Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > Politics

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 11-08-2012, 03:20 PM
icenine's Avatar
icenine icenine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: San Diego via Vermilion Ohio and Points Between
Posts: 11,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigerik View Post
Can't really add a beard tho....

lol I cannot see the image from where I am at the moment...lol
__________________
Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-08-2012, 07:19 PM
flacaltenn's Avatar
flacaltenn flacaltenn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Posts: 1,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657 View Post
The concept of the stimulus as spending only has become such an integral part of the right's narrative, that they consistently ignore any suggestion that it included tax cuts, but decry it as an example of wasteful spending. I am certainly glad that we did not have to live through an economy that had not included the stimulus package.

Regards,

D-Ray
I'm not ignoring the tax cut part -- but the economy did. There were 2 components of tax cuts.

1) The theft of FICA income from Soc Sec at a time when the program was in jeopardy. Now normally a tax cut doesn't CREATE new spending -- but this one did in 2010 as Soc Sec went negative SIX YEARS ahead of schedule. $40Bill came OUT of the Treasury to cover the SS checks.
In these days of global economy -- all handing out $20/month to every worker will do is bring more containers in Long Beach harbor AND bankrupt SS at the same time. It's a happy Robin Hood ending since INCOME TAX paying folks are now getting robbed a 2nd time to cover the money that's NOT in the Trust Fund because of a previous larceny

2) THe deferred fix to the Alt Min Tax. This like so many Congressional managed programs had gone off the rails and nobody wanted to fix it until the opportunity arose in the "stimulus".. THAT was a 10 year expenditure and by DEFINITION not much of a stimulus since the bulk of that is yet to be spent.

Is that too pessimistic?? Wish I could be the optimist. But the problems were GONNA see are worse than a recovery without $700Bill wasted.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-08-2012, 08:41 PM
d-ray657's Avatar
d-ray657 d-ray657 is offline
Loyal Opposition
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,349
The reduction in the payroll taxes did not come until the end of 2010. The tax cuts that were part of the stimulus were just that - a cut in income taxes for the middle class.

As far as the cut in payroll taxes - the government has been considering those funds fungible for years. They are also about a regressive a tax as you can get. Not only are they a flat tax rate, but it is a tax that is no longer collected when folks reach higher income levels. I have no problem with lower income people being the beneficiaries of a tax break during a recession. After all, the lower income people tend to spend a much larger portion of their income, so any tax relief directed to them goes straight into the economy.

Regards,

D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-09-2012, 12:09 PM
flacaltenn's Avatar
flacaltenn flacaltenn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Posts: 1,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657 View Post
The reduction in the payroll taxes did not come until the end of 2010. The tax cuts that were part of the stimulus were just that - a cut in income taxes for the middle class.

As far as the cut in payroll taxes - the government has been considering those funds fungible for years. They are also about a regressive a tax as you can get. Not only are they a flat tax rate, but it is a tax that is no longer collected when folks reach higher income levels. I have no problem with lower income people being the beneficiaries of a tax break during a recession. After all, the lower income people tend to spend a much larger portion of their income, so any tax relief directed to them goes straight into the economy.

Regards,

D-Ray
Except that Soc Sec was always a UNIVERSAL self-funding program.. They are NOT fungible. If you MAKE them fungible -- the program becomes welfare. There is already a disparity of 10 to 1 between what folks pay into the program. LET'S JUST CALL IT WELFARE then and means test the crap out of it. What does UNIVERSAL mean to you lefties anyway? Does it mean that only 1/2 see any benefit in the program?

If a private insurance company promulgated the fantasty tales about a Trust Fund and that they were flush with cash til 2033 (when they are broke and running a deficit) like the SSA does -- you'd be SCREAMING to incarcerate the lot of them..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-09-2012, 01:34 PM
merrylander's Avatar
merrylander merrylander is offline
Resident octogenarian
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 20,860
Why means test it, you simply take it back in taxes for those who don't need it. In fact because they insisted that I take it at 65 they took back more than they were paying me because I worked up until 73 with a six figure income.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:21 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.