Senate-Passed Deal Means Higher Tax on 77% of Households

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2004
70,230
10,864
2,040
oh well
links in article at site


SNIP:

By Richard Rubin - Jan 1, 2013 12:54 PM CT.
.
513 Comments

Print
The budget deal passed by the U.S. Senate today would raise taxes on 77.1 percent of U.S. households, mostly because of the expiration of a payroll tax cut, according to preliminary estimates from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington.

More than 80 percent of households with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 would pay higher taxes. Among the households facing higher taxes, the average increase would be $1,635, the policy center said. A 2 percent payroll tax cut, enacted during the economic slowdown, is being allowed to expire as of yesterday.



The heaviest new burdens in 2013, compared with 2012, would fall on top earners, who would face higher rates on income, capital gains, dividends and estates. The top 1 percent of taxpayers, or those with incomes over $506,210, would pay an average of $73,633 more in taxes.

Much of that burden is concentrated at the very top of the income scale.

all of it here
Senate-Passed Deal Means Higher Tax on 77% of Households - Bloomberg
 
I thought you were all worried about the deficit?

your memes keep bumping into each other huh
 
Just yesterday, one of you nutters was defending the expiration of the payroll tax holiday saying that it was robbing SS for the future. Make up your goddamn minds!!!

Oh, you have made up your minds. In your minds everything is the President's fault.
 
Just yesterday, one of you nutters was defending the expiration of the payroll tax holiday saying that it was robbing SS for the future. Make up your goddamn minds!!!

Oh, you have made up your minds. In your minds everything is the President's fault.

There were a couple threads or more recently about how in the last 2 years Social Security ran deficits for the first time in ages; that wasn't technically true, but the deficit they were referring to would have been paid for and then some if there never had been a payroll tax cut.
 
For those of you trying to pass this off as an Obama tax increase, try to use your brain for 2 minutes -

If the payroll tax had never been touched in the last 4 years, you could not have said Obama raised the payroll tax, and yet,

you would have paid MORE in payroll taxes.

You did in fact pay LESS in payroll taxes in the past 4 years, and yet you want to call this an Obama tax increase.

That is idiocy.
 
Rather than use this as a political football, why not voice some constructive ideas about how we close the gap between our S.S. obligations and our S.S. revenue?
 
For those of you trying to pass this off as an Obama tax increase, try to use your brain for 2 minutes -

If the payroll tax had never been touched in the last 4 years, you could not have said Obama raised the payroll tax, and yet,

you would have paid MORE in payroll taxes.

You did in fact pay LESS in payroll taxes in the past 4 years, and yet you want to call this an Obama tax increase.

That is idiocy.

oh no, you don't get to play that...
 
For those of you trying to pass this off as an Obama tax increase, try to use your brain for 2 minutes -

If the payroll tax had never been touched in the last 4 years, you could not have said Obama raised the payroll tax, and yet,

you would have paid MORE in payroll taxes.

You did in fact pay LESS in payroll taxes in the past 4 years, and yet you want to call this an Obama tax increase.

That is idiocy.

Idiocy abounds as O does the same, claiming he is lowering taxes for the middle class. Complete idiocy.
 
Last edited:
look at these fools


they have no morals except to knee jerk defend there hate for the first black president
 
The payroll tax cut was an emergency measure. Who could possibly defend making an emergency measure permanent?
 
The payroll tax cut was an emergency measure. Who could possibly defend making an emergency measure permanent?


Most of the permanent regulatory bureaucracy of Federal Government was originally based upon some "so-called" emergency. It's how they justify expanding government power.
 
Pretty simple to see who won. Look at Wall Street this morning. As for the rest of us, pay more with no real spending cuts for the government. The economy just fell back into recession today.
 
Steph, I have seen you make some stupid threads.........but this one is the winner.
Good fuking God you are stoopid.


Was there actually some sort of point you were trying to make?
 
Wall Street is responding the expansion of the money supply and inflation. Follow the Fed...
 
The payroll tax cut was an emergency measure. Who could possibly defend making an emergency measure permanent?


Most of the permanent regulatory bureaucracy of Federal Government was originally based upon some "so-called" emergency. It's how they justify expanding government power.

Indeed it is. And it is time to stop swallowing the piss. The GOP is trying to make war level defense spending permanent, and they don't care how much money we need to borrow from China, nor how many times we have to raise the debt ceiling, to do it.

And then there's the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security...

These are astronomical expansions of government power.

We're on the road to totalitarianism.
 
Last edited:
Steph, I have seen you make some stupid threads.........but this one is the winner.
Good fuking God you are stoopid.


Was there actually some sort of point you were trying to make?

Decided to type some stoopid I see.
 
Pretty simple to see who won. Look at Wall Street this morning. As for the rest of us, pay more with no real spending cuts for the government. The economy just fell back into recession today.

Just curious - how does the jump in the market = recession? Your four sentences appear contradictory.
 

Forum List

Back
Top