Payroll tax holiday: When should it expire?

[The Rabbi]

I'd let it expire when we have a full calendar year of 2.5% GDP growth and a full calendar year where at least 2 million jobs are created.

Why? The tax is doing nothing other than costing money.

 

[Amelia]

I'm in agreement... let the payroll tax cut AND the Bush tax cuts(all of them) expire... right now.

Along with the Clinton tax increases. I'm fine with that. Go back to the Reagan era.

funny... the Clinton Tax increase brought more prosperity and ran an actual budget surplus... but we don't want to talk about that.

We don't talk about it because it's not true. The Clinton tax increase coincided with the dot com bubble so people were able to afford the extra taxes better, until the bubble burst.

The Clinton tax increase did not cause the dot com bubble.

 

[8537]

I'd let it expire when we have a full calendar year of 2.5% GDP growth and a full calendar year where at least 2 million jobs are created.

Why?

Because a payroll tax cut is the most efficient way to increase aggregate demand via the private sector.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Amelia, you are entitled to your opinion, not your own set of facts.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'd let it expire when we have a full calendar year of 2.5% GDP growth and a full calendar year where at least 2 million jobs are created.

Why?

Because a payroll tax cut is the most efficient way to increase aggregate demand via the private sector.

Except it hasn't done that. We've had this policy for over a year or something and all it has done is cost the treasury money. There is no proof this has been effective. So why keep it?

 

[Amelia]

Amelia, you are entitled to your opinion, not your own set of facts.

Huh?

You think the Clinton tax hike did cause the dot com bubble?

 

[8537]

Why?

Because a payroll tax cut is the most efficient way to increase aggregate demand via the private sector.

Except it hasn't done that. We've had this policy for over a year or something and all it has done is cost the treasury money. There is no proof this has been effective. So why keep it?

First of all, why should the policy effectiveness of a tax cut need to be justified? "Lower taxes are better than higher taxes because it allows people to keep their money." Watching a so-called conservative argue in favor of a tax hike is hilarious.

Second, it has worked. It has helped people pay off debts and it has increased consumer spending.

 

[The Rabbi]

Because a payroll tax cut is the most efficient way to increase aggregate demand via the private sector.

Except it hasn't done that. We've had this policy for over a year or something and all it has done is cost the treasury money. There is no proof this has been effective. So why keep it?

First of all, why should the policy effectiveness of a tax cut need to be justified? "Lower taxes are better than higher taxes because it allows people to keep their money." Watching a so-called conservative argue in favor of a tax hike is hilarious.

Second, it has worked. It has helped people pay off debts and it has increased consumer spending.

So you don't think government policies should be judged by whether they are effective or not? : What criteria would you prefer? Sounds good?
Do you have evidence it has worked? No, I didn't think so either.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Let's get real. If there is going to continue to be "Social Security" people have to pay into the program. It's time to decide what you want. Social Security or the tax break. Let's not forget that the reason there is so little money in the Social Security coffers is because the government decided they would like to spend the money on other things besides Social Security. There would be no problem with Social Security if the government had not of gotten their mitts into the money bag intended for it.

 

[8537]

Except it hasn't done that. We've had this policy for over a year or something and all it has done is cost the treasury money. There is no proof this has been effective. So why keep it?

First of all, why should the policy effectiveness of a tax cut need to be justified? "Lower taxes are better than higher taxes because it allows people to keep their money." Watching a so-called conservative argue in favor of a tax hike is hilarious.

Second, it has worked. It has helped people pay off debts and it has increased consumer spending.

So you don't think government policies should be judged by whether they are effective or not? : What criteria would you prefer? Sounds good?

I think there's more to judging the effectiveness of tax policy than whether or not it increased government revenues. And I don't think such an idea is cuckoo. I think it's perfectly rational.

Do you have evidence it has worked?

Yes. According the CES, consumer expenditures have increased from about $9,008 per capita when the first payroll tax change (the Making Work Pay tax credit) was passed, to about $9,490 now.

Since the Tax Relief Act of 2010 was passed in December, 2010 consumer expenditures have increased from $9,345 to $9,490.

 

[Steelplate]

Why?

Because a payroll tax cut is the most efficient way to increase aggregate demand via the private sector.

Except it hasn't done that. We've had this policy for over a year or something and all it has done is cost the treasury money. There is no proof this has been effective. So why keep it?

Funny... Seasonal(Christmas) spending is up 15% this year.... Is the economy recovering? Is it due to the payroll tax putting more money in people's pockets? A combination of both?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Amelia, you are entitled to your opinion, not your own set of facts.

Huh? You think the Clinton tax hike did cause the dot com bubble?

