Republicans are going to turn down a tax cut?

[Flopper]

The party of NO is going to have to turn thumbs down to a bill that will keep tax low for middle class America. A senate bill is being introduced that will extend the Bush tax cuts for families with incomes less than $250,000. It should be interesting to see how Republicans will spin this for the midterm elections. Democrats will of course accuse Republicans of turning down a bill that would reduce taxes for most Americans in order to reduce taxes for the 2 or 3% of the wealthy people in the country.

Bush-Era Tax Cuts Likely Election Theme - WSJ.com

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The party of NO is going to have to turn thumbs down to a bill that will keep tax low for middle class America. A senate bill is being introduced that will extend the Bush tax cuts for families with incomes less than $250,000. It should be interesting to see how Republicans will spin this for the midterm elections. Democrats will of course accuse Republicans of turning down a bill that would reduce taxes for most Americans in order to reduce taxes for the 2 or 3% of the wealthy people in the country.

Bush-Era Tax Cuts Likely Election Theme - WSJ.com

It looks like that democratic spin cycle is almost over and out of gas. when you can't find lies they create them

"If the Senate ultimately is unable to muster the votes to pass a tax bill, some knowledgeable Democrats predict the House still might try a short-term middle-class extension bill ahead of the election."

Just for the vote if it wasn't for the mid term election the democrats would not bother with it.

 

[edthecynic]

What I would do to stimulate the economy and create AMERICAN jobs is to REPLACE each of Bush's American job killing tax cuts when they expire, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, with a cut in the job killing payroll taxes.
This would give the American wage earner an immediate increase in take home pay to spend on a regular basis without costing the employer a single penny stimulating demand, and the businesses that employ Americans would have an immediate cut in the cost of labor without downsizing or outsourcing a single American job as well as saving the cost of compliance. The businesses that employ the most AMERICANS will get the most benefit from the tax cuts, exactly the group of people you would want to benefit most from tax cuts.

Bush's redistribution of wealth tax cuts took the Social Security Tax SURPLUS he inherited, collected at SS Payroll Tax Rates, 100% from wage earners making less than $100,000 and businesses that employ Americans, and redistributed most of it to incomes over $100,000 and Capital Gains Tycoons who are exempt from SS Payroll Taxes by using Income Tax Rates for the redistribution of the payroll tax surplus.
By simply saying his tax cuts were "across the board" Bush was able to deceive the gullible into believing it was fair to use the Income Tax rates to redistribute money collected at Payroll Tax rates.

As a result Tycoons who increased profits by outsourcing American jobs for cheaper foreign labor, were rewarded by Bush with a tax cut on that profit gained at the expense of American jobs. Not only that, but to further this redistribution of wealth and outsourcing of American jobs, Bush and the GOP congress raised the threshold on paying SS payroll taxes, making the cost of employing American wage earners even higher to those businesses that employ Americans.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What I would do to stimulate the economy and create AMERICAN jobs is to REPLACE each of Bush's American job killing tax cuts when they expire, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, with a cut in the job killing payroll taxes.
This would give the American wage earner an immediate increase in take home pay to spend on a regular basis without costing the employer a single penny stimulating demand, and the businesses that employ Americans would have an immediate cut in the cost of labor without downsizing or outsourcing a single American job as well as saving the cost of compliance. The businesses that employ the most AMERICANS will get the most benefit from the tax cuts, exactly the group of people you would want to benefit most from tax cuts.

Bush's redistribution of wealth tax cuts took the Social Security Tax SURPLUS he inherited, collected at SS Payroll Tax Rates, 100% from wage earners making less than $100,000 and businesses that employ Americans, and redistributed most of it to incomes over $100,000 and Capital Gains Tycoons who are exempt from SS Payroll Taxes by using Income Tax Rates for the redistribution of the payroll tax surplus.
By simply saying his tax cuts were "across the board" Bush was able to deceive the gullible into believing it was fair to use the Income Tax rates to redistribute money collected at Payroll Tax rates.

As a result Tycoons who increased profits by outsourcing American jobs for cheaper foreign labor, were rewarded by Bush with a tax cut on that profit gained at the expense of American jobs. Not only that, but to further this redistribution of wealth and outsourcing of American jobs, Bush and the GOP congress raised the threshold on paying SS payroll taxes, making the cost of employing American wage earners even higher to those businesses that employ Americans.

LOL you are a moron. stupid idiot....
Oh did I mention you are a moron.

