This just In...re: House of Representatives

Nancy Pelosi, who used that " poison pill " line is simply nuts. The House passed a solid bill , with the year long extension of the p.r. tax cut, as the President originally wanted & agreed to. It is he & the Dems who are playing politics with the American wallets. Not the GOP .


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Another unintended (one would hope) consequence of the proposed two-month extension is that many businesses do not have the time to update and test their computerized payroll systems to deal with all the provisions relating to maximum income limits on the tax reduction, etc.

Per the National Payroll Reporting Consortium, Inc.:

"The difficulty is in establishing a new Social Security Taxable Wage limit of $18,350 for the two month extension period. More than ten percent of the workforce is likely to meet that limit, and would be subject to the higher 6.2% tax rate for earnings over that amount. However, many payroll systems are not likely to be able to make such a substantial programming change before January or even February. The systems affected tend to be highly complex, normally requiring at least ninety days for a change of this magnitude for software testing alone; not to mention analysis, design, coding and implementation."

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/payroll-industry-sees-major-flaws-in-
senates-two-month-payroll-tax-cut-extension/

Having had to do such changes when working for the IRS, in an IT shop that was used to developing, testing, and implementing on short notice when Congress would come up with this sort of hare-brained scheme, I can testify that doing such changes is labor and cost intensive, and - unless your team is very good - prone to error.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I may be wrong about this, but it seems to me that at least in theory, everybody believes that government has some role in providing for the common welfare to the people who supposedly own it.

Government should regulate polution, government should be empowered to protect civil rights...etc.

We may not all be in agreement on the value of social security, apparently, even though the effect it has had on poverty of the elderly since its institution suggests to me at least, that it has been a very succesful program.


But if misuse had made it a failure, if abuse by the people we have been steered towards electing has stolen from it and it truly is going to eventually end up not paying back out, I find the prospect of just dismantling it as our prefered recourse, self-mutilating.

I'll use a different government function as an example for my point because I think the vested interest by moneyed interests in doing away with social security is a little more murky to me, though I have some suspicions. (on edit, its not really murky at all, just wasn't thinking-investment companies would love that money)

So lets just take big bad oil, and its desire to drill everywhere with no regard for the environment. Because over the years it has had its own people minding the store at the EPA, the epa has not been an overly effective regulator of that industry or others. Yes, its a corrupted and ineffectual institution. Is the best solution really to just disband it? In which scenerio does my boogey man win bigger in the long term?

I find it unfortunate that a certain party has an ideology that government is the problem, and when it gets into power sets about showing us just how true that is(with help of some useful democrats), and that the voters react by giving them exaclty what they want, a 3 way split between people who don't believe in any safety nets, people who do, and people who believe that government can't and thus shouldn't be trusted to handle them...

That last group seems to me the foil that enables government to remain ineffectual, that will always be the defacto support for the powers that don't want government getting in their way of siphoning off and exploitation. Its the group that these interests have in their pocket simply by continuing to fund water carrying politicians to do their bidding, which simultaneously prove how disfunctional government is. It's a win-win.

I'd rather that way of gaming things wasn't so succesful.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I'm not an economist so this is a theory about social security which I hold that I welcome debunking, becuase I haven't done any real research or study on the matter,

I believe that some people can do better with their investments than the government, sure. But the government at least does not have an intrinsic interest in bilking the public. It does so when it does, inefectually or half-heartedly, because its a grid-locked and conflicted entity.

Businesses and banks on the other hand, are very good at that, very good at establishing satelite industries and resources to misguide a populace that has no liesure time to know the ins and outs of investments, which is why they look for the help of "experts." A system that leaves it up to the public is something for the wolves to salivate over. They know the woods so much better than most of us, and they could win a little by being of help, or big by either helping us fail, or by setting up a harvest where they cut everything down and leave the rest of us holding empty bags.

Didn't we just go through a major crisis like this recently?

Thats one problem I have with everybody investing their own money, as best they see fit. My other problem with it is more theoretical. It seems to me that essentially capping our expendable income keeps prices of neccesities and luxuries down. If that cap didn't exist and say 20 percent of the population were "irresponsible" with their fatter weekly paycheck, it seems like that might inflate essentials like food and rent some, to the point where even those trying to be responsible with their money would be forced to bring more to the table just for cost of living.

On the flip side, it is more money in the economy, but my guess is the drain on the other end when there are poor elderly people who have no money to spend and are either carried by the state or discarded would more than offset any benefits.

Anyway, tell me why that doesn't make sense. I'm looking to understand this better.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"U.S. House completes business and leaves for holiday break, leaving unresolved the fate of a payroll tax cut extension."

Hello,

This was the headline on CNN.

Completes business? I daresay not.

---

The House passed it's version before the Senate did. Not their fault Senate Dems don't support this tax cut.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

"Yes, its a corrupted and ineffectual institution. Is the best solution really to just disband it? In which scenerio does my boogey man win bigger in the long term?"

Hello,

The difference between Social Security and the EPA is this:

If the EPA goes away, then there is no one left to do the job of protecting the environment.

If Social Security goes away, I still have my money, and can invest it in my own retirement according to my best judgment.

If government continues to mismanage Social Security, (and there really is no indication that they are planning to make an about-face) then I will not have my money, and I will not have my retirement. I will have been robbed.

When I am involved in a bad investment, cashing out is probably the best option available to me.

If we Americans don’t demand to get our money out of this investment now, I fear they will drain it all away and leave us with nothing, not even pennies on the dollar. The only hope then is that you get your payout before the system crumbles away.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

At this point I say let the cuts lasp and once again we will see that increasing taxes does not spell the end of the world.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I don't know,


I think that you have just slightly more autonomy over keeping your money safe than you have control over protecting the environment on your lonesome. consider my second post on that matter. If not you, at least most people are going to end up on the wrong side of the deal, in my opinion, a condition that has absolutely not been the case to date under social security since its implementation.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME