Republicans oppose tax cut

[billvon 3,132]

Which isn't a surprise, if you make the assumption that the number 1 goal of republicans is to destroy Obama at any cost.

I'd prefer to believe that this is the first sign of the GOP starting to (finally!) understand that spending cuts AND tax increases are the only way to solve the deficit problem. Hopefully this is the small first step away from extremism and obstructionism and towards a workable plan to reduce the deficit.

===================
For Some in G.O.P., a Tax Cut Not Worth Embracing

JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Published: August 25, 2011



WASHINGTON — It is hard to find a tax cut that Congressional Republicans dislike. Unless it is a tax cut pushed by President Obama.

In a turning of the tax policy tables, Democrats are increasingly hammering on Republicans who oppose the president’s proposal to extend for a year a payroll tax cut passed last year with bipartisan support.

That tax cut — which reduces workers’ contributions to Social Security this year to 4.2 percent of wages, from 6.2 percent — expires in December. The White House would like to extend it for another year. But Republicans in Congress are balking, arguing that such a cut adds needlessly to the nation’s budget deficit, and should be replaced with an overhaul of tax policy instead.

“All tax relief is not created equal,” said Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House majority leader. “If the goal is job creation, Leader Cantor has long believed that there are better ways to grow the economy and create jobs than temporary payroll tax relief.”

=======================

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Which isn't a surprise, if you make the assumption that the number 1 goal of republicans is to destroy Obama at any cost.

I'd prefer to believe that this is the first sign of the GOP starting to (finally!) understand that spending cuts AND tax increases are the only way to solve the deficit problem. Hopefully this is the small first step away from extremism and obstructionism and towards a workable plan to reduce the deficit.

===================
For Some in G.O.P., a Tax Cut Not Worth Embracing

JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Published: August 25, 2011



WASHINGTON — It is hard to find a tax cut that Congressional Republicans dislike. Unless it is a tax cut pushed by President Obama.

In a turning of the tax policy tables, Democrats are increasingly hammering on Republicans who oppose the president’s proposal to extend for a year a payroll tax cut passed last year with bipartisan support.

That tax cut — which reduces workers’ contributions to Social Security this year to 4.2 percent of wages, from 6.2 percent — expires in December. The White House would like to extend it for another year. But Republicans in Congress are balking, arguing that such a cut adds needlessly to the nation’s budget deficit, and should be replaced with an overhaul of tax policy instead.

“All tax relief is not created equal,” said Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House majority leader. “If the goal is job creation, Leader Cantor has long believed that there are better ways to grow the economy and create jobs than temporary payroll tax relief.”

=======================

Was it a stand alone bill that was voted on?

Oh, your paranoia is showing

But then, how about this. If this is such a good job creator, why not make it perminant?

But that will not work, unless of course it is a political stunt

(which I know both sides do BTW)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Which isn't a surprise, if you make the assumption that the number 1 goal of republicans is to destroy Obama at any cost.

I'd prefer to believe that this is the first sign of the GOP starting to (finally!) understand that spending cuts AND tax increases are the only way to solve the deficit problem. Hopefully this is the small first step away from extremism and obstructionism and towards a workable plan to reduce the deficit.

===================
For Some in G.O.P., a Tax Cut Not Worth Embracing

JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Published: August 25, 2011



WASHINGTON — It is hard to find a tax cut that Congressional Republicans dislike. Unless it is a tax cut pushed by President Obama.

In a turning of the tax policy tables, Democrats are increasingly hammering on Republicans who oppose the president’s proposal to extend for a year a payroll tax cut passed last year with bipartisan support.

That tax cut — which reduces workers’ contributions to Social Security this year to 4.2 percent of wages, from 6.2 percent — expires in December. The White House would like to extend it for another year. But Republicans in Congress are balking, arguing that such a cut adds needlessly to the nation’s budget deficit, and should be replaced with an overhaul of tax policy instead.

“All tax relief is not created equal,” said Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House majority leader. “If the goal is job creation, Leader Cantor has long believed that there are better ways to grow the economy and create jobs than temporary payroll tax relief.”

=======================

Already being discussed in the other Republican/tax thread.

Funny how the Dems and the media (but I repeat myself) *howl* about Republicans 'wanting to cut funding' while ignoring the fact that the payroll tax change cuts funding to SocSec.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[funjumper101 15]

The cause of the lack of funding can be connected to many causes.

The tax cheating companies exposed in another thread are one cause. The other cause is the absurdly low income cap for FICA taxes.

Eliminate the income cap completely, remove the exemption for capital gains, and the problem is solved forever. This change would allow the tax rate to go DOWN drastically, in terms of percentage of income, for all taxpayers.

Of course, RWCs would NEVER do anything to even out the tax rates between low and high income folks. Any RWC that has been well trained by their media masters knows that the high income folks are kinda godlike and richly deserve to pay less, in terms of a pecentage of income, than the rest of us. If we leveled the rates, the country would fall apart. The gullible RWC morons know that is the official gospel. Believing otherwise is a sign of too much education, too much intellect, and having a real grasp of the facts of the matter.

[mnealtx 0]

None of your screed rebuts my statement.

It also doesn't explain why the heroic Dems didn't do it between 2007 and 2010 while they held both houses of Congress, and especially from 2009-2010.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Removing (or raising) the income cap- up for discussion. I'm not sure of the history behind a cap for SS and none for medicare (other than medicare tax being much lower than SS). I'll have to read up on that one.

SS benefits are based on contributions. If you pay SS taxes on 100k, your ultimate benefits are higher than if you paid on 50k. Not twice as high mind you, the higher contributor is already paying well over his or her share. So if you remove the limit, you also have to deal with the issue of how to determine benefits.

MC, otoh, is the same service for all, lending itself to a flat rate or a flat total tax per year.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The other cause is the absurdly low income cap for FICA taxes.

Eliminate the income cap completely, remove the exemption for capital gains, and the problem is solved forever.

this is completely the wrong way to approach this - you are just advocating for those that pay more but don't get a proportionate return for their investment - it's just a bid for more artificial transer


what you should be doing is using the cap to argue for those that want to privatize SS. by noting that people that can afford to invest for themselves are able to - they contribute to the public fund "up to a point" - once past that point, they now have available a period of time where they have extra take home pay that they are able to use for private planning for retirement.

Frankly, they should lower the cap to allow more people to use their own money for private retirement supplemental planning.

Lower to the point where we can significantly help the middle class in this area. That means take it down from the current limit (what is it now 85-100K?) down to like 40K.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

SS benefits are based on contributions. If you pay SS taxes on 100k, your ultimate benefits are higher than if you paid on 50k. Not twice as high mind you, the higher contributor is already paying well over his or her share.

That's why the cap is way too high.

Everyone should pays up to enough to provide a 'minimum' level of assistance (and 'minimal' means 'minimal'). But same benefit for all, but everyone pays into it. No free rides.

those that make more, can privately invest their own funds to supplement the total for themselves only, with the extra when they get above the cap.

If not, they the return one gets really should be proportional to their contribution, and not penalized for contributing more like it is today.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants