House Begins Moves Toward Rejecting Tax Cut Bill

[Rationalist]

WASHINGTON — House Republicans moved closer on Tuesday to rejecting a bill approved by the Senate that would extend the payroll tax cut for most Americans beyond the end of the year and allow millions of unemployed people to continue receiving jobless benefits.

A procedural vote late Tuesday morning passed 231 to 187, with nearly every Republican voting in favor and nearly every Democrat opposed. It cleared the way for debate of the Republican proposal to turn down the Senate measure and establish a negotiating committee so the two chambers could resolve their differences. But the Senate has left town for the year, and Democrats say they do not intend to call it back, putting continuation of the tax cut in jeopardy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/u...closer-to-rejecting-payroll-tax-cut-deal.html


Does anyone believe Republicans would risk losing a tax cut extension if the tax cut benefited the wealthy? I highly doubt it; on the contrary, the Republicans would take the deal. In the past, I always criticized liberals who claimed that Republicans are only concerned with tax cuts for the wealthy. Now, as Republicans are rejecting a tax cut for the middle-class before my very eyes, I no longer have ground on which to stand.

Republicans are fully aware that the Senate will not reconvene before the new year; it would seem that they actually want the payroll tax cut to expire. While I don't think the payroll tax is the tax we should be cutting, as it further erodes Social Security, I also believe the Republicans should renew the cut until they can establish a viable alternative, such as income tax reform.

This is absolutely despicable on the part of Republicans.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Hilarious, you agree that we shouldn't be cutting payroll tax, Republicans agree with you, and Republicans are despicable...ergo... Got it!

 

[Rationalist]

Hilarious, you agree that we shouldn't be cutting payroll tax, Republicans agree with you, and Republicans are despicable...ergo... Got it!

I didn't say I disagree with cutting the payroll tax, but if we are to preserve Social Security, we need to find a way to make up for lost revenue. I think cutting the payroll tax rates to 4% and raising the cap would make sense. Alternatively, we should scrap the payroll tax cut and simply lower the income tax rates. But in the meantime, we cannot allow taxes to increase on millions of working families. And it would seem Republicans intend to do precisely that.

What do you think we should do, Dixie?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I didn't say I disagree with cutting the payroll tax, but if we are to preserve Social Security, we need to find a way to make up for lost revenue. I think cutting the payroll tax rates to 4% and raising the cap would make sense. Alternatively, we should scrap the payroll tax cut and simply lower the income tax rates. But in the meantime, we cannot allow taxes to increase on millions of working families. And it would seem Republicans intend to do precisely that.

What do you think we should do, Dixie?

Yeah, but you kinda did...

While I don't think the payroll tax is the tax we should be cutting, as it further erodes Social Security

The ONLY proposal thus far, includes the same old idea of eliminating the tax cut for top marginal rates, which Republicans have repeatedly said they will not do. If the Democrats want to tie ANY payroll tax cut (or extension of a cut, which isn't really a cut) to that, it's not going to pass. It's simple as that, and it doesn't matter how much bluster and over-the-top hyperbole is applied, they still aren't going to raise taxes on the so-called "wealthy."

What do I think they need to do? Well, the Democrats need to quit playing politics and trying to be sly. If it's important to extend the payroll tax cut, put forward a bill that pays for it, without raising the tax rates on job creators and capitalist investors. Hell, we're supposedly saving gazillions of dollars not fighting wars all over the world now, so it shouldn't be a problem, right? Next, they need to face the reality that Social Security can't survive unless we partially privatize the program, and let people invest a portion of their contributions in the markets.

 

[Rationalist]

Yeah, but you kinda did...



The ONLY proposal thus far, includes the same old idea of eliminating the tax cut for top marginal rates, which Republicans have repeatedly said they will not do. If the Democrats want to tie ANY payroll tax cut (or extension of a cut, which isn't really a cut) to that, it's not going to pass. It's simple as that, and it doesn't matter how much bluster and over-the-top hyperbole is applied, they still aren't going to raise taxes on the so-called "wealthy."

What do I think they need to do? Well, the Democrats need to quit playing politics and trying to be sly. If it's important to extend the payroll tax cut, put forward a bill that pays for it, without raising the tax rates on job creators and capitalist investors. Hell, we're supposedly saving gazillions of dollars not fighting wars all over the world now, so it shouldn't be a problem, right? Next, they need to face the reality that Social Security can't survive unless we partially privatize the program, and let people invest a portion of their contributions in the markets.

