Social Security taxes are REGRESSIVE.

[dkf]

Even though 42% of the population pay no federal taxes Social Security taxes are paid from the first dollar up to the cap. So people who we've determined shouldn't have to pay taxes do land up paying this tax.

This is the one way Obama can get more funds into the hands of the working poor and it won't be called redistributionist because it doesn't pay people, but reduces taxes they actually pay.

Personally I'm more concerned about the deficit, but to attack Obama on this is to keep money out of the hands of those we profess to want to help all to grow a supposed trust fund surplus that we raid constantly.

[MadHound]

1. Yes, let's continue to adapt Republican policies,

For that's what this reduction in payroll taxes is, another Republican policy. And those have worked out so well for us in the past.

Yes, let's eat shit and call it caviar.

Geez, are there no end to the excuses for this ongoing adaptation of Republican policies?

[dkf]

2. You aren't going to get more tax credits for the poor.

How else you gonna give them money other than a payroll tax decrease?

Or do they not need the funds?

[MadHound]

7. Tax cuts, tax credits, all Republican programs, and are the least effective form of economic stimuli

How about we start adapting Democratic programs, programs that are among the most effective form of economic stimuli. Things like UI extension, or a raise in food stamp benefits, or even *gasp* a true WPA style jobs creation program.

It has been shown time and again that tax cuts and tax credits do little, very little for the poor. So let's stop pretending that they are the be all and end all of relief for the poor. Stop with this Republican framing. It is dishonest, disingenuous, and worse, it simply doesn't work and cost far too much. We've been using these tax cut and tax credit programs as some sort of "relief" for the poor for the past thirty years and guess what? The poor are poorer and the rich are richer! So why continue down that same failed path.

Why not just go to those truly Democratic programs that I mentioned above. They will do far more for the poor than any tax cut or tax credit has.

[dkf]

8. Because we can't pass them?

We can't even pass them with both houses of congress. If we are going to insist on our way we will get nothing.

[MadHound]

9. No, because the Dems won't even try to pass them

Time and again over the past eighteen months, the Dems have caved and Obama has set the tone with his "bipartisanship". It is past time that the Dems and Obama actually stand up and fight. Continue to argue one's limitations, and sure enough, they're yours.

And are listening to your defeatist self, "If we are going to insist on our way we will get nothing." WE'RE NOT GETTING ANYTHING NOW! So since we're getting nothing by capitulating time and again, perhaps it is time for a real change, you know, like standing up and fighting for what we want, we actually might get something. You certainly aren't going to get anything if you don't fight for it.

But no, let's continue that defeatist path of doing nothing, of being afraid of the fight. It's easier to just give up than it is to stand up and fight. Pttha, disgusting.

[BrklynLiberal]

3. It would accomplish more if the unemployment were extended for the 99ers AND

the SS cap was removed. Everyone should pay SS on their full income.

That would be killing several birds with one stone...er two stones.

Did you know that this "compromise" does NOT extend unemployment to those out of work longer than 99 weeks????

[dkf]

5. We have been barely able to pass regular extensions and only after gaps occur.

The odds we will get an extension for the 99ers are even worse.

We simply can't support this economy unless we get into growth mode.

[GTurck]

4. Yes, but...

when they aren't paid then nobody wins. This whole deal is a mess for those who work and those who once worked and paid their taxes.
We have half our income from Social Security and any fall off really effects our living standard. Make no mistake I think that the cap is set too low; the taxes should be paid on all income not just for income under $97,000. We retired on income under $45,000 after a lifetime earning much much less. We are the typical retiree not the putative couple "earning" $100,000+ a year. Before our retirement that was called being rich.
Social Security is not part of the budget deficit and never could be but it does sound good doesn't it. Also note that if you are not working you are not paying FICA anyway so what benefit does it bring to the unemployed?

[dkf]

6. It's actually meant to replace the "making work pay" credit.

But it replaces it completely only after $20,000/$40,000.

Without it, taxes will go up at least by the tax credit of $400/$800.

[Bonhomme Richard]

10. Social security and medicare are in trouble so lets cut the taxes that

are collected to pay for those programs. Makes sense to me ....not.

[alarimer]

11. Pay in less to SS now, get less later

People will be surprised when they retire that, because of this "payroll tax holiday", they will GET LESS from SS when they are finally allowed to retire, assuming they haven't raised the age so high that they die before collecting.

This is a poison pill, designed to starve SS of funds so that in a couple of years, they can say, "See SS is in trouble, we need to cut benefits." Obama is really in favor of cutting SS; he buys all the Republican talking point and is a Republican in all but name.

[ellenfl]

13. no one is mentioning that reality.

my ss benefit will be small enough . . . after working 42 years at low to middling salaries. i can't wait to see what this 'tax credit' is going to do to my future benefits. thanks for nothing.

ellen fl

[laughingliberal]

12. Yes, they are. They were raised years ago to pay for the cuts for the rich. However, this 'holiday'.

is all about ginning up more disingenuous deficit hysteria as a justification to cut benefits.

:hi:

I prefer they restore the Make Work Pay tax credit.