 

[Political Junky]

Yep, the cons are gonna fuck themselves over, this election cycle. Between the taxes on the middle class, they want to repeal the health care bill. Children won't be able to stay on their parent's insurance until 26. Insurance can continue to deny coverage on preexisting conditions. Explain that to middle class voters.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yep, the cons are gonna fuck themselves over, this election cycle. Between the taxes on the middle class, they want to repeal the health care bill. Children won't be able to stay on their parent's insurance until 26. Insurance can continue to deny coverage on preexisting conditions. Explain that to middle class voters.

Someone who is 26 is not a child. Nothing has changed with the preexisting condition clause. Oh and when the healthcare law does come into effect those with preexisting conditions will be paying a higher price for insurence. Tell me you knew that and you are just trying to be an ass.

 

[hortysir]

From the link:

"If you can't get it out of the Senate, then you take it to the election," Mr. Van Hollen said in a recent interview. "You say to the American people that Republicans want to continue to hold middle-class tax relief hostage for an extension of tax breaks for [the well-to-do]. That will be the debate."

Continued class warfare, "us against them" mentality......

So much for changing the way Washington is run.
Reaching across the aisle is an extinct art form (of either side).

 

[chopcrazy]

What I would do to stimulate the economy and create AMERICAN jobs is to REPLACE each of Bush's American job killing tax cuts when they expire, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, with a cut in the job killing payroll taxes.
This would give the American wage earner an immediate increase in take home pay to spend on a regular basis without costing the employer a single penny stimulating demand, and the businesses that employ Americans would have an immediate cut in the cost of labor without downsizing or outsourcing a single American job as well as saving the cost of compliance. The businesses that employ the most AMERICANS will get the most benefit from the tax cuts, exactly the group of people you would want to benefit most from tax cuts.

Bush's redistribution of wealth tax cuts took the Social Security Tax SURPLUS he inherited, collected at SS Payroll Tax Rates, 100% from wage earners making less than $100,000 and businesses that employ Americans, and redistributed most of it to incomes over $100,000 and Capital Gains Tycoons who are exempt from SS Payroll Taxes by using Income Tax Rates for the redistribution of the payroll tax surplus.
By simply saying his tax cuts were "across the board" Bush was able to deceive the gullible into believing it was fair to use the Income Tax rates to redistribute money collected at Payroll Tax rates.

As a result Tycoons who increased profits by outsourcing American jobs for cheaper foreign labor, were rewarded by Bush with a tax cut on that profit gained at the expense of American jobs. Not only that, but to further this redistribution of wealth and outsourcing of American jobs, Bush and the GOP congress raised the threshold on paying SS payroll taxes, making the cost of employing American wage earners even higher to those businesses that employ Americans.

Your post was a little lite on data. How many tycoons benefited from the tax cuts and how many from the middle class benefited and how many people paid more? This info would be helpful to understand your position.

The income statement is important to understanding a business. You must realize that companies want to make money. For every $1 the company lowers its expenses, its profit increases roughly $0.65 (assumes 35% tax rate). Since you mention a dollar for dollar benefit; outsourcing would need to be compared with the cost to provide other benefits. If a company has 10 employees at $50k; under your solution the company would reduce its of payroll tax expense by $38k. The company still provides other benefits (medical, vacation, pto, 401l. etc.). Mind you, every company is different. Some companies have better benefits than others so there would be a lot of different scenarios. Is saving $38K enough money to hire another employee?

Since the economy is driven by small business which do most of the hiring. I think the question you should address in your analysis for your solution would be how many small companies/businesses outsource to offshore companies? This might provide insight into the magnitude of the offshore outsourcing as it relates to getting small companies to hiring americans.

I suspect (opinion without factual basis) that small business would love not to pay payroll taxes just like large companies. Large companies would continue to outsource as there are other factors besides payroll taxes that effect the decision to outsource. Small companies won't hire because the savings on payroll taxes is not enough to hire another person...maybe for every 11-12 workers could one additional worker be hired.

Small business need access to financing. Banks have been slow to lend as banks have been stabilizing their balance sheets. Buinesses need to know what the long-term costs will be...like taxe rates, benefit costs, interest rates, etc. for planning purposes.

You have the enthusiasm. If you backup what you say with facts or sources of reliable data; you mind gain support for your position. Otherwise it is just political bandering, imo.

P.S.: I am in favor of letting all but the marriage penalty tax breaks expire.

