Conservatives: cut taxes for the rich, raise taxes for the poor

[Cartesiantheater]

They have now removed their bullshit facade and have revealed the ugly truth.

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-may-ok-tax...GVzdAM-;_ylv=3

News flash: Congressional Republicans want to raise your taxes. Impossible, right? GOP lawmakers are so virulently anti-tax, surely they will fight to prevent a payroll tax increase on virtually every wage-earner starting Jan. 1, right?

Apparently not.

Many of the same Republicans who fought hammer-and-tong to keep the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts from expiring on schedule are now saying a different "temporary" tax cut should end as planned. By their own definition, that amounts to a tax increase.

[...]


At issue is a tax that the vast majority of workers pay, but many don't recognize because they don't read, or don't understand their pay stubs. Workers normally pay 6.2 percent of their wages toward a tax designated for Social Security. Their employer pays an equal amount, for a total of 12.4 percent per worker.

As part of a bipartisan spending deal last December, Congress approved Obama's request to reduce the workers' share to 4.2 percent for one year; employers' rate did not change. Obama wants Congress to extend the reduction for an additional year. If not, the rate will return to 6.2 percent on Jan. 1.

Obama cut the portion of taxes for social security that workers pay (leaving employer's portion static). Republicans now want to remove that tax cut.

This is, flat out, a tax raise on the poor, whilst they continue to resist removing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Enough with the bullshit, conservatives. Just admit to your regressive, favor-the-rich-at-the-expense-of-the-poor tax policy.

Oh yeah. This effectively removes the "class warefare" card from the hand of conservatives.



EDIT- Please note: This would be WITHOUT QUESTION a tax increase on the poor and middle class, from the party that claims to want to cut taxes (but we all have known all along WHOSE taxes they were referring to- the wealthy), according to their own definition of the term.

Social Security payroll taxes apply only to the first $106,800 of a worker's wages. Therefore, $2,136 is the biggest benefit anyone can gain from the one-year reduction.

The great majority of Americans make less than $106,800 a year. Millions of workers pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes.

[medicvet]

Figures..always knew the gop was the real group waging war against the poor all along.

[Cartesiantheater]

I don't know why I'm so pissed off about this. I already knew their real aims. I guess it's that they are so fucking smug about how they have fooled so many millions of gullible serfs to build their proverbial pyramids for them that they can now openly suggest raising taxes on the poor and middle class, while obviously fighting like hell to prevent the same thing from happening to the wealthy.

What's even more absurd is that those same gullible serfs upon whose back these rich assholes depend on to keep their taxes low (by their hoodwinked votes) will find some idiotic way to defend this, or will simply ignore it and continue in their blissful ignorance.

[Beatnik Bob]

I don't know why I'm so pissed off about this. I already knew their real aims. I guess it's that they are so fucking smug about how they have fooled so many millions of gullible serfs to build their proverbial pyramids for them that they can now openly suggest raising taxes on the poor and middle class, while obviously fighting like hell to prevent the same thing from happening to the wealthy.

What's even more absurd is that those same gullible serfs upon whose back these rich assholes depend on to keep their taxes low (by their hoodwinked votes) will find some idiotic way to defend this, or will simply ignore it and continue in their blissful ignorance.

No, it's not even that. It isn't rich assholes at all. It's just nominally wealthy Republican pundits who don't know anything about finance.

People like Warren Buffett (Warren Buffett Makes Argument For Taxing The Super Wealthy In NY Times Op-Ed) and Bill Gates (Business Insider) both support higher taxes for the rich.

What's ironic is that politicians who have no concept of finance or how to run the country think they speak for rich people when they say to take poor people's assets instead.



It's not class warfare. Class warfare is a class (such as top 1%) versus another class (such as bourgeoisie or poor).
In actuality, it's people who are good at appealing to others on an emotional level rather than a logical level, versus everyone else on the globe who understands finance and economics. Or people who understand pseudo-economics and are good at believing any form of propaganda.

And yes I mean everyone on the globe. Those Americans think their faction understands economics well--they clearly do not. As economists and finance experts all over Europe employ different tactics.
Tactics that work more or less--certainly better than the American conservative model.


Again, it's not class warfare.

It's idiot politicians versus all the classes.

[Cartesiantheater]

I don't know, Beatnik Bob. Maybe for some of them. But many wealthy people who contribute to campaigns of conservatives, I would assume, are doing exactly what I said: supporting candidates who will convince gullible middle class voters to keep them in office, in exchange for them pushing tax policy that will continue to line the pockets of said wealthy contributors.

[DontBeAfraid]

Ya... A bunch of turf roots movements mother fuckers!

