Top 5 Problems with the Tax Deal

[Pack66Dad]

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Top 5 Problems with the Tax Deal[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Problem #1: The deal is a stealth attack on Social Security.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]The deal will lower the payroll tax—the tax that funds the Social Security trust. This is a trap for Democrats. Republicans have been coming after Social Security for years and this cut is the biggest threat to the vital program in decades. It will cut one-third of Social Security's funding this year alone and when we need to restore the payroll tax back to its current level, Republicans will cry "tax increases" and could gut it permanently. 1[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Problem #2: For nearly one in three workers, it's a tax increase.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Nearly 50 million working Americans—including all workers making less than $20,000 per year—and millions of federal, state, and municipal workers will see their taxes go up because of the deal.2[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Problem #3: The deal has not one but TWO millionaire bailouts.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]In addition to extending all the Bush income tax breaks for the top 2%, the deal will slash the estate tax. If Congress did nothing, next year the estate tax would be 55% and apply to everyone inheriting $1 million or more. But the deal reduces it to 35% and only people who inherit more than $5 million will have to pay. This second bailout will give a gigantic tax giveaway to a few thousand of the richest families in the country and add hundreds of billions to the national debt.3[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Problem #4: Unemployment help is insufficient and inadequate.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]While the deal extends unemployment benefits for another 13 months for people currently receiving it, millions of unemployed workers who've struggled the most and been out of work more than 99 weeks—since the giant Wall Street banks wrecked the economy—will get no help at all under the deal.4 It's a gamble that there will be jobs in the next 13 months when the insurance runs out, but the tax cuts will go well beyond that. Better to just pass a stand-alone unemployment extension to help all struggling Americans.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Problem #5: Tax giveaways to the rich are a terrible way to create jobs.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Tax breaks for the rich are the least efficient way to create jobs and help the economy grow. In fact the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says extending all tax cuts would lower unemployment only 0.1% to 0.3% over the next year5 and that the cost of the tax deal would be $900 billion over the next five years.6[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Sources:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]1."Tax Cut Deal A Hidden Threat To Social Security," The Huffington Post, December 8, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205508&id=25497-8602817-rFd6Fhx&t=6[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]2. "Obama-Republican Deal Could Mean Tax Hike For One In Three Workers," The Huffington Post, December 10, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205509&id=25497-8602817-rFd6Fhx&t=7[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]3. "Estate tax deal: worst part of a bad tax compromise," The Christian Science Monitor, December 7, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205510&id=25497-8602817-rFd6Fhx&t=8[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]4. "Unemployment benefits: Extension won't help '99ers'," The Christian Science Monitor, December 7, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205511&id=25497-8602817-rFd6Fhx&t=9[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]5. "The Deal," Paul Krugman, The New York Times, December 7, 2010
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/the-deal/[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]6. "CBO score shows tax plan ups deficit $900 billion in 5 years," CNN.com, December 10, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205512&id=25497-8602817-rFd6Fhx&t=10[/FONT]

 

[Vince_nj1]

Repealing the estate tax is not a bailout or a tax give away. The estate tax is the equivilant of someone coming into my house and stealing my life long savings that I wanted to pass on to my children. It should be eliminated entirely!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEPPHjKIZps[/youtube]

 

[comsnark]

Regarding Problem #2: I think this is a PLUS, not a minus for the deal. From your source material, this bill eliminates a deduction. Elimination of deductions is GOOD. Elimination of deductions is always GOOD. Plus. . .I think those at the low end should pay a bit more than they do now. Only 50% of Americans currently pay taxes. That number is too low. It should go up. Not alot. .but enough that they have a stake in reducing gooberment spending.

Regarding #3: I will not argue the merits of an estate tax except to say: AMT, along with estate taxes should be indexed for inflation. The fact that they have not been is a real, real problem.

Regarding #5: AGREE to a point. This ain't about creating jobs. This is about stimulating spending. The only jobs created by this bill will be in China. Anybody who hires people because of a *temporary* tax law change is a fool.


- - - - -

You are aware, of course, of the true problems with the bill;

1) Reducing taxes while not reducing spending produces DEBT. DEBT is bad. This bill does NOTHING for the long term health of the country.

2) Everything here is temporary, and just opens the door to a repeat of the *same* partisan fighting two years from now. It also makes "planning" finances for business and personal spending very difficult. Tax codes should be consistent and predictable. They should not shift like the sand beneath your toes.