 

[DiveCon]

wait a minute, tax cuts are now a GOOD thing for democrats??????

 

[The Rabbi]

Yep, the cons are gonna fuck themselves over, this election cycle. Between the taxes on the middle class, they want to repeal the health care bill. Children won't be able to stay on their parent's insurance until 26. Insurance can continue to deny coverage on preexisting conditions. Explain that to middle class voters.

That's why almost every race shows the Republican beating the Democrat. Right?

 

[hortysir]

wait a minute, tax cuts are now a GOOD thing for democrats??????

Only as camouflage for all their spending.

Spend a shitload of money, then decrease your revenue!

 

[DiveCon]

Yep, the cons are gonna fuck themselves over, this election cycle. Between the taxes on the middle class, they want to repeal the health care bill. Children won't be able to stay on their parent's insurance until 26. Insurance can continue to deny coverage on preexisting conditions. Explain that to middle class voters.

That's why almost every race shows the Republican beating the Democrat. Right?

lets wait till those chickens actually hatch before we start counting them

i have every confidence that the GOP can do a DNC just as well as the DNC

 

[edthecynic]

What I would do to stimulate the economy and create AMERICAN jobs is to REPLACE each of Bush's American job killing tax cuts when they expire, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, with a cut in the job killing payroll taxes.
This would give the American wage earner an immediate increase in take home pay to spend on a regular basis without costing the employer a single penny stimulating demand, and the businesses that employ Americans would have an immediate cut in the cost of labor without downsizing or outsourcing a single American job as well as saving the cost of compliance. The businesses that employ the most AMERICANS will get the most benefit from the tax cuts, exactly the group of people you would want to benefit most from tax cuts.

Bush's redistribution of wealth tax cuts took the Social Security Tax SURPLUS he inherited, collected at SS Payroll Tax Rates, 100% from wage earners making less than $100,000 and businesses that employ Americans, and redistributed most of it to incomes over $100,000 and Capital Gains Tycoons who are exempt from SS Payroll Taxes by using Income Tax Rates for the redistribution of the payroll tax surplus.
By simply saying his tax cuts were "across the board" Bush was able to deceive the gullible into believing it was fair to use the Income Tax rates to redistribute money collected at Payroll Tax rates.

As a result Tycoons who increased profits by outsourcing American jobs for cheaper foreign labor, were rewarded by Bush with a tax cut on that profit gained at the expense of American jobs. Not only that, but to further this redistribution of wealth and outsourcing of American jobs, Bush and the GOP congress raised the threshold on paying SS payroll taxes, making the cost of employing American wage earners even higher to those businesses that employ Americans.

Your post was a little lite on data. How many tycoons benefited from the tax cuts and how many from the middle class benefited and how many people paid more? This info would be helpful to understand your position.

The income statement is important to understanding a business. You must realize that companies want to make money. For every $1 the company lowers its expenses, its profit increases roughly $0.65 (assumes 35% tax rate). Since you mention a dollar for dollar benefit; outsourcing would need to be compared with the cost to provide other benefits. If a company has 10 employees at $50k; under your solution the company would reduce its of payroll tax expense by $38k. The company still provides other benefits (medical, vacation, pto, 401l. etc.). Mind you, every company is different. Some companies have better benefits than others so there would be a lot of different scenarios. Is saving $38K enough money to hire another employee?

Since the economy is driven by small business which do most of the hiring. I think the question you should address in your analysis for your solution would be how many small companies/businesses outsource to offshore companies? This might provide insight into the magnitude of the offshore outsourcing as it relates to getting small companies to hiring americans.

I suspect (opinion without factual basis) that small business would love not to pay payroll taxes just like large companies. Large companies would continue to outsource as there are other factors besides payroll taxes that effect the decision to outsource. Small companies won't hire because the savings on payroll taxes is not enough to hire another person...maybe for every 11-12 workers could one additional worker be hired.

Small business need access to financing. Banks have been slow to lend as banks have been stabilizing their balance sheets. Buinesses need to know what the long-term costs will be...like taxe rates, benefit costs, interest rates, etc. for planning purposes.

You have the enthusiasm. If you backup what you say with facts or sources of reliable data; you mind gain support for your position. Otherwise it is just political bandering, imo.

P.S.: I am in favor of letting all but the marriage penalty tax breaks expire.

You are overlooking some factors I mentioned that will stimulate hiring, not just a savings in the cost of hiring another employee.

