Payroll tax holiday: When should it expire?

[The Rabbi]

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


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.

The evidence of the Reagan tax cuts is far superior to this piece of shit.
WHere did the money go? How about paying down debt?
Household Debt Falls by 0.6% in Third Quarter - Bloomberg
What could have caused the increase in spending? Yes, the wealth effect. Middle class people have 401ks, and while they can't tap the money really it still provides a wealth effect. Maybe it was merely spending returning to normal as people had put off buying major goods? Maybe it was warmer weather that allowed more shopping days?

 

[8537]

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.

The evidence of the Reagan tax cuts is far superior to this piece of shit.

I notice you never bring any of that "Evidence" to the table.

WHere did the money go? How about paying down debt?
Household Debt Falls by 0.6% in Third Quarter - Bloomberg

It's like I already said that. Some of it went to paying down debt (a good thing) some went to consumption (A good thing). notice that so far people are better off thanks to the tax cut?

What could have caused the increase in spending? Yes, the wealth effect. Middle class people have 401ks, and while they can't tap the money really it still provides a wealth effect.

Most people impacted by a payroll tax cut don't experience a measurable wealth effect from increases in the stock market - which, at any rate, is currently at just above the place where it was when the payroll tax cut passed.

Maybe it was merely spending returning to normal as people had put off buying major goods?

If only we saw the whole increase in durable goods you might have a point.

Maybe it was warmer weather that allowed more shopping days?

Oh gawd. a fully year of increases is due to warmer weather?

Desperation looks nice on you.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Fannie and Freddy would also not done any damage had they not existed in the first place. Given that, the repeal of Glass Steagall would not have crashed the economy. Make people keep the risk in their bad decisions and they will make fewer bad decisions.

As far as the tax goes....
The democrats cannot survive with this bullshit double standard of tax decreases are good here but not over there. Same goes for the republicans that insist raising taxes is asinine yet here they are asking for a tax hike. What utter nonsense. How can anyone here on the right ask for this tax break to go away and then demand that the Bush tax cuts stay in effect? You are all quick to point out that this tax cut was a failure in creating jobs (even though evidence was pointed out to you) but that same analogy can be used for the Bush tax cuts as they proceeded a massive recession.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?


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.

The evidence of the Reagan tax cuts is far superior to this piece of shit.

I notice you never bring any of that "Evidence" to the table.



It's like I already said that. Some of it went to paying down debt (a good thing) some went to consumption (A good thing). notice that so far people are better off thanks to the tax cut?



Most people impacted by a payroll tax cut don't experience a measurable wealth effect from increases in the stock market - which, at any rate, is currently at just above the place where it was when the payroll tax cut passed.

Maybe it was merely spending returning to normal as people had put off buying major goods?

If only we saw the whole increase in durable goods you might have a point.

Maybe it was warmer weather that allowed more shopping days?

Oh gawd. a fully year of increases is due to warmer weather?

Desperation looks nice on you.

Bottom line here: You have failed to provide any evidence that the payroll tax cut did anything othe than increase the deficit. Any supposed benefit can easily be attributed to other factors. The detriment is certain, however.
The main thing the cut seems to have done, if anything, is to move debt from the private sector to the public sector. How that is supposed to be good is beyond me.
Quod erat demonstrandum. Thanks for playing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

The Bush tax cuts, coupled with spending increases, caused deficits.

You're an idiot to say the Clinton tax increases caused a recession 8 years later because you seem to have no idea that the business cycle is a series of expansions and recessions that occur as a natural result of economy activity, regardless of marginal changes in tax policy.

An 8 year expansion followed by a mild recession of a few months followed by another expansion is a relatively good cycle btw.

 

[8537]

The evidence of the Reagan tax cuts is far superior to this piece of shit.

I notice you never bring any of that "Evidence" to the table.



It's like I already said that. Some of it went to paying down debt (a good thing) some went to consumption (A good thing). notice that so far people are better off thanks to the tax cut?



Most people impacted by a payroll tax cut don't experience a measurable wealth effect from increases in the stock market - which, at any rate, is currently at just above the place where it was when the payroll tax cut passed.



If only we saw the whole increase in durable goods you might have a point.

Maybe it was warmer weather that allowed more shopping days?

Oh gawd. a fully year of increases is due to warmer weather?

Desperation looks nice on you.

Bottom line here: You have failed to provide any evidence that the payroll tax cut did anything othe than increase the deficit. Any supposed benefit can easily be attributed to other factors. The detriment is certain, however.

No, you simply don't accept the evidence presented - then turn around and claim that a 1981 tax cut and 1982 tax hike caused job moderate (er...I mean great!) job creation in 1983. I showed you the math - it's not really worth debating since the math is, well...the math. Bottom line: You're wrong. again. as usual.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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're throwing a haymaker at all those conservatives who have claimed ad nauseum that putting more money in the hands of the people who earned it, instead of letting the government have it,

is always a good thing.

