How is payroll tax relief being paid for? Snookered again.
 

This topic can easily be tucked into any number of threads where the payroll tax cheerleaders argue over the "2-month/12-month" band-aid. I decided it needed its own thread. The silent co-conspirator in this saga, the media, keeps the "payroll tax" issue fired up and divides the taxpayers while really important national and international issues suffer benign neglect. We are hoodwinked into being riveted on a contrived drama because most of us are bored with the GOP Presidential race. Accordingly, "we the people" are being snookered and sandbagged ........again. Here's why.

How is the payroll tax going to be funded?

WASHINGTON (AP) — Who is paying for the two-month extension of the payroll tax cut working its way through Congress? The cost is being dropped in the laps of most people who buy homes or refinance beginning next year.

The typical person who buys a $200,000 home or refinances that amount starting on Jan. 1 would have to pay roughly $17 more a month for their mortgage, thanks to a fee increase included in the payroll tax cut bill that the Senate passed Saturday. The White House said the fee increases would be phased in gradually Alan Fram, Associated Press

So much for resurrecting the housing market.

"The payroll tax cut is paid for by an increase in the guarantee fee on new loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government run mortgage companies.

In general, it’s a bad idea to conflate paying for tax cuts with changes to Fannie, Freddie and broader mortgage finance system". New York Times

Don't you feel better about the whole thing because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are involved?

I am stunned that the New York Times, the bastion of Liberal journalism said this about the plan.

"More specifically, the new fees will likely be passed on to homeowners, precisely when the Obama administration is trying to make refinancing easier for struggling homeowners. If you want to encourage an activity, the last thing you want to do is make it more expensive".

Wow....common sense from the Old Grey Lady. Did Rupert Murdoch buy it?

This would all be laughable if it wasn't so bizarrely sad and frustrating.

God Bless America

There is no free lunch.

The fees are going into the general revenue fund and not being returned to the SS fund according to Stuart Varney.

Refresh my memory: how were the Bush tax cuts paid for? How were Bush's two wars paid for? How was the medicare prescription drug plan paid for? I must be getting forgetful because I don't remember any of these being paid for.

To refresh your memory, the same way we paid for Johnson's War and the Korean Police action among other conflicts:

Federal Income taxes, excise taxes on fuel, alcohol and tobacco and in varying degrees, any of the below listed taxes. Pick and choose between the taxes most directly applicable:

Accounts Receivable Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines (indirect taxes)
Deficit spending
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inflation
Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money)
Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Toll Bridge Taxes
Toll Tunnel Taxes
Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
Trailer Registration Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

You say you forget how wars were paid for........you also seem to have forgotten the most important part of the balance sheet ....they were paid for with the blood and treasure of the American people. That should never be forgotten. God bless our troops everywhere. Keep them safe and out of harm's way.

Have a nice evening.

https://www.talkofthevillages.com/fo...ad.php?t=46538

Its been 3, yes, count them 3 years since Bush was President. By now President Obama owns all the problems. Time to forget about President Bush, I and II and concentrate on the current Administration.

Now tell me how Obamacare will be paid for? Tit for Tat, dontcha know.

Actally the real answer is They were NOT pay for and you know it. As for me I still work and I don't expect to buy a home so the payroll thing makes sense to me.

Affordable Care Act
 

The Affordable Care Act, which hasn't even fully kicked in yet, is helping millions of seniors pay for their meds and millions of young people have insurance. What exactly did we get out of President George Bush's 800 billion dollar unneccesary Iraq war? At least I'm talking about this century, cabo35 is talking about things that happened 50 to 60 years ago. If you liked the Iraq war, you're going to love the Iran war with President Romney.

All these posts had almost nothing to do with the point of the original thread on how this "payroll tax cut" is being funded. Cabo keeps trying in vain to educate and only receives Bush-slapping or misdirected comments as a reward.

Fees that will be permanent to pay for a temporary tax cut, and liberal kool-aid drinkers refuse to see past their all consuming love for this failed President to acknowledge even the slightest doubt as to this new plans value.

I hope this isn't representative of all Democrats.

Richie, Richie, Richie, you know it is, that is why everytime something comes up its Bush's fault.

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) will be paid for with barrowed dollars from China. Does that answer your questions, along with a 500 billion cut in Medicare. How is that taking care of seniors? You really should read the complete law now that it has been passed and we can (quote the last speaker of the house) find out what is in it. What a great bunch of law makers we have.

Would you be willing to have the amount your FICA is reduced this year and next plus interest deducted from your Social security when you retire? That is what should happen.

Jj

We have to pay for those 4 million dollar vacations somehow :sad:

Guess we are just uneducable. :cus:

Your words, and your humor. There's always some truth in humor.

Richie, even you have to admit that the $800 Billion and 4,500 lives lost in Iraq was a complete waste. This was done by Junior Bush and Puppet Meister Cheney.

Think about how much better the USA would have been during that time period without the expenditures of both the $800 Billion in war costs and the loss of 4,500 American lives.

In this scenario, the only good that bringing up Bush does is to point out that Obama certainly is NOT "change we can believe in". Not when you keep doing what the predecessors were doing.

That's ok for me as long as everyone is treated the same. I really don't care about the payroll tax thing with the amount of overtime I make every 2 weeks, because my companies payroll was slashed by 8% over the summer, I wouldn't even feel it. I am more concerned with the extention of unemployment benefits. But if we cut those off then the welfare rolls will swell.

For me I have to do some work cause since my company got taken over Saturday and Sunday are work days.....

PS we call all that OT we make now Disney Dollars.

Geez I wonder whose 4 million dollar vacation you are talking about and how it applies to the topic of the thread. You can't be bashing the President or First Lady because as you all have told us more than once us "Liberals" are the mean spirited ones.