Employees having more money to spend from each and every pay check will stimulate demand for products, which will stimulate production of those products, which will stimulate demand for more workers to produce those products, for example.

 

[chopcrazy]

What I would do to stimulate the economy and create AMERICAN jobs is to REPLACE each of Bush's American job killing tax cuts when they expire, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, with a cut in the job killing payroll taxes.
This would give the American wage earner an immediate increase in take home pay to spend on a regular basis without costing the employer a single penny stimulating demand, and the businesses that employ Americans would have an immediate cut in the cost of labor without downsizing or outsourcing a single American job as well as saving the cost of compliance. The businesses that employ the most AMERICANS will get the most benefit from the tax cuts, exactly the group of people you would want to benefit most from tax cuts.

Bush's redistribution of wealth tax cuts took the Social Security Tax SURPLUS he inherited, collected at SS Payroll Tax Rates, 100% from wage earners making less than $100,000 and businesses that employ Americans, and redistributed most of it to incomes over $100,000 and Capital Gains Tycoons who are exempt from SS Payroll Taxes by using Income Tax Rates for the redistribution of the payroll tax surplus.
By simply saying his tax cuts were "across the board" Bush was able to deceive the gullible into believing it was fair to use the Income Tax rates to redistribute money collected at Payroll Tax rates.

As a result Tycoons who increased profits by outsourcing American jobs for cheaper foreign labor, were rewarded by Bush with a tax cut on that profit gained at the expense of American jobs. Not only that, but to further this redistribution of wealth and outsourcing of American jobs, Bush and the GOP congress raised the threshold on paying SS payroll taxes, making the cost of employing American wage earners even higher to those businesses that employ Americans.

Your post was a little lite on data. How many tycoons benefited from the tax cuts and how many from the middle class benefited and how many people paid more? This info would be helpful to understand your position.

The income statement is important to understanding a business. You must realize that companies want to make money. For every $1 the company lowers its expenses, its profit increases roughly $0.65 (assumes 35% tax rate). Since you mention a dollar for dollar benefit; outsourcing would need to be compared with the cost to provide other benefits. If a company has 10 employees at $50k; under your solution the company would reduce its of payroll tax expense by $38k. The company still provides other benefits (medical, vacation, pto, 401l. etc.). Mind you, every company is different. Some companies have better benefits than others so there would be a lot of different scenarios. Is saving $38K enough money to hire another employee?

Since the economy is driven by small business which do most of the hiring. I think the question you should address in your analysis for your solution would be how many small companies/businesses outsource to offshore companies? This might provide insight into the magnitude of the offshore outsourcing as it relates to getting small companies to hiring americans.

I suspect (opinion without factual basis) that small business would love not to pay payroll taxes just like large companies. Large companies would continue to outsource as there are other factors besides payroll taxes that effect the decision to outsource. Small companies won't hire because the savings on payroll taxes is not enough to hire another person...maybe for every 11-12 workers could one additional worker be hired.

Small business need access to financing. Banks have been slow to lend as banks have been stabilizing their balance sheets. Buinesses need to know what the long-term costs will be...like taxe rates, benefit costs, interest rates, etc. for planning purposes.

You have the enthusiasm. If you backup what you say with facts or sources of reliable data; you mind gain support for your position. Otherwise it is just political bandering, imo.

P.S.: I am in favor of letting all but the marriage penalty tax breaks expire.

You are overlooking some factors I mentioned that will stimulate hiring, not just a savings in the cost of hiring another employee.

Employees having more money to spend from each and every pay check will stimulate demand for products, which will stimulate production of those products, which will stimulate demand for more workers to produce those products, for example.

What about savings or paying down personal debt? Are you proposing to do away with Social Security? Without payroll taxes, will people have the discipline to save for retirement? Social Security is not enough now to live on now. Americans have not shown the ability to live within their means so what money will they have for retirment if it is all spent?

 

[The Rabbi]

What I would do to stimulate the economy and create AMERICAN jobs is to REPLACE each of Bush's American job killing tax cuts when they expire, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, with a cut in the job killing payroll taxes.
This would give the American wage earner an immediate increase in take home pay to spend on a regular basis without costing the employer a single penny stimulating demand, and the businesses that employ Americans would have an immediate cut in the cost of labor without downsizing or outsourcing a single American job as well as saving the cost of compliance. The businesses that employ the most AMERICANS will get the most benefit from the tax cuts, exactly the group of people you would want to benefit most from tax cuts.