This is not Socratic dialogue, so knock off the nonsense question. You can offer some facts that demonstrate the two are unrelated if you can find them, with good sources. That would be interesting.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It should expire today. You want to cut taxes, then cut income taxes. All they are doing is lowering your contributions to SS and thus for the younger worker, cutting what they will be entitled to receive.

 

[Amelia]

Amelia, you are entitled to your opinion, not your own set of facts.

Huh? You think the Clinton tax hike did cause the dot com bubble?

This is not Socratic dialogue, so knock off the nonsense question. You can offer some facts that demonstrate the two are unrelated if you can find them, with good sources. That would be interesting.

No. It is such a preposterous idea that Clinton tax hikes caused the dot com bubble that the burden of proof is definitely on you.

Seriously.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Huh? You think the Clinton tax hike did cause the dot com bubble?

This is not Socratic dialogue, so knock off the nonsense question. You can offer some facts that demonstrate the two are unrelated if you can find them, with good sources. That would be interesting.

No. It is such a preposterous idea that Clinton tax hikes caused the dot com bubble that the burden of proof is definitely on you.

Seriously.

You made the affirmation, so defend it or fail. That's how it works with grown ups in the military, academia, and private and public sectors.

 

[Foxfyre]

People are used to this tax break now. How hard will it be to let it expire?

One of the hallmarks of the Social Security program has been that it is not welfare. People pay into it and thus earn the payouts when their time comes. A permanent payroll tax holiday would make it at least partially welfare.

So, is it going to be permanent? Which president is going to be willing to increase middle class Americans' taxes by $1000 a year? Ever.

In my opinion, until the entire tax code is reformed, it was a really stupid move to reduce the payroll tax in the first place. That tax was funding a required and essential program that was already bleeding red ink and is critical to many elderly Americans who have been made dependent on it. God forbid they reduce taxes on something that they can also reduce spending on.

So yes, sooner or later somebody is going to have to bite the bullet and do it or raise taxes someplace else to support Social Security. Or they could do a truly statesmanlike thing, raise the social security retirement age a bit, dump all the young folks receiving social security into other programs, and leave the tax alone. I could go for that. But they won't do it for fear of how it would look in the media.

Just another example in which our fearless leaders bite off their noses to spite their faces. So really really stupid.

 

[Amelia]

This is not Socratic dialogue, so knock off the nonsense question. You can offer some facts that demonstrate the two are unrelated if you can find them, with good sources. That would be interesting.

No. It is such a preposterous idea that Clinton tax hikes caused the dot com bubble that the burden of proof is definitely on you.

Seriously.

You made the affirmation, so defend it or fail. That's how it works with grown ups in the military, academia, and private and public sectors.

I stated the obvious. The obvious doesn't need links.

You questioned the obvious, which made your question preposterous. The preposterous needs links.

Now can you or can you not support the notion that the Clinton tax hike led to the dot com boom?

I think not.

Now if you want to claim one more time that I should have to find a link for the obvious, go for it. You can have the last word.

But it won't mitigate the preposterousness of the idea that Clinton's tax hike led to the dot com boom.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Amelia fails on the OP.

Her opinion is not proof.

 

[Amelia]

Amelia fails on the OP.

Her opinion is not proof.

On the OP?


You seriously need to be more specific in your criticisms. When you said this:

Amelia, you are entitled to your opinion, not your own set of facts.

... I thought you were responding to this:

Along with the Clinton tax increases. I'm fine with that. Go back to the Reagan era.

funny... the Clinton Tax increase brought more prosperity and ran an actual budget surplus... but we don't want to talk about that.

We don't talk about it because it's not true. The Clinton tax increase coincided with the dot com bubble so people were able to afford the extra taxes better, until the bubble burst.

The Clinton tax increase did not cause the dot com bubble.

Now, if you would like to reset and tell me which particular statement from my OP you consider disputable, I will be glad to address it.

If you continue to be vague and confusing, I will naturally just avoid engaging with you in any serious way.

 

[Charles_Main]

People are used to this tax break now. How hard will it be to let it expire?

One of the hallmarks of the Social Security program has been that it is not welfare. People pay into it and thus earn the payouts when their time comes. A permanent payroll tax holiday would make it at least partially welfare.

So, is it going to be permanent? Which president is going to be willing to increase middle class Americans' taxes by $1000 a year? Ever.

an honest assessment can only conclude, that as a job Creation Measure the Employee Payroll Tax Holiday is not very effective at all. It does not amount to enough money to spur the people getting it to do anything more than pay down Debts, or Save it.

You also have to consider the fact that SS and MC are both in Financial Trouble, so is it wise to continue to not collect the taxes that fund them, when it is not having a major effect on the economy anyways?

I know it plays right into the Class Warfare Agenda of the Left, but the simple fact is, as Job Creating Measures go, Small Tax cuts going to Many People, are not as effective as larger tax cuts going specifically to the Job Creators among us.

Unpopular, yep, but also true.