Inside Obama's Twitter Blitz On the Payroll Tax

Hugh Pickens writes "Brandon Rittiman reports that White House officials launched a Twitter campaign Tuesday to put pressure on Congress to reach a deal extending the payroll-tax cut. Using the Twitter hashtag #40dollars, the White House successfully got thousands of people to respond and explain what a $40 cut to each paycheck would mean to them personally. By Wednesday morning, the #40dollars hashtag started 'trending,' which is what happens when Twitter's algorithms see a topic suddenly surge. It's not easy to create that kind of surge, but the White House has 2.5 million Twitter followers to call upon. Macon Phillips, the President's Director of Digital Strategy, says his team has managed to get a few Twitter topics to rise to the level of 'trending' before — most notably when they began tweeting about the death of Osama bin Laden. 'What's very important about a social-media campaign like this is that regular people are making the point about how this would affect them. It's not us here in Washington trying to argue on their behalf.' says Phillips. 'The #40dollars campaign puts a face on that amount to demonstrate the payroll tax cut's real-world impact on middle-class families.'"

Comments

But

[0123456]

I thought tax cuts are evil and stuff?

Re:But

[Timewasted]

Well that depends: who are the tax cuts for? If they are for the poor, then of course it is evil. If they are for the rich, then it will spur job growth and our economy -- at least, this is what FOX would like us to believe...

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that depends: who are the tax cuts for? If they are for the poor, then of course it is evil. If they are for the rich, then it will spur job growth and our economy -- at least, this is what FOX would like us to believe...

Uh. Normally it's the Democrats saying tax cuts are evil. The GOP is all for tax cuts, of any size, for any group, even when operating at a deficit (They'll clean that up later, with handwaving and "economic stimulation", which I'm convinced is code for their 'escorts' to meet them that night).

If you're going to grossly caricaturize the two groups and their moronic 'ideals', at least get them plausible.

Re:But

[Kenja]

The republicans are only for the tax cuts the democrats are against. So its not so much that they are pro-tax cut but that they are anti-democrat.

Re:But

[Galestar]

But... I thought only Republicans cut taxes! Dems just want to tax tax tax amirite?

Re:But

[Osgeld]

As a fairly regular FOX radio news listener (know thy enemy and all that rot) I can assure you that this IS the tripe they spit out on a daily basis ... which is what the parent post stated, not REP vs DEM's.

If nothing else its the more vocal nutters from the TP that are harping every single day that things like extending unemployment during a very high period of unemployment is a terrible thing to do as it encourages dependence, but giving tax breaks to people / companies that already exploit every single loophole in loopholes is a 100% sure fire way to grow the economy.

I am personally somewhere in the middle, yes people do not need to be accustom to a handout, but giving megacorp a break is just going to help Brazil, India and China cause at the end of the day their only goal is to squeeze every single ounce of profit that they possibly can by any means necessary.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Unemployment is not a tax break, so... that doesn't factor into "Republicans think tax cuts for the poor are evil" at all. So. Um...

Re:But

[jmac_the_man]

The Republicans (and apparently the President) wanted the tax holiday extended all year. The Democrats talked them down to two months.

Re:But

[similar_name]

The Republicans wanted to tie pipeline subsidies to the year long tax holiday. To suggest that it was just a matter of 2 months versus 12 months is disingenuous

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this modded troll? This is actually what Fox preaches - its Reaganomics 101.

Posting as AC for obvious reasons.

Re:But

[artor3]

No Democrat has ever claimed that all tax cuts are evil. That's just a flagrant lie. By contrast, the Republicans do claim that taxes are always bad and should only ever go down. So why are they set against this one?

Answer: They're not. They're just taking hostages, again. Just as when they secured the extension of the Bush tax cuts on the rich by threatening to cut off unemployment benefits around this time last year. Or when they forced cuts to discretionary spending by threatening to force the country into default. This time they're trying to secure a new oil pipeline, and probably other concessions, by threatening to raise taxes on the middle class.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the Democrats are anti-Republican? Maybe this kind of two party nonsense has taken our eyes off the ball and let the man on the street get fucked left right up and down?
 
Think about it.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

In reality they're aren't so much 'Anti-American' as they are 'Anti-Democrat', but it may seem that way.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

What are tax cuts for the poor? The poor usually have no federal tax liability. You mean the rest of us should "refund" them money that they never paid?

Re:But

[jmac_the_man]

Well, Mr. Ingenuous, the pipeline thing would require an up-or-down ruling on the Keystone Pipeline. (Obama's EPA is holding it up because it makes environmentalists mad despite being a good idea.) The Republican bill doesn't even require them to approve it. Calling that provision a subsidy (e.g., the owners of the pipeline getting some kind of monetary payment from the government) isn't ingenuous at all.

Re:But

[jellomizer]

They are only Evil when the other side proposes it.

These are extending those Bush Tax Cuts, in which the Democrats heavily opposed to... However as we approach an election year and their #1 man needs to get reelected having him raise taxes will make him look bad.

So they change the verbiage around to make it fit their party better. So except for a way stimulate the economy it is helping the middle class.

Re:But

[ninetyninebottles]

The Republicans (and apparently the President) wanted the tax holiday extended all year. The Democrats talked them down to two months.

You should really pay more attention. The Democrats presented a plan to extend the payroll cut for a year and keep medicare payouts at the same level. The Republicans presented a plan to extend the payroll cut for a year while at the same time guaranteeing the oil companies can build a pipeline from Alaska to the Gulf through protected wildlife refuges. Both groups compromised on extending it for two months (with some republicans trying to stall it) in order that they might argue more about which additional things should be added. Mostly, the Democrats have been trying to pass the cuts while the Republicans are refusing until they get the oil company benefits they promised lobbyists.

Claims that it is the Democrats that are preventing the passage of these tax cuts on a longer time frame is either disingenuous or reflects a twisted perception of reality. Stop watching Fox "News".

Re:But

[burning-toast]

Unfortunately they (house republicans) also wanted to trim 200,000+ jobs from the public sector, reduce unemployment benefits, and a bunch of other such nonsense. This being the first tax break they chose to harp about how we are going to pay for it after all. There are a lot more details to the house bill for 12 months which you seem to have excluded from the account.

We can always start with the fact that the bush tax cuts are passed through without payment for them, but when it comes time to renew the tax "holiday", then by god we must pay for this somehow!!!

And you can't say that this has anything to do with the pipeline in the first place. Both the democrats and the president agreed to that stipulation in both existing forms of the bills (2 and 12 month) so your point is moot on that.

- Toast

Re:But

[jmac_the_man]

guaranteeing

Lie: The Republican proposal guaranteed a RULING up or down within 90 days, but did not guarantee approval.

the oil companies can build a pipeline from Alaska

Lie: The Northern end of the pipeline is in Canada.

to the Gulf

Half-lie: The pipeline goes to endpoints in Illinois, Oklahoma, and the eastern coast of Texas. Though the eastern coast of Texas borders the Gulf of Mexico, the pipeline is obviously not dumping oil directly into the Gulf. But thanks for trying to tie a land pipeline to oceanic oil spills.

through protected wildlife refuges

Lie: TransCanada already rerouted the pipeline around the refuges in question.

Amazing lie density. I'm impressed.

Re:But

[similar_name]

Then I'll admit to being misinformed, but your statement

The Republicans (and apparently the President) wanted the tax holiday extended all year. The Democrats talked them down to two months.

is still disingenuous (especially given that you apparently knew the specifics with witch you responded to me).

Re:But

[jmac_the_man]

It's not though. It doesn't matter. Whenever the President/EPA has to make this decision, they will rule IN FAVOR of the pipeline, because denying it is a bad idea. From an economic perspective, the pipeline will absolutely create jobs here in America. From an environmental perspective, the Canadians are going to pump these tar sands and either transport it via land based pipeline to us or via oil tanker ship to China. EVERY land pipeline is safer than ANY oil tanker operation. The pipeline is the better option environmentally, too.

Obama wants to not get the union workers that would be working on this angry, but he wants to not make the environmentalists angry either. He's caught between two angry groups of his constituents, so his idea is to put off the decision until after the environmentalists and unions vote for him. The issue is that if the delay is too long, TransCanada is going to start selling the oil to the Chinese and build up that infrastructure to the point where the pipeline isn't worth it.

Saying Obama is AGAINST the pipeline is wrong. (He presumably wants a better economy and a safer ocean, right?) He's just against making the decision until it can't hurt him politically. Because that's the wrong decision, the Republicans were trying to get him to do the right thing, which is what he was going to do anyway.

Re:But

[porges]

In case it really has to be said yet again: the poor often have no federal income tax liability, but if they are working poor, they still have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, which are deducted from one's paycheck, which is why they're called payroll taxes. These taxes are deducible from gross income, but you don't get the taxes themselves back on April 15th. And it was these taxes that the current tax cut is about.

Re:But

[ShavedOrangutan]

Please, people, stop calling it things like "Extending a Tax Cut". Taxes either go UP or they go DOWN. What was going to happen was an automatic TAX INCREASE. Any other label is just sugar coating.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

The purpose of your sarcasm is unclear. Are you saying you are against it because Obama is for it, or are you saying you reject the idea that nuanced positions exist?

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that depends: who are the tax cuts for? If they are for the poor, then of course it is evil. If they are for the rich, then it will spur job growth and our economy -- at least, this is what FOX would like us to believe...

How do you cut the taxes on the poor, WHEN THEY DO NOT PAY A FUCKING CENT OF TAX?!? Should we start giving them money? Wait, we already do that too, you dumb shit.

Justify the FACT that less than 1% of Americans pay more than 50% of all tax revenue, somehow? There comes a point when you just cant spew any more collectivist self-guilt drivel.

Re:But

[butalearner]

Actually they are "for" the tax cut as long as they can tack on entirely unrelated riders like forcing Obama to make a decision on the oil pipeline. That's the reason they didn't extend it for a year in the first place. What is hilarious to me is that Republican Presidential candidates like to point out Obama's "failed policies" when their colleagues have bastardized them at every turn.

Re:But

[similar_name]

I already said I was misinformed about the pipeline so I'm not sure what your convincing me of here. The point is, it wasn't just a matter of Republicans wanted a 12 month tax holiday and the Democrats only wanted a 2 month tax holiday.

Whether it's because Republicans wanted to make the President make the decision on the pipeline now instead of later, or whether it was how the tax holiday is paid for (as another poster suggested), it still wasn't 'Democrats talked them down to two months' as you posted. Considering that wasn't the issue and how much you know about what the real issue was, just makes your original post dishonest. I admitted where I was wrong on my part.

Re:But

[mjtaylor24601]

How do you cut the taxes on the poor, WHEN THEY DO NOT PAY A FUCKING CENT OF TAX?!?

I suppose that depends on how you define "poor". There are lots of people that aren't exactly "rich" that sill pay taxes.

Justify the FACT that less than 1% of Americans pay more than 50% of all tax revenue, somehow?

Well according to wikipedia the top 1% make 42.7% of the income. So if you accept the premise that we should place a heavier tax burden on people that are more able to afford it (rather than say taxing everyone equally, or taxing people based on how much the government spends directly on their interests) then it would make sense that the people that make half the money pay half the taxes.

If you don't accept that premise then there probably is no way to justify the current state of affairs.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

but giving megacorp a break is just going to help Brazil, India and China

Question: why is this morally inferior to helping America? Isn't it better to help people who are living on $1 a day than those who, despite their status within the US, are actually doing quite well by global standards?

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Question: why is it morally superior to throw the people around you that you see under the bus for the sake of anonymous entities on the other side of the world?

Re:But

[operagost]

What's the point of this stupid straw man, again? How about a real solution: if the Democrats really want to keep SS funded while making sure the payroll tax is "fair", they can remove the $106,000 income cap. Reducing the employee contribution has done nothing for unemployment, because the employer contribution is still the same, and this discourages hiring. And unemployment is the real problem right now. A payroll tax cut is meaningless when you're not working.

Re:But

[operagost]

But they don't make half the income; they make 42.7%. The bottom 20% pay nothing. The bottom 50% pay under 3%. By the way, the top 50% also pay in each of the lower brackets, so when the left talks about cutting taxes for "the poor", they're cutting it for the middle class and rich, too.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

That is total BS. The Democrats offered them a year long extension, but the Reps insisted on budget cuts to pay for it and refused to even consider a minor tax increase on the wealthiest Americans to pay for it. The Reps then offered the pipeline deal to sweeten it for their members, and they then negotiated down to a two-month increase.

This notion that they think 2 months is too short is manufactured reality for people who only digest Fox News. It's complete BS.

Re:But

[gtbritishskull]

Almost all economists agree that getting money to poorer people helps stimulate the economy the best. The reason is that rich people will just save the money and it will not do much stimulating. Poorer people will buy products that they need and it will stimulate the economy. 70% of our GDP comes from consumer spending. If people buy more products, then companies will hire more people to make more products. Hence, unemployment decreases.

Re:But

[operagost]

Please stop parroting Krugman. "Almost all economists" do NOT agree, because they would be ignoring the scientific data. "Poor" people don't have much money, so if they spend most of what they have it just keeps them poor. A small percentage of a rich person's wealth can buy many things. Rich people do save a lot of money-- and we all should be saving something!

Re:But

[gtbritishskull]

Your response makes no sense. I am talking about return on tax dollars invested. I agree with you that poor people don't save much while rich people do. I save quite a bit. It is a good thing to do if you can afford to do it. But, if you are giving a tax cut of $1bn (for example), then it is more effective to give it to the poor and lower middle class than it is to give it to the rich because the rich will save more of it while the poor cannot afford to save it. So, a tax cut to the poor of $1bn would most likely increase consumer spending by almost $1bn (because they cannot afford not to spend it) while a tax cut of $1bn to the rich would increase consumer spending by a much lower amount (because they can afford to save a lot of it). And since the biggest reason for high unemployment right now is low demand for products, anything you do to increase consumer spending (ie consumers buying products) will help employment because companies will have to hire more people to make more products.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

This stop gap type of spending doesn't mean shit if 90% of that money goes overseas. The overall economic situation will do little to improve without massive US innovation and manufacturing to back it up.

Re:But

[Sri Ramkrishna]

The bottom 20% however do contribute to the economy. As long as they are contributing to economy my tax dollars are being used for a useful purpose. If some of those people turn around and manage to make more money and learn to save and what not then my tax dollars are again worth it. When I check out of this world, I hope that my donations to my country goes helps does in need. Now, there are instances of course of abuse, and well guess what, everybody abuses the system. They'll pay one way or another.

Re:But

[toadlife]

"Almost all economists" do NOT agree,

Yes, they do. You continuing to lie about that fact won't change it.

Re:But

[mjtaylor24601]

But they don't make half the income; they make 42.7%.

So? Would it make you feel better if instead of paying half the taxes (and I don't know that half is correct, I was just going by what the grandparent said) they only paid 42.7% of the taxes? Would that really make any difference ideologically speaking?

The bottom 20% pay nothing. The bottom 50% pay under 3%

Again so what? The bottom 80% also make 7% of the income (again according to that wikipedia page, which for all I know is inaccurate). It still sounds to me like the numbers are in the ballpark. And even if they're not, if one is going to make the moral argument that people that are better able to afford it should pay more, then you also need to consider that the marginal utility of each extra dollar you take home drops off rather sharply after a certain point. That plays a big part in what "being able to afford it" means.

By the way, the top 50% also pay in each of the lower brackets, so when the left talks about cutting taxes for "the poor", they're cutting it for the middle class and rich, too.

True but potentially a little disingenuous depending on the context. The very rich are going to be paying a vanishingly small percentage of their total tax burden in the bottom couple of brackets.

Re:But

[CrimsonAvenger]

These taxes are deducible from gross income, but you don't get the taxes themselves back on April 15th. And it was these taxes that the current tax cut is about.

It should be noted that we have something called an "Earned Income Credit" that allows a partial (if not complete) refund of your payroll taxes, if your income is low enough.

So, yes, many people do get this back on April 15th...

Re:But

[jmactacular]

Close... if they are for someone else, other than me or my family, they are evil. If they are for me, better not take them away!

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree... Everyone in Brazil, India, and China should get to participate in America's welfare system. And the rich in those countries can start paying taxes to the US treasury indefinitely into the future, so we can give the money to Africa and other poor countries.

What? You don't agree with the last part?! Because that would be imperialism? The money should only go one way you say?!

Re:But

[Osgeld]

I never said its morally inferior to helping America, but America really should be helping Americans first. As an American who is scraping up pennies to pay rent and having to make long term budgets in order to buy toilet paper why should I feel guilty that I would rather see my tax dollars helping me out over helping a billionaire exploit labor in China just so they can bring their junk back to America and fuck me over with a 1000x price increase?

Re:But

[ninetyninebottles]

Please, people, stop calling it things like "Extending a Tax Cut".

Why? It extends a bill that created a short term cut in taxes. If such a bill is not passed taxes return to the "normal" level. How is "extending a tax cut" any more or less palatable than language describing a tax increase or decrease? I guess I don't even understand your objection to the terminology.

Re:But

[ninetyninebottles]

guaranteeing

Lie: The Republican proposal guaranteed a RULING up or down within 90 days, but did not guarantee approval.

True enough, it just forces a decision on the proposal in a very short timeframe and before the EPA study of probable effects will be finished.

the oil companies can build a pipeline from Alaska

Lie: The Northern end of the pipeline is in Canada.

Umm, I guess you're right it is from Alberta not Alaska, although that seems worse in my opinion not better. We're now risking our protected wildlife area in order to process foreign oil, not even Alaskan?

to the Gulf

Half-lie: The pipeline goes to endpoints in Illinois, Oklahoma, and the eastern coast of Texas. Though the eastern coast of Texas borders the Gulf of Mexico, the pipeline is obviously not dumping oil directly into the Gulf. But thanks for trying to tie a land pipeline to oceanic oil spills.

The pipeline goes to the refineries along the gulf coast for easy transport. Who said anything about oil spills or dumping? Sounds like a truly pathetic strawman to me.

through protected wildlife refuges

Lie: TransCanada already rerouted the pipeline around the refuges in question.

They've proposed several routes, but are trying to push it through before any environment impact studies in the new areas can be researched or evaluated.

Amazing lie density. I'm impressed.

You have some serious problems man. Get help.

Re:But

[magarity]

As a fairly regular FOX radio news listener (know thy enemy and all that rot) I can assure you that this IS the tripe they spit out on a daily basis

Are you sure you're listening to Fox news? It sounds like you're listening to one of the commentary shows on the Fox network. Their news programs don't usually spit any tripe one way or another.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that it was designed to expire because permanently cutting payroll taxes makes SS bankruptcy that much earlier.

Re:But

[Osgeld]

well they proudly proclaim "Fox News, Fair and Balanced" on the top of every hour and not "Fox network commentary"

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Only evil when it takes money away from government, not when it takes the money from social security (basically your taking your money now instead of when you retire).

I thought taking money from social security was evil.

Personally I don't care, since it will not exist when I retire.

Re:But

[blackraven14250]

It actually has a more right wing spin when phrased as a "Automatic tax increase", given their position on tax increases. ""Extending a tax cut" is pretty well a middle term to me. I don't think there's a truly left-leaning way of phrasing it, but someone could prove me wrong.

Re:But

[khallow]

Umm, I guess you're right it is from Alberta not Alaska, although that seems worse in my opinion not better. We're now risking our protected wildlife area in order to process foreign oil, not even Alaskan?

You're pulling the "foreign oil" canard over Canadian natural gas? That's remarkably stupid even by internet standards.

As to the stuff about EPA roadblocks called "environmental impact studies"? I have a solution: defund that part of the EPA.

Re:But

[SimpleFacts]

Interesting. Do you make a product or do you work for someone? If you make a product, do you give it away? Do you charge "just enough" to cover what it costs to make that product and a penny or two or do you price your product at what the market will bear? If you own a company, do you give your profits to random people, who have less than you? Do you for go profits and invest all of the money you earned by someone else's labor in social programs for inner city drop outs who were too smart to go to the man's school? Do you stay in one place for your adult, working life or do you move to find a better location where you make more money, have less taxes and a community more to your liking? But aren't those the same things you would deny a corporation - which is nothing but a conglomeration of individuals who seek a common goal? I submit that you seek a utopian world without bothering to ponder either the unintended consequences or your actions or the end result. You simply blame those who succeeded where you haven't, whether by luck or skill.

Re:But

[Osgeld]

do I make a product for 49$ exploiting child and slave like labor to import it back to the US with a 599$ price tag

I have no problem with profit, I have a problem of being raped, pillaged and extorted

Re:But

[liquidsin]

as a canadian, i feel it necessary to interject on this whole pipeline-is-a-good-idea theme. with estimates that by 2020, greenhouse emissions from the oilsands alone would exceed combined emissions of all passenger vehicles on canadian roads, and the damage being done to the surrounding land and fresh water supplies, i find it really difficult to label the pipeline as "a good idea" simply because the whole oilsands project is still a colossally bad idea.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that the rich save it. It is that the rich travel and spend in other countries. There is a multiplier that expresses the amount of activity. This multiplier is different for the rich and poor. The velocity of money, that is the frequency of transactions of money spent by the poor is much higher. The rich aren't saving it, they just spend in less frantic fashion and the things they spend on have slower responses. Think high end car restocking rates versus grocery store restocking rates. Twenty bucks changing hands ten times a year is 200 bucks added to the GDP. Twenty bucks changing hands twice a year is 40 bucks added.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

How about Florida, when they raised minimum wage the poor had more money to spend and to save, and they did spend it, and they did save it, and Florida prospered in 2004 more than the rest of the US?

Social Media: Removing Money from Politics

[Timewasted]

It is great to see Twitter used for people to have their voice heard! I have more respect for politicians when they take the time to listen to the people rather than corporate lobbies. Having the Twitter trending algorithm manage our political agenda is a scary thought, however.

Re:Social Media: Removing Money from Politics

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Especially when it's being used by politicians to manipulate people who don't actually have a broader understandimg of the issues at hand. Yep, great to see.

Re:Social Media: Removing Money from Politics

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Yeah, you're right. There's layers between politicians and their constituents for a reason! We can't just have the peanut gallery talking directly to the people that change their lives, that's just ridiculous and besides, their poor wittle minds are unable to cope with such powerfully-trained bullshit artists, so they'd soon find themselves swaying under their spell instead of asking for what they want anyway!

What we need is controls and regulations between the politicians and people. So that the politicians have the time to talk directly to the lobbyists, about removing the controls and regulations on the lobbyists, politicians, and businesses, who are people too, dammit!

Re:Social Media: Removing Money from Politics

[Timewasted]

Like I said, its better than corporations manipulating politicians. I'd rather have the masses manipulated than the powerful few -- at least then, we can stop blaming politicians and start blaming each other -- a necessary step to move forward in this country!

*yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

The disagreement was never over the payroll tax holiday. The disagreement was over how to pay for it. The President's initial proposal was to pay for it with the millionaire's surtax, which he knew that Republicans opposed before he proposed it.

For Democrats who are pretending to not understand, this would be the equivalent of the Republicans proposing to pay for it by slashing Obama Care, and then accusing the President of being against the payroll tax holiday when he came out against the legislation.

For some reason, the media has used this as a huge opportunity to bash Republicans. Want to know why Republicans don't want to extend the tax holiday for two months? They don't want to go through the same media circus again in two months.

The bias of our media is pathetic. The stupidity of our population is tragic. The fate of our people is obvious. Next year we elect the last President of the United States. We face serious problems in the next five years, and the media has successfully kept anyone remotely competent out of the race.

This is going to be hilarious.

Re:*yawn*

[sandytaru]

The thing is, it's only Republican legislaters that are so darn against the millionaire's surtax. The majority of Americans are okay with it, and a great deal of millionaires are also okay with it. The only people fighting it tooth and nail are those who kissed the ring of Grover Norquist, and those whose districts are held hostage by the Tea Party. Oh, and delisional Tea Partiers who are retired or unemployed yet somehow believe they'll be making a million bucks a year ANY DAY NOW.

Re:*yawn*

[HBI]

Until they start losing their jobs due to the surtax.

You didn't think that anyone was going to modify their standard of living as a result of tax policy, did you?

Re:*yawn*

[Dan667]

the bias in the media favoring the rich is pathetic. It eclipsed any brief sanity in the payroll tax holiday.

Re:*yawn*

[AJH16]

Yeah, as much as I hate how biased Fox news is, CNN surprised me with something I happened to catch when I was in the grocery store and happened to see it on. They were talking to one of the Republican presidential hopefuls about what his view on the whole thing was and he was answering quite well I thought (in terms of explaining his view) that he didn't want to gut the money from elsewhere and that he thought that there needed to be some way to fund the tax cut and was being pretty clear that while he didn't like the idea of allowing it to expire he wasn't seeing an alternative that he thought would work, but the anchor would not let go of trying to ask him if he was in favor of raising taxes even though he was already being pretty direct at stating his view. The CNN anchor was clearly trying to corner him in to having to say something unpopular as opposed to having a dialog and talking about the issues it would cause. It was politics not news and appeared very clearly biased to me.

Re:*yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

I realize it hurts, but the majority of taxes are covered by the rich.

Re:*yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is at it should be, as the rich make most of the money.

Re:*yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

Are there really people out there that decide whether to hire or fire based on their personal income tax?

If a business is set up to make money to begin with, seems like it'd make more sense to base hiring and layoff decisions around meeting demand. And it would logically follow that policies that increase demand will benefit "job creators" more, unless their taxes are so severe (like, say, 100%+) that meeting increased demand costs them money.

People who make all their income from investments might not like it very much, but by the same token, how many of them hire and fire or base their investment decisions on their personal tax rate?

Re:*yawn*

[Brian_Ellenberger]

The thing is, it's only Republican legislaters that are so darn against the millionaire's surtax.

Actually, the money is coming out of Social Security not the general budget. The argument for SS is that it is a government managed retirement fund and that what you get out is based on what you put in. Receiving SS benefits is equivalent to a 401k or pension in that you get what you earned.

Making millionaires contribute to SS is changing the meaning of what it is, from something I earned to getting other peoples' money. This actually makes it less secure because it takes away the moral aspect of receiving SS benefits. It goes from something I earned to wanting other peoples' money. Which makes it easier for politicians to cut benefits in the future.

Re:*yawn*

[NeutronCowboy]

Here's the thing: at this point, I don't really care anymore what Republicans say. They pretty much lost me for the foreseeable future with their stance on the tax holiday.

Note: I'm pretty fiscally conservative. In my own finances, I only spend money I have, plan for the future with a significant rainy day fund, and consider whether the purchase I'm about to make is a need vs a want, and what its ROI is. I expect my government to work with the same principles. In theory, this should align nicely with the republican platform of small budgets and low taxes.

But this latest position of the republicans is just laughable. Tax cuts for the rich are a great way to restart the economy, but tax cuts for middle class families is just a failed stimulus package? Cutting revenue when instituting tax cuts for the rich is fine, but tax cuts for the middle class need to be balanced by more taxes on the middle-class elsewhere? The entire republican party seems to be intent on opposing Obama so blindly that they're willing to sacrifice their own talking points. Not only that, but they're even failing their own platform by their mindless opposition. They're digging their own grave, and it's gonna be hard climb out.

As for your other points...

The bias of our media is pathetic.

The media have no bias. They are corporations, interested only in their own profit. As a result, the only bias you see is the bias that helps them sell their media.

The stupidity of our population is tragic.

Of course, this comes with the unspoken idea "If people would only listen to me..." I might be part of the tragic population, but at least I know that the problem we're facing is difficult with no easy solution. It's not stupidity that's the problem, it's that there is a very large set of competing priorities battling for limited resources in a system prone to adversarialism, designed for slowness and that is being gamed by individuals and groups with lots of money. the solution to our problem is neither political nor bureaucratic. It will have to be personal, which is much more difficult. The first two can be solved by a top-down approach. The third can only solved botttom-up.

Next year we elect the last President of the United States.

We face serious problems in the next five years, and the media has successfully kept anyone remotely competent out of the race.

Bullshit. This is the lament of the deluded and the pussies. The rabid conservative wing has successfully kept anyone competent out of the GOP primary. If the hard-core conservatives want to win the Presidency, they need to stop annoying the majority of Americans and piss off a rather significant minority.

Re:*yawn*

[DeadDecoy]

You're making the invalid assumption that millionaires create jobs. We've already seen how well that works out with the Bush cuts: a widening disparity between the super-rich and other classes. Millionaires and above really participate in creative job destruction. For example, they can efficiently assign an analysis to do the work of 10 data crunchers. One could view this as creating 1 job or destroying 9. A smaller business might not achieve the same efficiencies and higher more people. I'm not saying there is a moral right or wrong to either situation. Just that translating tax dollars to jobs misses some of the more interesting and complex nuances in how jobs are actually created and by who.

Re:*yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, it's only Republican legislaters that are so darn against the millionaire's surtax. The majority of Americans are okay with it, and a great deal of millionaires are also okay with it. The only people fighting it tooth and nail are those who kissed the ring of Grover Norquist, and those whose districts are held hostage by the Tea Party. Oh, and delisional Tea Partiers who are retired or unemployed yet somehow believe they'll be making a million bucks a year ANY DAY NOW.

No...not everyone is for the millionaire surtax. I am not a millionaire nor will I ever be one because I can say honestly I don't want to work that hard (I wish more people would be honest about this). I am very much content with my current financial position. I will better myself within my current professorial position, but it has hard limits on how much I can earn. However, it is immoral to think that someone should pay more in taxes solely because they have more money. Government is a service to the people which at its core is to protect their liberty and god given rights (at least in the US). None of my wages belong to the government, they are mine and mine alone...I pay taxes because I support it's fundamental purpose. The idea that the government should take more from the wealthy so those with less can pay less taxes is counter to the principles that the US was founded because then the government is no longer protecting the peoples god given right to life, liberty, and 'their' purist of happeniess. The government is literally setting limits on how much 'happeniess' anyone one person may obtain.

Re:*yawn*

[emeraldd]

It might be worth noting that for some businesses, partnerships, sole proprietorships and, some LLCs, personal income taxes of the owners include the business profits. While I'm not sure on the millionaire surtax specifically, anything that could significantly impact a business owners personal tax rate could significantly impact the businesses cash flow. I can definitely see some one making decisions based on that.

Re:*yawn*

[spiffmastercow]

Oh, and delisional Tea Partiers who are retired or unemployed yet somehow believe they'll be making a million bucks a year ANY DAY NOW.

Or they're ACTUALLY FUCKING HUMAN and can empathize with people other than themselves.

I understand that for the rationalist liberal, taxing the most out of every tax bracket you're not in is clearly the "right thing to do" but some of us who have FUCKING HEARTS can understand that, just because it might not hurt you personally, it still hurts others and has other consequences.

So you're right, rationally, it doesn't matter to retired people if other people start losing their jobs as investors stop investing as there's no point since they lose everything in taxes. Except when their 401k becomes worthless and social security fails because you've destroyed the economy through taxes.

No, wait, maybe there IS rationality to the Tea Party position, and you're just a vindictive asshole.

Yes, it's very compassionate to let people starve to death or die of treatable illnesses in order to allow a few rich people to sit on slightly larger piles of cash.

Re:*yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just Republicans. Do you really think Obama can save this country?

lol.

Our number one problem is that we are spending ourselves into bankruptcy. Obama won't even acknowledge this until it is far too late.

And that's just problem #1.

Problem #2
What do you think are the chances of a major war in the middle east in the next ten years? My guess is 80%. Without a strong US President, there will be World War III.

Obama is not the guy.

I could keep listing problems, but these two are enough to completely annihilate the US and most of the world.

Go read the National Review. The looters have already taken over in California. The rest of the country is heading in the same direction.

We don't need a good President. We need a fucking Abraham Lincoln.

And I don't see one anywhere.

Re:*yawn*

[jon3k]

Of course the majority of Americans are OK with it - it doesn't apply to them. Now let's define what "a great deal of millionaires is" (25%? 50%?) and now you show me a poll that backs up that statement.

Re:*yawn*

[nomadic]

Social security was never meant to be like a 401(k); it was meant as a combination retirement plan/insurance plan. That's why you can get SS benefits well before retirement in certain circumstances, in which case you are almost inevitably getting a lot more out than you paid in.

Re:*yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

With what is in place now an Abraham Lincoln would struggle to get any visibility.