Bush's redistribution of wealth tax cuts took the Social Security Tax SURPLUS he inherited, collected at SS Payroll Tax Rates, 100% from wage earners making less than $100,000 and businesses that employ Americans, and redistributed most of it to incomes over $100,000 and Capital Gains Tycoons who are exempt from SS Payroll Taxes by using Income Tax Rates for the redistribution of the payroll tax surplus.
By simply saying his tax cuts were "across the board" Bush was able to deceive the gullible into believing it was fair to use the Income Tax rates to redistribute money collected at Payroll Tax rates.

As a result Tycoons who increased profits by outsourcing American jobs for cheaper foreign labor, were rewarded by Bush with a tax cut on that profit gained at the expense of American jobs. Not only that, but to further this redistribution of wealth and outsourcing of American jobs, Bush and the GOP congress raised the threshold on paying SS payroll taxes, making the cost of employing American wage earners even higher to those businesses that employ Americans.

Your post was a little lite on data. How many tycoons benefited from the tax cuts and how many from the middle class benefited and how many people paid more? This info would be helpful to understand your position.

The income statement is important to understanding a business. You must realize that companies want to make money. For every $1 the company lowers its expenses, its profit increases roughly $0.65 (assumes 35% tax rate). Since you mention a dollar for dollar benefit; outsourcing would need to be compared with the cost to provide other benefits. If a company has 10 employees at $50k; under your solution the company would reduce its of payroll tax expense by $38k. The company still provides other benefits (medical, vacation, pto, 401l. etc.). Mind you, every company is different. Some companies have better benefits than others so there would be a lot of different scenarios. Is saving $38K enough money to hire another employee?

Since the economy is driven by small business which do most of the hiring. I think the question you should address in your analysis for your solution would be how many small companies/businesses outsource to offshore companies? This might provide insight into the magnitude of the offshore outsourcing as it relates to getting small companies to hiring americans.

I suspect (opinion without factual basis) that small business would love not to pay payroll taxes just like large companies. Large companies would continue to outsource as there are other factors besides payroll taxes that effect the decision to outsource. Small companies won't hire because the savings on payroll taxes is not enough to hire another person...maybe for every 11-12 workers could one additional worker be hired.

Small business need access to financing. Banks have been slow to lend as banks have been stabilizing their balance sheets. Buinesses need to know what the long-term costs will be...like taxe rates, benefit costs, interest rates, etc. for planning purposes.

You have the enthusiasm. If you backup what you say with facts or sources of reliable data; you mind gain support for your position. Otherwise it is just political bandering, imo.

P.S.: I am in favor of letting all but the marriage penalty tax breaks expire.

You are overlooking some factors I mentioned that will stimulate hiring, not just a savings in the cost of hiring another employee.

Employees having more money to spend from each and every pay check will stimulate demand for products, which will stimulate production of those products, which will stimulate demand for more workers to produce those products, for example.

Yet another one who believes in the myth of consumer demand.
Let's get it straight: government cannot create demand. It cannot create it by taking money from one segment of the population and giving it to another. That does not stimulate anything except bigger government.
What government can do is arrange incentives for people to invest more and earn more. It does this by cutting taxes at the margin, not across the board. Giving a tax cut to people for installing a new AC system is not going to stimulate anything. The Cash for Clunkers debacle should have shown the falsity of this idea to anyone with half a brain.

 

[Flopper]

Your post was a little lite on data. How many tycoons benefited from the tax cuts and how many from the middle class benefited and how many people paid more? This info would be helpful to understand your position.

The income statement is important to understanding a business. You must realize that companies want to make money. For every $1 the company lowers its expenses, its profit increases roughly $0.65 (assumes 35% tax rate). Since you mention a dollar for dollar benefit; outsourcing would need to be compared with the cost to provide other benefits. If a company has 10 employees at $50k; under your solution the company would reduce its of payroll tax expense by $38k. The company still provides other benefits (medical, vacation, pto, 401l. etc.). Mind you, every company is different. Some companies have better benefits than others so there would be a lot of different scenarios. Is saving $38K enough money to hire another employee?

Since the economy is driven by small business which do most of the hiring. I think the question you should address in your analysis for your solution would be how many small companies/businesses outsource to offshore companies? This might provide insight into the magnitude of the offshore outsourcing as it relates to getting small companies to hiring americans.

