Republicans acknowledged that the expiration of the tax holiday will be treated as a tax increase. “

[sasha031]

Source: FDL

Nancy Altman called the payroll tax cut in the Obama/McConnell deal the end of Social Security. In her view, the American political system circa 2010 doesn’t let taxes go back up, and so Social Security will face a revenue crisis faster with a reduced payroll tax. The money will come out of general revenue to pay for that payroll tax holiday, but that just makes Social Security more dependent on general revenue – and more vulnerable. That this is all coming at a time when knives have been unsheathed and are ready to hack away at Social Security makes it all the more dangerous.
Ryan Grim asked the exact right questions, and Republicans were unusually blunt with him.
"Republicans acknowledged that the expiration of the tax holiday will be treated as a tax increase. “Once something like this goes into place, a year from now, when it expires, it’ll be portrayed as a tax increase,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). “So in a body like Congress, precedents matter and this is setting a precedent. I think that certainly is going to create some problems down the road if it passes.”

Given that Congress, under Democratic control, can’t gather itself to let tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire, members of both parties are convinced that letting the payroll tax rate revert back to its current spot will be near impossible.

“Once you bring a rate down, if it goes back up, people will feel that. They’ll feel their paycheck being less and that argument” — that letting it expire amounts to a tax hike — “eventually is bound to be made,” said Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.).

“There’s always a tendency to continue those things… Once something comes in, it’s very difficult to change it,” said Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio.) He then volunteered, without prompting, that “It would be detrimental to the Social Security system, especially when it’s in bad shape.”

Republicans acknowledged that the expiration of the tax holiday will be treated as a tax increase. “Once something like this goes into place, a year from now, when it expires, it’ll be portrayed as a tax increase,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). “So in a body like Congress, precedents matter and this is setting a precedent. I think that certainly is going to create some problems down the road if it passes.”

Given that Congress, under Democratic control, can’t gather itself to let tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire, members of both parties are convinced that letting the payroll tax rate revert back to its current spot will be near impossible.

“Once you bring a rate down, if it goes back up, people will feel that. They’ll feel their paycheck being less and that argument” — that letting it expire amounts to a tax hike — “eventually is bound to be made,” said Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.).

“There’s always a tendency to continue those things… Once something comes in, it’s very difficult to change it,” said Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio.) He then volunteered, without prompting, that “It would be detrimental to the Social Security system, especially when it’s in bad shape.”

Read more: http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/12/08/republicans-casually-agree-theyll-never-allow-payroll-tax-cut-to-rise-again/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

---

[Safetykitten]

1. It just keeps getting better and better.

[sasha031]

2. when I Googled images, and do you know I had a difficult time

finding pics that weren't Obama!

[BrklynLiberal]

3. So they want to permanently reduce SS deductions , and thereby ensure

SS is unsustainable...and dismantle it.

What a crock of crapola this is.

I hope hope hope that somehow this piece of crap "compromise" is never passed.

[sasha031]

4. they don't have the votes I don't think

I know my Congressman is against it.

Merry Christmas to our seniors...

[BrklynLiberal]

5. I hope your vote count is accurate. Schumer is against it. I would guess that Gillibrand is too.

Neither of them will get reelected if they ok that piece of crap

[No Elephants]

11. Seniors, disabled and disabled seniors.

[pa28]

7. Absolutely.

In all the analysis I've seen of this package the assumption seems to be that Obama came up with the idea for a FICA holiday. I'm not so sure, the idea has been floating around in Republican circles for a while and there is definitely an agenda.

When the new Congress convenes they'll be able to point to a sudden decay in the financial picture, declare an emergency and this time have some numbers to back it up.

[Creative]

6. What this should tell everyone is that they are responsible for their

own financial futures.

If you are not maxed out on your 401k, increase your contribution. If your 401k is maxed, put it on your IRA.

[ProudDad]

9. Bullshit!

Unadulterated elitist bullshit!

bet on that dying Ponzi scheme...?

Good luck with that nonsense...

And what about the majority of USAmericans who either don't make enough or don't have access to any such quaint anachronism as any form of "retirement fund"...eh?