So in essence you believe we should raise taxes on low-income and middle-class workers. Alright, thanks for being honest.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So in essence you believe we should raise taxes on low-income and middle-class workers. Alright, thanks for being honest.

That wasn't what I said, was it?

 

[Rationalist]

That wasn't what I said, was it?

In practice, yes, that is precisely what you said. Democrats have already passed a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut and jobless benefits. Republicans should pass it to buy time. If you think Republicans should insist on SS reform as a condition for extending the cut, then yes, you believe we should raise taxes on the middle class. Unless, of course, you believe Republicans and Democrats can agree on Social Security reform in the next two weeks, assuming the Democrats will even return to the Senate.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm curious....didn't the Senate already reject the tax cut when they didn't agree to the cut the House had already approved and then promptly left town?..........

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

In practice, yes, that is precisely what you said. Democrats have already passed a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut and jobless benefits. Republicans should pass it to buy time. If you think Republicans should insist on SS reform as a condition for extending the cut, then yes, you believe we should raise taxes on the middle class. Unless, of course, you believe Republicans and Democrats can agree on Social Security reform in the next two weeks, assuming the Democrats will even return to the Senate.

Look... Democrats want to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the top earners, and Republicans don't. Period. That's what the debate is, and it is being camouflaged in a bill which would extend the payroll tax cut and jobless benefits. So now, Democrats can run around claiming Republicans want to raise taxes on middle class Americans, while Democrats are fighting the good fight, to help the poor middle class. The ISSUE is the tax rates on top wage earners.

Also... There is this issue of the pattern we have developed, of formulating a way to pay for a temporary tax relief, then coming back when that period is expiring, and claiming that allowing it to expire as intended, is a tax increase. Look... let's say it costs your household $12k per year to survive, you have lost all sources of income, but you have $12,000 in a savings account. You 'project' that you can live off savings for 1 year, allocating $1,000 a month from your account.... Now, you can't come back in the 12th month, and say that you plan to continue doing this for another year, you don't have any more money, you've used it up already. This is the case with these payroll tax cuts, they were made as an emergency relief effort, and paid for with specific allocations, which have been spent now, they no longer exist. It's not reality based to just say we're going to continue the relief without any means to pay for it. So far, the popular idea is to just pay for it out of the Social Security fund, but SS is already insolvent, what is that going to do? It doesn't take a mental giant to figure out, we just don't have the money.

I have said all along, any meaningful gains in tax revenue, will REQUIRE tax increases on the middle class, or a broadening of the tax base. Neither idea is very popular, but that is the reality of the situation. Increasing tax rates on the top 5% simply will not result in increased revenue, historically, it has produced the exact opposite effect. You see, the "rich" already have wealth, they don't NEED to earn incomes. Raise their income tax rates, and they simply stop earning income, which means, they stop investing and creating new jobs and economic growth. Not only do you succeed in killing tax revenue from the wealthy, you also diminish tax revenue from all the support network under the wealthy, who they employ as a result of their spending.

 

[Bonestorm]

I'm curious....didn't the Senate already reject the tax cut when they didn't agree to the cut the House had already approved and then promptly left town?..........

No, the Senate negotiated a compromise bill that John Boehner initially said was acceptable. The Senate passed it 89-10, Boehner held a conference call with his members and they told him they wouldn't agree to the bill that he agreed to.

Basically, the back-benchers steamrolled the speaker.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, the Senate negotiated a compromise bill that John Boehner initially said was acceptable. The Senate passed it 89-10, Boehner held a conference call with his members and they told him they wouldn't agree to the bill that he agreed to.

Basically, the back-benchers steamrolled the speaker.

Because it raised taxes on the "millionaires and billionaires."

 

[Bonestorm]

Because it raised taxes on the "millionaires and billionaires."

No, it didn't. The bill was paid for by modestly increasing the fees paid to Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to insure mortgages by 0.1%.



Edit: And even if that were true, that's just awful. Sorry working people and the unemployed, you don't get your tax cut and your unemployment benefits because the Republicans don't want to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires.

 

[Damocles]

No, it didn't. The bill was paid for by modestly increasing the fees paid to Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to insure mortgages by 0.1%.



Edit: And even if that were true, that's just awful. Sorry working people and the unemployed, you don't get your tax cut and your unemployment benefits because the Republicans don't want to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires.

Still rubbish. They have all stated they are willing to stay and work out an actual bill that lasts the full year. If the Ds leave it won't be because the republicans weren't willing to work out something more than a punt.

