Extension of payroll tax/contribution cuts......

[footdr]

What ticks me off is that as an employer of 35+ years; the IRS rules are that I have to "match" the employees Social Security tax/paycheck. Yet; the current legislation the Senate is trying to pass only reduces the employees tax and and not the employers. So we end up still paying in normal percentage of tax, paying in more than the employees tax/contribution to SS. Not fair.

As far as the Republicans holding out for the pipeline deal. If that is the only way we can get that to pass before 2012 election, so be it. Dems complaining it has nothing to do with extending the payroll tax cuts falls on deaf ears as they routinely have attached unrelated legislation to "must pass bills" while they held both the house and senate. Talk about hypocrisy.

Blaming the House for not passing job related legislation is bogus. They have passed legislation to help promote the creation of jobs but none of it has passed the Senate and much of it never even voted upon by the Senate. The House passed a budget ages ago and the Senate has never voted on it.

I don't know of any other time when the entire term of a President no budget has been passes? Do you?

I was glad the Republicans took the House solely so we could stop the Obama spending. That has been accomplished. Thank God.

 

[harrys99]

What ticks me off is that as an employer of 35+ years; the IRS rules are that I have to "match" the employees Social Security tax/paycheck. Yet; the current legislation the Senate is trying to pass only reduces the employees tax and and not the employers. So we end up still paying in normal percentage of tax, paying in more than the employees tax/contribution to SS. Not fair.

As far as the Republicans holding out for the pipeline deal. If that is the only way we can get that to pass before 2012 election, so be it. Dems complaining it has nothing to do with extending the payroll tax cuts falls on deaf ears as they routinely have attached unrelated legislation to "must pass bills" while they held both the house and senate. Talk about hypocrisy.

Blaming the House for not passing job related legislation is bogus. They have passed legislation to help promote the creation of jobs but none of it has passed the Senate and much of it never even voted upon by the Senate. The House passed a budget ages ago and the Senate has never voted on it.

I don't know of any other time when the entire term of a President no budget has been passes? Do you?

I was glad the Republicans took the House solely so we could stop the Obama spending. That has been accomplished. Thank God.

Amen to that!!!!!!! This current administration is an utter failure and totally lacking in anything remotely resembling common sense.

 

[ksb11]

Yea, at least other socialist countries can gamble online

 

[harrys99]

Yea, at least other socialist countries can gamble online

Lol............

 

[Mousey]

What makes me crazy, most of our employee's weekly pay is so low, that little bit of SS savings for them is so small no one can tell the difference. Plus our State w/h went up last/this year so it is completely a non-factor for the $10 an hour crowd - they're taking home the same amount of money as they were last year.

 

[footdr]

Agree that minimum wage needs to be raised.....

What makes me crazy, most of our employee's weekly pay is so low, that little bit of SS savings for them is so small no one can tell the difference. Plus our State w/h went up last/this year so it is completely a non-factor for the $10 an hour crowd - they're taking home the same amount of money as they were last year.

Yes cutting payroll taxes is a stupid way to put "additional" money into the employees pocketbook. I couldn't believe what I found when I researched the Presidents thoughts on this. Basically his economic team advised that giving employees "small weekly savings" would mean they would spend it rather than save it. This an economic method by which the government attempts to control how the public will use their free income. There is a name for it but I can't recall at this time.

 

[slotplayer]

acutally, its one of the better ways to stimulate the economy, even supply side economists agree.
The 2% payroll cut is equivilent to giving all paychecker's a 2% pay raise. Which may be why there are signs the economy is showing some improvements.

Contrast that to the one time checks bush mailed everyone some years back, these only give the economy a short lived boost.
The other way to stimulate the economy is with a tax credit, however tax credits are applied at the end of the year so they don't provide as much bang for the buck.

 

[slotplayer]

What makes me crazy, most of our employee's weekly pay is so low, that little bit of SS savings for them is so small no one can tell the difference. Plus our State w/h went up last/this year so it is completely a non-factor for the $10 an hour crowd - they're taking home the same amount of money as they were last year.

