questionsanyone else upset?

vote-for0vote-against
vote-for33vote-against

I don't like paying taxes.
However, the Medicare/Social Security tax rate is supposed to be set at 6.2%. It was lowered to try to help folks out the last 2 years. If it were left at the incorrectly low rate of 4.2%, we will be making the looming Social Security crisis even worse than it's going to be.
I don't want higher taxes, but this one is a non-issue for me. Put the rates where they belong and leave them alone. Fix Medicare and Social Security through policy change. I feel the payroll tax rate shouldn't have been lowered in the first place.

I'm sure I'm alone in this view. Downvote at will.

vote-for22vote-against

I'm not upset as that cut was for social security taxes. The SS trust fund has enough problems with solvency; it doesn't need even less money coming in. I'd actually like to see the annual cap on SS witholding removed as that'd extend the viability of the SS program even further.

And yes, it was a tax increase. That doesn't upset me in the least, but perhaps that's because I'm not prone to believing the fantasy stories where cutting taxes fixes the deficit.

vote-for11vote-against

I don't think the payroll tax holiday was ever intended to be permanent. It was a one year stimulus thing, that got extended for a second year, and now has been allowed to expire. It was two years of "free money" so to speak. So yeah, it sucks that everyone's paychecks get smaller now, but on the other hand, it's really just resetting back to the traditional rate.

vote-for5vote-against

@rhmurphy: I believe there's an annual cap on Social Security because there's a cap on your benefits that you receive when you retire. For example, if you make 200,000 or 5 billion a year, you'll receive the same retirement benefits so why should the person making 5 billion a year have to pay more into their retirement? If they do, then you're asking for the rich to support the poor and redistribution of wealth like a socialist and communist government.

vote-for9vote-against

@cengland0: "socialist", and "communist": That word you keep using, I do not think it means what you think it means. :)

In a communist society, the government owns everything. In a socialist society, the means of production (i.e. the companies) are owned by the people (which effectively means owned by the government). That's not the case here.

Taxation in the US is based on the social compact that says that all contribute even though we may not directly benefit. I pay the same property tax rate as someone with six kids even though I have no school age children; that's not socialism, it's simply me paying back for when my kids WERE in school.

It's unfortunate that the political "debate" these days devolves into these emotion-charged labels like "one percent", "the rich", and "socialism". That plays to the existing base while denying hard reality: fixing our deficit requires both spending cuts and tax increases. Any assertions to the contrary are are from people in denial.

vote-for2vote-against

@rhmurphy: When you describe socialism, you're talking about the Marxism version. There's also the political doctrine focusing on a common set of values emphasizing social cooperation, universal welfare, and equality. This is what we mean when we talk about socialism today. Universal healthcare is an example of a socialism idea.

You're stuck on old definitions and may need to join us in this new century :)

vote-for1vote-against

@cengland0: Does that mean you are against " social cooperation, universal welfare, and equality"? Because social cooperation and equality sounds nice to me... Sorry, just a bit confused.
And to answer the original question, like others said, it wasn't meant to stay, it was meant to expire. It's only an 'increase' because we had a decrease directly before it. So, no, I'm not mad, although a slight heads up would have been cool.

vote-for2vote-against

@kllangellier: I am somewhat against universal welfare and equality. What ever happened to the American dream? You come to America and work hard and make millions and you get to keep what you earn? Today, you make millions and people think you earn too much and you should not be allowed to keep what you worked for and must give more of your money away to the poor people that didn't go to school and didn't work hard.

Sure there are some people that were dealt bad cards and were born with handicaps. We should take care of those people. However, anyone that is able to work should not be given any assistance if they refuse to work. If there are no jobs out there, fine -- make them clean up trash on the side of the roads before they qualify to receive a paycheck from the government. Why would we pay janitors to clean government buildings when we have so many people on the welfare system? I say let them do that work to earn the money.

vote-for1vote-against

I am not at all upset about the news coverage of the expiration of the payroll tax holiday because I listen to public radio and they have done a great deal of coverage on the issue.