 

[Bonestorm]

Still rubbish. They have all stated they are willing to stay and work out an actual bill that lasts the full year. If the Ds leave it won't be because the republicans weren't willing to work out something more than a punt.

They already worked out a deal that Boehner said was acceptable. Boehner needs to lead his caucus as opposed to being jerked around by them. Quit fucking around, pass the bill and revisit things in January. Not too tough.

 

[Damocles]

They already worked out a deal that Boehner said was acceptable. Boehner needs to lead his caucus as opposed to being jerked around by them. Quit fucking around, pass the bill and revisit things in January. Not too tough.

Or, pass a bill that will actually do something and negotiate with the Senate. Not too tough.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

No, the Senate negotiated a compromise bill that John Boehner initially said was acceptable. The Senate passed it 89-10, Boehner held a conference call with his members and they told him they wouldn't agree to the bill that he agreed to.

Basically, the back-benchers steamrolled the speaker.

I'm sorry, but you should pay more attention to the news......the House passed an extension of the tax cut on December 13.....unfortunately, the Democrats rejected it.....blaming this on the Republicans is merely partisan hackery.....
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-13/politics/politics_congress-payroll-tax-cut_1_payroll-spending-bill-keystone-xl?_s=PMOLITICS

 

[signalmankenneth]

THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS???

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I didn't say I disagree with cutting the payroll tax, but if we are to preserve Social Security, we need to find a way to make up for lost revenue. I think cutting the payroll tax rates to 4% and raising the cap would make sense. Alternatively, we should scrap the payroll tax cut and simply lower the income tax rates. But in the meantime, we cannot allow taxes to increase on millions of working families. And it would seem Republicans intend to do precisely that.

What do you think we should do, Dixie?

The payroll tax is the hardest tax that hits many middle class families. I actually think it's only until you get above the median income that the income tax starts making up the majority share. This is excluding the fact that the payroll tax is effectively double the normal rate; let us just pretend that, in the long term, employers don't take it out of employee salaries.

I mean, really, you can do the math. It's a flat income tax with a cap at 100k a year, and it take in nearly as much revenue as the progressive income tax with nominal rates much higher and no cap. That's obviously hitting the middle class.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Look... Democrats want to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the top earners, and Republicans don't. Period. That's what the debate is, and it is being camouflaged in a bill which would extend the payroll tax cut and jobless benefits. So now, Democrats can run around claiming Republicans want to raise taxes on middle class Americans, while Democrats are fighting the good fight, to help the poor middle class. The ISSUE is the tax rates on top wage earners.

Also... There is this issue of the pattern we have developed, of formulating a way to pay for a temporary tax relief, then coming back when that period is expiring, and claiming that allowing it to expire as intended, is a tax increase. Look... let's say it costs your household $12k per year to survive, you have lost all sources of income, but you have $12,000 in a savings account. You 'project' that you can live off savings for 1 year, allocating $1,000 a month from your account.... Now, you can't come back in the 12th month, and say that you plan to continue doing this for another year, you don't have any more money, you've used it up already. This is the case with these payroll tax cuts, they were made as an emergency relief effort, and paid for with specific allocations, which have been spent now, they no longer exist. It's not reality based to just say we're going to continue the relief without any means to pay for it. So far, the popular idea is to just pay for it out of the Social Security fund, but SS is already insolvent, what is that going to do? It doesn't take a mental giant to figure out, we just don't have the money.

I have said all along, any meaningful gains in tax revenue, will REQUIRE tax increases on the middle class, or a broadening of the tax base. Neither idea is very popular, but that is the reality of the situation. Increasing tax rates on the top 5% simply will not result in increased revenue, historically, it has produced the exact opposite effect. You see, the "rich" already have wealth, they don't NEED to earn incomes. Raise their income tax rates, and they simply stop earning income, which means, they stop investing and creating new jobs and economic growth. Not only do you succeed in killing tax revenue from the wealthy, you also diminish tax revenue from all the support network under the wealthy, who they employ as a result of their spending.

You aren't going to get much out of the middle class. They already don't get much of the pie. You can only squeeze a lemon so hard until you run out of juice, and it's stupid to do so when you have a big fat melon resting next to you. The revenue maximizing rate is much higher than the current one - some posit 70%. We needn't set it at such a rate (the sole purpose of a tax policy isn't to maximize revenue), but there is room to increase revenue there.

 

[Alias]

The Dems are getting their asses kicked on this one. No one is being fooled.