Thread: The one tax Republicans dont want to cut

I'm a little confused by something.

The Republicans are supposed to be so gung-ho about "NO MORE TAXES!" And yet...they're in favor of letting a payroll tax cut that effects how much people actually take home. It effects, IIRC, only the first $100,000 a person takes home so it's effectively a tax that lands heavier on the lower-income.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/26/us....html?_r=1&hpw

The Republicans are in favor of allowing that tax cut to expire...yet they claim to be anti-tax on "average Americans."

Why is this?

Originally Posted by Hoplite

I'm a little confused by something.

The Republicans are supposed to be so gung-ho about "NO MORE TAXES!" And yet...they're in favor of letting a payroll tax cut that effects how much people actually take home. It effects, IIRC, only the first $100,000 a person takes home so it's effectively a tax that lands heavier on the lower-income.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/26/us....html?_r=1&hpw

The Republicans are in favor of allowing that tax cut to expire...yet they claim to be anti-tax on "average Americans."

Why is this?

Basically for three reasons:

1) It's something that Obama wants. We know they will be against anything that he wants.Doesn't matter that it might help the economy or the Country and give the working people more of their own money to spend.

2) It only helps the working people and not their donors.

3) They are all for wealth re-distribution as long as it's from the bottom up.

Originally Posted by Hoplite

I'm a little confused by something.

The Republicans are supposed to be so gung-ho about "NO MORE TAXES!" And yet...they're in favor of letting a payroll tax cut that effects how much people actually take home. It effects, IIRC, only the first $100,000 a person takes home so it's effectively a tax that lands heavier on the lower-income.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/26/us....html?_r=1&hpw

The Republicans are in favor of allowing that tax cut to expire...yet they claim to be anti-tax on "average Americans."

Why is this?

It's not a tax, it's SS contributions. SS is broke now because the politicians on both sides, beginning with the Democrats and continued by the Republicans, stole the money and used it for pet projects.

Since this is the second thread on this subject, I'll just repeat what I said before. The hypocrisy is on the left, not the right. Republicans are indeed for tax cuts. However, this tax cut is specifically engineered to increase taxes on the rich by sparing the middle class. In other words, this is again progressive taxation. How is a tax cut actually a tax increase? Simple. This tax is designed to make the middle class pay A LITTLE of Social Security. So the regime removes that burden on the middle class. Now, is anyone stupid enough to say that the left will do nothing when the issue of Social Security comes up and we "discover" that it will go broke faster? Or will they demand that the rich "pay their fair share" as they always do?

Point is, we can have an honest discussion on the topic if the LEFT will be honest about the ENTIRE topic and not just cherry-pick the most superficial part of it they want to discuss. That's my offer, liberals.

Originally Posted by natstew

It's not a tax, it's SS contributions. SS is broke now because the politicians on both sides, beginning with the Democrats and continued by the Republicans, stole the money and used it for pet projects.

I thought the people on the right wanted to do away with SS. Keeping this cut would only make that happen faster.


And can you prove this: beginning with the Democrats and continued by the Republicans, stole the money and used it for pet projects.

I'm not saying you're wrong and I know the politicians have been sticking their fingers in it for decades. But do you have something that says the Dems started it?

Originally Posted by C-B-M

Since this is the second thread on this subject, I'll just repeat what I said before. The hypocrisy is on the left, not the right. Republicans are indeed for tax cuts. However, this tax cut is specifically engineered to increase taxes on the rich by sparing the middle class. In other words, this is again progressive taxation. How is a tax cut actually a tax increase? Simple. This tax is designed to make the middle class pay A LITTLE of Social Security. So the regime removes that burden on the middle class. Now, is anyone stupid enough to say that the left will do nothing when the issue of Social Security comes up and we "discover" that it will go broke faster? Or will they demand that the rich "pay their fair share" as they always do?

Point is, we can have an honest discussion on the topic if the LEFT will be honest about the ENTIRE topic and not just cherry-pick the most superficial part of it they want to discuss. That's my offer, liberals.

Ahhh, I see, this tax cut is unfair, because it's not heavily weighted towards the wealthy....

Let's be honest, the only way to balance the budget, is to repeal the Reagan Tax cuts.
Move tax rates back to where they were when balancing the budget was about deficits of less than 100 billion dollars.

Originally Posted by goober

Ahhh, I see, this tax cut is unfair, because it's not heavily weighted towards the wealthy....

No. I see you can't read, so I'll repeat. This tax cut is unfair because it's actually a tax increase on the rich. If you tell me that you want this tax cut AND will not complain about its result or demand that taxes are raised on the rich to compensate for it, then I'm all for it.

Can you make that statement? If not, why not? Ball's in your court, buddy. Try to return it.

Originally Posted by goober

Let's be honest, the only way to balance the budget, is to repeal the Reagan Tax cuts.
Move tax rates back to where they were when balancing the budget was about deficits of less than 100 billion dollars.

Now let's be real honest, the only way to balance the budget is to drastically decrease spending then hit our horrible tax code for items we can live without including the Obama (were Bush) tax cuts. There is no sense at all in moving back to an overtaxed nation to satisfy socialistic intentions.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

Now let's be real honest, the only way to balance the budget is to drastically decrease spending then hit our horrible tax code for items we can live without including the Obama (were Bush) tax cuts. There is no sense at all in moving back to an overtaxed nation to satisfy socialistic intentions.

So no sense going to the formula that actually worked, lets try to make the rates that have given us 95% of the national debt work.
Because the massive deficits that have occurred in 28 of 32 years since the rates were cut are just the results of spending.