Thu Jan 3, 2013, 03:54 PM

This message was self-deleted by its author

This message was self-deleted by its author (NCTraveler) on Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:36 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

213 replies, 57705 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

213 replies	Author	Time	Post
This message was self-deleted by its author (Original post)	NCTraveler	Thursday	OP
The temporary 2% payroll tax cut expired. n/t	PoliticAverse	Thursday	#1
yep	Liberal_in_LA	Thursday	#8
It should have never been done in the first place. It hurt social security /nt	still_one	Thursday	#79
Not true. FICA (Social Security) taxes go into the general fund.	the botnet	Yesterday	#138
Well, at least we don't have to guess about your intelligence.	ret5hd	Yesterday	#143
...	SammyWinstonJack	Yesterday	#146
That is blatantly not true.	RC	Yesterday	#148
Not Bush, but Obama	Soft Tips	Yesterday	#178
Holiday and trust fund	fingusernames	Yesterday	#193
Who is pretending?	AllyCat	Yesterday	#156
"The payroll tax income itself goes into the General Fund"	the botnet	Yesterday	#174
Your link quotes the Heritage Foundation.	Liberal In Texas	Yesterday	#213
It was called a 2% tax holiday and it just expired. You are now paying what you were....	OldDem2012	Thursday	#2
It went back to what it was 2 years ago.	The Velveteen Ocelot	Thursday	#3
Thank you all for the answers. nt	NCTraveler	Thursday	#4
This is what you pay so that you can receive a semi-decent social security payment at retirement.	dkf	Thursday	#5
No	atreides1	Thursday	#7
Chaining the CPI has no impact on your initial payment.	dkf	Thursday	#18
Really, so initial payments increase with the CPI and we	Progressive dog	Thursday	#33
The initial payments have been the same percentage of your income since 1990.	Ms. Toad	Yesterday	#132
Chained CPI will affect initial payments because they too will not go up with the generally	JDPriestly	Thursday	#83
They use the average wage index to calculate your initial payments, not CPI or chained CPI.	dkf	Yesterday	#175
This message was hidden by jury decision.	travis_mcgee	Yesterday	#110
Freepers are simply brain dead morons	leftynyc	Yesterday	#123
This message was hidden by jury decision.	travis_mcgee	Yesterday	#128
No - fantasy world	leftynyc	Yesterday	#129
"putting tax cuts on a credit card"	Soft Tips	Yesterday	#181
iraq was bush's disaster, but afghanistan is someone else's	owenmagoo	Yesterday	#183
Temp decrease for employee contribution, 6.2% to 4.2%, expired. Returned to previous rate.	pinto	Thursday	#6
Thank you for the excellent information. nt.	NCTraveler	Thursday	#12
+1	uponit7771	Thursday	#25
No limit on Medicare tax?	tularetom	Thursday	#61
I'm sick of them avoiding their fair share	uhlerster	Thursday	#97
This message was hidden by jury decision.	travis_mcgee	Yesterday	#111
Huh??	titaniumsalute	Yesterday	#125
Another asshole freeper	leftynyc	Yesterday	#127
It's not what he did but the hypocrisy behind it	Earthworm	Yesterday	#159
Yet, I bet you are one that complains whenever your car hits a pothole.	Live and Learn	Yesterday	#165
Who wants to pay higher taxes?	leftynyc	Yesterday	#173
I see no credible source for that information.	Live and Learn	Yesterday	#162
No, no limit on Medicare taxable wages	REACTIVATED IN CT	Yesterday	#194
This message was hidden by jury decision.	houkster	Yesterday	#201
That break was one of the only stimulus options Obama had left two years ago.	JoePhilly	Thursday	#9
Illinois	fingusernames	Yesterday	#196
As always, state tax issues are state tax issues.	JoePhilly	Yesterday	#197
Just so you know, Obama and many Democrats wanted to keep the lower SS withholdings.	denverbill	Thursday	#10
I don't want the lower withholdings. I paid the higher taxes and am now on Social Security.	JDPriestly	Thursday	#84
