Skip to main content

View Diary: Read it and weep (592 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But $40K is (10+ / 0-)

    and doing nothing would have raised taxes on those households too.

    A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by notrouble on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 09:02:07 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  yes (37+ / 0-)

      and then with everyone watching and the clock ticking, you very loudly promote the obama middle class tax cuts, and dare the republicans to vote against them. or you just make excuses and blame the big bad mean republicans yet again and don't even try.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 09:05:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wish I had your rose colored glasses (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        grrr

        for how nice and easy that would work out.

        A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

        by notrouble on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 09:47:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  What seems rather ironic to me (8+ / 0-)

        is that we have one group here screaming that this bill doesn't raise enough tax revenue and will lead to low federal revenue and austerity budgets. We have another group here saying the tax increase is to big because the 2% payroll tax reduction was allowed to expire.

        I don't feel the payroll tax cut was an appropriate way to provide tax relief in the first place. It put part of Social Security into the general budget (as it was supposedly making up the difference) and only helped the other side frame it as an entitlement instead of the earned benefit that is really is.

        A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

        by notrouble on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 09:56:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  That scenario would have been UGLY (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jjohnjj, notrouble, sethtriggs

        I think we all assumed that if we went over the cliff, Boehner would fold after a week and introduce legislation to cut taxes for everyone making under $250,000 a year.

        But why would he choose that figure?  He's Speaker of the House, and he doesn't have to bring anything to the floor that he doesn't want to.  Pelosi's discharge petition didn't work.  The Republican alternative would have been a higher threshold than $250,000 -- Boehner's Plan B might have worked if it occurred after the cliff.

        I think Boehner would have introduced one message vote after another, larding the bill with poison pills that the Senate couldn't accept and that Obama couldn't sign, to give the impression that Democrats were actually blocking the tax cuts.

        Republicans would have taken much of the blame.  But low-information voters would only notice that their taxes had gone up and that the Senate was refusing to consider the House bills.  The image would be of Reid and Obama saying "no" to everything the House produced.  Meanwhile everyone has smaller paychecks and 2 million unemployed people have zero income.  We could well have seen riots on the streets in that scenario.

        I'm not sure the Democrats would get out of that one unscathed.

      •  and argue (11+ / 0-)

        that the Obama WH is completely powerless - that one really makes me laugh.

    •  This deal raises taxes on those 40k folks today... (14+ / 0-)

      ...with the payroll tax increase.  Obama choosing to not even fight for that is an utter betrayal every non-millionaire that voted for him.

      A person making 50k a year just saw their take home pay go down by $1,000 this year, thanks to the President's priorities.

      The bear and the rabbit will never agree on how dangerous a dog is.

      by fromer on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 09:22:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The payroll tax had to go up (7+ / 0-)

        This is the problem with tax "holidays."  They're sold as temporary and then there's political pressure to extend them indefinitely.

        The payroll tax, if made permanent, would have weakened Social Security.  And good luck trying to ever raise that figure again.

      •  According to Ezra Klein (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NYFM, fromer, badger, notrouble, elwior

        on MSNBC today, the White House WERE THE ONLY ONES fighting for the payroll tax cut extension, and were getting no support from either Reid or Pelosi (or anyone else in Congress, for that matter).

        •  that is deeply disappointing to learn... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens

          ...as is the fact that no one thought to fight for an increase in the payroll tax cap in exchange for an extension of the lowered rates until the economy improves.  This was a regressive economic policy choice.

          The bear and the rabbit will never agree on how dangerous a dog is.

          by fromer on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 10:42:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  But Redstate hated it (5+ / 0-)

        so it must be good - keep up.

        •  I love the argument that it's a good deal (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens, George Hier, elwior

          because RedState or other conservative loons hate it, or the argument that Bernie Sanders voted for it, so that means it's a good deal.

          Both arguments are made by people who think that national politics is like high school, where all that matters is who's in with the cool kids, who the nerds are, and what the guy they elected homecoming king thinks.

          They might consider viewing policy choices on their merits, but I wonder if any of them have the intellectual capacity to even try to do that.

          In Soviet Russia, you rob bank. In America, bank robs you.

          by badger on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 10:56:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  That 2% is going into the worker's SS account. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        notrouble

        ... so it's a "tax increase" only relative to it's effect on current economic stimulus. In the long run, it's retirement savings - something the American workforce is sorely deficient in.

        We "traded it" for a 4.5% increase on incomes above $450k  - revenue that will be available for everything from infrastructure spending to food stamps.

        This deal was not optimal, but it wasn't a "betrayal" either.

        Have you noticed?
        Politicians who promise LESS government
        only deliver BAD government.

        by jjohnjj on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 10:22:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Are you really that clueless? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aliasalias, Mr Robert, 3goldens

          The 2% has been going into the worker's "SS account" for the last two years, too. It's just been coming out of general revenues instead of paychecks.

