Anyone else kinda pissed about this tax increase?

I did a calculator...and this little 2% increase in payroll taxes will cost me about $46 a month...pisses me off that the morons signing a stupid pledge to "Never raise taxes"...are the ones raising mine.

 

It depends what it will be used for. And what we have to give up.

I don't want to be paid $40-60/month if a pipeline is made and lots more pollution is formed.

Now if they use those dollars to keep good government programs like NASA and the National Parks going, I won't miss that money. And it's not like the people and companies supporting those agencies aren't paying workers, who then spend the money, and then those companies spend the money. It is when we buy foreign oil and products, and the foreign countries don't buy enough from us, that we have a problem.

 

I'm not pissed about the tax increase. I'm glad for it, because it exposes the GOP's stance on taxes as just a reflection of their general stance on everything, which is, you know, unless you're rich, fuck off. There's no way in hell John Boehner would risk this type of tax increase if it were on, say, the capital gains tax (which is probably justified, given the role it plays in the flow of capital). The point is that when it comes to taxes, the GOP thinks the middle class can fuck off. They don't have a problem with tax increases. They have a problem on tax increases that affect rich people.

 

Wait...you don't want the pipeline, , but you don't want us buying foreign oil products, but if the "foreign countries don't buy enough from us, that we have a problem".
You don't know for a fact that "lots more pollution is formed" would, indeed, be a fact (but given history, it might be). NASA and the National Parks System don't employ so many that any monies going to them would actually make a dent in this economy, either.
This just gets so old...Instead of really going line by line and cutting stuff like bridges to nowhere and do-nothing agencies, let's tax people more. *sigh*

 

Does it bother you at all, that you and I will pay more, while Bill Gates does not?

 

Gates won't because he (I am guessing) doesn't get a pay check. He learned what to do and is reaping the rewards. Fine. I'd do that too if I could.
From what I am reading, this is not a 2% increase over and above anything taken from us before, it is a return to the 6.2% from last year's 4.2% "stimulus". Supposedly this had put about $1,000 in the "average" family's pockets. Yea, ok...and was there anything we put our money into that decreased in cost during the same time period? I'm guessing again, but my answer would be "nope". And, that 2% "reward" we so enjoyed was covered by Social Security trust funds and if it is not reimplemented, it will continue to draw from those funds. I'm old, I'm poor. I will probably need that Social Security someday. So, what do we do? Same thing we've been doing for decades or centuries-suck it up and stop going to the movies, dinner, etc., until we're once again used to living on less. It's the American way!!

 

The pipeline in question will deliver oil to Texas from oil sands in Alberta. Last time I checked, Canada was still a foreign country. In fact, Canada continues to be the largest oil supplier for the US.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/canadian-oil-sands/kunzig-text

 

need tax cut extension and to build the pipeline imo. that would be best solution for the economy.

 

So you equate our neighbors to the north (I'm thinking NAFTA) with the Middle East? Given my druthers, I'd rather be dealing with Canadians, but that's just me.

 

Ok....so here we go again. Allow me to ask you a question please?

Given the option of allowing those making $50,000 a year to keep an extra $1000, at the expense of those making $1,000,000 a year making up for it....would you think that a good Idea?
--- merged: Dec 22, 2011 2:13 AM ---

Agreed, the environment is already pretty much wasted....and the tar sands will make little difference. The tax cuts however, will likely help economic recovery to continue. With the crap hitting Europe, and instability in the MidEast....we cannot afford to play politics right now.

 

It would be a good idea, Tec, but that's not what's happening here. this time. The 6.2% tax is a return to pre-stimulus rates (stimulus being the 4.2%). Think of it as bringing home a dessert everyone likes each weekend for one year. Then January comes and...no dessert. There will be whining and bitching and a feeling of missing out, then we get used to it. And since this tax shell game was just taking from one thing to cover another, I am ok with them taking it back and leaving the funds alone.

 

Did you bother to make that distinction between the two in your original post? Nope. To me, foreign oil is any oil that doesn't originate in the US. But that's just me.
--- merged: Dec 22, 2011 2:27 AM ---

Eliminate the payroll tax holiday and surcharge the wealthy.

If we can get used, they can as well.

