Posted on 08/22/2011 6:45:17 AM PDT by blam
And raising tax rates, which may or may not actually increase revenue, is the only answer you see towards getting the deficit (and debt) under control and preventing a default?
This is not really a tax cut~!!!!!!!!!!
This is ONLY a reduced rate of witholding- your tax burden remains the same- you only get a smaller refund at the end of the year
I agree. Let’s not fumble the political football for a single first down and lose the game. Hang in there for another year and keep the outcome in focus.
I always try to owe as much as I can without incurring a penalty....Getting a refund means that you gave the government an interest-free loan.
In a real world SS benefits would have been cut to match the FICA tax cuts, But there is no way Republicans are going to go near that, even Jim DeMint is claiming SS is funded by a trust fund.
Even the ‘brave’ Ryan Medicare plan delayed any cuts to medicare for 10 years so they could tell all voters over 55, ‘Dont worry about the deficit, we have your medicaid bills covered and those younger than you even by a single day can pay the full price of your med bills while being out of luck themeslves, so support us”
BTW, it didnt work. that 10 year gimmick didnt work. How could it?
Agreed. This is a terrible idea under we cut benes and spending to offset the increase in deficit.
With millions and millions being added to SS by the month, cutting off its funding source is insanity right now, especially considering the lower job pool.
If Obama is trying to damage SS and crash the system, then this makes sense.
Just in case non employers don't know....our part was not lowered when they cut the employee's part. Another example of Obama's bias against business.
Of course not. Don’t be silly. We have about two to six years to get our deficits to zero. The debt is about 70% of GDP now and we are adding 10% a year. When it goes up to 90%, default is an outside possibility. When it gets up to 120%, default is a certainty. The compromise that Republicans get their tax cuts and Democrats get their spending increases can’t/won’t continue for very long.
That is really funny.
Are you serious? You think Republicans should run a deficit of 10% of GDP because if they don’t, it might play into Democratic talking points? Again, are you serious?
Well in the coming civil war, you won’t last long.
“We shouldn’t fire back at the freeloaders because that would feed their sense of anger.”
Isn't that the same argument the Democrats used against extending the Bush tax cuts? Should those be allowed to lapse, too?
A lot of people at the lower end of the economic spectrum don't pay much, if anything, in income tax. However, anyone who works pays the payroll tax. So allowing this to lapse and cutting income tax will still be a net tax increase to them.
Okay, let’s double down.
“I think all taxes should be eliminated and spending should be doubled because Democrats will crucify us at the polls if we don’t.”
And I imagine that your plan would do more to help small business and individuals while improving Social Securities fiscal health than anything else Obama and the Democrats have proposed. Probably save a lot more jobs, too.
Let's not. But let's not also give the opposition a easy issue to beat us up over. If your position is that we need to drop this tax cut because of the deficit then fine. But how do you justify any tax cut in light of the deficit?
And thus it your contention that tax cuts reduce government revenue.
This would only be true in a static economy.
We have a dynamic economy in which tax cuts often increase government revenue - See: Kennedy - Reagan - Bush.
Did you get some bubblegum with that class warfare card? The limit is in place because the benefits will NEVER repay what was contributed. If you're one of those making less than $106K a year and angling for removing the limit, then you are in the same camp as the "tax the rich" leftists.
Answer - government revenue increased.
Above or below projections are all attempts to obfuscate the simple fact that tax cuts did NOT decrease government revenue - unless you want to engage in fantasyland projections that the economy would have expanded the same amount WITHOUT tax cuts - and that therefore the tax cut “cost” the government money.
A rather ludicrous projection based upon the fallacy of a static economy.
Yes but many retirees(all income levels) do not benefit from the ss cut
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.