Because the "holiday" was speeding up SS's path to bankruptcy.	travis_mcgee	Yesterday	#112
+1.	SammyWinstonJack	Yesterday	#147
Wouldn't doing that underfund Social Security?	Freddie Stubbs	Yesterday	#118
Yes, and that was the point.	dixiegrrrrl	Yesterday	#180
Repugs want to kill off the fund? Really?	Ratteau	Yesterday	#185
Indeed	fingusernames	Yesterday	#195
But hey, everybody says it's a good thing!	Bake	Thursday	#11
I really can't handle the decrease right now.	NCTraveler	Thursday	#13
The works of tearorists in the house, once more. nt	Amonester	Thursday	#15
2% smaller....	Sekhmets Daughter	Thursday	#26
I don't want to make light of this situation, but the increase oin deductions is 2%!	napi21	Thursday	#32
Pretty sizable chunk of change. Almost a weeks worth of groceries.	NCTraveler	Thursday	#40
Did you vote for the Ryan plan to preserve SS?	travis_mcgee	Yesterday	#113
"hurtling even faster towards bankruptcy "	NCTraveler	Yesterday	#119
Why is that funny?	travis_mcgee	Yesterday	#122
That is nothing but a wore out rw meme.	NCTraveler	Yesterday	#135
Not only an ignorant notion...	skinnydipinacid	Yesterday	#160
Cute Travis, cute. Have a nice day. nt.	NCTraveler	Yesterday	#171
The Debt-Paying Generation Speaks	Soft Tips	Yesterday	#186
It shouldn't impact each paycheck that much -	Ms. Toad	Yesterday	#133
That is $46 a month.	NCTraveler	Yesterday	#134
I was just trying to figure out your time frame.	Ms. Toad	Yesterday	#151
Payroll is taxed on the day the check is written.	NCTraveler	Yesterday	#168
Makes sense.	Ms. Toad	Yesterday	#177
Wanted to add. I do see what you are saying.	NCTraveler	Yesterday	#172
Not to mention the prices are higher than two years ago for a variety of goods	Puzzledtraveller	Yesterday	#139
Its $1000 a year if you make $50,000.	former9thward	Thursday	#50
It's not a lot	SoCalNative	Thursday	#68
This had nothing to do with collecting SS when you retire.	former9thward	Yesterday	#166
That would be nice...	Ratteau	Yesterday	#187
That's about $20/week. It's nothing to sneeze at, but	napi21	Thursday	#71
$1000 divided by 52 weeks is about $20 per week.	JDPriestly	Thursday	#86
$86 a month is a lot. That would pay for....	Honeycombe8	Thursday	#94
It isn't a pittance, but someone earning $50,000 per year is doing a lot better	JDPriestly	Yesterday	#99
I know I would like to get a 2% raise	d_r	Yesterday	#101
I feel your pain and will be soon when I get my check	Puzzledtraveller	Yesterday	#124
If it makes you feel any better	dragonlady	Thursday	#22
Remind me of the Republican proposal to extend the temporary 2% reduction	jberryhill	Thursday	#28
Wait, I thought that tax cuts were eeeevil!	travis_mcgee	Yesterday	#114
Actually, you are quite wrong, doubly wrong even.	Coyotl	Yesterday	#145
Looks like someone didn't prepare. What about temporary holiday didn't you understand?	lonestarnot	Thursday	#14
Guessing this is sarcasm. Normally I can easily detect it. nt.	NCTraveler	Thursday	#17
Probably not sarcasm. The holiday was only two years.	ieoeja	Thursday	#24
Amen...	Sekhmets Daughter	Thursday	#27
Were any other cuts set to expire. So no, it wasn't expected.	NCTraveler	Thursday	#41
Yes, all of the Bush tax cuts were set to expire	travis_mcgee	Yesterday	#116
But should I have expected them to expire and planned on it.	NCTraveler	Yesterday	#121
You will find little sympathy here, it is less a trait these days of the left	Puzzledtraveller	Yesterday	#142
I won't be happy taking less money home.	LWolf	Thursday	#16
I hope in the end it all works out for you.	NCTraveler	Thursday	#19
Thanks for the good thoughts. nt	LWolf	Yesterday	#169
That is one awful story.	Sekhmets Daughter	Thursday	#30
I do, too. Thanks. nt	LWolf	Yesterday	#170
If you keep voting for policies that harm business...	travis_mcgee	Yesterday	#117
