Thiebear Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 IF: ================================= The White House, in its latest offer Monday to resolve the fiscal cliff, made a key concession that would be felt by every U.S. wage earner: allowing the expiration of the payroll tax cut, a provision that has lowered the workers’ share of Social Security taxes by two percentage points for the past two years. That translates into an average tax increase of about $1,000 a year for the typical American household making about $50,000 annually. ================================== http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/12/19/tax-increases-coming-whether-fiscal-cliff-is-averted-or-not/ Whats your take? ---------- Post added December-19th-2012 at 07:47 PM ---------- My take: It's been necessary due to the economy and loss of income, but the we just keep borrowing to ensure the SS fund doesn't go bad even faster. I hope its not one of 15 causing more than 2-3 thousand a year as a loss of 300+ a month on 50k+ could be detrimental to the economy like we haven't seen yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Looks like Obama is finally getting the things he wanted all along... I have a friend who is a "screamer" and I've been listening to right wing talk radio lately to try and understand him a little better. I've been very impressed with the level of professionalism and polish of that money making operation. They really know what they are doing. It's like a whole alternative universe. I, for one, do not mind paying more in taxes. I do not like government waste and all that, and I think there is plenty of it, but I think we should find the motivation to fix the spending problem by actually paying for the spending that we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 I'd be OK with all of the tax cuts expiring, BUT . . . Cutting the take-home pay of everybody in the US who has a job MIGHT have a negative impact on the economy. (Well, I assume that it will. The question is whether it will be a noticeable impact). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 20, 2012 Author Share Posted December 20, 2012 Alexey: It was the President protecting it and giving in ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Alexey: It was the President protecting it and giving in ... I was talking about his actual desires, being a socialist big government spender Democrat liberal guy. I've been listening to talk radio for fun and education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Well, I'm not happy about it. Particularly since I don't really agree with how the money is being spent... But whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Legalize it and it would pay it off in a year, with no cuts or increase in taxes. Or was the guy smoking his own when he did the math. Still seemed worth looking into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 $38.46 per biweekly paycheck. Is it really that big a deal? .02% increase in taxes (if you make $50K)?? The typical American househould pisses away more than that on stupid stuff a year. Forego your daily latte and you've paid for this tax increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 $38.46 per biweekly paycheck. Is it really that big a deal? .02% increase in taxes (if you make $50K)??The typical American househould pisses away more than that on stupid stuff a year. Forego your daily latte and you've paid for this tax increase. It's pretax income so it isn't even $38.46 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 $38.46 per biweekly paycheck. Is it really that big a deal? .02% increase in taxes (if you make $50K)??The typical American househould pisses away more than that on stupid stuff a year. Forego your daily latte and you've paid for this tax increase. I like my morning Starbucks latte and I certainly won't apologize for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 $38.46 per biweekly paycheck. Is it really that big a deal? .02% increase in taxes (if you make $50K)?? Uh, it's a 2% increase. (Actually, to be more accurate, it's an increase of 2% of your gross pay, not 2% of your taxes.) For every person who has earned income. (Including, for example, the famous 47% who "pay no taxes".) Now, as to your larger point, is a 2% pay cut for every American with a job, really that big a deal? That's more a matter of opinion. (Although I will point out that a 2% increase on "the rich" seems to be a huge deal. To a very large group of people.) ---------- Post added December-20th-2012 at 09:26 AM ---------- It's pretax income so it isn't even $38.46 His math is correct. $50K gross pay, per year, divided by 26 pay periods, equals $1923 (gross pay) every 2 weeks. 2% of that is a tax increase of $38.46 every 2 weeks. ---------- That said, though. While that's only 2% of his paycheck, it represents what percentage of his discretionary spending? That typical $50K household has a lot of expenses that don't change. Starting with mortgage, and going down from there. That discretionary consumer spending, like it or not, represents a very big component of our economy. Pretty much the only component that creates jobs. That's what I'm really worried about, with this tax hike: The possibility that this small amount of money will have a hugely disproportionate impact on the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Sorry. Yes forgot to move that dang decimal place two spots again. 2%. My main point is that $1,000 is an emotional number for many as most Americans prob don't have $1000 laying around. But when it is broken down to a functional amount it's a $20 week conversation. Why are we arguing over $20/week. Why are we holding the economy and world markets over $20 a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 His math is correct. $50K gross pay, per year, divided by 26 pay periods, equals $1923 (gross pay) every 2 weeks. 