I suspect (opinion without factual basis) that small business would love not to pay payroll taxes just like large companies. Large companies would continue to outsource as there are other factors besides payroll taxes that effect the decision to outsource. Small companies won't hire because the savings on payroll taxes is not enough to hire another person...maybe for every 11-12 workers could one additional worker be hired.

Small business need access to financing. Banks have been slow to lend as banks have been stabilizing their balance sheets. Buinesses need to know what the long-term costs will be...like taxe rates, benefit costs, interest rates, etc. for planning purposes.

You have the enthusiasm. If you backup what you say with facts or sources of reliable data; you mind gain support for your position. Otherwise it is just political bandering, imo.

P.S.: I am in favor of letting all but the marriage penalty tax breaks expire.

You are overlooking some factors I mentioned that will stimulate hiring, not just a savings in the cost of hiring another employee.

Employees having more money to spend from each and every pay check will stimulate demand for products, which will stimulate production of those products, which will stimulate demand for more workers to produce those products, for example.

Yet another one who believes in the myth of consumer demand.
Let's get it straight: government cannot create demand. It cannot create it by taking money from one segment of the population and giving it to another. That does not stimulate anything except bigger government.
What government can do is arrange incentives for people to invest more and earn more. It does this by cutting taxes at the margin, not across the board. Giving a tax cut to people for installing a new AC system is not going to stimulate anything. The Cash for Clunkers debacle should have shown the falsity of this idea to anyone with half a brain.

The right kind of tax cuts or increases can stimulate the economy but not across the board cuts. Fiscal stimulus that increases demand is good, but the effects do not last, however stimulus is useful to slow a downturn.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Yep, the cons are gonna fuck themselves over, this election cycle. Between the taxes on the middle class, they want to repeal the health care bill. Children won't be able to stay on their parent's insurance until 26. Insurance can continue to deny coverage on preexisting conditions. Explain that to middle class voters.

I'm 21 and I'm under my own plan. And I don't have a lot of money.

"Children" who stay on their parents' plans, unless they have serious mental and/or physical disabilities, really are...children.

 

[edthecynic]

Your post was a little lite on data. How many tycoons benefited from the tax cuts and how many from the middle class benefited and how many people paid more? This info would be helpful to understand your position.

The income statement is important to understanding a business. You must realize that companies want to make money. For every $1 the company lowers its expenses, its profit increases roughly $0.65 (assumes 35% tax rate). Since you mention a dollar for dollar benefit; outsourcing would need to be compared with the cost to provide other benefits. If a company has 10 employees at $50k; under your solution the company would reduce its of payroll tax expense by $38k. The company still provides other benefits (medical, vacation, pto, 401l. etc.). Mind you, every company is different. Some companies have better benefits than others so there would be a lot of different scenarios. Is saving $38K enough money to hire another employee?

Since the economy is driven by small business which do most of the hiring. I think the question you should address in your analysis for your solution would be how many small companies/businesses outsource to offshore companies? This might provide insight into the magnitude of the offshore outsourcing as it relates to getting small companies to hiring americans.

I suspect (opinion without factual basis) that small business would love not to pay payroll taxes just like large companies. Large companies would continue to outsource as there are other factors besides payroll taxes that effect the decision to outsource. Small companies won't hire because the savings on payroll taxes is not enough to hire another person...maybe for every 11-12 workers could one additional worker be hired.

Small business need access to financing. Banks have been slow to lend as banks have been stabilizing their balance sheets. Buinesses need to know what the long-term costs will be...like taxe rates, benefit costs, interest rates, etc. for planning purposes.

You have the enthusiasm. If you backup what you say with facts or sources of reliable data; you mind gain support for your position. Otherwise it is just political bandering, imo.

P.S.: I am in favor of letting all but the marriage penalty tax breaks expire.

You are overlooking some factors I mentioned that will stimulate hiring, not just a savings in the cost of hiring another employee.

Employees having more money to spend from each and every pay check will stimulate demand for products, which will stimulate production of those products, which will stimulate demand for more workers to produce those products, for example.

What about savings or paying down personal debt? Are you proposing to do away with Social Security? Without payroll taxes, will people have the discipline to save for retirement? Social Security is not enough now to live on now. Americans have not shown the ability to live within their means so what money will they have for retirment if it is all spent?

Social Security taxes have been made part of the general fund, so cutting them would have no different effect on Social Security than cutting any other tax in the general fund.

 

[calvin]

nice sharing thanx

 

[topspin]

awh, you think they care about your measley tax cut for income under $250,000. that's cute.