Re:*yawn*

[HBI]

This is not absolutely true. You assume, for instance, that people who have over $1mil of personal wealth are necessarily wise in all areas. I know a certain guy who runs a multi-million dollar defense contractor who keeps $2mil in his non-interest bearing petty cash account.

That is anecdotal, but i'm just saying...you assume too much.

Re:*yawn*

[Algae_94]

Yes, in those situations the business profits are included in the owners personal taxes.

If a business is making profits, and there is enough demand for their product or service, why wouldn't they hire another person? Presumable a new hire will be able to take on enough responsibility to make the company enough new cash flow to pay for themself. If that is not the case, and a new hire would cost money, I don't think they'd have a good chance of being hired even if taxes were at 0%.

Re:*yawn*

[jon3k]

And pay a disproportionally large amount of tax. First they fall into the highest tax bracket of 35% then pay AMT on top of that, plus capital gains on anything else.

Re:*yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's very compassionate to let people starve to death or die of treatable illnesses in order to allow a few rich people to sit on slightly larger piles of cash.

Man, if only there were charities that helped with those issues, instead of forcing people to give up money they earned at gunpoint.

Wait, there ARE?! And they're predominantly supported by the millionaires you want to tax out of existence? And that charitable giving is almost entirely done by conservatives and NOT liberals?!

Wow, it's almost as if it's the LIBERALS who want people to starve to death and not the other way around! Wait, it's EXACTLY that way!

There are charities that will help starving people and treat people who are truly in need. Sure, they might not cover the welfare queen who needs the hospital to prescribe powerful antibiotics to "cure" her kid's cold, but - wait, why the hell do you want to do that in the first place?!!

Re:*yawn*

[Paul Pierce]

The problem with the millionaire's surtax is your talking about a band-aid at best. The rich already pay the vast amount of taxes in this country. According to CNN 48% of people don't even pay federal taxes anymore. Even ignoring that - history shows the government will take in ~18% of GDP at the end of the day; no matter what they tax who. Think about how important that is - even if they tax the rich 85% - they'll still get the same amount at the end of the day. There are lots of reasons for that magic number - but some of it comes down to how much of their own money people want to keep at the end of the day. The more they are taxed the more they will hide, or they will make less. Would you work for 30 cents on the dollar - perhaps - but as hard as you'd work for 80?

The government really does have a spending problem only. Revenue is quite static; however the big trouble they got themselves into is their deficit spending. GDP is C + I + G +-exports basically. G (government spending) is a huge part of GDP, but government overspending is roughly 12% of our GDP. Think about that - 'fake demand' is really all it is.

If the government spends what they take in next year (which they should) our GDP will shrink 12% automatically. No one wants that - because that cycle gets worse - revenue goes down the year after and now they have to spend even less, etc...

Option 2 is what the President, most dems, and many repubs want - 'kick the can'. Now some are smart enough to know that only makes the inevitable worse. Some probably really do believe we can borrow more and more - even though to even stay at our current state we have to borrow 'exponentially' more every year. Run that through your head - to sustain our current economic situation (which isn't that good) we have to borrow at record rates - to the point where in 10 years we'll have to borrow as much as our entire country produces in one year - just to keep where we are.

Bottom line - we take the hit now and ride through it - or we ride it out until it collapses entirely.

Re:*yawn*

[Mitreya]

Oh, and delisional Tea Partiers who are retired or unemployed yet somehow believe they'll be making a million bucks a year ANY DAY NOW.

I think you forgot to mention one more detail that is important. The tax is marginal - you are taxed on income above 1 million! That is, anyone making 1 million a year will be unaffected by it and anyone making 1,000,100 will pay $2.5 (or $3.5, dollars, I forget) extra taxes. You have to make well over (i.e. several) a million to care.

Re:*yawn*

[NeutronCowboy]

The National Review? Lulz. The National Revue does not have a fucking problem what the issues are with California (hint - looters aren't it). Furthermore, a strong US president won't be able to avoid WW 3. The best he could do is to make sure the good guys win WW 3.

As for seeing an Abraham Lincoln, I can guarantee you that the Republicans of today would crucify him for not being pro-life, pro-Christian and anti-tax enough. You can't save anyone who doesn't want to be saved. And today's Republicans don't want to be saved (Jesus is already doing that), they want to destroy the other side.

Re:*yawn*

[Kagato]

The media picked up on it because it was hypocrisy in action. GOP has taken a position that even closing loop holes is a tax increase that cannot be tolerated. The so-called Bush Tax cuts must be made permeant because you cannot add more taxes to the job creators. And while you are saying that there was never a disagreement over the holiday, that's not true. There was plenty of disagreement about if the middle class "needed" the tax cut. House Tea Party caucus leader Michelle Bachmann called the Tax Holiday a "mistake" and was against it no matter how it was funded. That was a popular position held by the rest of the Tea Party House Caucus, and a good chunk of the GOP presidential hopefuls are they canvased Iowa.

Let's call a spade a spade, the legislative output of the GOP primally helps the wealthy and large businesses. If you are middle class or poor, if you are a small business, putting the GOP in power, in particularly those that subscribe to the extreme right (Tea Party) is not in your economic interest.

Re:*yawn*

[VickiM]

It's not a poll, and I'm certainly not trying to defend someone else's statistics, but I found this to be an interesting listen a couple weeks ago: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/12/09/143398685/gop-objects-to-millionaires-surtax-millionaires-we-found-not-so-much

Re:*yawn*

[Kagato]

Generally if you have employees you'd want to get away from filing as a Schedule C. A good accountant would move you towards a structure where you would draw a fairly low salary while being provided with various fringe benefits (company car, expense accounts, etc.) I once complained to my father about taxes and he said "Taxes? With a good accountant taxes are a second form of income!" Certainly I do much better as a consultant wrapping my work in an LLC than I would as a W2 employee both in terms or pay and taxes.

I would also say if I had a large company there are a slew of shelters one can take in the international sector. I.e. Google transferring IP and business units to Irish shell companies. Banks that put token executives in Switzerland for some massive tax shelters. In the end these tax dodges hurt the economy because it makes small businesses less competitive. Small business is where jobs start.

Re:*yawn*

[bgat]

I think it is interesting that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are outing each other on this point. So while both try to paint themselves as being on the side of their constituents, it's clear that neither one is. Nor the President, for that matter.

Re:*yawn*

[spiffmastercow]

Yes, it's very compassionate to let people starve to death or die of treatable illnesses in order to allow a few rich people to sit on slightly larger piles of cash.

Man, if only there were charities that helped with those issues, instead of forcing people to give up money they earned at gunpoint.

Wait, there ARE?! And they're predominantly supported by the millionaires you want to tax out of existence? And that charitable giving is almost entirely done by conservatives and NOT liberals?!

Wow, it's almost as if it's the LIBERALS who want people to starve to death and not the other way around! Wait, it's EXACTLY that way!

There are charities that will help starving people and treat people who are truly in need. Sure, they might not cover the welfare queen who needs the hospital to prescribe powerful antibiotics to "cure" her kid's cold, but - wait, why the hell do you want to do that in the first place?!!

Three points here.. Point 1: Conservatives often give to "charities" like the CATO institute or various anti-abortion groups, which are not actually charities but rather lobbying groups with tax-exempt status. Point 2: Of the few non-lobbyist groups conservatives give to, almost all of them are religious organizations which spend more on proselytizing than on actually helping people. Point 3: charities are ill-equipped to handle the sheer volume of people who need assistance, let alone sort out the needy from the scammers, let alone the medical needs of the uninsured sick.

Re:*yawn*

[burning-toast]

And pay a disproportionally large amount of tax. First they fall into the highest tax bracket of 35% then pay AMT on top of that, plus capital gains on anything else.

You can be certain that no millionaire pays the full %35 on income tax. They would have to be completely ignorant and stupid about how to handle money.

I work in the financial industry surrounded by people IN that income bracket. What they do is transfer funds or take their income directly into non-liquid (non-cash) capital like stocks, bonds, mutual funds, real-estate, stock ownership whatever. Then they roll their cash over, and over, and over again by transferring it between these assets when they are performing well. This increases the total assets they own without it showing up on their "income" sheet. They bankroll money generating schemes and occasionally start small businesses (mostly geared around how to make themselves more money), but rarely do they start something like a public service industry or a manufacturing firm fresh. They would more likely buy an existing company, layoff 1/2 of the staff, reduce worker pay, "increase productivity", offshore any software development, etc. and then sell their stakes in the company (frequently in exchange for other non-cash assets). This is exactly how Romney has made his money and is exactly where he holds his cash (assets within other companies). He is living off of the dividends payed to him for this sort of work to this day. He no longer "works" for those companies, but he does draw a paycheck. I can assure you he has never done any of the work OF the companies he was employed by either. It's always been in a "how to maximize profits by gutting the existing setup and doing something different" sort of a position.

When they need some liquid assets (cash) they will take it out and pay a 15% capital gains tax or they will run it through another tax shelter (like off-shore accounts). I have known some to pay each other directly in non-liquid assets (trade a ton of stock in something for real-estate, no one made "income" that way).

Most do not create jobs, instead they use their personal income to steam-roll gathering more personal wealth. They buy holdings, stakes, yachts, real estate, and other assets.

Unless you are part of the 1% you cannot adequately defend the 1% as you apparently do NOT have any idea how simplistic your life becomes when you stop living on your paycheck and instead live on your dividends from your existing assets (which are further increasing in value on their own over time). This is exactly why many of the top earners have said, point blank, "Go ahead and tax me more, I can take it!", because you know what happens? They pay their additional on the taxable direct income (which frequently is a fraction of their total assets gained / year) and it still doesn't matter to them because most of their big assets and holdings are tied up in real property, stocks, bonds, etc.

Just let me ask you how many jobs it creates if you buy 100,000 shares of stock in a company outside of it's IPO. How many does it create when you sell them?

Simple answer: none, other than hiring a stock broker. But you CAN live on the dividends of those shares (depending on the company) and you can make a killing if you keep moving your stock holdings around in the market.

The extremely wealthy really don't tend to invest in human capital that much, it's not reliable enough ROI.

- Toast

Re:*yawn*

[spiffmastercow]

No...not everyone is for the millionaire surtax. I am not a millionaire nor will I ever be one because I can say honestly I don't want to work that hard (I wish more people would be honest about this).

Sure, I'll be honest about it. The honest truth is this: almost nobody in the "million dollar a year" crowd works "million dollar a year" hard. There are very few people whose contribution to society is worth that of 20 times the average household income. Much, MUCH fewer that .0001% "deserve" that kind of compensation. And of the few people who do deserve that kind of compensation, very few of them actually get that kind of compensation. The honest, real world truth is that money does not create a meritocracy.

Re:*yawn*

[khallow]

Are there really people out there that decide whether to hire or fire based on their personal income tax?

Why should the answer to this be anything other than "Yes, there are."? Let's pretend that there aren't any libertarian rich people out there with incentive to "Go Galt" (or merely move their assets out of the US). Whether greedy or not, we'll assume they'll keep hiring people and playing the economic game.

The problem with higher income taxes for rich people, is that as a result they have less money to spend on things like businesses that employ people or buying things from businesses that employ people. That's how you get less jobs.

If a business is set up to make money to begin with, seems like it'd make more sense to base hiring and layoff decisions around meeting demand. And it would logically follow that policies that increase demand will benefit "job creators" more, unless their taxes are so severe (like, say, 100%+) that meeting increased demand costs them money.

The thing to remember here is that demand cannot be fulfilled. "Meeting demand" is a mutually agreeable compromise between the supplier and the demander. Taxes hinder the suppliers ability to provide goods and services at a cheaper price and hence, provide more value for the other side. So less stuff produced means less jobs. Similarly, less value provided means less jobs.

People who make all their income from investments might not like it very much, but by the same token, how many of them hire and fire or base their investment decisions on their personal tax rate?

Actually quite a few of them. Remember that the richest investors probably employ a number of people directly in addition to an elevated consumption of goods and services. A lot of other investors turn those investments into business attempts.

Second, it's quite easy for a capital gains tax in the presence of inflation to harm investors. If an investment doesn't change in value, but grows in monetary price due to inflation, then the investor has to pay taxes and hence, is losing value on their investments. The taxes have become "severe" in the sense of your previous paragraph.

In the advent of hyperinflation (to give the most extreme example of inflation), a US investor would lose somewhere around 25-35% (everyone with any serious level of investment in something that isn't completely currency based would fall in the highest tax bracket as a result. The only distinction would be if the investment were considered "long term" or not) per year of their investments to the alternate minimum tax.

To summarize, higher taxes on rich people means they have less wealth with which to employ people, even if for some bizarre reason, there is absolutely no change in behavior. As a result, that means lower employment as claimed.

Re:*yawn*

[burning-toast]

I know it's bad form to post a reply to your own post but here is a little thought experiment:

Given $5 million tax-free in the initial state (directly invested into non-liquid funds) or so I could set myself (or anyone else for that matter) up in such a setup as to be able to exist off of nothing but the capital gains and asset improvements so long as they acted like they made the median household income ($40-50k) as opposed to living like a millionaire. Even if you could never ever touch the original $5 million. In addition to that, you would have a nominal tax rate of 15% on any money you withdrew from your assets, and that is only if you don't do asset swaps for the things you want.

That without working another day in your life.

- Toast

Re:*yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to call BS on that. How to pay for a tax cut? The republicans never want to pay for tax cuts. They believe the magic tax fairy will pay for everything because the economy will mysteriously grow and fill the void. To say that suddenly they have to pay for a tax cut is transparent excuse. The only thing they were interested in is holding up yet another piece of legislation to add a bunch of partisan concessions they'd never get if it wasn't pumped up into another artificial crisis.

Re:*yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

Are there really people out there that decide whether to hire or fire based on their personal income tax?

Doctors, dentists, sole proprietorships, partnerships, you know, about 81.5% of all business filers in 2008 per the US Census.

Re:*yawn*

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The CNN anchor was clearly trying to corner him in to having to say something unpopular as opposed to having a dialog and talking about the issues it would cause. It was politics not news and appeared very clearly biased to me.

I didn't see it - I don't watch any television news. But if I were doing such an interview, that's exactly what I would be pushing for because few if any republicans had word one to say about how to pay for the extension of the Bush tax cuts. At best it was all magic talk about "job creators" ultimately improving the economy.

I don't think its "politics" at all to zero in on what sure looks like a serious case of hypocrisy. I put a lot more weight on increasing consumer demand as a way to create news jobs than I do on incentives for "job creators" so perhaps I'm biased, and there is some means of explaining the apparent hypocrisy that I've missed.

Re:*yawn*

[jon3k]

A millionaire is someone who has a million dollars. You're assuming everyone with over a million dollars doesn't earn w2 wages.

Re:*yawn*

[jon3k]

Sounds like a lot of work to never work a day in your life, along with somehow stumbling into $5M in assets somehow.

Re:*yawn*

[AJH16]

That's understandable, but then question them on the hypocrisy, don't try to trap them in to saying what you want them to day because it would be sensational and make them look bad. Ask them how they feel it is different from that situation. Ask them why their view seems to be different. Give them a chance to explain themselves and ask questions if things don't add up. That is the point of the press. Not to try and get someone to trip up so that you can make a big headline and make someone look bad. When you start doing that, you change over from a neutral press that tries to inform to a political organization that is trying to make the news rather than report it.

Re:*yawn*

[jon3k]

A group called the Tax Relief Coalition said the problem was finding someone willing to talk about their personal taxes on national radio.

Can't find != doesn't exist. Most people carrying $1M on their personal return certainly are smart enough to not want to broadcast it on national radio.

"It's only fair that I put back into the system that is the entire reason for my success," said Burger.

No one disagrees with this, we all just disagree on what that figure should be.

Re:*yawn*

[burning-toast]

As you stated charities never adequately meet mass demand (they can't typically afford to stockpile any resources). Governments will never reach every person and smallest need (too blunt of an instrument). Let the government do the heavy lifting on the basics and let the charities meet the needs of those who would otherwise fall through the cracks or for those who has special needs.

- Toast

Re:*yawn*

[burning-toast]

No, I'm not assuming that. What I'm saying is that once you have a few million dollars, the taxable wages you earn becomes a pittance compared to the money you "make" via other means (which is taxed at less than 1/2 of the income tax).

