Posted on 11/30/2011 1:31:01 AM PST by WilliamIII
For more than a generation, the Republican party has stood for cutting tax rates and opposing increased tax rates. That commitment has, on balance, well served the causes of limited government, economic growth, and conservative political success. (We are not among those who imagine that we would somehow be a freer society if we still had 70 percent tax rates.)
In recent weeks, however, some Republicans have put themselves in the odd position of opposing a cut in tax rates that Democrats are proposing. They risk eroding the party’s traditional advantage on taxes, and for no good reason. Sen. Mitch McConnell, we are happy to note, said yesterday that more and more Republicans are coming around, and he expects the payroll-tax relief to be extended. - - -
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
I like the editorial’s closing paragraph:
The payroll tax reduces both wages and employment. When Democrats propose cutting it, the right response is: That’s a nice start.
The real reason they want to extend the payroll tax is to give cover to Illinois democrats for raising state income tax by 2% last January..
Silly Republicans can’t counter with a income tax cut that would apply for everyone and will lower payroll deductions? Along with illuminating the Democrat intended progressive structure only having a payroll tax cut would impose.
BINGO!
From my understanding the payroll tax only reduces the amount taken out of your paycheck not the amount of federal tax owed. So if you expect a refund you will be surprised.
I hereby degree the words “Payroll Tax” to be illegal. You either say “Social Security Tax” or say nothing at all.
If you are talking about the reduction in the employee withholding rate on SS tax from 6.2% to 4.2% enacted in 2011, no, that difference will not be owed when you file your federal tax return for 2011.
See, that's why I want the words Payroll Tax to be out-of-bounds. Most folks don't realize it is your Social Security "premium," not Federal Income tax withholding that is being discussed.
Shoff is right about the decrease in the withholding schedule not reducing the income tax owed and some folks will get a nasty surprise on April 15th. The "making work pay" credit was put in place to lessen that impact ($400 single / $800 married). I suspect renewing that credit is also part and parcel of the legislation.
The "Payroll Tax" reduction is a direct raid on the Social Security "Trust Fund." Yep, coming straight out of AlGore's lockbox. Lawmakers love it because they can put money back in the pocket of employees and don't have to reduce their spending at all. The 20-somethings should be livid once they realize what it means to them in 10 years. OWS peeps don't have a clue, else they'd descend en masse upon DC.
Someone, I don't recall who, suggested if there is to be a 2% reduction in the Social Security Tax, that it come from the employer side where it will have a direct impact upon employment. What we have now is a Keynesian approach that a modest boost in household income will make the economy recover (or hold off the pitchfork brigade as they deal with the cost increases on their daily bread).
I don't understand your point. It is in fact a "payroll tax", a direct confiscation of wages earned. Ostensibly, these dollars go to a SS fund. That's a lie. Whenever the feds choose to let me keep more of my money, through an income tax reduction or payroll tax reduction, I'll take it.
From the comments there appears to be two parts to the “payroll tax reduction” part of it is your federal income withholding and the other is your SS withholding. I think they have reduced both to make it appear you are doing better. The real question is could you afford a muffler for your Lexus with the extra money? (Thanks to Mr. Daschle for that analogy)
I gather from your post that you are still laboring under the misconception that the “Social Security Trust Fund” is something other than an accounting gimmick used for political purposes. “Lock box” was part of the rhetoric associated with hiding that fact. Whether you call it the Payroll Tax or the Social Security Tax, it’s a tax, not an insurance premium, not a pension contribution, a tax. The money goes into the Federal budget.
Even if you pretend it’s a “premium”, it would be a “premium” “invested” in a Ponzi scheme. Do you really have an objection to not being required to put more money into a Ponzi scheme?
I understand well the Ponzi scheme that is SocSec. The problem here is that a reduction in the "Payroll Tax" is adding generational theft on top of generational theft. A corresponding reduction in most any other tax (and yes, they are ALL taxes) would count as current year spending and present Congress with a challenge as to how to hide the impact.
So let's say we are in violent agreement, it is a Social Security TAX and it is being reduced, bringing forward the day of reckoning that much sooner. But let's be clear, the phrase "Payroll Tax" is purposefully used by Congress to obscure the fact that the money collected goes (ostensibly) to Social Security program. And we have a post on this thread that proves the success of that Congressional sleight-of-hand.
The real reason they want to extend the payroll tax is to give cover to Illinois democrats for raising state income tax by 2% last January..
Oh, that’s interesting. I still want my payroll tax cut. If you want to pay more to the federal government, be my guest.
I'll take the tax break, but won't be surprised if there is a clawback later on..
Economics 101.
I feel like I’m missing something here.
If we keep the tax cut on SS tax:
-It endangers SS benefits (buh-bye commie tax)
-I pay fewer taxes
Why do people oppose this? I can see why Dems would, but . .
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.