Fri December 15, 2017 2:37 pm
Fri December 15, 2017 10:56 pm
4/5 wrote:So Marco Rubio says he won't vote for the compromise bill unless child tax credits are expanded.
I guess that means there's a little drama left, but I'd expect him to be back on board by early next week. Leadership sounded confident that they could appease him.
Sat December 16, 2017 1:21 am
Sat December 16, 2017 5:26 am
4/5 wrote:Yup. It was obvious when all the leadership was complementing him yesterday for holding out that they were going to appease him. I wonder if the whole thing was for show so that they could make “he stood up to his own party for working families” commercials in 2020 or 2024.
Sat December 16, 2017 6:47 pm
simple schoolboy wrote:4/5 wrote:Yup. It was obvious when all the leadership was complementing him yesterday for holding out that they were going to appease him. I wonder if the whole thing was for show so that they could make “he stood up to his own party for working families” commercials in 2020 or 2024.
I think he's been fairly consistent on this issue...
Sun December 17, 2017 2:59 pm
4/5 wrote:simple schoolboy wrote:4/5 wrote:Yup. It was obvious when all the leadership was complementing him yesterday for holding out that they were going to appease him. I wonder if the whole thing was for show so that they could make “he stood up to his own party for working families” commercials in 2020 or 2024.
I think he's been fairly consistent on this issue...
I know he has during the debate over this particular bill, has this been something he's spoken about before?
FWIW, he makes a good point that people who end up paying zero federal income tax still pay payroll/FICA taxes. It's a shame that this particular attempt at "reform" chose not to address payroll taxes at all.
Mon December 18, 2017 1:00 am
Mon December 18, 2017 4:20 pm
Bi_3 wrote:4/5 wrote:simple schoolboy wrote:4/5 wrote:Yup. It was obvious when all the leadership was complementing him yesterday for holding out that they were going to appease him. I wonder if the whole thing was for show so that they could make “he stood up to his own party for working families” commercials in 2020 or 2024.
I think he's been fairly consistent on this issue...
I know he has during the debate over this particular bill, has this been something he's spoken about before?
FWIW, he makes a good point that people who end up paying zero federal income tax still pay payroll/FICA taxes. It's a shame that this particular attempt at "reform" chose not to address payroll taxes at all.
Yeah. It blows my mind that people aren’t more outraged that the max anyone pays in social security tax is $7886 a year. Maybe people just don’t know it has a cap.
Mon December 18, 2017 10:21 pm
4/5 wrote:Bi_3 wrote:4/5 wrote:simple schoolboy wrote:4/5 wrote:Yup. It was obvious when all the leadership was complementing him yesterday for holding out that they were going to appease him. I wonder if the whole thing was for show so that they could make “he stood up to his own party for working families” commercials in 2020 or 2024.
I think he's been fairly consistent on this issue...
I know he has during the debate over this particular bill, has this been something he's spoken about before?
FWIW, he makes a good point that people who end up paying zero federal income tax still pay payroll/FICA taxes. It's a shame that this particular attempt at "reform" chose not to address payroll taxes at all.
Yeah. It blows my mind that people aren’t more outraged that the max anyone pays in social security tax is $7886 a year. Maybe people just don’t know it has a cap.
I think a lot of people (if they think anything about SS) think that it functions as a government sponsored retirement account, where they pay money into that program specifically and then that money is waiting for them when they retire. If that's too extreme, I am fairly certain that lots of people don't realize that the government treats federal income tax and payroll tax revenue the same.
If Congress would end the payroll tax and make corresponding revenue neutral adjustments to the income tax rates it would force this discussion out into the opinion. If the goal of Social Security is to make sure we don't have a destitute elderly population why exactly is the tax capped at a relatively low level of income? Why do high income earners receive Social Security at all?
Having a separate payroll tax leads to this idea that "I paid into Social Security, therefore I have a legal claim to that money when I'm 65 1/2" which in fact has no more basis in reality than "I paid federal income taxes and I oppose this meaningless war so I refuse to allow the government to spend my money on war."
(For the record, the former statement would have been true at the outset of the creation of Social Security, but it hasn't been true for decades now.)
Tue December 19, 2017 12:06 am
Sat January 27, 2018 1:46 pm
Sun January 28, 2018 8:05 pm
Mon January 29, 2018 2:39 am
Mon February 05, 2018 8:07 pm
Mon February 05, 2018 8:10 pm
Mon February 05, 2018 8:13 pm
Mon February 05, 2018 8:33 pm
doug rr wrote:4% haircuts are expensive
Tue February 06, 2018 4:11 pm
Mon February 12, 2018 12:41 pm
Mon February 12, 2018 3:52 pm
BurtReynolds wrote:
have fun with that, powell!