You should never see someone who has a million dollars (or two) in the bank paying the full %35 on the increases to their net worth annually. Money begets more money, and if you have none you don't get to enjoy that fact. And if you can't make more money off of your capital gains on 5 million dollars than you draw annually in salary you are doing something else incredibly (INCREDIBLY) stupid. Try taking less salary and more stock options for instance.

If they are paying %35 on all increases in capital they accrue during the course of a year (or more than ~%15-20 anyways) they are doing something severely stupid with their money.

- Toast

Re:*yawn*

[ckaminski]

Have you seen the market lately, this is arguably the best place to put it. CDs tie up your free cash for periods of time that may be unacceptable, and pay little more than savings accounts.

Re:*yawn*

[burning-toast]

You missed the point.

Once someone has a few million they do not pay %35 income tax (unless they are pretty stupid), they do not struggle to meet any burden related to paying the taxes they do have.

And if you consider hiring a wealth management firm to invest your money to be "work". Or you think $5 million to be hard to come by for the people who already have cash... I might suggest taking a look at what exactly a private equity firm is and does.

Bankrolling is not a hard game compared to working all of your life, it's just a game that has a high barrier to entry.

- Toast

Re:*yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

The current economic woes aren't caused by suppliers being too impoverished by taxes to be able to produce goods that are in demand. The economic woes are caused by too little demand for the stuff being produced because so many people are under/unemployed and can't afford to buy all the goods they'd buy if they HAD a job.

As for looking after the interests of investors, I'll leave that to them. After all, being wealthy investors, they have plenty of time and money to spend on their interests. I'd prefer to see policies aimed at improving the lot of the working poor instead of ones aimed at boosting the wealth of the 0.01% at the cost of malnutrition, homelessness, and illnesses for millions of people.

Re:*yawn*

[InsertCleverUsername]

You didn't think that anyone was going to modify their standard of living as a result of tax policy, did you?

Yeah, of course. Although the rich will still have plenty of money to meet their needs, the middle class will buy less shit they don't absolutely need to survive when you raise their taxes. And, unlike the multi-millionaires, that's money that would go to American businesses and individuals --not potentially out of the country to tax havens, foreign businesses, or goods outside the country.

Now, as far as business goes... Hiring decisions are almost entirely based on whether adding an additional employee will create a marginal gain for the business --not the amount of tax on profit. If anything, you need more employees to do more work to create more profit so there's more left over to pocket (assuming the demand is there for your product/service). I'd really love it if all the goons claiming they'll close their business or stop working (and deprive us of their inestimable talents) if they're taxed more would show us that they're not all talk. Cry about the unfairness of taxes in some other country.

Re:*yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming WW3 is fought in my lifetime, I doubt there will be any "good guys". According to http://www.globalfirepower.com/, the 10 strongest militaries are:

USA
Russia
China
India
UK

They are all villains.

Re:*yawn*

[DigiShaman]

It will collapses entirely and leave us with inflation to the point of the dollar being worthless. Currency standards might even fall back to the states as our federal government isn't allowed to legally default. In other words, the breakup of the 50 state union would be required to end this death-spiral. A new nation (or nations) could be formed in its place much in like how a corporation files for bankruptcy only for the same people to refile an entirely new Corp. Of course, then things start get really hairy internationally at the diplomatic level. The world would still try and hold the original inhabitants accountable some how I think. Why wouldn't they? Speaking of nations. American's is till very young. In fact, from a historical POV, so is the very concept of a nation as well.

Re:*yawn*

[operagost]

OK, I'm not OK with it. There's one. And I'm not OK with it because I'm not OK with taking someone else's money. Millionaires already contribute more money (and time, which they don't have any more of than the rest of us) to charity than most of us could ever dream of. Taxes aren't charity; they pay for both teachers and useless bureaucrats in the Dept of Ed; they pay for both food stamps and bombers; they pay for both highway maintenance and cowboy poetry.

Re:*yawn*

[khallow]

The current economic woes aren't caused by suppliers being too impoverished by taxes to be able to produce goods that are in demand. The economic woes are caused by too little demand for the stuff being produced because so many people are under/unemployed and can't afford to buy all the goods they'd buy if they HAD a job.

I didn't claim that it was a matter of suppliers not being able to supply, but suppliers having less wealth and hence, hiring less people. There's the relevant connection with less jobs that you want.

I'd prefer to see policies aimed at improving the lot of the working poor instead of ones aimed at boosting the wealth of the 0.01% at the cost of malnutrition, homelessness, and illnesses for millions of people.

Let's keep in mind that this choice isn't relevant what's at stake. What's at stake is the future of the US, both the wealth of the wealthy and the well being of the poor. It's ignorance and innumeracy that destroys everything. I explained why the connection between the wealth of the wealthy and the jobs (the activities by which the poor can afford to combat malnutrition, homelessness, and illness) exists.

It's painful how so many people fail to understand the connection between the social evils they can see and the corruption and destruction behind the policies and politicians they support.

Re:*yawn*

[operagost]

Leftists often give to charities the Tides Foundation, which distributes those funds to MoveON.org and other political lobbyists. Eye, meet beam.

Re:*yawn*

[gtbritishskull]

Employee's pay is tax deductible. So is all of the other business spending you were talking about. If a business owner is taking home $1,000,000+, then they probably do not have problems expanding their business if it needs it. So, if they have not expanded the business already, it probably does not need expanding. So a millionaires tax would not affect their hiring decisions (except for possibly encouraging them to hire MORE employees so that they could take their take home pay under $1,000,000).

Re:*yawn*

[spiffmastercow]

Leftists often give to charities the Tides Foundation, which distributes those funds to MoveON.org and other political lobbyists. Eye, meet beam.

Leftists also don't claim that that we should do away with social programs and put the burden on charities, thus your point is entirely moot.

Re:*yawn*

[Sri Ramkrishna]

see, this is why Islam bans banks that own interest. :-) Clever, huh?

Re:*yawn*

[Sri Ramkrishna]

Isn't that what Bush tried to do? I don't think it worked all that well.

Re:*yawn*

[Sri Ramkrishna]

No Pakistan or North Korea? India's military hasn't been tested in awhile.. while the U.S. has been tested all the time.. like every 15 years or so. The U.S. will always be running around using their military.

Re:*yawn*

[Sri Ramkrishna]

Even better, they want to give a tax cut with no restrictions. So when corp A, takes the savings from the tax cuts, and opens a plant in India, China or Vietnam, the U.S. wins, right? Sacrifice, baby.

Re:*yawn*

[rsclient]

I'd believe it was "just about how to pay for it" -- except that the republicans didn't bat an eyelash over the extensions to the bush tax holiday. Indeed, they were pretty clear and unambiguous that if millionaires didn't a tax cut, then they would hold their breath until they turned blue.

Re:*yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

That's only five. I didn't know Gov. Perry followed slashdot.

Re:*yawn*

[CrimsonAvenger]

The world would still try and hold the original inhabitants accountable some how I think. Why wouldn't they?

It should be noted that, bad as the deficit spending in the USA is, it's not really any worse than any other Western democracy - they're all predicated on spending more than they make, and hoping that prosperity will grow their economies fast enough for them to be dead of old age before it all comes apart.

Right now, it looks like they're mostly losing out - it's not going to wait till the current guys are dead to come home to roost....

Re:*yawn*

[mysidia]

If a business is making profits, and there is enough demand for their product or service, why wouldn't they hire another person? Presumable a new hire will be able to take on enough responsibility to make the company enough new cash flow to pay for themself.

Because, they have to front money for the new hire, long before the new hire can generate more cash flow, which comes at great risk. The risk is only worth it if a certain reward is met. Greater taxes reduces the reward, and results in the risk making less sense, whether the money is reinvested, or will be borrowed -- the reward has to be worth it after taxes and costs (such as interest payments).

The cash is not available for fronting, if the owner has to withdraw more of it for their personal needs, due to the increased outflow towards taxes. Higher tax rate on profits = more money that the owner will want to withdraw from the business = less money reinvested in the business = in the long term, less increase in profits generated by the business, but less risk too, and with high probability, greater reward for the owner, since even if the risk panned out from them, the higher taxes would make the investment not worth the level of risk.

Oh yeah... and the government doesn't have to actually raise taxes to cause this... they just have to promote the idea they might raise taxes. That will create sufficient uncertainty regarding the risk/reward of greater investment, to stave off / postpone the idea of hiring more people.

Re:*yawn*

[roman_mir]

Here is a millionaire that pays himself a salary instead of rolling the money over and over, so he pays 35% federal and 7% state income taxes, plus the 3% Medicare and 12% SS, but that 12% is only on the first 100K or so, and so it doesn't matter, because 99% of his income is taxed at marginal rates. He argued this in a Congressional hearing on Obama's "jobs" act, and this remains his point that near 50% of his money already is paid to gov't in taxes before any sales taxes, property taxes, etc.

You can contact him if you want for specific details, he is pretty vocal about it and about the fact that he is unwilling to pay anymore taxes and that's a large part of the reason why he is now moving his business offshore, which will cost US many jobs, as he hires people across US.

Of-course he also will tell you that the US gov't is doing a huge disservice to the US population, by preventing him from doing lots more business with US customers (all thanks to Patriot Act), and you would know this if you tried to open a bank account outside of US, near nobody will want your business as an American bank account holder.

Re:*yawn*

[jon3k]

You said "You can be certain that no millionaire pays the full %35 on income tax."

If someone had a $500k home, $250k in cars and 50k in the bank and $200k in a 401k (aka "a millionaire"), and had an annual salary of 200k, explain how they would pay less than 35% + AMT.

Re:*yawn*

[quist]

um, you are very much confused by the wealth vs income distinction, eh?

Re:*yawn*

[burning-toast]

First of all, Obama's tax had nothing to do with people worth a million dollars. It's people making an income worth that much in a year.

Second of all, on a 200K salary I'm not quite sure how you would both get a 500K home and 250K in cars without being an idiot up to your eyeballs in debt, but lets assume (somehow) that they have paid for all of that in cash and do not have "debt" attached currently (maybe they had a one time lottery winning or something?). You are still doing it wrong.

The parts they are doing stupid is having 250K in cars and 50K in a regular bank account and so much money tied up in a paid-off mortgage as compared to income. The cars tend to depreciate or will accrue value very slowly, and the 50K sitting in a bank account will do nothing of use. The house is nice, but having 1/2 of your net worth (and two and a half years of gross income) tied up in a single home is a very high risk stra..er.... lack of strategy. It would make sense to have a mortgage on the home, and spend a large portion of the 500K on something with higher returns to be honest. Mortgage interest rates right now are really low (lower tan investment returns really).

In other words, if your net value is 1 Million and you have all but 50K tied up in one house and cars, you have not done your due diligence in spreading out your exposure (diversifying your funds) and you definitely are not having your money work for you. Congratulations, you have just sunk all of your money in slow or no growth places.

Also, at 200K salary you would only qualify as a millionaire if you saved more than 5 years worth of salary, so you can see how this doesn't quite put you into the same league as the people making 1 million annually or have 2-3million in income investments. Hell, you are barely just getting a chance to play in the sandbox. However, if you continue doing this and putting your money in smart places instead of one house and a bunch of cars you can double or triple your net worth every few years. Obviously, you have to lead a life where you don't spend money on stupid shit like you're a millionaire though.

Honestly if you have a net worth of 1 million dollars and an annual income of 200K, you should limit yourself to a 350K or so house (on 15 or 20 year mortgage), 2 cars at ~40K or so at most (with a loan or lease to taste), pickup an income property or two or three (home rentals are smart bets with so many people foreclosed on, and the renters pay your mortgage i.e. they pay to increase your equity in the property).

Do you see where I am going with this? Invest your money into things which return money faster than inflation and you can eventually play with the big boys. Also, this person worth a million dollars with a 200K salary is probably not making any jobs. If you spend money like this I don't see how you would run a business.

- Toast

Re:*yawn*

[burning-toast]

Millionaire decides to ignore tax breaks and rules designed to work in his favor and decides to pay what people a few income brackets lower cannot afford to skirt, complains about the effective tax rate everyone else has to pay without a choice. News at 11.

Now if only he could convince the rest of the millionaires to do that and the tax rates could drop. I kid, I kid, but really, about 1/2 of my income evaporates before I get to it as well, and I can't afford to roll my income over and over to get around those pesky taxes. So cry me a river.

I'm not in favor of the system as it is setup for the millionaires and I personally believe there are many flaws in the tax policy, but in raw terms people who make a million dollars and pay %35 income taxes are STILL doing it wrong from the perspective of accruing wealth.

This system is NOT balanced between your forced obligations as a person making 200K and a person making 1 Million, there is a huge difference between those. One can easily skirt the taxes and the other cannot.

- Toast

Re:*yawn*

[burning-toast]

Didn't notice your example of 200K in a 401K either,, let that be your safe funds, diversify the rest into higher risk and more opportunistic investments. If you aren't getting at least $40,000 improvement on your investments in a year you aren't even beating inflation and your investment strategy sucks.

Honestly, if you invest into growth investments you can shoot for $50,000+ increase in worth annually starting with $1million right now, risk a little more (with some personal involvement instead of passing it off to a fund) and you can potentially make much, much better returns.

- Toast

Re:*yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you read the rest of the comment? The part about people actually hiring to meet demand, not because of tax burden, phases of the moon, etc?

I know at least one person for each of those categories, Republicans all, and not one has fed me this line of shit about how if their taxes go up they're going to have to lay people off. For example, the doctor and the dentist are working at capacity and wouldn't save money by dropping hours on staff; they'd have to pick up the slack making appointments and such, and the difference between doctor pay and receptionist pay makes any tax increase pale in comparison.

The others care more about business picking up, and one is already running a skeleton crew. Millionaires and billionaires do not make up the bulk of their customer base.

Re:*yawn*

[sandytaru]

You know, the only time I've ever heard about the Tides Foundation was from someone arguing against liberals. Us personally? We use Charity Watch and a few other watchdog websites to make sure our donation dollars go to places where they will do the most good. (Doctors Without Borders is a personal favorite of mine.) I also donate platelets every couple of weeks like clockwork.

Re:*yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

But 82% of Senate Republicans voted for the two-month extension. Do you think anybody really wants a two month deal? It is a pragmatic decision to get things done.

Re:*yawn*

[jon3k]

First of all, Obama's tax had nothing to do with people worth a million dollars. It's people making an income worth that much in a year.

And I'll quote your original post again: "You can be certain that no millionaire pays the full %35 on income tax."

A millionaire is someone who's net worth exceeds 1 million dollars. I think that pretty much covers the rest of your post.

In other words, if your net value is 1 Million and you have all but 50K tied up in one house and cars,

you forgot the 200K retirement savings. so 1/4 of your income is in savings, $500k in a home, the rest in cars. Feel free to play with the numbers. for example, 150k in cars (husband+wife each have 75k cars) and the other 350k in retirement + savings account with a half a million dollar home. I'm not asking you for financial advice, I'm giving you an example of a run-of-the-mill millionaire and then asking you to explain how they're not paying 35% income tax, which you claimed "no millionaire pays".

Re:*yawn*

[jon3k]

I'm well aware of the return rate on a mutual fund. A 5% return on $1 million isn't anything amazing. I'm not arguing that you can live off the returns from having $5 million dollars on hand. I don't know why you think this is surprising or impressive. I'm trying to show you what most "millionaires" look like and explain that they aren't somehow exempt from paying a 35% tax rate (+AMT) if their income is from w2 wages.

Re:*yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

as someone with networth on the order of 10x the average magnitude of net wealth for the entire forum (based quick comment number, from 1 former and 1 present business) this does not reflect my experience. I would not be successful if my business decisions were this shallow. It is what it is.

Re:*yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

You are one of the only competent voices to comment on this thread. I'd buy you a beer if I could.

Re:*yawn*

[burning-toast]

I stand by my assertion that no millionaire who is doing anything remotely half smart will pay %35 on their gross income for the year (reported and non-reported).

They will pay the %35 on their salary, (lets say 200K in your example) and then they will only pay 15% in capital gains on the ROI. Lets say they had the 1 million invested in growth investments which accrue, lets say for example, 85K during the year.