[Ningishiddza]

As part of a bipartisan spending deal last December, Congress approved Obama's request to reduce the workers' share to 4.2 percent for one year; employers' rate did not change. Obama wants Congress to extend the reduction for an additional year. If not, the rate will return to 6.2 percent on Jan. 1

Why would the stupid idiot Obama cut Social Security payroll taxes anyway?

As I correctly predicted, and as I have correctly predicted 3 straight years in a row, SSA says Social Security defaults in 2016.

Next year, the SSA report will say that Social Security defaults in 2014, and in 2013 Social Security will say that default is "imminent."

Given that 2nd Quarter IRS Payroll declined, it remains to be seen if SSA can pay out benefits for the 3rd Quarter, and given that payroll will probably decline this Quarter as well, that means SSA will default on payments for 4th Quarter and have to scrounge money.

So why did big brain cut the Social Security tax?

http://news.yahoo.com/social-securit...090119318.html

Social Security disability on verge of insolvency

WASHINGTON (AP) — Laid-off workers and aging baby boomers are flooding Social Security's disability program with benefit claims, pushing the financially strapped system toward the brink of insolvency.

Applications are up nearly 50 percent over a decade ago as people with disabilities lose their jobs and can't find new ones in an economy that has shed nearly 7 million jobs.

The stampede for benefits is adding to a growing backlog of applicants — many wait two years or more before their cases are resolved — and worsening the financial problems of a program that's been running in the red for years.

New congressional estimates say the trust fund that supports Social Security disability will run out of money by 2017, leaving the program unable to pay full benefits, unless Congress acts. About two decades later, Social Security's much larger retirement fund is projected to run dry as well.

Well, that was absolutely brilliant of Obama to demand a tax cut (and notice that is the Trust Fund for OASDI and not the day-to-day ops fund).

This is, flat out, a tax raise on the poor,

Yeah, right. What crocodile tears. You weren't upset when the Democrat-controlled House and Senate raised the Social Security tax to 6.2% but now you're all bent out of shape because a temporary cut is not being extended.

You weren't all bent out of shape either when the Democrat-controlled House and Senate spent every single penny of the Social Security Trust Fund Surplus for 55 years either.

Millions of workers pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes.

That's a lie by the way.

Why don't you man-up and explain to everyone why the Democrats did not cut Social Security taxes the first 2 years they had control?

Can you do that, or is this just more faux Cartesian Theatrics?

People like Warren Buffett (Warren Buffett Makes Argument For Taxing The Super Wealthy In NY Times Op-Ed) and Bill Gates (Business Insider) both support higher taxes for the rich.

I would address that, but Bull-Shitter Bob doesn't have the first freaking clue.

Warren Buffet only makes $1 per year, so no, he doesn't care if he screws over thousands of others.

Figures..always knew the gop was the real group waging war against the poor all along.

Oh, yeah, sob, sob, but the Democrats cut those taxes in 2009 for you, didn't they?

And didn't the Democrats raise the cap on the Social Security tax?

At issue is a tax that the vast majority of workers pay, but many don't recognize because they don't read, or don't understand their pay stubs. Workers normally pay 6.2 percent of their wages toward a tax designated for Social Security. Their employer pays an equal amount, for a total of 12.4 percent per worker.

That is also a lie too.

If I have to explain why, then you ought not be flapping your lips.

[DontBeAfraid]

Pay no attention to ning... He thinks natural selection and evolution are entirely unrelated...

[pico]

DBA... unfortunately, ningi is right that SSA is doomed. Admit it! There is around 2.5 workers these days that support the 1 person collecting. So many pay nothing into the system. Why should anyone in their 40's or younger expect to get anything out of this current system? I am not in favor of raising taxes, although that is likely the only way to get out of the current funk on paper... which will likely yeild to more unemployment and greater dissatisfaction here in the US.

The GOP is wrong, btu so is the current administration and pretty much everyone. The problem simply is the system failed several years ago, and until we let the problem work itself out once it has materialized, nothing will ever improve over the long term. We must let the sytem collapse and rebuild, or else we will simply prolong the suffering and enjoy a few last gasps for air as the nation and economy dies.

[Beatnik Bob]

Warren Buffet only makes $1 per year, so no, he doesn't care if he screws over thousands of others.

So you're saying Warren Buffett and Bill Gates support higher taxes for the rich because "they don't care"....

Actually, there is a reason to support it. For one, you stand to make more money/profit in a country that isn't completely bankrupt (and without a middle class).

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett aren't idiots.

[DontBeAfraid]

They also arent BAD people... They are actually GOOD people...