          And it's only retirement savings if the government chooses to continue paying it out at some reasonable level. The President has already offered to make cuts in real benefits by offering the GOP chained CPI.

          In Soviet Russia, you rob bank. In America, bank robs you.

          by badger on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 10:59:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I stand corrected (0+ / 0-)

            Here's a link to a CS Monitor article, which you may offer (in place of ridicule) the next time someone repeats my misconception.

            Here's another one, from the NY Times. It remarks on fears that conservatives would attempt to revive the Republicans' old 2005 plan to allow workers to divert the 2% into IRAs when the Obama payroll tax holiday expired.

            Perhaps the Dems had a good reason to restore the payroll tax to "normal" now rather than let the TeaPuppets get interested in it later.

            Have you noticed?
            Politicians who promise LESS government
            only deliver BAD government.

            by jjohnjj on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 08:46:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Good lord, the payroll tax increase was necessary (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        notrouble

        Some of Amy Davidson's cited comments from the New Yorker were ridiculous.

        Yes, the "increase" impacts me.  100%.  And I was happy to see that the rate has returned to its former level.  It's called paying for something.

        On the one hand, people complain about how SS is under attack, but on the other hand suggest that the SS tax holiday should have been extended.  What's it going to be?  Supporting the long-term stability of SS (because that's what the payroll tax is for) or not?

        In an ideal world, the next stage in the upcoming budget, SS, and Medicare brouhaha would be to propose a substantial rise or elimination of the income ceiling for the payroll tax.  Long-term SS stability should not merely be a line in the sand for Democrats, it should be an impenetrable barrier.

        There is far too much "Democrats gave away the farm" and "Republicans now have the upper hand" overreacting going on here.  Yes, it is going to be ugly in the coming months, but with Republicans still in the majority in the House, by definition that guarantees continued ugliness, whether we "went over the cliff" yesterday or emerged with what actually happened.

        However, the malignant ugliness of Republican ideology will be on greater display as the year goes on, and the best thing that we can do is keep shining a light on it, and make certain that the MSM is there to see it and report it.

    •  I'm at around 31K, and the net result of (22+ / 0-)

      this grand bargain shit sandwich is a tax increase of $176. That is because my payroll tax payment will be going up by $600 due to the expiration of the 2% reduction, while my income taxes are staying $424 lower than they would be if the Bush Obama Tax Cuts had been allowed to expire.

      Sure, $176 isn't going to "make or break" me, but hearing President Obama say that he averted a tax increase on the working class - when that statement is patently, demonstrably false - just pissed me off.

      If more people earning below the median household income of ~$50,000 per year would just do the friggin' math, they'd quickly find out that they'd been lied to - again. By the guys on "our side".

      "Bernie Madoff's mistake was stealing from the rich. If he'd stolen from the poor he'd have a cabinet position." -OPOL

      by blue in NC on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 09:22:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blue in NC, Timothy J, hester, elwior

        Bingo! was his name-o.
        Rec'd. I only wish I could do so more than once.

        •  And I'm single with no dependents. If I were (8+ / 0-)

          filing with a family of 4 with a gross income of $50,000, for example, I'd have enough additional deductions to reduce my taxable income down to the same $19,000 range it is for me now. In that case, I'd be taking a $1,000 increase in payroll tax, offset by the same $424 Bush Obama reduction in income tax, for a net hit of $576.

          Ain't that grand?

          Gee, thanks, Mr. President. And a very Happy New Year to you, too!

          "Bernie Madoff's mistake was stealing from the rich. If he'd stolen from the poor he'd have a cabinet position." -OPOL

          by blue in NC on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 09:42:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

        does the EITC apply to you?

        Dems in swing districts: INSIST your republican rep incr tax on the wealthy -gerrymandering makes rep vulnerable...swing district list: http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1162387/48457188

        by grrr on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 09:51:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  And bad for small businesses (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blue in NC, elwior

        I'm a sole proprietor, so that means my taxes go up by double that.

        I realize that the cut was temporary, but we need more stimulus before raising taxes. I do not feel very optimistic about the economy at this point. And I direct my anger fully at the republicans, btw.

        "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

        by La Gitane on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 10:23:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, your comment made me go back and (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          La Gitane, 3goldens, notrouble, elwior

          check my 2011 Schedule SE (I had a very small amount of Schedule C Sole Proprietorship income for 2011) and sole proprietors are not seeing a double increase.

          We were paying 10.4% through 2012. We will be paying 12.4% after this "grand bargain". We only had an overall 2% reduction via the payroll tax holiday, just like wage-earners, not a 4% reduction.