So they pay 70,000 (35%) on the salary and 12750K (15%) on the investments (assuming they withdraw the full gains for some stupid reason)

So they had an income of 285,000 - 82,750 (income tax + capital gains) = 202,250 net
If everything was 35% it is 285,000 - 99,750 (everything counting as income) = 185,250 net

So that is 17,000 extra cash in their pocket since they get it at the cheaper capital gains rate... Any questions on how millionaires can get away with less than 35% tax rate on income?

Smart people with some breathing room in their budget roll that 17,000 back into their investment portfolio before even taking it out to avoid paying tax on it until it has worked for them for quite some time. Same reason people take stock options instead of salary and the like, they defer the tax payment on it until it has done more work for them then it was worth in the first place. People without a bankroll cannot afford to part with enough money for long enough to do this same activity (except for the comparably slower growth 401K type accounts) and a much higher percentage of their REAL income goes immediately towards taxes which they cannot offset or skirt as they need the cash immediately to live off of.

So yes, you would be stupid to pay the full %35 on your income when you have a few million dollars to your name, and the more money you have the less you pay on its income. At the same time, if you are still looking for a pay raise in raw salary after you are making 1 mil a year, you really should consider alternative compensation options, spend less on your extravagant lifestyle, or just suck it up and realize that you didn't make your fortunes all by your lonesome in your own little bubble separate from the rest of your fellow Americans.

You can argue the implications of what this system does to income disparity and whatnot on whatever grounds you like, but you will not convince me that people in the %1 pay more in taxes as a percentage of their gross income. It has been the subject of jokes and many a laughing conversation about how they find the newest way to make money without paying taxes on it that have been had in my general vicinity.

- Toast

Re:*yawn*

[shutdown -p now]

Funnier still, vast majority Americans - including most Republican voters! - actually believe that the best way to distribute income is, essentially, "socialist" (i.e. what Americans themselves normally think as socialist). You just have to be careful to ask them without using that dirty pinko word:

The ideal wealth distribution chosen by the 5,522 people who took the online survey has the top fifth of Americans owning between 30 percent and 40 percent of the wealth. That means Americans believe the ideal distribution of wealth is that of Sweden. Moreover, 90 percent of Republicans share that belief. (Actually, 90.2 percent, as the survey coauthor, Prof. Daniel Ariely of Duke University, noted when we met to discuss his work.) The survey sample, with more than 10 times the 504 people often used in polls, is robust and credible. (For the report, see Doc 2010-21608.) The genius in the survey was to avoid questions using loaded terms like ‘‘estate tax’’ and ‘‘death tax.’’ Instead those surveyed were shown pie charts and asked what they thought was the ideal distribution of wealth and what they estimated to be the wealth distribution in America. They were not told that one of the pie charts was Sweden’s actual wealth distribution, but people gravitated to it like moths to a flame.

Re:*yawn*

[phantomfive]

I didn't see it - I don't watch any television news. But if I were doing such an interview, that's exactly what I would be pushing for because few if any republicans had word one to say about how to pay for the extension of the Bush tax cuts. At best it was all magic talk about "job creators" ultimately improving the economy.

Most of those Bush era Republicans are gone. They got voted out, in part because of the exact hypocrisy you are pointing out.

Re:*yawn*

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

As far as I know there hasn't been an election since the Bush tax cuts were renewed.

Re:*yawn*

[swalve]

Our number one problem is that we are spending ourselves into bankruptcy. Obama won't even acknowledge this until it is far too late.

Check your history, yo. Obama ran with a plan to reduce spending and get the budget (close to) balanced in four years. Unfortunately, the Bush bubble popped and Congress started spending trillions on bailouts. Priorities had to shift. Obama knows all about the problems, it's just that a President has to think longer term than the next GOP debate or congressional election.

Honestly, the same thing happened to Bush. He ran on a fairly moderate platform, and the stuff he was going to do in between golf outings was going to be good. But then the y2k bubble and 9/11 happened and shot that out the window.

Re:*yawn*

[arose]

I'd really love it if all the goons claiming they'll close their business or stop working (and deprive us of their inestimable talents) if they're taxed more would show us that they're not all talk.

It's particularly amusing to hear that line from people who have near-absolute faith in the market. You will close your profitable small business? Do you really think you have skimmed that much off the economy that no one can fill your niche?

Re:*yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the very fact that the person is no longer able to choose not to give makes it an act void of compassion. In case you're too dense to understand what I'm saying, the fact that the money was taken from me before I could make the decision to give it away means that I no longer have the opportunity to display compassion, and neither do you. The TEA partiers actually appear to value compassionate acts at a much higher level than you do simply because they are willing to allow people to be compassionate.

Re:*yawn*

[spiffmastercow]

Well, the very fact that the person is no longer able to choose not to give makes it an act void of compassion. In case you're too dense to understand what I'm saying, the fact that the money was taken from me before I could make the decision to give it away means that I no longer have the opportunity to display compassion, and neither do you. The TEA partiers actually appear to value compassionate acts at a much higher level than you do simply because they are willing to allow people to be compassionate.

Yeah, I'm more concerned with actually feeding the poor than making you tea baggers feel good about yourselves for donating a couple cans of food. You only have the things you have because society says you have them. The poor won't just starve to death without a fight. And when the angry, hungry mobs finally turn to violence, I hope they hit your house first.

Re:*yawn*

[khallow]

Employee's pay is tax deductible. So is all of the other business spending you were talking about. If a business owner is taking home $1,000,000+, then they probably do not have problems expanding their business if it needs it.

The obvious rebuttal is what about the people that would have been hired by that take home pay? For the rich person a big part, if not the only part of the business that matters to them is the take home pay. The less they get out, the less valuable the enterprise is to them. That's the part of "Going Galt" that most people have yet to figure out.

But it also means the less they have to spend and invest. That's my point. Now maybe you live in an efficient country where you are taking a small hit when you let your government bureaucracy take that wealth. Living in the US, I don't have that luxury. The US has corruption and fraud to a considerable degree, but the normal inefficiency of the bureaucracy, even when accounting for corruption and fraud, is staggering both in its scale and degree.

There are areas of government activity that are at least a factor of ten less efficient than their private counterparts, for example, NASA, big science projects, and defense R&D. Some things even have negative value, such as Social Security, farm subsidies, or Obamacare.

In addition, there's the obvious hit to efficiency (and job creation) when people go from figuring out how to produce wealth to figuring out how to game a tax system.

Re:*yawn*

[khallow]

I would not be successful if my business decisions were this shallow.

I don't recall saying that deciding to be rich, somehow made you rich. But rather that if someone takes money from you, then you have less money to do stuff with, such as employ people.

And somehow, if you were just as clueless at employing people as the people who don't currently make enough to pay income taxes, well, then you wouldn't have two businesses under your belt.

Re:*yawn*

[khallow]

Or the millionaire's tax may work some other way. It hasn't passed so who knows what the abomination will look like when it does.

Re:*yawn*

[roman_mir]

Yes, the system is broken, the only correct income, payroll and corporate tax is 0, you are correct.

0 is the only acceptable rate. Anything above 0 of income, payroll, corporate earnings is completely unacceptable.

Re:*yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure why not. Let's not accept any tax on income, payroll, or corporate earnings ... but the government will just tax you elsewhere.

Re:*yawn*

[gtbritishskull]

The obvious rebuttal is what about the people that would have been hired by that take home pay? For the rich person a big part, if not the only part of the business that matters to them is the take home pay. The less they get out, the less valuable the enterprise is to them. That's the part of "Going Galt" that most people have yet to figure out.

That is true. But, I don't think another 3% on their income over $1m is going to make them decide the business is not worth it (they are already making $1m+ per year on the business). Also, if the economy gets better, then they will actually have people to buy their products so the business can expand. It doesn't take much to make up for that 3% hit they are taking.

But it also means the less they have to spend and invest. That's my point. Now maybe you live in an efficient country where you are taking a small hit when you let your government bureaucracy take that wealth. Living in the US, I don't have that luxury. The US has corruption and fraud to a considerable degree, but the normal inefficiency of the bureaucracy, even when accounting for corruption and fraud, is staggering both in its scale and degree.

There are areas of government activity that are at least a factor of ten less efficient than their private counterparts, for example, NASA, big science projects, and defense R&D. Some things even have negative value, such as Social Security, farm subsidies, or Obamacare.

You have forgotten what we are debating. I don't want more taxes for the hell of it. This is actually basically a transfer payment (redistribution of wealth) where one group is taxed more while another is taxed less. I don't care how inefficient NASA is. (By the way is not something I am going to grant you. I don't remember private companies going to the moon cheaper than NASA did.) That is irrelevant. The money is not going to NASA. It is going to the people (who you claim are 10x as efficient as government).

I will also not grant you that Social Security has a negative value. It is totally irrelevant to this discussion (I know that you are trying to distract me instead of attempting to actually argue your points effectively) but I can't let such a blatantly unsupported statement like that pass. It is an insurance program against disability or financial mishaps in old age as well as a retirement program. I am against the retirement program but I do believe that we need the safety nets to keep the disabled and financially incompetent/unlucky elderly off the streets. If you believe that there is another method to do this, then by all means propose it.

Obamacare is trying to solve a similar problem. Right now, in the US, hospitals are not legally allowed to let someone die because they cannot pay. Obamacare tries to solve this problem by requiring that everyone pay into the system what they can afford. I would be perfectly fine with changing the bill so that a person would be allowed to be uninsured if they put $1,000,000 in escrow so that the government would be assured that they would be able to pay their debts if they were picked up by an ambulance (got into a car wreck or collapsed from a stroke). But somehow I don't think it is the millionaires who are proclaiming that they shouldn't have to buy insurance (they usually already have it). It is these republican leeches who think that they are entitled not to buy insurance, but then expect me to pay for it (through higher hospital bills) when they need medical care that they can't pay for. But, it is not surprising. Republicans love to socialize costs so that the middle class has to pick up the tab. That is why they like to deregulate everything. It lets their rich backers game the system and legally steal money from their companies, but when everything collapses the middle class picks up the tab (see 2008 financial crisis). When Black Friday happened (the crash that led into the Great Depression), you had bankers jumping out win

Re:*yawn*

[khallow]

I don't want more taxes for the hell of it. This is actually basically a transfer payment (redistribution of wealth) where one group is taxed more while another is taxed less.

That sounds to me like a "for the hell of it" argument. Why do you want a "redistribution of wealth"? What's wrong with where it is now? I think such an attitude is especially reprehensible when you don't seem to care whether the redistribution does any good or not.

This is where my argument comes in. I'm pointing out that jobs are lost this way, as we move wealth that could be used to employ people in efficient businesses that provide more value (and more subsequent jobs) to government jobs that might do something important, but usually in a very inefficient way.

I don't care how inefficient NASA is.

If you were a US voter, then you should.

(By the way is not something I am going to grant you. I don't remember private companies going to the moon cheaper than NASA did.)

That's because it hasn't happened yet. When it does, the Apollo program will look like a very expensive hobby in comparison.

The money is not going to NASA. It is going to the people (who you claim are 10x as efficient as government).

This is a variation of the broken window fallacy. The money already came from the people who were "10x" efficient as government. For some reason, there's a lot of people who think that taking money, doing something stupid with it (the "breaking of the window"), and returning it is somehow better than not bothering with that process in the first place.

And last I looked, NASA money went mostly to big government contractors like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and ATK. I bet most of that redistribution of wealth doesn't go to small pockets.

I will also not grant you that Social Security has a negative value. It is totally irrelevant to this discussion (I know that you are trying to distract me instead of attempting to actually argue your points effectively) but I can't let such a blatantly unsupported statement like that pass. It is an insurance program against disability or financial mishaps in old age as well as a retirement program. I am against the retirement program but I do believe that we need the safety nets to keep the disabled and financially incompetent/unlucky elderly off the streets.

Ah, the insurance program story. Because it provides the illusion of a safety net, then you support it. This is politics 101. Keep an ugly program alive by having it do something useful for a lot of voters. Then the people benefiting from the part that's useful, will help defend the part that's not doing anything for the public good.

If you believe that there is another method to do this, then by all means propose it.

I suggest a needs-base welfare program. If grannie is so poor she's eating catfood, then help grannie. If grannie flies around between a couple of fully owned homes, then maybe she doesn't our help right now.

Obamacare is trying to solve a similar problem. Right now, in the US, hospitals are not legally allowed to let someone die because they cannot pay. Obamacare tries to solve this problem by requiring that everyone pay into the system what they can afford. I would be perfectly fine with changing the bill so that a person would be allowed to be uninsured if they put $1,000,000 in escrow so that the government would be assured that they would be able to pay their debts if they were picked up by an ambulance (got into a car wreck or collapsed from a stroke). But somehow I don't think it is the millionaires who are proclaiming that they shouldn't have to buy insurance (they usually already have it). It is these republican leeches who think that they are entitled not to buy insurance, but then expect me to pay for it (through higher hospital bills) when they need medical care

Re:*yawn*

[gtbritishskull]

Wow. Where to begin?

That sounds to me like a "for the hell of it" argument. Why do you want a "redistribution of wealth"? What's wrong with where it is now? I think such an attitude is especially reprehensible when you don't seem to care whether the redistribution does any good or not.

Try reading my whole post. The income inequality in the US is reprehensible. But, more importantly, the US economy is doing poorly. There is not enough demand to justify increasing production. The reason for this is that the financial crisis hit the middle class the hardest. Rich people hoard their money. The middle class is who buys things (houses, boats, vacations, tvs) and drives this economy. 70% of the US GDP is consumer spending. The consumers can't afford to spend because unemployment has gone up and the median wage has gone down. But, the rich are doing great... the stock market is back to where it was before the crash. So regardless of the unsustainable increase in income inequality, the economy will do better if the middle class gets more money. That is why I support it. That is why Republicans don't (if the economy does better then Obama might get re-elected, and it is better to let millions of Americans suffer than to lose the stick to beat your opponents with).

This is where my argument comes in. I'm pointing out that jobs are lost this way, as we move wealth that could be used to employ people in efficient businesses that provide more value (and more subsequent jobs) to government jobs that might do something important, but usually in a very inefficient way.

We are talking about rich people paying more taxes and the poor/middle class paying less taxes. Net zero revenue to the government. The poor/middle class still work for the same efficient businesses that they did before. They just pay less taxes. The rich still work for the same corporations that buy politicians to give them loopholes. They just pay a little more taxes. But, now the poor/middle class people have more money so can afford to buy more widgets. So the same efficient companies that they work for now have to increase production to make more widgets to match demand, so they hire more poor/middle class (and maybe even a rich) people to help them make more widgets. Unemployment goes down, the company has more profit, a rising tide raises all boats.

I don't care how inefficient NASA is.

If you were a US voter, then you should.

Fine... I care about the efficiency of NASA. But THEY WOULD NOT GET MORE MONEY FROM THIS PROPOSAL SO IT IS IRRELEVANT !!! NASA has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Do you understand???

That's because it hasn't happened yet. When it does, the Apollo program will look like a very expensive hobby in comparison.

Yeah, and Henry Ford was an idiot because I can make cars 100x better than he did (who cares if technology has changed to make things easier/cheaper and that technology would not be at the point it is now except for his contribution).

The money is not going to NASA. It is going to the people (who you claim are 10x as efficient as government).

This is a variation of the broken window fallacy. The money already came from the people who were "10x" efficient as government. For some reason, there's a lot of people who think that taking money, doing something stupid with it (the "breaking of the window"), and returning it is somehow better than not bothering with that process in the first place.

I am not trying to say that decreasing taxes on the middle class and increasing them on the rich will be more efficient. My point is that NASA has nothing to do with it. So your made up "10 time more efficient" claim does not need to be refuted because it is has nothing to do with the argument. As you have probably noticed, this po

Re:*yawn*

[phantomfive]

Heh....you mean last year when it was renewed by the democratic congress (it was a lame duck session of congress that renewed it FYI)?

Re:*yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's wrong. Higher corporate taxes mean there is less wealth with which to employ people. Once those earnings are personal, they are not going to be used to hire people. That's why it's called personal income.

What you want are high personal taxes, low corporate taxes. Then the business person will think, "Well, I could take the taxes for personal gain, or I could keep the money in the company and expand the business as I'll get more bang for my buck there". It's the only way to assure that the money goes to expanding business (jobs) instead of hookers and blow (different jobs).

Re:*yawn*

[khallow]

No, that's wrong. Higher corporate taxes mean there is less wealth with which to employ people. Once those earnings are personal, they are not going to be used to hire people. That's why it's called personal income.