2% of that is a tax increase of $38.46 every 2 weeks. His math is correct, just saying that SS comes out pre tax. The employee wouldn't see the whole $38.46 in their pay. It would be $38.46 - taxes. In addition, if they contributed to a 401K it would be even smaller. You aren't losing the entire 2% OUT OF POCKET you are losing 2% of GROSS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RVAbrendan Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 I'm fine with this. I am a liberal dude but firmly believe that the country as a whole would be a lot better if individuals practiced better personal financial responsibility (not spending what you don't have, etc). The US deficit is a glaring hole in our country and needs to be addressed. This is a method to realization. if it causes folks to further tighten their belts, then so be it. But, we are only talking about < $38. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinz4Life12 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 it wouldn't be a back breaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Perfectly fine with it. People want to fix the issues, they gotta do their part. Raise taxes and cut spending. Only way to dig out from under this mountain. If I have to pay an extra $1-5k/year more the rest of my life so that my daughter and her kids don't, so be it. We are supposed to leave our kids in a better spot than we were in. Buck up. EDIT: Don't read that to mean I am happy with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 The only issue I have with it is that we taxpayers will do our part and pay more but I have 0 confidence in the government actually cutting any spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talk show host Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 I'm in a lot of debt and this really hurts me. I'm trying to pay my debt down as quickly as i can, and this is telling me that next year, i'll have $1000 left to pay off my OWN debt so i can help the government pay of its debt. I'm not particularly happy about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 I would've much preferred a gradual increase to avoid potential adverse side effects on the economy. All the tax cuts need to eventually expire, and all the spending cuts should stay in place, just not all at once in the middle of a supremely fragile and anemic economic "recovery." Bring this tax back up a half point this coming year, then 3/4 of a point up the next 2 years. Kill off loopholes this year, then let the Bush tax cuts expire next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forehead Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 I'm fine with this, and I say that as an employee of the Federal Government. I would like to see some give from the other end as well, reduced spending. If the budget still goes up, then what is the point of this? Let's try to avoid spending another billion dollars on the newest assault helicopter and actually put the money towards what is being proposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Wonder why the GOP isn't going beserk over the payroll tax increase that's about to hit. Hmmm.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Basically this 2% payroll tax cut enabled me to have a flat paycheck the past 2 years (ie. it covered up the premium increases in my health care). So now I'm looking at $10 per paycheck increase in my health care premium and $40 increase in payroll tax. Oh, and my salary is flat again. Bottom line is that it will be noticable to take home $50 less each paycheck. This is why I would have preferred not to take the payroll tax cut in the first place. (Yes, I know I should be glad we got a 2% cut past 2 years...). This all pales in comparison to the armageddon that will happen if the Alternative Minimum Tax is not patched up this year. I'm not sure I'd hit it (apparently only joint earners making $150k-$700k would get hit).... but it scares me to think that I'd get an April surprise... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 His math is correct, just saying that SS comes out pre tax. The employee wouldn't see the whole $38.46 in their pay. It would be $38.46 - taxes. In addition, if they contributed to a 401K it would be even smaller.You aren't losing the entire 2% OUT OF POCKET you are losing 2% of GROSS. His math is 100% correct. Whether the person contributes to a 401K or not. (The money you contribute to a 401K, or an IRA, doesn't count as income for your INCOME tax. But that money does count for FICA taxes.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 My wife quit her job and is in graduate school full-time. I pay the all the bills, including the mortgage, with my salary. I budget out everything to the last penny every single paycheck. While $20 a week wouldn't be the end of the world and we could make it work, it would suck. With her in school, our budget is crazy tight right now. One year down, only one more to go. Looking forward to being a two income home again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Wonder why the GOP isn't going beserk over the payroll tax increase that's about to hit. Hmmm.... I can see two possible major explanations. 1) It's not a tax hike on the rich. (The payroll tax only affects earned income, and only the first $110K. So it's a tax hike on everybody BUT the top 2%.) 2) It doesn't have Bush's name on it, therefore the Republican Party isn't getting credit for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.