[Sirius]

Most don't care, those two are the exception. Shit a lot of poor republicans don't care.

[DontBeAfraid]

Poor republicans are just fucking stupid... Too stupid to know to care... Same with middle class republicans...

[Sirius]

This is good......

+ YouTube Video

[Sirius]

[GamerGal]

And look at that! Pico and Ning sure enough come in and defend the GOP raising taxes on them and not that top 1%. Fucking idiots.

Any way mods we can make it so every time Pico, Reef, Ning, Jena, and Co post a giant red FUCKTARD appears over it?

[JenaS62]

Any way mods we can make it so every time Pico, Reef, Ning, Jena, and Co post a giant red FUCKTARD appears over it?

How very Nazi-ish of you. Maybe we could have numbers tattooed on our arms as well. You're the fucktard you Nazi bitch.

[GamerGal]

Uh, seeing as how the Republicans were the ones who supported the NAZIs...

Also, just more proof you are a fucktard. Couldn't even discuss how you will raise your own taxes rather than raise it on the top 1% or vote Obama because he's black.

[JenaS62]

Uh, seeing as how the Republicans were the ones who supported the NAZIs...

You've reveiled your true self again. You apparently agree that people should wear labels - just like a Nazi.

[pico]

GG, did you just stop watching a few episodes of Sesame Street? Is your word of the day FUCKTARD?

Simply saying the system is broken makes one a fucktard? When a person actually agrees with some of what you say, and you call them a fucktard, doesn't that make you an even bigger fucktard?

[MaximumPain]

Outrage! That the tax cutting conservatives wont let us common folk keep our tax cut?

Outrage that the top 1% own 40% of the wealth and get to keep their tax cut?

No! They are outraged that Gamer Girl used the work Fucktard!

So you guys are ok with paying more tax's as long as it goes to the rich???!!!
Thats sure how it looks folks.

Bravo Righties, Bravo!!!!

[Nu Kua]

I am "with Obama" on this one- I think they should leave that tax cut alone, keep it like it is- but I'll get to that in a minute.

(My links are from The Hill unless noted otherwise)

Obama tries to turn the tables on GOP with call for payroll-tax-cut extension

President Obama’s call for an extension of a payroll tax cut could upend the political dynamics in Congress heading into the fall, as Democrats adopt a trademark Republican tactic: warning against a looming tax hike.
With the economic recovery stalled, the Obama administration is pushing aggressively to keep in place the payroll tax holiday that was enacted as part of the bipartisan tax deal Congress passed in December.
Republican leaders have resisted that idea, preferring instead to push for a comprehensive tax overhaul that would simplify the code and permanently lower income and corporate rates...

...This is, flat out, a tax raise on the poor, whilst they continue to resist removing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Enough with the bullshit, conservatives...

Why would the Republicans be against removing Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, yet for removing the tax break on the middle class?
What are their arguments?

From CT's Yahoo link, it is noted that

...Republicans say their stand is consistent with their goal of long-term tax policies that will spur employment and lend greater certainty to the economy...

...Republicans cite key differences between the two "temporary" taxes, starting with the fact that the Bush measure had a 10-year life from the start. To stimulate job growth, these lawmakers say, it's better to reduce income tax rates for people and for companies than to extend the payroll tax break.

"We don't need short-term gestures. We need long-term fundamental changes in our tax structure and our regulatory structure that people who create jobs can rely on," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., when asked about the payroll tax matter.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., "has never believed that this type of temporary tax relief is the best way to grow the economy," said spokesman Brad Dayspring.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says payroll tax reductions give the economy a short-term boost. But it says the benefit is bigger if employers get the tax break instead of, or along with, workers...

June of this year
Republicans dismiss payroll tax break, differ on ethanol

...However, the lawmakers were in lock-step on opposing a White House proposal to extend and broaden a payroll tax holiday, dismissing it as a short term move when the situation calls for a broad overhaul. The administration had floated the idea during closed-door talks with congressional leaders on a deal to raise the debt limit.

"We don't need short term gestures, we need long term strategies," said Alexander.

"We've tried short term. What employers need is confidence going forward," said Hensarling. "I don't sense how this move will instill the confidence that small business people...are going to need."...

What were the Republican arguments for keeping in place the "Bush-era tax cuts"? When it came to those, were they also arguing instead for a "comprehensive tax overhaul that would simplify the code and permanently lower income and corp tax rates"?