I imagine most personal income doesn't go into the fireplace. It either pays for jobs directly, as in the person pays for someone's work (there isn't a law against paying someone with personal income to work in the US, but maybe I just don't get the laws in your locale) and indirectly, by buying stuff or investing it.

The thing I don't get here is how people can think that there is some way to tell the difference between money that pays for jobs and money that somehow doesn't.

Re:*yawn*

[khallow]

The income inequality in the US is reprehensible.

I personally don't have a problem with people making more or less than me.

But, more importantly, the US economy is doing poorly. There is not enough demand to justify increasing production.

Then let things settle out. The economy does this sort of thing naturally when it's not being fucked with. Economic intervention is basically a "The beatings will continue until morale improves" strategy. It rarely helps and when things get really bad, as they are now, it descends into a destructive cycle of doubling down on the what caused the problem.

And last I looked, NASA money went mostly to big government contractors like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and ATK. I bet most of that redistribution of wealth doesn't go to small pockets.

This is not redistribution of wealth. This is raising taxes and using it to pay contractors. NOT WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. NASA is irrelevant.

You don't know what you're talking about. "raising taxes and using it to pay contractors" is exactly redistribution of wealth. Who had the wealth spent on NASA contracts? Taxpayers. Who has the wealth now? Big contractors who know what officials and locales to bribe. That's the very definition of "transfer of wealth".

Did I say bailout? I don't think I did. The bailout might end up almost paying for itself.

You haven't been paying attention. The US government through a variety of mechanisms has paid out over four trillion dollars in bailouts from ARRA and TARP through to QE ("quantitative easing") and bailouts of non-finance sectors (such as automobiles and green energy). Most of that money is still unaccounted for (the QE in particular, which is larger than the rest of the pie put together).

You can only say the above, if you don't have a clue what happened. It's trivial to play shell games, transferring future bailout money to pay for past bailout money and maintain the illusion of break even.

Now we are at the heart of the issue. I have a real problem with this mindset. I don't worship rich people. I don't pray to them nightly thanking them for allowing me to work for the money they have to pay me. I am an engineer. I automate processes. I see directly where I save people money by what I do. I AM a PRODUCER. A stock broker is not a producer. A banker is not a producer. Working Americans are the producers, not the rich. The rich just buy politicians so that they can have them write the laws in their favor. Ability does not beget money in this country. Money and connections beget more money in this country. I have faith that if we got rid of the rich in this country (lets say some weird, naturally occuring disease killed the top 1%, not talking about chopping their heads off or anything) then we would do fine. People who are not rich now would take up the slack. The middle class is the real america, not the rich. We need to have rich people so that people know that if the work hard they will get rewarded for it. But this country would not just come crashing down without rich people to tell us what to do. Small businesses are the backbone of this country, and they are started by, and run by, middle class Americans who work their asses off. Those Americans will always be there to take advantage of opportunities, if only we can prevent the rich from writing the laws to make it any harder on them.

This reminds me of something Mark Twain said about the difference between a dog and a man. At least, when you feed a dog, it feels gratitude. Here, it's "I worked hard so I should have your stuff." If working hard was the sole measure, then we should be respecting the crack pusher or the prostitute much more than we do.

I see this entire post as an elaborate rationalization for getting what you think you want. Any negative consequence can't possibly exist because otherwise you

Most tweeters were clueless yesterday

[Anonymous Coward]

The 40 dollars number was completely lost on a majority of tweeters yesterday. Many thought it was 40 dollars a week.

Re:Most tweeters were clueless yesterday

[Rockoon]

Maybe they thought that because thats what the President of the United States has been saying.

Obama: "we asked folks to tell us what would it be like to lose $40 out of your paycheck every week. And I have to tell you that the response has been overwhelming. We haven't seen anything like this before. Over 30,000 people have written in so far"

Re:Most tweeters were clueless yesterday

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama has been saying it or his teleprompters have been saying it? Obama's other tweet reveals what's going on:

@Hillary my teleprompters were stolen again, help me out here Hillary! #dazed #confused #clueless

Re:Most tweeters were clueless yesterday

[Sri Ramkrishna]

You're just jealous that he owns a teleprompter.

$40 figure is bullshit

[Rockoon]

Whitehouse repeatedly says $1000 per year and $40 per week in the same breath. Anyone care to take a guess which figure is bullshit?

Re:$40 figure is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

That's was '$40 a paycheck', another 'conservative' who can't figure out math. $40 x 26 paychecks a year = $1040

Re:$40 figure is bullshit

[sandytaru]

$40 a paycheck, at a paycheck every two weeks, is about $1000 a year. Not everyone is paid weekly.

Re:$40 figure is bullshit

[Enry]

FTFA:

The payroll tax holiday would keep an extra $1,000 in the pockets of an average American worker — or $40 per paycheck, according to the administration.

Most people get paid every two weeks. 26 paychecks * $40= $1040. Some get paid twice a month. 24 paychecks * $40 = $960.

Re:$40 figure is bullshit

[Timewasted]

Isn't the White House saying $40 / paycheck or did I miss something? For those of us who have real jobs, we get paid once every 2 weeks. Hence, $40 / paycheck is just over $1000 / year.

Re:$40 figure is bullshit

[quangdog]

Both?

Re:$40 figure is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming you're getting paid every two weeks, it works. With it in mind that there are 52 weeks in the year, take 1000 dollars per year / 40 dollars less taxed per paycheck = 25 pay periods you can 'give back' those $40.
 
Whether or not it's good/bad/waffles for the economy is a different story altogether.

Re:$40 figure is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:

Forty dollars reflects about how much a bi-weekly paycheck would decrease for a worker earning $50,000 in the event no deal is made to extend the tax cut.

Umm ... you missed something? $40 per bi-weekly paycheck works out to $1040 per year which rounds down to $1000 rather nicely.

Re:$40 figure is bullshit

[SJHillman]

$40 per paycheck (if being paid bi-weekly as most people are) does come out to roughly $1000/yr

Re:$40 figure is bullshit

[Brian_Ellenberger]

Isn't the White House saying $40 / paycheck or did I miss something? For those of us who have real jobs, we get paid once every 2 weeks. Hence, $40 / paycheck is just over $1000 / year.

Quote from Obama

"[On] Tuesday, we asked folks to tell us what would it be like to lose $40 out of your paycheck every week. "
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/12/22/president-obama-discusses-what-40-means-americans-families

A more important deception is that it is a reduction in the amount taxpayers pay into Social Security--NOT the general budget. This is more akin to reducing the amount of 401k withholdings than a tax break because you will have to make it up later one way or another--either through reduced SS benefits or increased SS taxes to make up for the deficit.

Re:$40 figure is bullshit

[Ykant]

No, they keep claiming $40 per paycheck. Most people are paid every other week. Which maths out to $1040 annually.

Re:$40 figure is bullshit

[Attila Dimedici]

you will have to make it up later one way or another--either through reduced SS benefits or increased SS taxes to make up for the deficit.

Nah, they are going to make it up by making our children(or at this point, more likely our grandchildren, they have already spent all the money our children are going to earn) pay more in SS taxes.

Re:$40 figure is bullshit

[Rockoon]

In more than a few states, it is either illegal to pay biweekly or it is considered a special circumstance that must be approved first and is then subject to frequent reviews (complaints from employees will void the waiver.)

Now I'm not sure where you live, but in the state I live it seem to be rare for a company to either get approval to pay biweekly or perhaps rare that they make such a request, for I don't know *anyone* paid biweekly.

Re:$40 figure is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting info. I've never worked at a job yet on the west coast where I was not paid bi-weekly.

Re:$40 figure is bullshit

[Rockoon]

Source: The Whitehouse

The President said: "[On] Tuesday, we asked folks to tell us what would it be like to lose $40 out of your paycheck every week. And I have to tell you that the response has been overwhelming. We haven't seen anything like this before. Over 30,000 people have written in so far"

Thats a direct quote from the President of The United States, as cited by his website.

Thats $40 per week, another 'liberal' who can't realize when they are being bullshitted.

Re:$40 figure is bullshit

[flirno]

The only times that I have ever been paid weekly were when working temporary jobs. Every part time and full time job that I have held has been bi-weekly. I have had contract jobs where hours reported was weekly but the paychecks were still cut bi-weekly.

Re:$40 figure is bullshit

[Rockoon]

Source

Weekly payment of wages. Exemptions. (Sec. 31-71b). (a) Each employer, by himself, his agent or representative, shall pay weekly all moneys due each employee on a regular pay day, designated in advance by the employer, in cash, by negotiable checks or, upon an employee's written request, by credit to such employee's account in any bank which has agreed with the employer to accept such wage deposits. (b) The end of the pay period for which payment is made on a regular pay day shall be not more than eight days before such regular pay day, provided, if such regular pay day falls on a nonwork day, payment shall be made on the preceding work day. (c) This section shall not be construed to prohibit a local or regional board of education and a recognized or certified exclusive bargaining representative of its certified or noncertified employees from including within their collective bargaining agreement a schedule for the payment of wages to certified employees or noncertified employees that differs from the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) of this section. (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to employees swapping workdays or shifts as permitted under a collective bargaining agreement.

I get it. Anonymous Cowards are liberals that know that they dont know what they are talking about.

Re:$40 figure is bullshit

[similar_name]

Pay day laws Mostly in New England.

Re:$40 figure is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

This us vs. them attitude where you paint everyone as a 'liberal' really makes it sound like you're in a cult, Rockoon. Do you need some help getting out?

Re:$40 figure is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the White House saying $40 / paycheck or did I miss something?

You are missing something. The $40/week number is complete bullshit.

This "tax holiday" is a 2% reduction in the "portion" of taxes "you pay" into Social Security (words in quotations are also bullshit). 2% only works out to $40/week if you earn $100,000/year. The median wage in the U.S. is $50,000/year, so on average the "savings" are $20/week.

Of course, the people who could really use the money are the poorest, and at $25,000/year that 2% is only $10/week. Now, 10 bucks is 10 bucks, but big friggin' deal. For the people who need it most, it's $40/month, and that comes out of Social Security funds, which are needed now to pay for all the old geezers taking early retirement because they voted to spend the money as soon as they payed it.

captcha: encrust

Re:$40 figure is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the White House saying $40 / paycheck or did I miss something?

You are missing something. The $40/week number is complete bullshit.

This "tax holiday" is a 2% reduction in the "portion" of taxes "you pay" into Social Security (words in quotations are also bullshit). 2% only works out to $40/week if you earn $100,000/year. The median wage in the U.S. is $50,000/year, so on average the "savings" are $20/week.

Of course, the people who could really use the money are the poorest, and at $25,000/year that 2% is only $10/week. Now, 10 bucks is 10 bucks, but big friggin' deal. For the people who need it most, it's $40/month, and that comes out of Social Security funds, which are needed now to pay for all the old geezers taking early retirement because they voted to spend the money as soon as they payed it.

captcha: encrust

Ha! It gets even better. If you factor in the expiring tax breaks, this is actually a tax hike for the poorest: http://www.mydollarplan.com/payroll-tax-cut/

Re:$40 figure is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Its worse than that there is about 50-60 trillion unfunded conditions coming up... And that is across 20 years...

Re:$40 figure is bullshit

[Rockoon]

Nice find.

So in a country with a population of 301 million people, only 60.5 million of them live in states where it is legal to pay employees biweekly without some sort of special exemption. So 80% of the working population are likely to not be paid biweekly.

Re:$40 figure is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

According to that link only 7 states require weekly pay. Of those 7 states, some have exemptions and some only apply to certain professions. Just looking at Texas, Florida and California which do not require weekly pay accounts for 80 million people.

States with weekly pay laws are according to the site linked:
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Michigan
New Hampshire
New York
Rhode Island

Re:$40 figure is bullshit

[Rockoon]

This us vs. them attitude where you paint everyone as a 'liberal' really makes it sound like you're in a cult

I demonstrate again and again that it is they that are in a 'cult', that they operate on lies, and blame the shit that they do on the Republicans.

Deregulation of the housing marker.. ie, default swaps? Democrats overwhelmingly voted in favor of it, yet those same Democrats tell everyone that it was the evil Republicans did it, and the liberal drones repeat the nonsense because they couldn't be bothered to actually look up what the fuck their idols voted for. The media doesnt help because most of the people in that business are also liberal drones, and investigative journalism is dead (and by "investigation", I mean performing simple searches to see who the fuck voted for what.. they cant even be bothered to do that.)

The liberal response to the facts is always to stick their head in the sand and pretend that I didnt just shatter their fucking dream world when I point out that only 4 democrats voted against the shit they are blaming on the Republicans.

And hey, why worry that 80% of the country lives in states where it is not even fucking legal to pay employees biweekly.
Surprised? I am too. I figured there were only a handful of states where this was verboten. Turns out that its only legal in 13 states, with a combined population of only 60.5 million of the 301 million living in the country.

The problem with the liberal cult is that it IS a cult. They only care about what their leaders say.. and never seem to actually watch what their leaders do. If thats not a cult, what the fuck is?

Re:$40 figure is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I was pretty sure this was being paid for by increasing the points on new loans backed by freddie and fannie. So basically its going to penalize new home buyers (after the start of the year) I think $17 a month (per 200k of loan) for the duration of their loan. Just so they can give other people a break for 2 months. As a person who is going to likely be paying that 0.1 point I'm not a fan, but I know in the past I've received benefits from the gov't, so I guess this is when I get to pay them back. :(

I hope that what I read was wrong, since it was from one article and I don't follow politics because I'd be better off working an extra hour a day than figuring out that I was getting screwed out of $17/month.

Re:$40 figure is bullshit

[Rockoon]

I need to correct myself. It was more than 4 Democrats that voted against it. It was actually 9 Democrats that voted against deregulating default swaps.

The final House roll call went 292 to 60, and breakdown by party is 133 to 51 for Republicans and 157 to 9 for Democrats. More Democrats voted for this thing than Republicans, in spite of the fact that more Republicans bothered to vote.

Yet the Democrats tell us time and again that it was the Republicans that deregulated the beast.

The really interesting part was that in June of that year, the House voted for a precursor to this bill that did not include deregulation of default swaps and that vote went 217 to 214 (Democrats went 3 to 206, overwhelmingly against the bill when it did not include default swap deregulation!)

Republican support tanked when it included deregulation of default swaps, and Democrat support grew enormously.. yet somehow the Republicans are to blame? Really?

THIS is why liberals are cultist fuckwads. They dont have a fucking clue whats going on! They think the Republicans are to blame for what the Democrats did, because thats what the Democrats told them to think.

The facts are available, assholes. You don't need to rely on what Senator Daterape told you. Stop listening to what they say and start looking at what they do. The Democrats are more responsible for the economy being in the shitter, BECAUSE THATS THE WAY THE VOTE WENT. Stop listening. Start watching.

They said $40 per paycheck

[Sycraft-fu]

Paychecks are normally bi-weekly. 40x26 = 1040 so sounds like the math is consistent. If it is correct or not I can't say, but it is consistent.

Re:They said $40 per paycheck

[Attila Dimedici]

What do you base this idea that "paychecks are normally bi-weekly" on ? Over the course of my working life, I have been paid monthly, bi-weekly, weekly, and semi-monthly, but by far the majority of my employers paid me on a weekly basis.

Re:They said $40 per paycheck

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting info. Where have you worked? During college I worked at a painting company and was paid bi-weekly. Out of college I've had various technical jobs for the last 14 years and have always been paid bi-weekly in that line of work as well. This is in Washington and Oregon.

Re:They said $40 per paycheck

[Osgeld]

every other job I have had switches

biweekly
weekly
biweekly
weekly
biweekly
currently weekly

Carving up SS trust fund like a Christmas Turkey

[Anonymous Coward]

More bipartisan free lunches.

Future SS recipients must not be tweeting because they are too young to know the screwing they are getting.

Using the media to hide the impact

[drainbramage]

Isn't thei tax the source of funding for SSI?
It looks like saying "I'm cutting the payroll tax" == "I'm bankrupting SSI faster than ever!"
SSI is in the red, this will not help, it will hurt 'real-world' 'middle-class families'.
This goes well past obfuscation and looks like intentional dishonesty to me.
This will hurt everyone.