 

[Jackson]

The Keystone Pipeline is attached to the Payroll tax bill. That gives jobs, oil from a friendly country and increases our tax base as it lowers unemployment, even slightly. The question remains, will Obama veto it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Bottom line here: You have failed to provide any evidence that the payroll tax cut did anything othe than increase the deficit. Any supposed benefit can easily be attributed to other factors. The detriment is certain, however.
The main thing the cut seems to have done, if anything, is to move debt from the private sector to the public sector. How that is supposed to be good is beyond me.
Quod erat demonstrandum. Thanks for playing.

The payroll tax cut was part of the bill that extended the Bush tax cuts.

Are you thus also of the belief that the extension of the Bush tax cuts did nothing other than add to the deficit?

 

[Seawytch]

Social Security actuary blesses payroll tax bill

Social Security’s chief actuary said a Democratic payroll tax extension bill would have no effect on the program’s finances.

The blessing is being used by supporters of the tax holiday to try to convince members worried it weakens Social Security. That perception is especially strong in the House GOP conference.

Actuary Stephen Goss sent a Tuesday letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Budget Director Jack Lew giving his thumbs up.

“We estimate that the enactment of this bill would have a negligible effect on the financial status of the Old Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program in both the near term and the long term. We estimate that the projected level of the OASI and DI Trust Funds would be unaffected by enactment of this provision,” the letter states.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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...

Nothing like Bush.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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:

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.

You must provide the evidence for your assertion, and only then can your opponent provide counter assertion.

That's how adults do it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Social Security actuary blesses payroll tax bill

Social Security’s chief actuary said a Democratic payroll tax extension bill would have no effect on the program’s finances.

The blessing is being used by supporters of the tax holiday to try to convince members worried it weakens Social Security. That perception is especially strong in the House GOP conference.

Actuary Stephen Goss sent a Tuesday letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Budget Director Jack Lew giving his thumbs up.

“We estimate that the enactment of this bill would have a negligible effect on the financial status of the Old Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program in both the near term and the long term. We estimate that the projected level of the OASI and DI Trust Funds would be unaffected by enactment of this provision,” the letter states.

Meaning they will just borrow more and it is business as usual? Or meaning that they have been lying to us all along about the program not taking in enough money? Or meaning they are covering Obama's tush in an election year?

 

[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:



... I thought you were responding to this:

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.

You must provide the evidence for your assertion, and only then can your opponent provide counter assertion.

That's how adults do it.

What did I assert in my OP which needs evidence? If you would care to be specific, then I will try to answer. ... that's how adults do it.

Payroll tax holiday: When should it expire?

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

On the OP?You seriously need to be more specific in your criticisms. When you said this:... I thought you were responding to this: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.

You must provide the evidence for your assertion, and only then can your opponent provide counter assertion.That's how adults do it.

What did I assert in my OP which needs evidence? If you would care to be specific, then I will try to answer. ... that's how adults do it.

Payroll tax holiday: When should it expire?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.

I am glad you are back on track. No, the holiday should not permanent. Everybody has to pay into it. The question is whether the wealthy are going to pay more taxes generally.

Personally, I would like to see the holiday elapse, then SS tweaked with means testing, income taxed up to one million dollars annual income, and increased age eligibility.

 

[Amelia]

You must provide the evidence for your assertion, and only then can your opponent provide counter assertion.That's how adults do it.

What did I assert in my OP which needs evidence? If you would care to be specific, then I will try to answer. ... that's how adults do it.

Payroll tax holiday: When should it expire?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.

I am glad you are back on track. No, the holiday should not permanent. Everybody has to pay into it. The question is whether the wealthy are going to pay more taxes generally.

Personally, I would like to see the holiday elapse, then SS tweaked with means testing, income taxed up to one million dollars annual income, and increased age eligibility.

Me? Back on track? OMG. So there is not actually any assertion in my OP which I need to provide evidence for? Then WHAT THE HELL was all this nonsense about my OP being a fail for lack of proof?

50 lashes to myself with a wet noodle for giving you the benefit of the doubt and trying to make sense out of your vague critique.



Well, you sucked me in on that waste of energy. Good job. I won't take the bait as easily next time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Amelia: "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."

Stay on track. Why you would make such a silly statement makes reason stare.

 

[Amelia]

Amelia: "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."

Stay on track. Why you would make such a silly statement makes reason stare.

Context would be your friend if you would let it be. Obviously I was responding to Steelplate's ludicrous claim. Why didn't you ask him why he didn't give evidence for that?

Why do you quote my post as a standalone comment and not show the post it was clearly answering?

p.s., Those are rhetorical questions. I do not expect an answer from you. I would not care to tax your deflecting mechanism. After the workout it got in this thread, I think you might need to take it in for a tune-up.

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am glad you are learning to pay attention. Remember that when you make a silly assertion, such as the one about Clinton, you are going to be asked for evidence.

Glad we got you straight.