Payroll tax holiday: When should it expire?

[The Rabbi]

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.

No one said you were suggesting increasing gov't revenue as the sole criteria. I didn/t . But you implied that whether the program actually worked to achieve its goal was not important.
As for whether it worked, post hoc ergo propter hoc is still a fallacy.

 

[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?

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?

Or is it just that last year was very depressed and this is just back to the normal?

 

[Steelplate]

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?

Or is it just that last year was very depressed and this is just back to the normal?

Don't know... if nothing else..."normal" is better than depressed.

 

[J.E.D]

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

It should expire when the Bush tax cuts expire; and just like the Bush tax cuts, the payroll tax cut shouldn't be paid for.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Or is it just that last year was very depressed and this is just back to the normal?

Don't know... if nothing else..."normal" is better than depressed.

And not dependent on the payroll tax. So let's elimiante the payroll tax cut.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Actually the Clinton tax increase brought about the recession of 2001. But we don't want to talk about that.

8 years later? You're an idiot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So the Clinton tax hike caused people to have so much money to invest that they overdid it in the stock market and drove prices too high with all that excess capital?

lol. That's quite an indictment.

 

[Avorysuds]

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.

I think there is a lot more to it than that... For starters Clinton had 2 booms and left the economy ins recession... You know kinda like Bush...

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Actually the Clinton tax increase brought about the recession of 2001. But we don't want to talk about that.

8 years later? You're an idiot.

So people who claim the Bush tax cuts caused the recession are also idiots?

 

[Steelplate]

Actually the Clinton tax increase brought about the recession of 2001. But we don't want to talk about that.

8 years later? You're an idiot.

So people who claim the Bush tax cuts caused the recession are also idiots?

No... the Bush Tax Cuts didn't cause the recession.. De-regulating Wall Street did. The Bush Tax Cuts Pandered to the wealthy more than any other group in America... but they didn't cause the recession.

 

[Rozman]

Will allowing the cuts to exprire be perceived as Obama raising taxes?

Interesting...
When the Republicans said that letting the Bush tax cuts sunset amounted to a tax hike.
The Democrats argued that doing so was merely letting the tax rate return to the way they were before....

Now I have been hearing from the Democrats for a week now say that to let the Obama payroll tax cut end amounted to a tax hike on the middle class....

What a bunch of hypocritical jerk offs these lefties are.
They have no conscience whatsoever...They point their fingers across the aisle and go on and on about how good they are and how evil the Republicans are...

 

[The Rabbi]

8 years later? You're an idiot.

So people who claim the Bush tax cuts caused the recession are also idiots?

No... the Bush Tax Cuts didn't cause the recession.. De-regulating Wall Street did. The Bush Tax Cuts Pandered to the wealthy more than any other group in America... but they didn't cause the recession.

What deregulation would that be?

 

[Steelplate]

Glass-Steagall for one...

From Wiki... because I'm too damned lazy to fully research 100 or so articles....

While many causes for the financial crisis have been suggested, with varying weight assigned by experts,[9] the United States Senate issuing the Levin–Coburn Report found "that the crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street."[10]

Critics argued that credit rating agencies and investors failed to accurately price the risk involved with mortgage-related financial products, and that governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address 21st-century financial markets.[11] The 1999 repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between Wall Street investment banks and depository banks.[12] In response to the financial crisis, both market-based and regulatory solutions have been implemented or are under consideration.[13]

Yes... Fannie and Freddie also played a part as did the CRA... however, those entities also wouldn't have been allowed to do harm without the repeal of the Glass Steagall act.

 

[The Rabbi]

So the repeal of Glass Steagal in 1999 caused the recession in 2008? Seriously?

 

[chikenwing]

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.

Funny spending levels had nothing to do with it ether??

We don't have nearly as big of a tax problem as we do SPENDING! Drop the Bush tax cuts and who gets hit the hardest??

Bueller Bueller

 

[Zander]

Jan 1 will work.....

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Will allowing the cuts to exprire be perceived as Obama raising taxes?

Interesting...
When the Republicans said that letting the Bush tax cuts sunset amounted to a tax hike.
The Democrats argued that doing so was merely letting the tax rate return to the way they were before....

Now I have been hearing from the Democrats for a week now say that to let the Obama payroll tax cut end amounted to a tax hike on the middle class....

What a bunch of hypocritical jerk offs these lefties are.
They have no conscience whatsoever...They point their fingers across the aisle and go on and on about how good they are and how evil the Republicans are...

It was just a question. I am not up on the board speak on this topic. Just a general perception inquiry.

 

[8537]

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.

No one said you were suggesting increasing gov't revenue as the sole criteria. I didn/t . But you implied that whether the program actually worked to achieve its goal was not important.

I implied nothing of the sort. Like most tax changes, it has more than one goal.

As for whether it worked, post hoc ergo propter hoc is still a fallacy.

Yes, of course. Let us not use the best and most relevant evidence, let us instead use Latin. That makes good sense. You asked if I had evidence and I provided some.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.


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.

No one said you were suggesting increasing gov't revenue as the sole criteria. I didn/t . But you implied that whether the program actually worked to achieve its goal was not important.

I implied nothing of the sort. Like most tax changes, it has more than one goal.

As for whether it worked, post hoc ergo propter hoc is still a fallacy.

Yes, of course. Let us not use the best and most relevant evidence, let us instead use Latin. That makes good sense. You asked if I had evidence and I provided some.

It was evidence at all. Just because something occurred after something doesn't mean it caused it (that's what the Latin means). Rising stock market values could have caused the rise in consumer spending just as easily. Probably more easily.
No, you definitely implied that results were not a measure of how good a policy is.
What other goal did the payroll tax cut have? I mean, other than getting Obama re-elected, which is the goal of every program he's ever proposed.

 

[8537]

No one said you were suggesting increasing gov't revenue as the sole criteria. I didn/t . But you implied that whether the program actually worked to achieve its goal was not important.

I implied nothing of the sort. Like most tax changes, it has more than one goal.

As for whether it worked, post hoc ergo propter hoc is still a fallacy.

Yes, of course. Let us not use the best and most relevant evidence, let us instead use Latin. That makes good sense. You asked if I had evidence and I provided some.

It was evidence at all. Just because something occurred after something doesn't mean it caused it (that's what the Latin means).

So then you might stop claiming that the "Record" (that wasn't a record) job growth under Reagan at this point in his administration was related to his policies?

OK then.

So let's punch up the evidence a bit more: The tax cut put approximately $1,000 per person into the hands of the middle class. The average amount of savings has not increased by that amount over the past year.

Where else would you like to believe the money went if not into consumption and not into savings?

Rising stock market values could have caused the rise in consumer spending just as easily. Probably more easily

A stock market wealth effect for the middle and lower middle class? Nope. I don't buy it. Especially since the DOW is pretty much sideways since the payroll tax cut went into effect, while consumer expenditures are up.