Or, let the Republicans have their way and watch them fall like dominoes come election day.

 

Uhm...you quoted me quoting some else then got on my case for their quote. ...
This is why I hate forums....no one reads EVERYTHING before commenting ...and I am guilty of that as well. Condescension duly noted.

 

The "Point" is, that this small amount of extra income will be far more beneficial to both the economy (generally returned through consumerism), by returning it to the lower income earners who MUST use it to survive comfortably, and to general well being of the populous than it will be by continuing the current tax policy that has been a factor in this unsustainable economic spiral to dirt. According to Nobel Prize-winning economist Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez, the optimal top income tax rate for wealthy earners is about 70 percent, far below today’s top rate of 35 percent. Diamond and Saez argue that the top tax rate should be set at the point where it maximizes revenue, which can then be used to aid lower income Americanst. They also note that “even increasing the average federal income tax rate of the top percentile to 43.5 percent, which would be sufficient to raise revenue by 3 percentage points of GDP, would still leave the after-tax income share of the top percentile more than twice as high as in 1970.”

 

It would be beneficial IF it was not a shell game, but it is. It's not a true tax cut, it's an extension of a stimulus that many feel failed on several layers, especially taking from Social Security trust funds to cover the loss.
It would have been better, perhaps, if the return/increase to 6.2% was gradual but they're not known for compromise in DC lately. I certainly don't want more taken away from us. In this house, we will lose more than $30 a week. I understand the reason why it was stalled, but don't agree with it at all; I am curious as to why it wasn't passed for the 2 month extension then they could have worked out a more permanent deal instead of just saying "2 months isn't enough. We want a year." The Unemployment issue is, for me, a biggy, as I tend to get laid off a couple times a year.
Do I think the rich should pay their "fair share". Of course, but who calls what "fair"? Most of this country's rich got it the old fashioned way-they worked very hard for it then hired great accountants. Fair share to me means close the loopholes that us "regular folk" aren't privy to. And,, I know it means wealth in some states, but here in NJ, $250,000 is middle class, not rich.
Look, we can go back and forth until the next Vernal Equinox, but it won't change the crap going on 4 hours south of here. Lately, all they seem to care about is toeing the party line at all costs and couldn't care less about how it affects us.
And here I was just getting used to eating steak again....oh well, back to chicken parts...

 

Or let the Bush 01 and 03 temporary tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the top bracket expire as was intended and replace with a middle class tax cut. Those tax cuts cost more than $1 trillion and stimulated nothing, yet the Republicans are pushing again to make those tax cuts permanent, at an estimated cost of up to another $2-3 trillion over the next 10 years.

 

The pipeline should have nothing to do with this. Last years 37% to 39 % Bush tax cut for people making over $250,000 a year should be attached to this middle and lower income tax increase. And if both went away and we cut military spending along with other things and could actually come close to balancing the budget, that would be worth giving up the 2% or so.

And yes, Canadian oil is just as bad as Middle Eastern and South American oil. Until there is real progress on using oil more efficiently (like 100mpg cars and trucks), then it might be ok. But all we are doing is feeding people's addiction to wasting oil with no regards for any negative consequences to anybody else.

 

I'm fine paying my fair share via taxes, I'd just rather corporations and the super-wealthy weren't mostly in charge of what we spend it on. My tax dollars should earn me a vote that actually matters as far as what the people I elect actually do after being elected. I shouldn't have to hire a lobbying firm to affect change in Washington. Or Sacramento, for that matter.

More to the root of this, I take issue with politicians and economists still calling for austerity measures, and it's not because they're actually concerned about debt, in fact they know the debate isn't serious. It's a fake. Every few years austerity is trotted out as the solution to all of our problems by so-called fiscal conservatives and is then used to bludgeon the Democrats like a political baseball bat. It's been discussed on TFP at length, that Republicans only care about deficits when there's a Democratic president, and here, again, we see that conclusion verified by evidence. We have to cut vital programs and taxes for the 'job creators' (that never create jobs) because the Democrats ruined the economy when Bush was in office and the Republicans had control of the House and Senate by starting those wars and cutting those taxes they didn't want to do. And it's all President Obama's fault!

 

why frankly my dear, i don't give a damn