That small savings helped offset inflation. Its a mathematical certainty that if an employee doesn't get more money each year to combat inflation given enough time, they'll inch closer to the poverty line or at least experience a decline in their life style. hence the phrase "a decling middle class."

Keep in mind that when government inflation figures are released, they don't include the big 3, housing (rent or mort.), fuel and food, we all know how expensive fuel and food has gotten in recent years.

 

[footdr]

acutally, its one of the better ways to stimulate the economy, even supply side economists agree.
The 2% payroll cut is equivilent to giving all paychecker's a 2% pay raise. Which may be why there are signs the economy is showing some improvements.

Contrast that to the one time checks bush mailed everyone some years back, these only give the economy a short lived boost.
The other way to stimulate the economy is with a tax credit, however tax credits are applied at the end of the year so they don't provide as much bang for the buck.

Actually, the CBO stated that cutting the employers contribution was more bang for the buck.

My point is that employers have traditionally only had to Match the employees contribution, not pay more than the the employee is required to pay.

So much for helping small business owners who are taxed on their profits at Ordinary Income Tax rates, not corporate rates.

Also, those employees that don't have a fully funded by employer Profit Sharing Plan(as mine do) will be paying in less to their social security account; this may affect some employees ability to collect SS and the amount they will collect.

As I previously stated, the Presidents economic team decided to cut workers payroll taxes knowing it was a small percentage that would end up getting spent, while some people may have decided to "save" Bush's one time payment.

 

[Nifty29]

I always thought that any kind of stimuli that puts money in worker's pockets was actually good for business.

More money means more spending and it may well come back to your business many times over.

It's always interesting to see both sides of these kinds of arguments. It almost always comes down to workers vs employer, where the workers need more money and the employers don't want to pay. The question is......how do you solve a problem like Maria??

We had a stimulus package here where most citizens received a $1500-$4500 one off payment and it saved us from the recession that the rest of the world suffered. The economy is doing very well here still on the back of this money, with most of the initial critics concurring that it was the right thing to do in retrospect and that the consequences of not doing so would have been quite dire.

The difference I can see with the US is that employers are being asked to provide some of the stimulus rather than the government. If providing such stimulus benefits the economy, then it benefits business, so why is it wrong for business itself to contribute? If I'm not understanding the issue, then please explain it further as I'm only going by what I've read thus far.

 

[slotplayer]

Actually, the CBO stated that cutting the employers contribution was more bang for the buck.

My point is that employers have traditionally only had to Match the employees contribution, not pay more than the the employee is required to pay.

So much for helping small business owners who are taxed on their profits at Ordinary Income Tax rates, not corporate rates.

Also, those employees that don't have a fully funded by employer Profit Sharing Plan(as mine do) will be paying in less to their social security account; this may affect some employees ability to collect SS and the amount they will collect.

As I previously stated, the Presidents economic team decided to cut workers payroll taxes knowing it was a small percentage that would end up getting spent, while some people may have decided to "save" Bush's one time payment.

I'm not doubting you read it but I'd like to see where the CBO said that, because mathematically, I can't see it, not at 2%. There are just more workers than employers.

The point was for people to spend it, all economic growth is nothing more than spending, me tucking money under my matress or folks banking the bush checks doesn't help the economy.

We had a stimulus package here where most citizens received a $1500-$4500 one off payment and it saved us from the recession that the rest of the world suffered. The economy is doing very well here still on the back of this money, with most of the initial critics concurring that it was the right thing to do in retrospect and that the consequences of not doing so would have been quite dire.

Looks like they got it right.

We had a stimulus package here in usa to the tune of something like $787 billion in feb 2009. there also was much controversy between the right and left. The righties insists it did little or nothing while the lefties insists it saved the economy from ruin. Some economist thought it should have been bigger.

 

[footdr]

OMG........