This is what Eric Cantor was saying about a year ago, re keeping or extending the Bush tax cuts. It appears his position was that the expiration of Bush tax cuts will raise small business taxes.
Cantor, soon to be House Majority Leader, Nov. 2010

"The question is are we going to raise taxes on small businesses right now, when we’re looking at those very individuals, those small businesses, to create jobs," Cantor, the soon-to-be House majority leader, said on CNN. "I don’t think many people think that’s a good idea."
...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stWdtgW-R88

Eric Cantor, article for Wall Street Journal, Sept. 2010

Tax Fight:GOP Won't Back Down

As we enter the final stretch before the November midterm elections, all eyes have gravitated to the fight over the looming federal tax increases. President Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi want to keep the current rates on income, capital gains and dividends in place only for those who happen to fit their description of "middle class." In this moment of economic distress, will they get their way even though a bipartisan majority of the House disagrees with them? Or will present tax rates be extended for all American taxpayers—and most importantly for small businesses and investors, the nation's job creators?

Republicans unequivocally oppose any impending tax increase...

...Lest there be any doubt why we are so determined to fight—instead of going quietly and giving President Obama his way before Congress bolts for the elections—the GOP has two primary motivations. The first concerns the pain that tax increases threaten to inflict on our economy over the short term. The second is to stop the slide under our current leadership towards becoming a stagnant European-style welfare state with limited individual opportunity and entrepreneurship...

...Of those who have survived the roller-coaster ride of the past three years, our job creators seem content to sock away their cash rather than put it into investments and capital projects. Because they lack certainty and confidence in the tax and regulatory system, they sit on the sidelines...

...As the failed stimulus illustrates, a government redistributing hundreds of billions of dollars—much of it to achieve social and political goals—is far worse at allocating capital and creating jobs than private industry. This year's battle over taxes is thus a fight to allow businesses, taxpayers and private industry to keep more of their money so that they can provide real stimulus and lasting growth to the economy...

I really shouldn't quote more from WSJ, but I think this article is free access anyway so go read it if you want his argument at the time.

To be fair, we should note not all Republican's are against the President on this.
Here's one- of course he is running for office but...
Gingrich attacks deficit supercommittee, supports Obama payroll tax proposal

...In a wide-ranging appearance, Gingrich also backed an idea floated by President Obama to extend a payroll tax break for employees that expires at the end of the year.

“I think it is very hard not to keep the payroll tax cut in this economy,” Gingrich said....

That seems to be the same argument in a nutshell- that keeping the payroll tax cut is a temporary measure and instead they want something more long term and permanent. They suggest that the business owners and employer ought to have a tax cut, if anybody, which stay in line with what they've been saying, doesn't it?
So one one hand it appears they are being hypocritical, but when you look at everything altogether, I am not so sure.

While I can understand (as much as I am able) the Republican argument for comprehensive, long term and solid tax reforms as opposed to "a little bit of this here, a little more there, for a year or two" hodgepodge, I personally think they should lay off this one thing at least, and allow the SS tax break to remain in place for the very reasons Obama said- to put a little more money into the pockets of Americans. It's pocket change, really, compared to everything else. At the very least, they should be kept in place until something more permanent is worked out. Food prices are skyrocketing, electric rates and natural gas rates are going up, as is water and sewer, auto insurance, clothing prices- everything that regular, ordinary people have to have each day in order to simply live- are rising.

Considering the state of Social Security anyway, I realize I may be way off base, but the people in general are questioning the wisdom of funding something that is supposed to be "for our future, for our retirement" when obviously that money was grossly misused in the past, the account was basically stolen from, and thus people are paying into... what? Yes I understand it needs money but looking at all that has happened and come out into the open regarding economics and finance- people are pissed at what they see as the government favoring banks and corps over the people. Now how exactly accurate that is, or not, may be up for debate- (though it seems pretty cut and dried to me) but that is how most Regular People see it, from all sides of the game. People-on-the-street are questioning that, so to reverse their tax cut now would lead to more anger and discontent- which is not what the WH incumbents want during an election year.

