tell you.

 

Apparently you are going to believe whatever you believe . . . facts be damned.

 

Remember in 2007, Barney Frank said Freddie and Fannie were sound companies? I think people overseeing a train wreck say what they have to to give themselves time to remedy the situation.

 

I would look at this.

 

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/08/09/not_in_25_years_social_security_is_bankrupt_now_98611.html

 

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html

 

 

Why can't we do something like this

 

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-ja-jp.html

[carlfense]

Remember in 2007, Barney Frank said Freddie and Fannie were sound companies? I think people overseeing a train wreck say what they have to to give themselves time to remedy the situation.

 

I would look at this.

 

http://www.ssa.gov/o...RSUM/index.html

 

This is one of the least coherent posts that I have ever read. Your argument summarized:

 

1. We shouldn't trust something from the Social Security Administration because those people are overseeing a trainwreck and are untrustworthy.

2. Look at this report from the people that are overseeing the SSA because it sounds scary!

 

Listen, johnny, you can't have it both ways.

[carlfense]

Although I think the payroll holiday is extremely damaging to the government's ability to fund Social Security and Medicare (i.e. the largest source of deficit spending), it's hard to figure out who's running the house Republican PR. This is the same group that fought bitterly to extend the Bush tax rates and passed the Ryan budget that cut the top marginal tax rate in half and capital gains rates to zero. Every partisan victory seems to come at a staggeringly high price in the long term.

Not according to the chief actuary of Social Security:

http://www.ssa.gov/o...ey_20111206.pdf

 

The letter summarizes the legislation...cover lost payroll tax revenue (which goes directly into the trust fund) with general funding and credit workers benefits not actually paid.

 

Anyway, the point I was getting at is that at some point the payroll tax break will have to end and the longer it goes, the more unpopular it will be. In the mean time, it's a double hit to the social security trust fund at a juncture where it's moved from surplus to deficit, drawing off surplus year bonds, and is now being funded with additional general funding to cover lost revenue.

 

I'm definitely not against relief for the middle class, I'm just looking at the big picture long term goal of Republicans to erode the fiscal health of Social Security and Medicare to the point where a coup de grâce is palpable, and what the arguments will be for an extension of the Bush tax rates and various other tax issues. I don't see how this improves the situation at all.

Ah. I see what you're saying. I thought you were saying that a short term extension would be devastating. My apologies.

[carlfense]

Sounds like the House GOP may have caved. What a strange situation.

[Husker_x]

Not strange at all. As predictable as tomorrow's sunrise. You have to blow the bridge eventually. Once it's impossible to squeeze something else out of the conflict except blame for raised taxes, pass the two month extension.

 

Want to know what else is predictable? See you in two months.

[VectorVictor]

Not strange at all. As predictable as tomorrow's sunrise. You have to blow the bridge eventually. Once it's impossible to squeeze something else out of the conflict except blame for raised taxes, pass the two month extension.

 

Want to know what else is predictable? See you in two months.

 

And this is why the Republican Party is derping itself to death--the Republicans were uniformly and correctly blamed as being obstructionists by both John Q Public and the press; why would you want to throw your party in two month's time under the same political bus, just when the primaries are getting on? There's no 'W' from this--only a lot of heartburn and another eventual retreat--very little will change in two month's time on this issue, including the public's attitudes about it.

 

Ignorant, short-sighted, and obstinate--that's your Tea Party Express for you.