Oh look, we have a "success punisher" belcher.	HughBeaumont	Yesterday	#131
I vote for policies that hurt RW douchebags	jpak	Yesterday	#137
This message was hidden by jury decision.	Jim pel	Yesterday	#198
Go fuck yourself, freeper	ProudToBeBlueInRhody	Yesterday	#150
"Voting for policies that harm business."	LWolf	Yesterday	#167
Its OK	ORINOCO	Thursday	#20
Welcome to DU!	Xipe Totec	Thursday	#37
LOL	leftstreet	Thursday	#46
If the tearorists succeeded to make you struggle too much, maybe DUers could...	Amonester	Thursday	#21
Actually if that cut continued it would change the very nature of Social Security..	madfloridian	Thursday	#23
Just to be clear, the holiday actually decreased SS taxes to 10.4% from 12.4%	AZ Progressive	Thursday	#51
It's worth it for the cause.	madfloridian	Yesterday	#100
Worth it? I don't know.	PETRUS	Yesterday	#102
Thank you	wryter2000	Thursday	#59
You were on holiday	Warpy	Thursday	#29
Thanks for the reasoned reply.	NCTraveler	Thursday	#42
Don't worry about it. It's not really a tax.	slackmaster	Thursday	#31
OK ... I get your right wing gun philosophy ....	Trajan	Thursday	#58
Whuh?	slackmaster	Yesterday	#144
im confused	OhZone	Thursday	#34
Yes, I do have a check for this month. By tomorrow, everyone paid weekly will.	NCTraveler	Thursday	#43
I have scant experience with 'weekly payroll' jobs. So please explain how and why you are paid	Bluenorthwest	Yesterday	#155
why did they deduct more	onethatcares	Thursday	#35
Any IRS changes are effective with "wages paid in 2013"	Freddie	Thursday	#36
Regardless of any bill passage, the holiday expired Dec 31st	geek_sabre	Thursday	#95
If you got a check dated Jan. 2	Freddie	Yesterday	#105
Does anyone think congress will extend the payroll tax holiday at some point?	ecstatic	Thursday	#38
It is more than I was expecting.	NCTraveler	Thursday	#44
At the end most Democrats and Republicans wanted it to expire, only President Obama was	PoliticAverse	Thursday	#76
A Good Start	New Proletariat	Thursday	#39
Welcome to DU. :)	Amonester	Thursday	#45
so you are advocating an offensive war	bigapple1963	Thursday	#48
No.	Amonester	Thursday	#60
I don't think New Proletariat will be around DU	DonViejo	Thursday	#49
Interesting...	New Proletariat	Thursday	#77
Not a threat at all...	DonViejo	Yesterday	#130
So, are you taking any bets?....	OldDem2012	Thursday	#53
Not taking any bets....	New Proletariat	Thursday	#70
This message was hidden by jury decision.	OldHardHead	Thursday	#66
if everyone received the same	blcartwright	Thursday	#73
I guess we should just let the people who can't find work starve or die of exposure.	hunter	Thursday	#75
the point was	blcartwright	Thursday	#81
It's my experience that most people want to work.	hunter	Thursday	#90
I agree	blcartwright	Yesterday	#104
Time Well Spent	ReasonedThoughts	Yesterday	#191
Every last person does have the ability to say "Take this job and shove it"	FlowerGurl	Yesterday	#107
25 years ago when I moved to the DC area	blcartwright	Yesterday	#108
Inheritance tax?	New Proletariat	Thursday	#78
I don't think so	blcartwright	Thursday	#87
Isn't it fun when they talk to themselves?	dpibel	Thursday	#89
Who left the freakin' door open?	SammyWinstonJack	Yesterday	#154
Had to pay for permanent taxcuts for rich professionals somehow.	kenny blankenship	Thursday	#47
Well said	customerserviceguy	Thursday	#55
What on Earth are you talking about?	travis_mcgee	Yesterday	#126
That seems odd. Wouldn't a paycheck received right now	magical thyme	Thursday	#52
No. The date on the check is what matters.	NCTraveler	Thursday	#56
even so, it's hard to believe it's that big a change	magical thyme	Thursday	#57
$24 a month might not be grocery money to you.	NCTraveler	Thursday	#62
It's that much less that the deficit goes up for Social Security	customerserviceguy	Thursday	#54
Nothing, it's just a dream ...	1StrongBlackMan	Thursday	#63