Facts are facts and it cost the taxpayers an extra 4 million dollars for the vacation. I don't think it's bashing but if you think so then fine. But I can say it cause I'm a free man unless you are the thread police.

I don't know that. Time and history has yet to be played out. Also, your comment has nothing to do with the subject posted by the OP.

Which proves to me that you have no way to counter the thread's observation and thus must attempt to deflect, as usual.

No you can say what you want to say...but let's be fair. The Obama's are paying for their personal expenses....you make it seem as if the public is paying for those. And every President gets to go on vacation and the security deal follows him and the family. He goes to Hawaii because its his boyhood home...I still like to vacation at the Jersey Shore even though I left New Jersey more than 40 years ago.

Alright, I'll go off-topic for a minute myself to address this. The Obama family, in their regal disconnect, engineered separate arrivals to Hawaii so that the First Royal Lady would not miss a few extra days of Pacific sunshine at the cost of $100,000 at a minimum. I've read that it's actually that much every day that the President was separated from his family.

It's irresponsible especially in the times we're in and is evidence of their sense of entitlement at the expense of we peasants.

If you can go off-topic, allow me. Republicans have nothing else to contribute except criticizing the president's family vacation, criticizing the President for Christmas shopping, criticizing Michelle Obama's posterior.

Please. Put on your man pants and grow up. You should be worrying about your own candidates since it was announced this morning that your leading contender couldn't even get enough signatures to qualify for the VA primary.

I think it is fair to say that it is an extravagant expense on the taxpayers in these hard times. I hear Camp David is lovely this time of years.

Instead of JUST criticising the President for going to Hawaii with his family for a vacation, how about some words for the Representatives and Senators who are taking vacations with their families - much at your expense as well as expense of lobby groups.

OK then, shame on all the Congress if they are wasting our money. :agree:

This is your fourth post about the president's family vacation. We get it. You should be out on the street corner collecting signatures to get your republican candidates on the ballot for the VA primary. Oh sorry, it's too late.

Actually, the Virginia Primary isn't that big a deal to we Virginians. But my President got on the ballot. Now that is news.

People will never learn. A populist agenda is a feelgood thing but it has another name "snake oil cure."

Does not matter who wins next November, WE THE PEOPLE will be the losers again and again and, well you know the saying.

Rubicon seems to think that "Populism" is a bad thing. It is defined as:

" It can be understood as any political discourse that appeals to the general mass of the population, to the "people" as such, regardless of class distinctions and political partisanship. This is in opposition to statism, which holds that a small group of professional politicians know better than the people of a state and should make decisions on behalf of them."

Personally, I am in favor of populism. Sure seems better than the other choice.

when making such choices it should not be between populist or statists...very often a real leader has to take a position that is not popular for the masses or the politicians.

Real tried and true leaders are very often not very popular. They do what has to be done...NO MATTER WHAT... the end result is usually the proof in the making.

Leaders usually have more information at their disposal than all others and there are times when he/she cannot share certain information to make what they do or did more palitable to the masses.

Politicians by nature are unable to make risk involved decisions to do what ever it takes....mainly because it conflicts with one the ability and capability and most certainly could affect their re-election.

It is one thing to lead by having the appropriate staffing to cover one's weaknesses or compliment their strengths. Politicians like Obama and far too many before him only have staff as rewards to owed individuals, hence there is no covering of weaknesses and certainly no strengths to match.
Hence, like Obama (and those before him) they tend to sit on the sidelines and see which way sentiment is blowing before taking a position. Many like Obama take no position at all like he did when in the senate by voting "present" on select controversial issues.

I will take a real leader each and every time one is available. There is a reason why they are not found in politics...they too cannot stomach mediocrity and non performance!!!

btk

By the citizens who have money.

But It's Not A Tax, So It Must Be OK With The GOP, Right?
 

The initial post was spot-on correct. We've been snookered again. The Congress--both Democrats and Republicans--passed legislation that supposedly paid for the temporary cessation of the payroll taxes to pay for Social Security by levying additional fees on borrowers using Freddie or Fannie mortgage guarantees. And a fairly hefty fee at that.

Why Richie blames this on President Obama baffles me--other than Richie's obvious deep hatred for the man. Other than signing the bill created by the Congress, the President had little to do with its contents. He prescribed an objective that the payroll tax holiday be extended. The bill met his objective. Because the Congress didn't come up with real spending cuts to pay for it isn't Obama's fault.

The "solution" Congress came up with is not a "tax" according to the Republicans and presumably Grover Norquist. But it's money out of some, not all, American's pockets for sure.

But I guess that's better than simply forgiving the taxes needed to pay for Social Security and just borrowing it from China.

So, BTK, you have stated you do not like how Pres. Obama is performing his job as President. You also stated that no real leaders can be found in politics.

I would like to know who, in your opinion, was the last real leader of the USA? Did we ever have one - since you have stated no real leaders can be found in politics?

If there are no real leaders available through the political workings, do we just vote "None of the above" and let the choice be made by someone else while we can just say over the next term that we did not vote for that candidate? Not my style to do that, though.

As a working man, I feel that both parties of the Congress and the President were playing politics with this. The payroll tax holiday doesn't amount to much in a check but the long term damage to SS could be severe. Turn them all out.

Again the family is paying for their stay.

Again, the taxpayer is paying for the flight and dog and pony show that goes with it. Four million dollars worth.

That's one of the many perks of the job, something republicans won't know anything about anytime soon.

I think it is taking advantage of the job. We give him a perfectly good house to live in, it's staffed well. We also provide him a getaway home in the Mountains of Maryland. This also has staff, cooks and Secret Service details. Either party has had Presidents that preferred to spend more on travel. You want to let them **** the money away, fine. I'm against it.