 

[Southpaw II]

You can save yourself some reading time here and just see who the cited sources are...

1. The threat to SSA are the entitlements it provides that were never intended in the beginning.

2. Most people earning less than $20K pay no tax. An increase is in order here. Personally, I favor a flat tax....the same rate for $20K to $2 Billion, with no deductions.

3. There should be no estate tax, period. These assets had taxes paid on them already.

4. If you can't find a job that pays more than unemployment after 99 weeks, that's not the problem. And, yes, I've been unemployed before...for a while.

5. I want the rich to get richer.....I've never worked for, or gotten a raise from a poor guy.

Don

 

[comsnark]

3. There should be no estate tax, period. These assets had taxes paid on them already.

This is only true for income you stick in a mattress.

If you invest your hard earned money the capital gains component, which is often substantial, would not have been taxed. Retirement accounts (generally funded with pre-tax earnings) also would have never have been taxed.


Note: I am not advocating for or against the estate tax: I am merely pointing out that it works a bit differently than is being portrayed.

 

[320Bob]

Comsnark,
You are leaning so much to the right in this thread that I actually agree with your posts for a change. One of us must be slipping up!:wink:

 

[Woody]

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Top 5 Problems with the Tax Deal[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Problem #1: The deal is a stealth attack on Social Security.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]The deal will lower the payroll tax—the tax that funds the Social Security trust. This is a trap for Democrats. Republicans have been coming after Social Security for years and this cut is the biggest threat to the vital program in decades. It will cut one-third of Social Security's funding this year alone and when we need to restore the payroll tax back to its current level, Republicans will cry "tax increases" and could gut it permanently. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205512&id=25497-8602817-rFd6Fhx&t=10[/FONT]

The only thing I can think to call this is a lie. Employee and employer contribute a combined total of 12.4%, only the employee gets the 2% tax holiday. It is not cutting the SS funding by 1/3, 1/6 would be more accurate and even that is not true. The $$ not collected due to the holiday will be made up from the general fund. The SS trust is not shorted. Pretty stupid I think but the fact is the SS fund itself is made whole by creating other debt.

 

[comsnark]

Comsnark,
You are leaning so much to the right in this thread that I actually agree with your posts for a change. One of us must be slipping up!:wink:

Actually, I just like pointing how wrong many talking points and "facts" actually are. In this regard, I don't cut Pack any more slack than I cut Gary.

I am actually NOT a liberal. I just play one on TV. I have serious common-sense problems with the positions taken by the left and the right.

The only thing I can think to call this is a lie. Employee and employer cnontribute a combined total of 12.4%, only the employee gets the 2% tax holiday. It is not cutting the SS funding by 1/3, 1/6 would be more accurate and even that is not true. The $$ not collected due to the holiday will be made up from the general fund. The SS trust is not shorted. Pretty stupid I think but the fact is the SS fund itself is made whole by creating other debt.

+1. Correct.

The only thing I would like to add is the concept of the "SS trust" is a bit misleading. When computing the "debt", surplus or deficit in the SS trust fund is counted with general revenue.

The reason the SS trust fund is going to go bust is because once SS outflows exceed inflows, those with a certain viewpoint are declaring the fund bankrupt. What is never considered are the funds that were supposedly "set aside" by the last xx years of SS surplus.

This is not to say we don't have things to fix in SS. All I am saying is that many facts are being distorted.

 

[MonacoMike]

Pack, I still am waiting for you to tell us how much of what we have worked for you think the government should take. What is the percentage that's fair?

 

[wish2fish]

Pack66 source.

MoveOn.org. Enough Said!

 

[comsnark]

Pfft.

He quotes moveon.org.

You quote foxnews

 

[Pack66Dad]

At least Fox has an element of truth to it, moveon.org is a bunch of political hacks.

And FOX isn't? The only difference between FOX & MoveOn is MoveOn is honest and admits its left wing propaganda. Saying FOX is "fair & balanced" is like calling me a Victoria Secret model. One look and you know its bullcrap! :wow:

 

[Woody]

The only thing I would like to add is the concept of the "SS trust" is a bit misleading. When computing the "debt", surplus or deficit in the SS trust fund is counted with general revenue.

The reason the SS trust fund is going to go bust is because once SS outflows exceed inflows, those with a certain viewpoint are declaring the fund bankrupt. What is never considered are the funds that were supposedly "set aside" by the last xx years of SS surplus.