I think we could do ourselves a favor and get away from the rhetoric on both sides and try to see what they are actually saying, behind the sound bites. It seems from reading through stuff this morning that the "tax cuts for the wealthy" were not just "for the wealthy"- though granted this is not an area I easily understand, this is what I am understanding from reading this morning. In other words, I don't think it is as easy as saying they are for keeping tax breaks "for the rich" while simultaneously trying to make middle class Americans pay more.

~~~~~~~~

As an aside-
I want everybody to go to the library today and check out Eli Pariser's book "The Filter Bubble" because I am experiencing the "filter bubble" effects first hand this morning- though, those of us who search for anything on the 'net and especially news are experiencing it too, whether you know it or not. Basically the search results you get depend entirely on the websites you tend to go to, keeping people forever propped up on ideas and opinions that they already have, not enriching their viewpoint from "the other side"- hence while trying very hard to find a clear Republican viewpoint from actual Republicans, all I can get turned up on my Mozilla iGoogle search engine is what the so-called "Lefties" might think of it.

It does not matter how you have your cookies or search settings set up - and it does not matter if you use Google or not, as all search engines are utilizing he same methods.

So now if I look into this any further, I will have to spend the morning going straight to Republican and Conservative websites and search the archives as well as what is current, to get an unbiased view of their reasoning- whether we jive to it or not, I want what they are saying about it straight forward. We can't honestly say we understand their position if we only get opinion and news of it that is automatically opposed to it. So then how do we clarify our own?

Does that make sense?

The same will be also for those who tend more to the Republican/Conservative viewpoint- nearly all your search results on anything Democrat or Liberal will be those viewpoints with a Republican/Conservative "filter"- based on nothing more than where you already "go" when you are on your computer; what you browse and who you communicate with via email. (yes there are tag-words that get noticed in your email, too- these are also used somewhat for search preferences but more for adverts) This is an intended yet also unavoidable part of the "user created content" search engines and cookie stuff.

One one hand, the search engines move towards viewer created content is said to put an end the whole "It's a liberal bias!" or "It's a conservative bias" regarding the news, but in reality what is happening is it is telling you what you already want to hear.
(MSM network news is obviously a different matter- but on the 'net, it holds and is becoming "truer" every passing minute.)

Well sorry, that is off topic. Read the book.

[FinalFour]

People like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates both support higher taxes for the rich.

Yeah-- well Warren's math doesn't work. You can tax all those who make more than a miilion per year at 50% and all those who make more than $10 million per year at 100% and it doesn't even begin to approach our $1.4 trillion dollar annual deficit.

Would you like to tax the rich more than that? I bet you would.


And Warren Buffet? Really?

In California-- when Gov. Gray Davis overspent and gave away the treasure to Union interests-- the people revolted and recalled him in a historic vote. He was famously replaced by Arnold--- who immediately-- with much fanfare, added Warren Buffet to his Economic Advisory team-

Warren Buffet who knew how to turn things around and would ensure the economic recovery of a California burdened with a massive debt that they could not sustain.

Warren's brilliant, genius plan? Raise taxes. Particularly on the rich-- but in California taxes went up for everyone-- Because he was a (wink wink) "Republican" most of the tax increases were called "fees" -but they went up.

Did California recover? Did Warren Buffet's never-before-considered-amazingly-brilliant-raise-taxes strategy work? ---Rich people left. Business moved away. The State is in worse shape than ever. All under the watchful eye of brilliant strategist economic advisor Warren Buffet.

The Oracle. Warren does what's best for Warren. Nice resume.

[Bob]

I can't believe I'm saying this but, I agree with Ning, Social security taxes should be raised and applied to all income levels. I also agree that the Republicans are purposely throwing the election, they have no desire to win, no motive to win, and no reward for winning. As long as they remain a minority party they can continue to represent the minority interest. The Party goes off to the "Special Bus" for their candidates on purpose, they throw in a few normal regular folk, mostly for show, and then ignore them in an effort to drive independents to the Dems. When they plucked George W. off the bus, just imagine how shocked they must have been when they won. I haven't heard a word about Liberal courts since.
Agreeing with ning...(shudder...) I need a shower.

[MaximumPain]

Yeah-- well Warren's math doesn't work. You can tax all those who make more than a miilion per year at 50% and all those who make more than $10 million per year at 100% and it doesn't even begin to approach our $1.4 trillion dollar annual deficit.

Would you like to tax the rich more than that? I bet you would.


And Warren Buffet? Really?

In California-- when Gov. Gray Davis overspent and gave away the treasure to Union interests-- the people revolted and recalled him in a historic vote. He was famously replaced by Arnold--- who immediately-- with much fanfare, added Warren Buffet to his Economic Advisory team-

Warren Buffet who knew how to turn things around and would ensure the economic recovery of a California burdened with a massive debt that they could not sustain.

Warren's brilliant, genius plan? Raise taxes. Particularly on the rich-- but in California taxes went up for everyone-- Because he was a (wink wink) "Republican" most of the tax increases were called "fees" -but they went up.

Did California recover? Did Warren Buffet's never-before-considered-amazingly-brilliant-raise-taxes strategy work? ---Rich people left. Business moved away. The State is in worse shape than ever. All under the watchful eye of brilliant strategist economic advisor Warren Buffet.

The Oracle. Warren does what's best for Warren. Nice resume.

So your ok with your tax's going up as long as the rich get to keep their tax cut? I suppose as long as a liberal didnt do it its ok right?