How did you get your first 2013 paycheck on Thursday, January 3rd?	jberryhill	Thursday	#64
The Date on the Check Is What Matters	chrisau214	Thursday	#69
That is simply not true. Tax rates are counted from the time and place you did the work, not	Bluenorthwest	Yesterday	#157
money show up in ym bank abt 7 am tomorrow	blcartwright	Thursday	#74
How often are you paid?	dflprincess	Thursday	#80
paid every two weeks	blcartwright	Thursday	#85
Did you check the math?	dflprincess	Thursday	#92
the math for my SS deduction?	blcartwright	Thursday	#98
I lose around $80 a month, but I know the	Riley18	Thursday	#65
You will be thankful when you retire and receive your social security checks.	RebelOne	Thursday	#67
I'm 37	LoneMarauder	Thursday	#91
If you people keep helping to elect republicans that is almost guaranteed.	Little Star	Yesterday	#176
See post 87. eom	RomneyLies	Thursday	#72
You are being asked to pay the Social Security tax that you used to pay before Obama	JDPriestly	Thursday	#82
For all those bitching and whining about the 2%	doc03	Thursday	#88
Don't give them the oportunity...	New Proletariat	Thursday	#93
I am just so disgusted I can't even make any more comments n/t	doc03	Thursday	#96
Welcome to DU! stoopid hurtz i hurd /no further text follows after this period.	green for victory	Yesterday	#103
This message was hidden by jury decision.	WillyF	Yesterday	#209
All this bitching and whining is why this tax holiday was the dumbest idea, period.	SammyWinstonJack	Yesterday	#158
You are supposed to SAVE that $$ for your retirement. Not spend it	RandiFan1290	Yesterday	#106
Hey, National Review linked your post	Shrek	Yesterday	#109
It's probably their OP	RandiFan1290	Yesterday	#115
Please see post #149	CJCRANE	Yesterday	#153
Same here, I will find out on the 15th, not looking forward to it.	Puzzledtraveller	Yesterday	#120
The Delicate Flowers cannot bear to pay for Social Security	jpak	Yesterday	#136
I am a food stamp and medicaid caseworker	Puzzledtraveller	Yesterday	#140
I think it didn't hurt people before the temporary tax holiday was enacted	jpak	Yesterday	#141
Your OP seemed just a little too faux-naif so I searched the archives	CJCRANE	Yesterday	#149
Good catch!	greatauntoftriplets	Yesterday	#152
Nice try, troll.	MjolnirTime	Yesterday	#161
Buck up!	Ganja Ninja	Yesterday	#163
For some of us that is in 30+ years	AZ Progressive	Yesterday	#189
Thread title is attracting a lot of Freeper drive-byes	Ash_F	Yesterday	#164
Money owed to the Social Security Trust	donbrown54	Yesterday	#179
This message was hidden by jury decision.	Luca	Yesterday	#182
Elvis has left the building. n/t	L0oniX	Yesterday	#184
RUSH LIMBAUGH just read this letter on air	BanTheGOP	Yesterday	#188
They are so pathetically desperate that their traditional hate sites	Rex	Yesterday	#200
Your takehome pay should be 2% less, in general	REACTIVATED IN CT	Yesterday	#190
BTW, I wonder how many people know that a total of 12.4% of their income goes toward SS	AZ Progressive	Yesterday	#192
0. What happened that my SS withholdings in my paycheck just went up.	Juan Nation	Yesterday	#199
This message was hidden by jury decision.	houkster	Yesterday	#206
And who put them in debt? Republicans.	Rex	Yesterday	#211
They are withholding a dollar more per paycheck for me	Rex	Yesterday	#202
You worked ONE-TWO day this year and your paycheck went down by an uncomfortable amount?	GeorgeGist	Yesterday	#203
I like your bullshitometer!	Rex	Yesterday	#205
I just got my first fortnightly paycheck for 2013. It's $113.08 less than my previous paycheck.	slackmaster	Yesterday	#204
This message was hidden by jury decision.	houkster	Yesterday	#208
This message was hidden by jury decision.	marty waltin	Yesterday	#207
fsdasadf	Juan Nation	Yesterday	#210
How did you find this site?	Rex	Yesterday	#212