          "Bernie Madoff's mistake was stealing from the rich. If he'd stolen from the poor he'd have a cabinet position." -OPOL

          by blue in NC on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 10:29:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh good (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blue in NC

            I thought it was going to be something like 16%. But I'm really a zero when it comes to taxes and finances so I will definitely defer to you! ;)

            "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

            by La Gitane on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 10:31:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  LOL, as I said, I had to go back (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              La Gitane, 3goldens

              and check. I really wasn't sure what rate I was paying after the "payroll tax holiday", because I had no self-employment income in 2010 and only around $1,100 in 2011. By far the largest part of my income is salary (if you call $30K/yr large). ;-)

              Remember, too, that we had the $400/$800 "Making Work Pay" credit in 2010. To all those people who've insisted that "the payroll tax had to go back up", I say "fine...but why didn't our Democratic President and our Democratic Congressional "leadership" hold out for another onetime credit for low-income taxpayers?"

              Now, don't forget that your full "SE" percentage will be 15.3% this coming year: 12.4% for SS (up from 10.4%), plus the 2.9% for Medicare that hasn't changed.

              "Bernie Madoff's mistake was stealing from the rich. If he'd stolen from the poor he'd have a cabinet position." -OPOL

              by blue in NC on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 10:42:31 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh okay (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                blue in NC

                So I was close, then, on the 16%.

                Even though I'm a sole proprietor, I am a low-income tax payer. Definitely not one of those million-dollar "small businesses".

                This tax is going to hurt me; it's been hard to pay the way it is. I had no income in 2009, and virtually nothing in 2010 and 2011. But I still had to come up with more than $1000 in taxes.  I'm still trying to recover; I made some money this year, not a lot, but I owe people money from the years that I didn't do so well. Not to mention trying to get back the things I lost, like an office and my health care. I feel like I'm just barely coming up out of the hole and getting slammed.

                "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

                by La Gitane on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 10:53:47 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh, you are, you are..."just barely coming (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  3goldens, La Gitane

                  up out of the hole and getting slammed", that is.

                  Most of us real "small businessmen" are. :-(

                  I've run my small business (home improvement/handyman service) for 25 years, but income from that has declined (mostly because I'm getting too old to be crawling around in muddy crawl spaces and lugging around heavy construction materials) and I'm very grateful that I was fortunate enough to have gotten the part-time job that pays me ~$30K without quite the physical toll on the aging bones. Now, that job has no benefits, so I'm still paying for my own health insurance, and I'm sure you know how crippling those payments are to low-income sole proprietors like us.

                  I just find it appalling that our "representatives" - and even our President - somehow see $400,000 as "middle class", when it's an incontrovertible fact that the median household income in the US was around $50,100 for 2011. To any rational person, "median" means "middle", and therefore "middle class" would represent an income of $50,000, not $400,000.

                  These people are so clueless, so self-absorbed, so out-of-touch that it's disgraceful. Literally half the households in this country are getting by on less than $50,000 per year, while these idiots in Washington seem obsessed with focusing all their largesse on the people at the $400,000 level.

                  No wonder we're the ones "getting slammed". They haven't had to subsist on less than $174,000 plus 24-karat gold benefits for as long as they've been "serving" us. Why should they care?

                  At least Romney was honest when he admitted that he didn't care and wouldn't worry about 47% of the people. Unfortunately, I thought his opponent - the guy I vote for - did care about us.

                  Silly me.

                  "Bernie Madoff's mistake was stealing from the rich. If he'd stolen from the poor he'd have a cabinet position." -OPOL

                  by blue in NC on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 11:18:03 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  the payroll tax HAD to go up guys. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chuckvw, lockewasright

        you want that $176 this year, or do you want your social security check in 25 years?  pick, beause you can get ?$176 less this year and get your SS check, or get the $176 this year, and no Social Security.  the 2% SS tax cut could never have been anything but very short term

        We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

        by ScrewySquirrel on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 10:24:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The 2% was a reduction in payroll taxes collected (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blue in NC, pgm 01, 3goldens

          It was not a reduction in Social Security funding, either in terms of the program, or in terms of individuals - everybody got the same earnings credits for the last two years that they'll get with the 2% cut canceled.

          The 2% tax increase could have been eliminated for workers earning less than $113,000 by adjusting their income tax rates or providing a tax credit. Instead the President chose to give that tax benefit to people earning more than $250,000 a year. And don't make the mistake of assuming only those between $250K and $450K get that benefit - it's a benefit to everyone making more than $250K a year.

          In Soviet Russia, you rob bank. In America, bank robs you.

          by badger on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 11:06:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  So the Bush tax cuts for the middle class are (0+ / 0-)

        expiring?  

        Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

        by lockewasright on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 12:18:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site