I will not raise taxes on the Middle Class

[Karee 4,191]

Karee, it's really not silly. If this new bill wasn't signed into law by today, before the new congress is sworn in, then everyone's taxes would have gone up substantially for quite some time, if not forever.

Everyone's taxes did go up by 2%.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Everyone's taxes did go up by 2%.

They went up by a lot more than that on Jan. 1st., but have now been lowered to where the only increase will be the 2% payroll tax. I would have paid around 4K more this year in taxes if it weren't for this bill passing when it did.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Explain that to me. I'm not being a smart a$$, I really don't know what you mean by that.

If your top tax rate was 33% in 2012, then as of Jan 1, it was 36%. If your top tax rate was 28% in 2012, then as of Jan 1 it rose to 31%, 10% turned into 15%, 25% to 28%. That's on earned income. Dividend tax rates went up as did capital gains taxes. Estate taxes reverted back to 2000 rates and exemption levels. All that happened as you popped the champagne to welcome the New Year. And then Congress - mainly with votes from the Democrats - passed a huge tax cut package worth some $4 trillion dollars over the next decade.

[SMOKE 1,426]

am i the only 'republican' that doesn't really care? the 2% is going back to social security (where it should've been going the last 2 years) & not to burger king (which i shouldn't be eating anyway).

i didn't really notice it, i doubt i'm going to miss it.

Edited January 2, 2013 by SMOKE

[Dakine10 5,452]

Ohh. If you're going to be silly, at least post a or a so I know.

Not being silly. I fully expected congress to ** this up completely, so as of Monday morning, I was resigned to looking at paying ~6.5% more per paycheck. I'm OK with 2%.

I never liked the idea of cutting SS tax in the first place. SS either has to be solvent or they need to get rid of it. Continuing this tax cut had serious long term implications for social security.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So let me get this straight. The expiration of a temporary tax relief is not a tax hike

correct.

... but extending tax cuts that were due to expire is a tax cut?

No, it isn't. That's what happened in December 2010 when the Bush tax cuts were temporarily extended. They were due to expire and an extension was passed. That was not a tax cut.

The difference is that that temporary tax cut extension that was passed in 2010 was not due to expire but actually had expired. No extension was passed because there was nothing to be extended - the temporary tax cuts passed in 2010 had already fully expired.

[Karee 4,191]

am i the only 'republican' that doesn't really care? the 2% is going back to social security (where it should've been going the last 2 years) & not to burger king (which i shouldn't be eating anyway).

i didn't really notice it, i doubt i'm going to miss it.

I would be cool with that. Problem is they keep borrowing money from Social Security. I'd be fine with them raising FICA even higher than it is now if I had some guarantee that I would get that money back at some point. Hell I'd put 10% in there if I could at least get a good return on my money.

[SMOKE 1,426]

I would be cool with that. Problem is they keep borrowing money from Social Security. I'd be fine with them raising FICA even higher than it is now if I had some guarantee that I would get that money back at some point. Hell I'd put 10% in there if I could at least get a good return on my money.

look at it this way. the 45-55 year olds they keep talking about being exempted from the reconstruction of benefits just got 4 years closer to your window.

[Karee 4,191]

The difference is that that temporary tax cut extension that was passed in 2010 was not due to expire but actually had expired. No extension was passed because there was nothing to be extended - the temporary tax cuts passed in 2010 had already fully expired.

So they expired for how long, 18 hours? And since taxes went up for 18 hours, the white house can claim that they cut taxes because our taxes were higher for that short period of time?

If that's the case, then I guess technically they cut taxes. I still don't see how any rational person can consider that anything but an extension of the cuts that were already there. That's like me paying 10 cents a minute to call Thailand for 10 years on a 10 year contract. Then when the 10 years is up they raise it to 20 cents a minute for 18 hours, and then put it back to 10 cents a minute, and tell me they just gave me a huge break on my calling rates. I don't think too many people would consider that a break. I know I wouldn't.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

So they expired for how long, 18 hours? And since taxes went up for 18 hours, the white house can claim that they cut taxes because our taxes were higher for that short period of time?

If that's the case, then I guess technically they cut taxes. I still don't see how any rational person can consider that anything but an extension of the cuts that were already there. That's like me paying 10 cents a minute to call Thailand for 10 years on a 10 year contract. Then when the 10 years is up they raise it to 20 cents a minute for 18 hours, and then put it back to 10 cents a minute, and tell me they just gave me a huge break on my calling rates. I don't think too many people would consider that a break. I know I wouldn't.

Your key phrase is rational person. You are correct.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So they expired for how long, 18 hours?

No, they expired FOREVER. There is a new piece of legislation that has passed Congress which permanently sets tax rates at lower levels than they have been at the beginning of the year.

[Karee 4,191]

No, they expired FOREVER. There is a new piece of legislation that has passed Congress which permanently sets tax rates at lower levels than they have been at the beginning of the year.

If someone on the right tried to use the kind of logic you are using, I would need to have an advanced math degreee to count the number of "RWNJs" and "FCUKs" in your response.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Karee

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I still don't see how any rational person can consider that anything but an extension of the cuts that were already there.

I see. So it is irrational to operate on the basis of existing law. Interesting.

[Karee 4,191]

I see. So it is irrational to operate on the basis of existing law. Interesting.

Ok let me try this again. If the speed limit on the highway was 65 and that limit was set to expire after 10 years and then drop to 55. The speed limit dropped to 55 for 18 hours and then somone came along and said I'm making the speed limit 65 again. You would give the credit for the speed limit being 65 to the second guy?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If someone on the right tried to use the kind of logic you are using, I would need to have an advanced math degreee to count the number of "RWNJs" and "FCUKs" in your response.

That's an assumption. You know what happens when you assume, don't you?

Ok let me try this again. If the speed limit on the highway was 65 and that limit was set to expire after 10 years and then drop to 55. The speed limit dropped to 55 for 18 hours and then somone came along and said I'm making the speed limit 65 again. You would give the credit for the speed limit being 65 to the second guy?

Yes.