Re:Using the media to hide the impact

[Timewasted]

Isn't thei tax the source of funding for SSI? It looks like saying "I'm cutting the payroll tax" == "I'm bankrupting SSI faster than ever!" SSI is in the red, this will not help, it will hurt 'real-world' 'middle-class families'. This goes well past obfuscation and looks like intentional dishonesty to me. This will hurt everyone.

And we can only hope this leads to less defense spending and tax rates that were on par with the 1960s and '70s.

Re:Using the media to hide the impact

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, sorta of true. Under the Reagan administration, the government realized that when baby-boomer retired there would be a shortfall in the SS fund. So they raised SS taxes on every working person so that you would not only pay for the current retirees, but a portion would be saved to keep SS solvent when the baby-boomers retire as well. THis means that every worker is paying more than in SS payment than is needed to maintain the current generation of retirees.

SS is also hurt by a slow economy. If you don't have a job, you don't pay into SS. If you make less money, SS get less money.

While I believe that rich people are pretty much leeching off the working class and should be taxes higher, I don't have a whole lot of problems cutting SS taxes. We'll have to make it up somehow. My bigger concern is when there is talk about cutting SS benefits. SS is paid for outside of the regular income tax and has no bearing on the current deficit. The government borrows from the SS fund to pay for it's wars and such. By cutting SS, the government is basically defaulting on their repayment of the loans from the SS fund. That's what we really have to watch.

Re:Using the media to hide the impact

[larry bagina]

Historically, SS ran a surplus and the extra money went in the general fund in exchange for magic treasury bonds. We'll soon be hitting the third year that SS ran a deficit, originally due to increases in unemployment, increases in retirement, and a generally shitty economy where people who are eligible to retire are unemployed and decide to retire rather than look for another job. Last year's 2% temporary reduction exacerbated that as will the extension (which will no doubt be extended).

Some people like to pretend social security has a lockbox or surplus sitting somewhere but that defies any sort of critical thinking. If you have $1000 in your retirement account, borrow that money to buy some meth and then proceed to smoke up said meth, that money is gone.

Re:Using the media to hide the impact

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

"The two-month version's $33 billion cost will be covered by a .1 percentage point increase on guarantee fees on new home loans backed by mortgage giants Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae"

Re:Using the media to hide the impact

[the eric conspiracy]

SS is also hurt by a slow economy. If you don't have a job, you don't pay into SS. If you make less money, SS get less money.

Yes, but since your benefits are tied to your earnings, SS will have to pay out less too.

Ultimately I think SS will be fixed by lifting the cap on the amount of salary that is subject to payroll taxes and an increase in retirement age.

The real problem is Medicare. There is no way that can be fixed with a really drastic change in the US healthcare system, something that has been shown to be a very hard thing to do.

Re:Using the media to hide the impact

[Algae_94]

I was under the impression that you just needed enough credits to be eligible for SS, then be the proper age to draw on it. What you get is tied to your highest earning years I believe. So theoretically, If one worked at a great job in their 40's and those were the highest earning years, they got enough credits to be eligible, they could be unemployed for the next 20 years and still draw the same amount from SS.

Re:Using the media to hide the impact

[Sloppy]

All I can think of is that Obama lost a ridiculous bet with Boehner on some secret round of golf.

Boehner: "Ten thousand dollars? Chump change. No, I said let's make it interesting."
Obama: "Ok, loser has to wear a dress and an SS armband at their next press conference."
Boehner: "That's getting closer, but people pretty much expect that. The campaigns are on, so wacky attention-whoring is already in."
Obama: "What did you have in mind?"
Boehner: "If I win, you have to be all tax cut, free money, no consequences, wooo! and my party gets to be.."
Obama: "-- Oh my god --"
Boehner "..the voice of.."
Obama: "-- I don't believe this --"
Boehner: "..reason and responsibility."

[Several seconds of silence, then they both burst out laughing]

Boehner: "Scared?"
Obama: "No, you're toast. Speaking of which, what happens when I win?"
Boehner: "We drop the birther thing."
Obama: "Oh please. No seriously, c'mon. I used to think that whole thing was stupid, but it makes people subconsciously think of me as a little more exotic and cool. Try again."
Boehner: *shrugs* "Science."
Obama: "Are you serious?! Holy shit. Really?"
Boenher: "The question is, do you have the balls?"
Obama: "What's your handicap?"
Boehner: "Gingr--" Obama: "Quit fucking around, this is a serious bet."
Boehner: "Minus 5."
Obama: "Oh."
Boehner: "Not so cocky now, are you, Mr Cool?"

Obama should be praised as a hero. So he lost at golf, BFD. He fought for science.

Re:Using the media to hide the impact

[the eric conspiracy]

There is a minimum benefit. And yes it is based on highest earning years - 35 of them. One good decade isn't enough. If you were unemployed for 20 years it is pretty damn likely it would affect your benefit.

Re:Using the media to hide the impact

[Anonymous Coward]

SSI isn't in the red, but its expenditures are exceeding its revenues.

Guess what? If you want a robust retirement system for the current middle class, you've got to put them to work. Right now, banks and businesses aren't doing their part. So you need a stimulus to get it done. Take away the payroll tax cut, and demand will be even smaller, and jobs won't come back.

Economics 101.

Re:Using the media to hide the impact

[TFAFalcon]

Ok, the government spent all of the SS money. But why do the politicians now blame the SS for everything? Why not blame the parts of the government that spent the money?

Let's say defense spent 50% of the money borrowed from SS. Then why not make defense pay back SS, and if they can't afford it while maintaining needed programs then raise taxes to pay for DEFENSE.

To use your analogy : You save 50$ each month and put it in the bank. After a few decades you get old and want to retire and live from your savings, but the bank tells you they don't want to give you your money, since some of their employees have racked up quite a few debts gambling with your money. Is that suddenly your fault? Should it suddenly become your responsibility to again start earning enough to support yourself, or should it be the banks?

Re:Using the media to hide the impact

[tompaulco]

Well, I figure the faster they bankrupt Social Security, the sooner we can stop worrying about Social Security going bankrupt. Then they can stop taking Social Security out of our paychecks and give us an effective 10.4% raise.

Re:Using the media to hide the impact

[Algae_94]

That makes a lot more sense. I was confusing social security benefits with my fathers government employee retirement benefits. That is only based on his 3 highest years of earnings, but he has to be eligible by working how ever long with the gov't.

$40 for Obama

[sycodon]

Treats for his dog

Re:$40 for Obama

[Timewasted]

Treats for his dog

The funny thing is, President Obama probably spent less for his pet on Christmas than a majority of Americans...

Re:$40 for Obama

[T5]

Unless you consider the cost of flying his dog back from Hawaii for a photo op a couple of days ago. That cost we US taxpayers plenty.

Re:$40 for Obama

[porges]

Nope, total bullshit.

Re:$40 for Obama

[tompaulco]

Even if the dog didn't go with them on the vacation, I still think that it is total BS that the president gets to go on several vacations a year while the rest of us can't afford to go anywhere or do anything.

Or...

[sycodon]

Because it is a pain in the ass and costly to implement

If this cut means $40 to you

[Attila Dimedici]

If this cut means $40 in each weekly paycheck, you are doing pretty well for your self. It is only a 2% cut in the Social Security tax withholding. For the average U.S. household, that is less than $25 a week. So apparently, Obama is targeting this tax cut to the rich, since his target demographic will get $40 a week from it? The other great part of this is that the House was getting beat up for not passing this two month extension, when they had passed a one year extension.
Of course, what I love is that the people pushing this are the people who cry about "ending social security as we know it" every time someone proposes a plan to make social security more likely to be long term sustainable.

Re:If this cut means $40 to you

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, what I love is that the people pushing this are the people who cry about "ending social security as we know it" every time someone proposes a plan to make social security more likely to be long term sustainable.

That's because 'social security as they know it' is not what you think of. To them, it is a perpetual crisis they can use to manipulate voters.

Re:If this cut means $40 to you

[HBI]

No, this is not true.

FICA is not withheld beyond a certain maximum income (unlike Medicare). The cutoff is $106,800, and has been for the last 3 years. Back in the early 00s it was in the 80k range. In any event, after you've paid in your $6600 or so in FICA yearly, you don't get the withholding anymore, so there's no payroll tax cut for you after this limit is reached. But if you think about it, if you are making enough that FICA withholding cuts out on you faster, that means you got fewer $40 a pay period cuts. Therefore you got less of this particular tax holiday.

Regardless of the wisdom or lack thereof of this measure, it is not targeted at the rich.

Re:If this cut means $40 to you

[Attila Dimedici]

So basically Obama, when he says "$40 in your weekly paycheck" is targeting those who make over $104,000 a year ($40 is 2 percent of $2000 and $2000 times 52 is $104,000), and you say he is not targeting the rich?

Re:If this cut means $40 to you

[the eric conspiracy]

Most people get paid every two weeks, which is the basis used to come up with the $40. Not weekly.

Also the House got beat up justifiably. The one year extension they passed included stuff like unemployment insurance duration cuts.

Re:If this cut means $40 to you

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority of people in the US are paid bi-weekly or semi-monthly, which means 26 or 24 paychecks a year - $52,000 or $48,000, which is squarely middle class.

Re:If this cut means $40 to you

[Attila Dimedici]

Where do you get that "most people" get paid biweekly from the Obama's "$40 out of your weekly paycheck"?

Re:If this cut means $40 to you

[Algae_94]

I think the president minced his words and didn't mean $40 every week. The Whitehouse's math of ~$1000 a year fits best with a value of $40 every 2 weeks. or $20 every week. Which agrees fairly close to your value of less than $25 a week.

Re:If this cut means $40 to you

[the eric conspiracy]

Obama never said WEEKLY. He said $40 per paycheck for a family that earns 50,000.

Do the math. That's biweekly. Most people get paychecks biweekly. Duh.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/12/obama-40-can-make-all-the-difference-in-the-world/1

All the news stories got it right.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/putting-a-human-face-on-the-payroll-tax-numbers/

Re:If this cut means $40 to you

[Anonymous Coward]

"The figure is the average amount that American workers save under the current payroll tax cut in two weeks, which the White House would like to see extended. The House voted on Tuesday to reject a Senate compromise that would have expanded the tax cut for two months. "

From one of the articles. RTFA you self important prick.

Re:If this cut means $40 to you

[toddestan]

I'm pretty sure it's just a small gaff on Obama's part. If you look at the transcript from the speech, he says "Now, if you’re a family making about $50,000 a year, this is a tax cut that amounts to about $1,000 a year. That’s about 40 bucks out of every paycheck." This works out fine, with the unsaid assumption that he's refering to be being paid biweekly (or semi-monthly). However, shortly thereafter he did say "...we asked folks to tell us what would it be like to lose $40 out of your paycheck every week.", which is incorrect but probably just a small slip-up.

Source.

Pointless.

[unity100]

Give 72% of total available wealth to the 5% of the population, and then do $40 cuts, $40 raises etc ...

nothing can fix things in a system that gives 72% of everything to 5%, and gives the rest 95% of the population only 28%. oh, and the bottom 85% in that society, gets only 15% to boot.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Re:Pointless.

[Anonymous Coward]

No one "gave" them anything. If you're too dumb or lazy to be successful in America maybe the problem isn't the system? Maybe it's you.

Re:Pointless.

[shutdown -p now]

Yes; he has a conscience, unfortunately.

i especially like how

[circletimessquare]

in their obstinance to defy anything obama tries to do, no matter how good or bad for the american people, the republican leadership is willing to oppose a tax CUT

because the tax cut is not for rich people?

republican robots: if you define yourself as "i'm everything that guy is not" and that guy is actually decent, where does that leave your political future?

Re:i especially like how

[Attila Dimedici]

You mean that passing a year long extension rather than a two month extension is what you call opposing a tax cut?

Re:i especially like how

[Anonymous Coward]

That would make sense if they opposed the tax cut (which isn't a "cut" as a cut would infer permanence; it is a tax holiday or temporary reduction). They didn't oppose the cut itself, they opposed the length of time, preferring a year over two months. Even national payroll companies said the two month cut would be exceedingly difficult due to the paperwork involved, promoting instead a one year cut. In fact, the cut would help everyone through their first $106,800 of earnings, including the uber-wealthy.

It is humorous to watch people complain about the mindless GOP while being mindless in their own right.

Re:i especially like how

[LeanSystems]

You too are mindless. This was part of Obama's "Jobs Bill". If that would have been passed this issue would be moot. But the 'pubs didn't like it because Obama liked it. So the Dems have proposed a 2 month extension so they can have a nice Christmas break and debate this in January.

There is also the issue of the Keystone Pipeline... which is really funny because the 'pubs are calling that "shovel ready" and claiming it will create 100k jobs. This just a few months after the chants that "the government can't create jobs".

Just for the record Democrats aren't all roses and glitter either... they both need to be slapped around.

Re:i especially like how

[artor3]

They intentionally added tons of unrelated, partisan crap to the one year bill. Essentially, they were taking the American people hostage. Obama and the Senate refused to play that game, and so came up with a two month extension to buy time in the hopes that the Republicans will stop taking hostages.

It's a vain hope, and we'll be right back where we started in two months -- the Republicans with a gun to the head of the American people, demanding that we give them the world. Same as they did with the unemployment benefits last year, and the debt ceiling some months ago. So don't you dare try to pretend that the Republicans were behaving ethically in proposing that "one year extension". To do so makes you either ignorant or a liar.

Re:i especially like how

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's mindless?

Keystone is not a government project. It's private. It's being held up by the government though.

Fucking stupid kids on Christmas vacation stinking up Slashdot with their ignorance.

Re:i especially like how

[Attila Dimedici]

Right, because, after all, the fact that Obama wants to spend trillions of dollars every year (based on the budget he submitted earlier this year, which is the only budget proposed by a Democrat in the last three years) that we don't have is behaving ethically? Or the fact that the Democrats in the Senate refuse to pass a budget at all because it would reveal their spending priorities to the American people, even though they are legally bound to do so, is ethical?

Re:i especially like how

[khallow]

This was part of Obama's "Jobs Bill".

It was appropriate here to use "scare quotes" because jobs have remarkably little to do with any of Obama's "jobs bills". Even when one naively uses Obama administration claims for jobs "created or saved", you still get a vast amount squandered per alleged job, "created or saved".

There is also the issue of the Keystone Pipeline... which is really funny because the 'pubs are calling that "shovel ready" and claiming it will create 100k jobs. This just a few months after the chants that "the government can't create jobs".

Government isn't making that pipeline. TransCanada Corporation is making the pipeline. Understand your examples before you use them.

Let's illustrate this problem with an example. Suppose I, in my orbital space fortress have a space DEATH ray which can, with a flick of the switch, kill seven billion people on Earth. While I'm negotiating with the UN for the massive sum of ONE MILLION DOLLARS to prevent global doom at my ruthless hands, Spaceman Spiff breaks into the station, shutting down the space DEATH ray, arresting me, and generally saving the day.

To use your argument above, I would be morally equivalent to Spaceman Spiff because I chose not to kill seven billion people (yet) which according to your argument (the one that you wrote in case you're still wondering at this point) is equivalent to actually saving lives via Spaceman Spiff activities.

There is a huge difference between doing valuable things that create jobs, such as building a natural gas pipeline, and not doing things that destroy jobs, such as blocking a natural gas pipeline. It isn't government creating jobs, it's government choosing not to destroy jobs.

Re:i especially like how

[artor3]

To answer the first question, yes, because deficit spending is necessary during a recession.

To answer the second question, why should the Democrats waste time creating a budget in the Senate? Traditionally, the House is supposed to put forward the first draft of financial bills, and besides, the Republicans would just filibuster anything the Democrats proposed. That's been their game plan for years.

Re:i especially like how

[Attila Dimedici]

The House passed a budget, the Senate never took it up. They never even considered it. All they did was vote down Obama's budget. When the Democrats controlled the House for two years with Obama as President, they never passed a budget.
The Democrat plan for years has been to pass some outrageous bill to increase the size of the federal government by huge amounts and then get the Republicans to "compromise" by only increasing the size and scope of the federal government by a little bit. The problem is that the Republicans' constituents want the size and scope of the government reduced. If you are happy with an ever larger, more powerful, more intrusive government, then support the Democrats. Personally, I think the government has long past the point of having too much interference in my day to day life.

