Posted on 08/22/2011 6:45:17 AM PDT by blam
GOP May Block Payroll Tax Cut Extension That Obama Claims Could Save Up To 1 Million Jobs
Zeke Miller
Aug. 22, 2011, 9:32 AM
The Associated Press reports that congressional Republicans are considering allowing the payroll tax cut to expire at the end of the year a move President Barack Obama says could cost up to 1 million jobs.
The tax, which funds Social Security, now stands at 4.2 percent for employees for 2011 down from 6.2 percent and GOP lawmakers, worried by rising deficits and the nation's booming debt, are gearing up to block extending the reduced rate through next year. The employer contribution remains at 6.2 percent.
"It's always a net positive to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), "but not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again."
But their worry about debt and deficits did not prevent the lawmakers from demanding the continue the Bush tax cuts on wealthy Americans if they were to be extended for those with lesser incomes.
The payroll tax cut most benefits employees making less than $106,800 a year including those whose incomes are so low they pay no income tax, but still have their payroll tax withheld from their paychecks.
Earlier this month Obama said Congress failing to extend the tax break and unemployment benefits "could mean 1 million fewer jobs and half a percent less growth."
Neither Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) or Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has taken a public position on the issue.
Obama says, the extension of the payroll tax cut would bring the average American family an additional $1,000 each year
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Thank goodness you found it. I was looking for a strawman argument but couldn’t find one.
Just click on the link from the post you replied to. Look what happened to revenue. It never reached the CBO estimate let alone went above it.
I am all for tax cuts. Those tax cuts should be matched with spending cuts until revenues come back up.
The reality is that after Bush cut taxes government revenue went UP. It did not go down.
This “projections” bullexcrement is how a reduction in the rate of growth - but a net increase - is characterized as a “cut”.
Disgusting and delusional.
It is a useless tax break for the economy, because it gives people a couple of bucks a week that they don’t really see. If your paycheck gets a couple of dollars bigger each week, you simply deposit it like you always do; then you might notice that your checking acount has a few more dollars in it than normal, but in the end, the extra $1000 you have isn’t enough to make you want to go spend money out of your checking account.
If you want people to spend money, you have to mail them a big check. People receive a $1000 “rebate check”, they think “Free money” and they spend it.
Same problem with Obama’s previous pretend stimulus, the $800 tax credit that he gave out by lowering the withholding, again giving people a couple of bucks a week that they never noticed.
I happen to agree on this issue as well for the same reason.
As far as I am concerned, the repubs are just as bad as the demorats. They both have put this nation into the screwed up scenario it now finds itself in.
In 1993 and 1994 I saw potential heroes in House Republicans, but I see none(few) now.
They voted for the Ryan 'plan', then when they got yelled at for it they said it was not even a 'budget', it was just a proposal for starting discussion. Then they voted for the Obama debt limit deal. Then some of them claimed we wouldnt have a downgrade if the Ryan plan was signed into law. That's called 'trying to have it both ways', "it was only an proposal but give us credit for passing it".
Get this reality. Revenues never reached GWB predictions. They never reached CBO predictions.
The only sane way to budget is to not spend money we don’t have. If we cut taxes to stimulate the economy, we have to cut spending too.
I’d be very happy if we went to a cash flow system of budgeting.
Get this reality - projections are not reality they are estimations based upon political calculations and any number of other bullshit.
Get this reality - after Bush cut taxes government revenue increased - after Reagan cut taxes government revenue increased - after Kennedy cut taxes government revenue increased.
The only sane way to budget is to not have the government spend money it doesn’t have. Yes we need to cut spending - that wasn’t even the topic of discussion. Cutting taxes would also be a good thing. But that isn’t the argument you and the Democrats made - it was that we needed to INCREASE taxes (during a recession) AND cut spending.
This was their “balanced approach” - cut spending, supposedly, and increase revenue by INCREASING tax rates (which as I originally pointed out - may or may not actually increase revenue).
And a majority of Republicans voted down Jim Jordan’s RSC budget, the only conservative budget voted on in the House.
Revenue in 2011 is expected to be $2,425,725 million.
2011 costs in millions,
Department of Defense-Military $723,703
Department of Health and Human Services $926,236
Interest on Treasury Debt Securities (Gross) $464,706
Social Security Administration $789,034
Comes to $2,903,679 million. With those three programs alone plus minimum interest payments we have a $477,954 millon deficit. Note this does not even count necessary programs like Federal Prisons and the like.
If you want to cut those three programs, I am right there with you. If you don't then my point that I stand on is that we should pay for them and stop borrowing money.
The entire point of a reduction in tax rates is NOT to decrease government revenue. Decreased government revenue is not the goal. Decreased share of government as a % of GDP perhaps - but not decreased revenue.
Tax rate reduction is based upon the principle that the government should take as little as a % as possible from people that is both necessary and sufficient to fulfill the duties it is entrusted to by the Constitution and legislation.
If a flat fair 20% tax rate on all income could fund the government fully - and with an expanding economy even increase revenue higher - it is a good unto itself that less people are paying 30% or more.
Do you think it is a good unto itself and a desired goal for government revenue to decrease? Is that the argument you think people here are making in favor of tax rate reductions?
“pay for them” means a tax rate increase in your language.
Tax rate increases are notorious for not actually leading to increased revenue and almost everyone agrees that raising tax rates in a down economy is a real bad move - even 0bama was saying it before “balancing” spending cuts with tax rate increases and “paying for it” via tax rate increases became the words on liberal lips.
“The entire point of a reduction in tax rates is NOT to decrease government revenue.”
You and I just aren’t going to agree. I simply can’t understand how someone could think that reducing government revenue isn’t the point of a tax cut.
Like I said a few days back it really is all just bull crap. Those few recent HR conservatives (at least in some areas) will soon be put in line. They won’t last if they really are serious about somehow changing the way the goons in DC operate.
I pay maximum every year. I have for the last 30 years. I don’t expect to get much of it back. It was never supposed to be a “living wage”. It was supposed to be a supplement for widows to survive another 5 years after loss of a spouse. Better nutrition and medicine skewed the stats. Laying SSDI users who never paid into the program is tanking it. It is a ponzi scheme. They always fail. I’m simply objecting to being fleeced for MORE money than I’m already paying for no expected benefit.
That’ correct. I used the years I did because the argument at hand was “Do tax cuts decrease revenue?” and the answer is, “Of course they do at first but the economy expands the revenues recover”.
My point was that spending HAS to be cut until the revenues recover otherwise we run a deficit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.