This is not to say we don't have things to fix in SS. All I am saying is that many facts are being distorted.

The SS Trust exist, in concept it is nothing unique and in fact pretty basic. Things are confused by the fact that budgets are prepared in more than one format depending on the purpose/audience. No lie there. Read up on the Unified Budget...on line, off line components you'll see what I mean. Here's a good start
http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html
http://budget.house.gov/crs-reports/98-721.pdf
If you truly want to know everything about SS, I mean everything, here you go. You got to dig a little.
http://www.ssa.gov
http://www.treasurydirect.gov

The more applicable term is insolvency. That comes when there is no means to pay. The SS Trust is near a couple decades away from that. "Supposedly set aside" sorta hints at wrong doing, maybe a touch of conspiracy I think. It is there, invested as required by law. In this case in securities backed by the most stable, trusted entity in this whole world. Yup, those issued by the government of the USA. Ya, ya I know...but, but that means we(taxpayers) have to pay that back...what's new, don't we pay for everything in the end.

 

[wish2fish]

And FOX isn't? The only difference between FOX & MoveOn is MoveOn is honest and admits its left wing propaganda. Saying FOX is "fair & balanced" is like calling me a Victoria Secret model. One look and you know its bullcrap! :wow:

I believe the fair and balance statement is for their news portion. Thats why I like Olberman and Maddow. It is clear that they present both sides of every issue. :grin:

Now that you have brought it up, your dock mates have asked me to request you not to wear your silk thong teddy when you are outside your boat.

This morning on FOX they had clip of John McCain throwing a huge bill on the desk and saying "What is it that you didn't hear?". I'm sure he is talking to the republicans as much as the democrats.

On MSNBC (PMSNBC without Scarborough) they had Sharrod Brown from Ohio moaning about obstruction, the filibuster and being held hostage. Keep the message up Senator Brown, you sound like a whining little kid. Just because you say something doesn't make it true. He pretends like Democrats never used the fillibuster. Complaining about judges that haven't been approved. Bush had judges not approved after 4 years. The only reason this guy got elected because to many first time voters pulling the democrat lever in 2008.

 

[comsnark]

I believe the fair and balance statement is for their news portion. Thats why I like Olberman and Maddow. It is clear that they present both sides of every issue. :grin:

My only problem is that you can't really tell what is "news" and what is "opinion" on that network. It shifts sentence to sentence.

The other major problem I have is that the implicit assumptions that there are only TWO sides to any issue -> and that those sides are "right" and "left".

This morning on FOX they had clip of John McCain throwing a huge bill on the desk and saying "What is it that you didn't hear?". I'm sure he is talking to the republicans as much as the democrats.

+1.

The only reason this guy got elected because to many first time voters pulling the democrat lever in 2008.

You make that sound like a bad thing. Just because you don't like the result is a different issue.

 

[Pack66Dad]

I disagree. You can make the comparasion with FOX and MSNBC but not with moveon.org. If you can't see the difference, then I don't know what more to say to you.

Oh really?

When did MSNBC make a million dollar donation to the Democratic governors association?

FOX (especially FOX News) is nothing but the propaganda arm of the RNC.

 

[AKBASSKING]

Saying FOX is "fair & balanced" is like calling me a Victoria Secret model. One look and you know its bullcrap! :wow:

Oh come on Pack, I want to see you in your Victoria Secret wings and lingerie.............Please post a pic!!! I know you have one!!

 

[Jack F]

Oh come on Pack, I want to see you in your Victoria Secret wings and lingerie.............Please post a pic!!! I know you have one!!

You are a sick man....:grin:

 

[Jack F]

Journalists, Media Professionals Donating Frequently to Federal Political Candidates this Election Cycle



To download an itemized spreadsheet of self-identified journalists and other people working for news organizations, click here: Media Donations 091410.xls

 

[AKBASSKING]

Since when is keeping my money in MY POCKET costing the government?

I get sick and tired of this liberal wi3gless nut jobs saying reducing taxes is COSTING the government their money. It IS NOT THEIR MONEY! It is mine!

This tax bill is not a tax cut. My taxes will not be reduced, they will remain the same. The dems want to tack more money out of my pocket!

SS: Simple solution. LOCK it down and forbid Congress from taking money out of it to fund none SS items. Repay the IOUs. Then take a lesson from the Alaska permanent fund.

Estate stealing: Well you all know what happened to my family. Nuf said.