Fuck 'em, right? :puke:

[Creative]

13. No, I would not bet on "that dying Ponzi scheme..."

Instead I'll bet on myself. And you should as well.

Tell me, who do you think is responsible for your financial future?

[ProudDad]

14. the "financial future" is irrelevant...

The Empire and its debt as money system is collapsing.

So, no, I don't depend on my social security insurance nor my tiny defined benefit pension to be around for too much longer...

Nor should you depend on your 401K for much longer (if any of it's left)...

I depend on building my network of friends and community right here at home.

I'm doing to work to help relocalize my community's economic base to provide for human needs locally.

I'm working with my network to enable our community to become resilient enough to handle the loss of the environmental support network that's being destroyed for short-term profit.

[Creative]

16. "the "financial future" is irrelevant..."

okay...

:eyes:

[No Elephants]

12. Please.

[ProudDad]

8. Yep, one more nail in the coffin of the New Deal...

Another step toward ending Social Security...

[frylock]

10. looking good, obama..

wake me up when we reach the eleventy dimension.

[Igel]

15. It probably will be treated as a tax increase.

I'm not sure by whom.

The expiration of the * tax cuts has been argued to be a tax increase by some, and other than a tax increase by others. How that "other" is phrased varies. A restoration of tax rates, a negative tax cut, whatever.

I just saw a thread in which rawstory, I guess it was, said that under the current "deal" some of the poorest will see a tax increase because the Making Work Pay program expires for them and the new "deal" doesn't fully compensate for that expiration. In other words a restoration of tax rates, a negative tax cut, that isn't fully "bought out" by a new tax cut is a tax increase.

The problem is defining "tax increase." For some--in some contexts--it's a law that raises taxes. The expiration of tax cuts isn't a tax increase because it doesn't have as its goal the increase of taxes. It's not an act of will; it's the required cessation of the results of a prior act of will. So neither the tax-cut expiration nor the rawstory "tax increase for the poorest" is actually a tax increase. This is "tax increase as an act of legislative will". On the other hand, others just view any increase in what's deducted as an increase in taxes, and this is a perfectly good definition as well. This is "tax increase as any positive differential in taxes paid on an unchanged income." Intent doesn't matter, it's not a political act but an economic description. The poorest would have a small tax increase; the wealthiest avoid a large tax increase. In the absence of this deal, the expiry of the MakeWork Pay program would be an Obama tax increase.

Both are valid understandings simply because both are widely used. As long as they're used consistently no fallacy is forthcoming, no confusion is attempted, there's no manipulation of listener by speaker or even manipulation of speaker by him(her)self. We can quibble over whether we should apply the terms to gross federal revenues or on a person-by-person basis. Both also work, in the right context.

The definitional crap accounts for a lot of partisan cross-talk. "Obama's raised taxes" is true in the same way that the expiration of the * tax cuts doesn't raise taxes--there are legislative acts promoted by Obama that have been passed that will increase federal revenues by means that may or may not be called "tax" in the legislation and regulations but which even Obama's administration has officially defended as "taxes." This is "tax increase" as "political act." Those provisions haven't yet, esp. when coupled with tax decreases and credits, resulted in increased revenues, certainly not overall and with infrequent increases on individuals. So by the "economic description" definition Obama hasn't raised taxes in signing these bills.

People know to keep words' meanings separate most of the time. If you're in a bar and somebody says, "Put the shot here" you expect a small glass of liquor and not a heavy iron ball to be deposited "here"--you also don't expect the barkeep to back up 30 feet and spin around vigorously before ejecting either the glass or the heavy iron ball in your direction. At a track meet you seldom see whiskey hurled as part of "putting the shot", nor does the athlete amiably sidle up to the referee's position and set the ball down with a cheerful "bottoms up!" Although perhaps at the victory celebration there's hurling of whiskey and gin, but I'd certainly be annoyed at any vomiting up of javelins or iron balls. (And, yes, much of the political discourse seems precisely *this* silly to me. It's fine--sort of--when they're puns. Annoying otherwise. My next rant will involve the partisan-based reconstruction of elided agents in passive constructions.)