I'm not doubting you read it but I'd like to see where the CBO said that, because mathematically, I can't see it, not at 2%. There are just more workers than employers.

The point was for people to spend it, all economic growth is nothing more than spending, me tucking money under my matress or folks banking the bush checks doesn't help the economy.




Looks like they got it right.

We had a stimulus package here in usa to the tune of something like $787 billion in feb 2009. there also was much controversy between the right and left. The righties insists it did little or nothing while the lefties insists it saved the economy from ruin. Some economist thought it should have been bigger.

You are right the point was for people to spend it and that is what their economic experiment planned on. So you would rather the government made the decision for you, basically, knew that the small amount you gain would be spent rather than them giving you a larger one time check that you could then decide to spend or save because psycologically there is a big difference and they are playing with peoples minds. Get it.

If you want to see where the CBO said it look it up. Thats what I did.

As far as why it is a bigger payoff giving the employer and the employee the cut or even just the employer, it is because depending on the number of employees the business has the savings can be so substantial that the employer is able to expand its business, hire more employees, give employees a raise, contribute more to the employees retirement plan or purchse new equipment and the like. Compare that with an employee that may be able to spend an additional $50 to 1000.00 per year depending on their salary.

Not to mention the effect it will have on SS revenue.

 

[footdr]

It shouldn't be employee vs. employers. for over 35 years we have paid 100% of employees health premiums, vested them in the profit sharing plan after one year and then paying 100% of the maximum allow contribution to their account, provided 7 sick days. One week paid vacation. Given them personal loans when they are in a financial bind charging 0% interest.

Employers that own small unincorporated businesses and who pay ordinary income tax on the businesses profits get screwed. Obama considers many of these businesses to be in the same "category" as millionaires and billionaires who pay little "ordinary income tax" and claim a large portion of their income as "Capital Gains". Therein lies the real problem and unequity.

Don't bite the hand that feeds you is what I have always been told.

I want fairness in the tax system just as everyone else. My brother is a tax attorney and my accountant, he represents millionaire and billionaire and he has always told me that the wealthy don't get a break on "ordinary income tax" but they get a huge break due to their investments and the lower capital gains rate.

So IMO they need to make the Capital Gains rates progressive and those earning a-b pay one rate, c-d pay more and so on. That is the only way they will finally pay their share, percentage wise.

 

[footdr]

I always thought that any kind of stimuli that puts money in worker's pockets was actually good for business.

More money means more spending and it may well come back to your business many times over.

It's always interesting to see both sides of these kinds of arguments. It almost always comes down to workers vs employer, where the workers need more money and the employers don't want to pay. The question is......how do you solve a problem like Maria??

We had a stimulus package here where most citizens received a $1500-$4500 one off payment and it saved us from the recession that the rest of the world suffered. The economy is doing very well here still on the back of this money, with most of the initial critics concurring that it was the right thing to do in retrospect and that the consequences of not doing so would have been quite dire.

The difference I can see with the US is that employers are being asked to provide some of the stimulus rather than the government. If providing such stimulus benefits the economy, then it benefits business, so why is it wrong for business itself to contribute? If I'm not understanding the issue, then please explain it further as I'm only going by what I've read thus far.

Because traditionally(until the current payroll tax cut was initiated), employers only had to match what the employee contributed in payroll taxes; not pay more than the employees share. You have to realize that in addition to FICA taxes many employers such as myself also pay 100% of the employees allowed share into our Profit Sharing Plan and Trust(retirement account) as a perk for working for us. We also pay for unemployment insurance which costs a bunch and in my case I have never fired or let anyone go in the 35+ years I have been in business so my premiums are being used to pay other employers employees and they keep going up not down. Plus, since I am a sole-proprietor who pays ordinary income taxes on the businesses income(if any), I also pay both SSA tax for myself and my businesses share on myself.(I pay both parts while employees pay only 1/2 of their share and I pay their other half). Hope that helps you understand why the extension only for employees and not also the employer is just another additional tax on small businesses.