Re:i especially like how

[Anonymous Coward]

The right way to say it is. "Government can't create jobs, it can only prevent them" They will STOP the drilling, they will STOP the pipe line. The EPA (i.e. Government agency) STOPs windmills/solar power from going up, they slow down a lot of development for years.

Obama even laughed at his "job bell" he said something like "ha, guess there wasn't any shovel ready jobs".

If your making enough to get $40 back a paycheck, that $40 is not a lot to you in the first place. People get mad at Republicans for trying to reform social security so it don't go broke, then they get mad at Republicans for trying to stop some of the funding TO social security. Democrats make people their puppets pretty well.

#650billionformilitaryisstupid

[Dan667]

should be the next tag the white house pushes. The US cannot afford spending $650 billion on a military we don't need.

Re:#650billionformilitaryisstupid

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't say we don't need a military. He said we don't need a $650 billion military.

Re:#650billionformilitaryisstupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we really need to spend more than the next 19 top military spenders combined in order to have a military? I think we could effectively defend America for less than half that. Settle for having four super-aircraft carriers instead of a dozen. Slow down the development schedule on the JSF and depend on the F-18s in the meantime. Close down some of the hundreds of foreign bases we maintain all over the place. Quit invading random countries every time a president gets cranky.

Defending one country doesn't take over 40% of the world's military spending. We could easily cut military spending from 650B to 130B and still have the strongest military on the planet.

Re:#650billionformilitaryisstupid

[Anonymous Coward]

#militarybasesinover140countriesforwhy?

Re:#650billionformilitaryisstupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The defense budget is a bit over-inflated but compare what's come out of defense spending.
The internet, IC's, and GPS to name a few basics.

Re:#650billionformilitaryisstupid

[TFAFalcon]

Why not outsource it?

I'm sure the private sector can supply all the military power we want if we just pay them enough, and it will surely be a lot lower then the $650 billion being spent now. After all, the private sector is much more efficient then the crappy government.

Wait, why don't we let each state choose their own private military firm. After all, federal government is bad!

Re:#650billionformilitaryisstupid

[Dan667]

also needless war and neglecting US Citizens? Oh yea, people gloss over those things.

Re:#650billionformilitaryisstupid

[Dan667]

the scale of the US military is just insane,especially in light of the huge social problems like health care the US has right now. Some examples are the US has 11 aircraft carriers and is building at least 2 more that I know of. China has one and it is not even built yet. The F-35 is a fighter with no purpose and no one wants it, but Congress will not let the spending get killed so we are building them anyway instead of helping US Citizens.

Are the paycheck cuts for congress members?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they petitioning congress because they want to lower the paycheck of congress employees?

Re:Are the paycheck cuts for congress members?

[jmac_the_man]

No, the Dems took that out of the bill. The year long tax holiday the Republicans passed included a cut to congressional pay.

Re:Are the paycheck cuts for congress members?

[sycodon]

Those fuckers should lose half their pay and half their staff.

Breaking news

[travdaddy]

The two-month extension passed both houses and Obama just now signed it.

On Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why was this even posted to /.??? If I wanted to read this I would go to CNN. Really???

What Twitter trending means

[Saishuuheiki]

I think it's worth mentioning that on twitter "trending" isn't just a measure of numbers. It's also a large part a measure of proportional increase. This means it's easier to get a trending topic on something that hasn't been talked about much before with a wierd hashtag.

This is a blog discussing how a tag for a gaming tournament became a trending topic.
http://latenightmarketing.com/gsl-trending-twitter-stats/

Every cent...

[Anonymous Coward]

...borrowed from China.

$1.5 trillion deficit and we're arguing about more middle class tax breaks. This nation has a big fat expiration date.

Re:Every cent...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where was this opinion when there was talk of taxing the rich? Hypocracy much?

Well, this one is.

[cje]

I hate to say it, because it's horribly unpopular from a political perspective, but this payroll tax "holiday" is just disastrous policy. Depending on what numbers and what year you're looking at, anywhere from 81 to 89 percent of the entire U.S. budget goes to two things: defense and entitlements. And of those entitlements, the biggest long-term liabilities and problems that we have are Social Security and Medicare.

When you hear these Presidential candidates talk about how they would fix the budget deficits by getting rid of things like the EPA, the IRS, the Departments of Commerce / Energy / Education, etc., then you know should know that they are not making any sort of good-faith effort at solving the problem, and that they cannot be taken seriously. The dirty little secret is that you could cut out 100% of the discretionary non-defense spending (i.e., everything except for the military and entitlements) and you would have barely made a dent in the problem as a whole.

The whole purpose of the payroll/FICA tax is to provide funds for Social Security and Medicate. Again, these are the two biggest problems that the U.S. has from a budget perspective -- biggest by leaps and bounds. So not only does this policy make the deficit problem worse, it makes it worse in the worst possible way. Politicians can claim that these tax cuts are "paid for", but everybody knows that these types of Washington claims are usually just shell games for political purposes.

For what it's worth, I like the fact that the payroll tax holiday disproportionally benefits those towards the lower end of the income scale. But there has to be a better way to do this, especially at this critical time in history when the Boomers are retiring and we're going to need these trust funds more than at any time in our history.

Re:Well, this one is.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny, because on my paycheck, Social Security and Medicare are a completely different line item taken out than the regular taxes.

FUD much?

Re:Well, this one is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Keynesian stimulus for the 1% is disastrous policy. Unless you've got any other bright ideas for actually putting $$$ in the hands of the 99%, the payroll tax reduction seems like a pretty good idea.

The Republicans oppose extending it because they know that it will stimulate consumption as we run up to the 2012 election. Plain and simple. This is such a transparent attempt to regain power at the expense of the American people that we ought to see right through it and never vote for another Republican again.

Alas, all you have to do is say "gay atheist gun-controlling abortion doctor socialists" and you get 30% of the vote.

Re:Well, this one is.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny, because on my paycheck, Social Security and Medicare are a completely different line item taken out than the regular taxes.

Yes, and that line item is called the payroll tax, which is what we are talking about. There's a weird situation where the payroll tax and income tax are separate and setup such that the payroll tax is regressive (it only applies to the first $106k/yr) and the income tax is progressive.

Re:Well, this one is.

[roman_mir]

You should vote Ron Paul then, because nobody else will cut militarism and bring all troops home from across the globe and would reform the SS and Medicare to keep taking care of people who are on those programs now, the elderly and the children, while giving people option to opt out (at first just the people under age of 25, but eventually to let anybody opt out as these programs will be shut down.) And SS and Medicare will be shut down, whether Ron Paul is elected or not, it's just with Ron Paul the way to shut them down will be gradual, allowing the current recipients to keep getting their support (but probably means testing in order to cut costs). If it's not Ron Paul, then the way these programs will be shut down is going to be by the dollar crashing and the loss of purchasing power will mean that the nominal numbers on the coming checks will buy nothing.

Re:Well, this one is.

[Anonymous Coward]

talk about how they would fix the budget deficits by getting rid of things like the EPA, the IRS, the Departments of Commerce / Energy / Education, etc

Post Office. You forgot to mention them. People like to talk about how they can't seem to make any money, but ignore the fact that Congress is raping their profits to prop up other programs. If you look at the raw amount of income vs. operating expense, before we siphon money from them, they actually do turn a decent profit.

Diet Coke syndrome

[k6mfw]

What gets me steamed about budgets is huge debate on small stuff. Geez a $40 payroll tax cut? (which is really Social Security deduction people should get back later as it is an entitlement). All this debate over $40!?!?!? It is like they argue over NASA, NSF, NOAA, etc. budgets that don't amount to diddly. Meanwhile on big ticket items (DoD) is never debated. I'm going to mention Social Security as that is entitlement program separate from budgets that lead to deficits. SS has its own problems (will leave that for another thread).

It is the ***same*** mentality that people who want to lose weight so they have a Diet Coke along with a large meal. If ya want to lose weight you must either reduce intake, do more exercise, or both. A Diet Coke is only 0.05% of the big picture. Be a man and have a real coke.

Re:Diet Coke syndrome

[Ksevio]

Maybe you should read some of the tweets that this article is about where people explain how $40 less will make a difference in their budgets.

No doubt there are other programs that need debating, but for a lot of people, this will make a difference in their day to day lives.

Re:Diet Coke syndrome

[jon3k]

It is the ***same*** mentality that people who want to lose weight so they have a Diet Coke along with a large meal. If ya want to lose weight you must either reduce intake, do more exercise, or both. A Diet Coke is only 0.05% of the big picture. Be a man and have a real coke.

Completely incorrect. Let's look at McDonald's as an example. Let's say you ate the following for lunch every day:

1/4 Pounder with Cheese: 510 calories
Medium French Fry: 380 calories
Large Coke: 310 calories
Total: 1200 calories
(source)

In this scenario the Coke accounts for 25.8% of the calories (!!!). If you were to switch from regular to diet coke and change NOTHING ELSE, you would lose 31.5lbs in a year.

310 calories * 365 days in a year / 3500 calories per pound = 31.5 lbs/year

#40dollars

[larry bagina]

4 dime bags.

8 blow jobs (sucky sucky five dollah)

Re:#40dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Eight blowjobs a pay period is politics I can get behind.

Or in front of?

Re:#40dollars

[Timewasted]

Or 40 McDoubles... of course with the long term health complications of eating 40 McDoubles a paycheck far outweighs the $1000 / year.

No risks

[bussdriver]

Half the voting Americans are clueless and can easily be suckered into believing a decent politician is an undercover Muslim from Kenya who wants to destroy the nation under a Fascist dictatorship and impose communist socialism. (I'm not making that up, its been said multiple times for years.)

In Australia when their ruling party fucked up big they lost every seat except a some cities; but in the USA with the 3 branch GOP 8 year foobar 100x worse they only barely lost control of 2 branches but easily gummed things up for the upper 1% until the next season of advertizing. (Plus the crook democrats need a cover story to excuse them from selling out and essentially being republican.) Sorry, if I offended the loyal customers who think Republican means something other than the brand name it now is which was bought and payed for many years ago. The dems are not in a much better shape.

Are Americans just that much more stupid than Australians? perhaps. Australia REQUIRES EVERYBODY TO VOTE; perhaps that is the main difference? Parliament systems are probably better.

Re:No risks

[TheRealMindChild]

Sorry, if I offended the loyal customers who think Republican means something other than the brand name it now is which was bought and payed for many years ago.

No you aren't. But that is the point, right? Making it seem like you have more to say than you really do.

Dangerous joke

[amightywind]

Obama is a dangerous joke. The payroll tax cut further under funds Social Security. That's supposed to be your retirement folks. The program is already on death watch. So enjoy your pizza night, or buy your insulin, or any of the other sob stories you heard from democrat losers. When the end comes it will be more abrupt and painful.

Re:Dangerous joke

[nomadic]

More painful than not having insulin? Really?

Re:Dangerous joke

[Timewasted]

More painful than not having insulin? Really?

Without insulin we can speed up people's health complications and force them to need more health care! Hence, without Social Security their lives will be much more painful, eh?

Re:Dangerous joke

[Osgeld]

"That's supposed to be your retirement folks"

no its not, and that is a major problem with the entire system, its supposed to be when flunky Johnny simply cant work any more he wont starve to death at age 80 while living in a cardboard box.

somehow the old farts in this country demand and expect that after putting in a fraction of their 60$ a week paycheck in 1973 they are entitled to thousands a month today for them to live on in retirement, but again its not, its a safety net that everyone abuses.

and cry me a river, I remember being told as young grade school the shit wont be there when I get old enough, so I have been planning my retirement since I started working in the mid 90's, sorry if you did not get the memo maybe you should have cut back on pizza night yourself instead of depending on a welfare system to glide you though retirement.

NDAA

[Baby Duck]

Unfortunately, when the NDAA puts Americans into military detention indefinitely, they will not have internet access to twitter the impact of the negative consequences it has on their lives.

#40dollars... bah

[countertrolling]

Let's see #legalizeitdontcriticizeit... It will empty the prisons

Stupid politics that WE pay for, as always.

[Lou57]

Seems to me that every time we get a TEMPORARY tax cut, we end up paying for more boondoggles at each "renewal". A two month extension? Really? Why? I would be ELATED to see this AND the "Bush/Obama Tax Cuts" expire. At least no one in congress would be holding it over my head like a damned dog biscuit expecting me to sit nicely while they "craft" another renewal bill. I think I'll just bite someone.

Throw all incumbents out for the next 20 years!

$40/pay for 2 months ($160)

[PortHaven]

Well, it covers one month of electric.

But how much will it cost companies to update their payroll deduction systems?

Not a tax cut anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, people, it's not a tax cut, it's just more political theater. The "cut" is "paid for" by taking from the general tax fund, and by borrowing.

Corporate Media Coverup Blitz

[Anonymous Coward]

The truth, is the fuckwads in Office (Congress) and in Corporate Media (ABC, CBS, FOX, PBS, NBC) don't want to discuss the NDAA and SOPA and all this other fucking unconstitutional bullshit. So they choreograph this fucking tax break crap.

All these fuckers need to be indicted for treason.
Quit saying maybe. Maybe it's this, maybe it's that. No it's exactly the fucking way they want it. Treasonous oath breaking agenda 21 pieces of shit have nullified the US Constitution. Yet people are still asleep because of the corporate media. They can't even tell the truth about Ron Paul, they won't let him speak, won't let him win.

Here;s my christmas wish.
Fuck Sustainable everything (UN Agenda)
Fuck Carbon Tax (UN)
Fuck Banksters
Fuck the Establishment
Fuck the media

 

Re:Corporate Media Coverup Blitz

[Anonymous Coward]

Just keep bashing your head against the wall. Eventually you'll loose consciousness or faint from loss of blood. I know, I tried it.

Stupid pandering to his base...

[ckaminski]

And pandering likely to work. Poor underemployed democrats, the ones who put him in power in 2008 in the first place - yet he's destroying the revenues that directly pay for Social Security, and hence hastening said programs demise.

Here's all you need to know about the parties in power:

Republican want to take your money and give it to big business.
Democrats want to take your money and give it to everyone but you!

Social Security

[acoustix]

So this President wants to continue a payroll tax cut that effectively defunds Social Security (that's the tax that is being cut), but at the same time blames Republicans for trying to destroy Social Security?

Got it.

Universal Twitter for all

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of you have missed the point. If everyone had twitter or similar, then feedback to the government would be almost instantaneous. That would provide for a better democracy or another form of governance entirely.

Supply side economics?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many non-economists would agree with you.

William A. Niskanen disagrees with you

[Anonymous Coward]

You fail to take elasticity into account, the impact is typically negligible if any at all. Your argument lacks much if any fact based evidence, so it's about as good as when greek scholars were able to argue that there are 4 elements. Even William A. Niskanen has come out against supply side economics.

If your logic were correct, the soviet union with its effective 100% tax rate would have had exactly 0 people employed.

Re:William A. Niskanen disagrees with you

[khallow]

You fail to take elasticity into account, the impact is typically negligible if any at all. Your argument lacks much if any fact based evidence, so it's about as good as when greek scholars were able to argue that there are 4 elements. Even William A. Niskanen has come out against supply side economics.

I guess it's a good thing, I wasn't advocating supply side economics then. Almost magic how your argument falls apart when you take that into account.

If your logic were correct, the soviet union with its effective 100% tax rate would have had exactly 0 people employed.

It's tax rate wasn't 100%. And it did fail hard. I'm sure you're trying to prove something here, but you don't quite have the basics of logic down.

so...

[publiclurker]

As long as they are going to trash their environment we should help them and also do the same to ours as long as your massa gets to line his pockets and make the rest of us pay the price.

Killing the middle class

[Anonymous Coward]

The current system is regressive, and the middle class pays a bigger share. Here is how you fix all the problems:

2010 GDP per captia - 46,860. You pay individually on a percentage of that.

A single individual tax. On all money you make, in any way, you pay:
  0% 0x to .5x GDP per capita
15% .5x to 1x GDP per capita
25% 1x to 2x GDP per capita
35% 2x+ GDP per capita

No exceptions, no writeoffs, everyone who earns money files individually. Eliminate all other federal taxes (FICA, Medicare, Federal Income tax, Federal Corporate Income tax, etc...)

To anyone wishing to win an argument.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you feel like this informed you in a valuable way, pass it on to clueless relatives

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GHg3GAeQ1Y