Skip to main content

View Diary: My taxes just increased by $1400...I must be rich (79 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2

    That either makes no sense or I'm missing something. Are you saying you'd rather have seen much larger tax increases and have peoples benefits cut because they didn't extend the payroll tax holiday?

    Lo que separa la civilizacion de la anarquia son solo siete comidas.

    by psilocynic on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:54:23 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

      •  As liberal as I am..... (18+ / 0-)

        ....and I'm VERY liberal, the payroll tax holiday was always going to be a problem.  

        I'm affected.  Everyone is affected.  When we were losing jobs every month, I understood it but dreaded the day when this would be seen as accepted, permanent income, all the while weakening Social Security and Medicare.

        And here's where I guess I lose my liberal cred:  these payroll taxes pay for Medicare and Social Security.  The wealthier among us are paying increased taxes to fund ACA right now.  If I'm going to pay taxes, paying for my Social Security and Medicare seems reasonable to me.  I'd rather we all pay into that and don't give 'insolvency' or any other ammunition to those who would dissolve the programs entirely in the name of 'reform'.  

        For a lot of people, this 2% will mean hardship.  For a lot of us, it's a few less dinners out and a few less video games or putting off the new iPhone a few months.  The more revenue we put into Social Security and Medicare, the more we can put a firewall up against the Evil Ones.  

        •  it was stimulus money (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          annecros, johnny wurster

          it was a great idea, and it would have been nice to extend it for a time, while stimulus is needed.

          When you're self employed you pay both parts, and even if your income goes down, the percentage stays the same.  It affects only the first 110 or something, and so for those small business owners who only employ themselves, it's hugely significant.

          this was the major concession to reducing stimulus spending, more for elsewhere but less for here, and maybe it was necessary, knowing Biden and Reid I am sure it was necessary, but it's taking real money out of circulation and it will slow our recovery.    

          "oh no, not four more years of hope and change?" Karl Christian Rove

          by anna shane on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 01:27:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It was a tiny amount of money (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gustynpip, JesseCW, Chi

            And I can't seriously believe that it was a good idea.  There were other ways to raise take home pay for a majority of people without touching SS and other entitlements.

            The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

            by AoT on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 01:34:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  tiny for whom? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              annecros

              for me it was about four grand a year, and I did spend it.  Me times how many?  There was nothing as direct and targeted as that holiday.  it's over now but it surely helped the recovery.

              You seem to forget that some stimulus had to be disguised?  

              "oh no, not four more years of hope and change?" Karl Christian Rove

              by anna shane on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:09:18 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You must be making a lot more than me then (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                flowerfarmer, JesseCW, Chi

                4k a year at 2% means you're bringing in around 200k a year, so you'd top out either way, just more quickly this way.

                The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                by AoT on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:06:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  That's simply impossible. It's only 2% of income. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                flowerfarmer, VClib, JesseCW, Chi

                And then up to the cap.  You'd have to be earning $200,000 a year for it to have saved you four grand, and then cap would have come into play.  The most anyone could have saved was about $2,200 a year.

                "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

                by gustynpip on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:21:22 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  okay then not that much (0+ / 0-)

                  but, it was a lot.  It only goes up to about 115, but if you pay both parts, you pay double.  

                  "oh no, not four more years of hope and change?" Karl Christian Rove

                  by anna shane on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:14:42 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If you pay both parts your increase doesn't double (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Caelian, gustynpip, VClib, JesseCW

                    Your "employer" part never got a "holiday" - you presumably have paid the full amount of that all along. All that has changed is the 2% temporary cut on your personal portion.

                    "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

                    by Catte Nappe on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:57:33 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  then (0+ / 0-)

                      it's a little bit of stimulus?  

                      "oh no, not four more years of hope and change?" Karl Christian Rove

                      by anna shane on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 06:01:57 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No, it *was* a bit of stimulus (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        JesseCW, anna shane

                        For a couple of years they said you could keep 2% of your share of the payroll tax. They hoped you would spend it on stuff. Now they said "holiday/party is over", and you have to start paying it again. They figure you, or others somewhat like you, now have enough money on hand to keep spending on at least some stuff, thus keeping the economy moving at some (maybe sluggish) speed.

                        "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

                        by Catte Nappe on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 06:06:55 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  it didn't touch the ss trust fund, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AoT, VClib

              since the general fund repaid the ss trust fund for the lost revenue.

              •  Yes, but it would have been used (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JesseCW

                as a bludgeon against the SS fund at some point.  They're called entitlements for a reason, and it's not because they're welfare.

                The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                by AoT on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:57:27 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  It would have made soooo much more sense to (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW

            have done a 2% reduction in income taxes or a tax rebate that had been done already and actually helped a bit.  Doing it through SS was just plain foolish.  

