Exactly what increased???
- Thread starter getbent
- Start date
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
To the best of my knowledge, most of us only experienced the 2% increase in Social Security taxes.
I myself experienced others, such as a lower ceiling on DCFSA's, which results in higher taxes - and of course, higher health premiums. And for some reason, federal employees didn't have FSA's taken out on the first paycheck, so now it's getting spread out over the rest of the year. Sucks to see your first paycheck lowered and know it's gonna be worse the rest of the year.
I myself experienced others, such as a lower ceiling on DCFSA's, which results in higher taxes - and of course, higher health premiums. And for some reason, federal employees didn't have FSA's taken out on the first paycheck, so now it's getting spread out over the rest of the year. Sucks to see your first paycheck lowered and know it's gonna be worse the rest of the year.
Payroll tax holiday expired. Prior to president Obama getting elected, we all paid 6.2% tax to Social Security. After his election, a democrat in the house (MN I think) proposed a payroll tax holiday, lowering that SS tax to 4.2% temporarily. It was scheduled to expire, and did so at the end of 2012. So now we are back to paying 6.2%. I don't think it had anything to do with the fiscal cliff.
In short, everyone is paying 2% more.
In short, everyone is paying 2% more.
I hope that they, and everybody else, wakes up to what the "Redistribution King" is doing to our country.
Aerogal
USMC 1983-1995
Are you serious?! Just so you know - the payroll tax cuts (otherwise known as the Bush tax cuts) were agreed to by the democrats on the premise that they EXPIRE and taxes would return to previous levels. There were no provisions to decrease spending. They are the ones that coined the phrase fiscal cliff so many years ago and planned on it's coming. They also counted on short memory of WHO initiated the tax increases so they could point the finger at the republicans. Why do you think Reid has avoided passing a budget? So he could blame GOP/conservatives for the mess.
PsyOps
Pixelated
And because of when the ‘tax holiday’ occurred, it was easy for them to allow it to expire and justify our taxes going up, despite promises this wouldn’t happen. It’s just another game these pinheads play with OUR money. We’ve become used to our government blessing us with more (or less) of our own money.
There should be permanent tax levels for everyone and spending should be designed around that, rather than the other way around. Our taxes should be predictable. Now a lot of people are going to have to make major adjustment in THEIR spending while the government makes NO adjustment to theirs.
Last edited:
Baja28
Obama destroyed America
My net (take home) was $83.00 less for a 2 week period.
Thanks to the obama voters, I am now taking home $166.00 less per month.
They (big dummy obama voters) should send me money to make up for it.
getbent
Thats how them b*tch's R
Hubby's is about $135 a month.
Tilted
..
No, the payroll tax cuts that have been referred to are not the Bush tax cuts. Technically I suppose you could describe some of those latter cuts (i.e. cuts to ordinary income tax rates) as payroll tax cuts because sometimes people use the term payroll taxes in a broad way to include (ordinary income) tax which is deducted from paychecks. That's not what people are generally referring to when they speak of the payroll tax holiday though (google the term and read what most of the hits are talking about), that relates to the 2% break on Social Security taxes that we got for 2011 and 2012. That's what the OP referred to as having gone away.
What are you referring to? If you're referring to what the OP mentioned - the Social Security tax holiday going away - then I'd point out that we'd likely have had the same result if Republicans had seized complete control (i.e. the House, the Senate, and the presidency). The Republicans wanted to let those tax cuts expire as much as, if not more than, the Democrats did. Their 'Plan B' would have allowed those cuts to expire. I think I recall that President Obama may even have, early on, considered extending those cuts but dropped the idea because the Republicans didn't want to. We'd have to google some old news stories to be sure about that though. At any rate, the point is that this (effective tax increase) wasn't something just the Democrats wanted - this was something that the Republicans, at the very least, wanted as well.
I recall quite a few people pointing out on, e.g. CNBC, that even if the two sides reached an agreement on extending the tax cuts, the economy would still face some amount of drag as a result of the Social Security tax going back up because extending that holiday wasn't on the table.
PsyOps
Pixelated
I don't think you can say this with absolute certainty since it didn't happen. But even if you are right, how do this change Aerogal's point?
Last edited:
Tilted
..
What are you talking about with the Obama voters? The Republicans wanted to let the Social Security tax cut expire as much as President Obama did. Must we blame everything on President Obama alone and in so doing make ourselves look like non-credible fools when we level legitimate criticisms? (And, if we're going to do that, then we ought to give him all the credit for anything good that has happened so we don't look like complete tools - that would mean giving him credit for things that he probably doesn't deserve credit for.) This development is thanks to the Republican voters as much as it is thanks to the Obama voters.
If anything - if he could have had his way - President Obama would have liked to had the Social Security tax cuts extended and offset that by raising rates more on those making more income. That would have made the tax system even more progressive. Allowing the cuts to expire makes the tax system more regressive, and fiscal liberals (like President Obama) seem to think that it is already too regressive.
frogman123
New Member
Wow, an actual intelligent post. Others take note.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
You're right of course. On the other hand, the shock being expressed across the country IS coming the loudest from Obama voters who apparently were paying even LESS attention to what was going on in Washington.
What I'm really waiting for is the claims of Obama giving us a tax cut because he allowed the Bush tax cuts to continue - something he and every Democrat has been bellyaching about for ten years as the cause of all our troubles.
Tilted
..
Of course you can't say it with absolute certainty, that's why I said 'likely' (though I could have said something like 'very, very likely'). I can't even say with absolute certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. But, if you've been paying attention to the various sides and the political discussions in general, it's a fairly safe counterfactual to support.
Aerogal said you get what you vote for. We, collectively that is - not I, or you or, I assume, Aerogal - voted for President Obama for another 4 years (as well as the current make-up of Congress). My point is, had we voted for, e.g., a President Romney, the Social Security tax cut would likely have been let to expire as well. The implication that that happened because of who we elected (as between the choices we had) - that had we elected the other choice (or choices) that wouldn't have happened - is erroneous I believe. I would have thought that point was self-evident.
And you'll notice that I qualified my comment by asking what she was referring to and saying 'if' she was referring to the Social Security holiday expiring. If she was referring to something else - something other than what the OP referred to - then my comment may not apply.