            The only thing it accomplished is that when people say SS has nothing to do with the deficit, it's no longer true.  This "holiday" tied the deficit to SS because the money to make it up came from the general fund.  Foolish, foolish, foolish.

            "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

            by gustynpip on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:18:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  no, it didn't (0+ / 0-)

              it tied stimulus to recovery.

              "oh no, not four more years of hope and change?" Karl Christian Rove

              by anna shane on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:15:30 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  ? This makes no sense. The exact same (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JesseCW, Chi

                result for the stimulus could have been had by putting the same money into people's pockets without involving SS at all, so I have no idea what you're saying.

                "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

                by gustynpip on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 05:51:08 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  just (0+ / 0-)

                  that this applies to workers who pay social security, and it's already just for the middle class.  

                  "oh no, not four more years of hope and change?" Karl Christian Rove

                  by anna shane on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 06:02:53 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No. People making six figured individually (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gustynpip, Chi, JustinBinFL

                    are not middle class.  They are "well off".  

                    We cannot enact sane policy until we straighten that out.

                    If you make that kind of money you don't need tax relief - you need your taxes raised dramatically.  You should be paying an effective (not marginal) rate of 35% or more.

                    6'3" is tall.  Yes, it's not as tall as 7', but it's still tall.

                    "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

                    by JesseCW on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 06:58:45 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  if we are going to talk about SS solvency (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          johnny wurster

          Then it does not help to think about the impact of payroll tax on an individual basis.   The larger picture has to be considered, as is discussed in this article:

          Goldman Sach's chief economist Jan Hatzius said the payroll tax hike could shave 0.6 percent from the nation's Gross Domestic Product.
          The economy is already in a stage of anemic growth.  Now is not the best time to reduce take home pay.  The payroll tax holiday was a terrible vehicle for stimulus but raising it right now is IMO equally terrible absent some other stimulus to offset.

          We aren't getting that.  Falling economic activity reduces SS solvency.  The best way to extend solvency is to get people working.  Tax increases and spending cuts are going to do the opposite.

          So you may not mind paying the extra $5 or $10 a week for SS solvency, but if this pushes us back into recession and the unemployment rate goes up will it be a good bargain?

          •  I'm sure that when horrific mismanagement (0+ / 0-)

            of this economic crisis pushes the 1% back into recession (the bottom 90% of us are living in a real world jobs Depression as it is) that the enemies of Social Security will claim that the end of this attack on the program is somehow responsible.

            They will be wrong.

            "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

            by JesseCW on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 07:00:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Absolutely agree. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW

          It was a bad idea in the first place.
          If anything it should have been a 2% increase not a decrease.

          Sooner or later, and with the WWII Baby Boomers now retiring, it will be sooner, the money that goes into SS and Medicare will flow back into the economy, where it can replowed back into SS and Medicare.

        •  It's not a liberal idea at all. Never was. We (0+ / 0-)

          want Social Security, we all have to pay into it.

          Threatening that, treating Social Security as something that can be gambled away as some bargaining chip, used as some "look what I gave you" gimmick, flies in the face of historic liberalism.

          Poor people don't need tax breaks.  We need jobs.  We need the Federal Government to step up and hire us to do hard work for reasonable pay under first world conditions.

          We need a fundamental change in the labor market.  The Federal Government is the only possible employer capable of doing it.  There will be no more Detroits.  That era of massive industrial employment is coming to an end as automation advances.

          We need top 20% taxed a good deal more and the top 1% taxed a hell of a lot more to pay for it.

          Then we need to get paid to do the work to make this a better place to live.

          "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

          by JesseCW on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 06:55:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I think I read that comment wrong (0+ / 0-)

        But in any case agree either way.

        Slap happy is a platform.

        by averageyoungman on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 12:12:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The obvious answer to that question... (0+ / 0-)

      Regarding this component of the deal are the surface political implications. From my perspective there's the relevance to the deal at large and how it negates some of the economic impact. Key word in the comment to me being "another."

      Slap happy is a platform.

      by averageyoungman on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 12:01:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The solution was to have cancelled the payroll... (5+ / 0-)

      ..tax holiday, and replace it with an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, such that every worker earning less than 150k per year would PERMANENTLY receive an additional 2k, over and above the normal EITC.

      Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

      by PatriciaVa on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 12:11:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed! I'd have been (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PatriciaVa

        quite happy even with it only covering workers earning less than say $50,000, but giving each one more.  I wouldn't have received anything then, but those that would have would have needed it more and provided more stimulus  than those earning what they needed already.

        "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

        by gustynpip on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:23:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Let's try individual workers making under 35k (0+ / 0-)

        There is no "permanent" in the game of taxation.

        "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

        by JesseCW on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 07:01:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site