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 03:55 PM

PoliticAverse (4,930 posts)

1. The temporary 2% payroll tax cut expired. n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:17 PM

Liberal_in_LA (27,289 posts)

8. yep

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:50 PM

still_one (30,113 posts)

79. It should have never been done in the first place. It hurt social security /nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to still_one (Reply #79)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:17 AM

the botnet (2 posts)

138. Not true. FICA (Social Security) taxes go into the general fund.

There is no trust fund, separate fund, lockbox, whatever. It goes into the same pot as income taxes. Pretending that FICA is dedicated to Social Security does not make it true.

Again, FICA goes into the general fund.

What we have here, boys and girls, is a genuine tax increase on the "middle class".

Thank you very much.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to the botnet (Reply #138)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:41 AM

ret5hd (9,926 posts)

143. Well, at least we don't have to guess about your intelligence.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to the botnet (Reply #138)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:02 AM

SammyWinstonJack (34,831 posts)

146. ...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to the botnet (Reply #138)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:12 AM

RC (20,383 posts)

148. That is blatantly not true.

The funds are collected by the Internal Revenue Service and redirected into the a separate fund setup for Social Security. Those monies are then used to buy Government bonds, that pay, or are supposed to pay, interest.

And by the way, that is not a tax increase, it is finally allowing a temporary bu$h tax cut to expire.

Enjoy your stay.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to RC (Reply #148)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:26 PM

Soft Tips (6 posts)

178. Not Bush, but Obama

Last edited Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:26 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Or more appropriately (to your font preference)... Not Bu$h, but Øbama

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to RC (Reply #148)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:38 PM

fingusernames (4 posts)

193. Holiday and trust fund

Actually, the holiday was from the 2009 Obama stimulus package, though apparently it originated from discussions with Republicans in Congress as an alternative to the "Making Work Pay" credit.

Also, per the most recent Social Security Trustee report (2012), as of 2010 tax revenue is no longer sufficient to cover expenses. The shortfall is covered by the interest from the trust fund. Social Security is no longer purchasing new Treasury securities. 2021 is the year that they forecast both revenue + interest being insufficient. The federal Treasury securities will be cashed in starting then, and totally gone by approximately 2033 if nothing is done. Apparently some modest changes to

Finally, the accusations (and I'm definitely not saying you said it, but others have) that we "stole" the "trust fund" are ridiculous. Social Security by law purchases Treasury securities with excess funds, as you wrote. That transfers the money to the general fund, which is used to pay for everything else. Fiat "money" is just numbers on paper/in computers, there's no safe deposit box or bank account into which the United States Treasury would deposit the revenue from selling those securities.

A proposal by Republicans back in the mid-90s was the idea of the "lockbox." This would have required that excess Social Security revenue be used exclusively to pay off existing debt, in exchange for Treasury securities, and thus not increase the overall federal debt. That would have basically required the federal government to fund additional debt by selling it to the general market, not Social Security. Of course, that would have just increased the overall federal debt by the same amount. Just a trick of book-keeping basically, but perhaps one that would make the growing debt more noticeable. That proposal passed with an overwhelming bi-partisan majority in the House, but was filibustered by Democrats in the Senate, where it died. I'm not sure why they were so opposed to it in the Senate, since it was basically a zero-sum result.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to the botnet (Reply #138)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:34 AM

AllyCat (7,286 posts)

156. Who is pretending?

If not a separate fund, why is it taken out separately? Why not just lumped in with income taxes?

It is a separate fund. This was a temporary "tax holiday" anyway. It is the same amount we were paying before to fund our future.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to the botnet (Reply #138)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:52 AM

the botnet (2 posts)

174. "The payroll tax income itself goes into the General Fund"

http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/Soc_Sec_Trust.htm

Yep. I'm amazed at the brilliance of the posters here.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to the botnet (Reply #174)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:31 PM

Liberal In Texas (7,368 posts)

213. Your link quotes the Heritage Foundation.

The truth is:

From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."
Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html

And yes, you should be amazed by the brilliance of some of the posters here. You, of course, are not one of them.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 03:57 PM

OldDem2012 (2,190 posts)

2. It was called a 2% tax holiday and it just expired. You are now paying what you were....

...before the holiday was implemented.

It's helping to fund SS.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 03:58 PM

The Velveteen Ocelot (33,696 posts)

3. It went back to what it was 2 years ago.

The temporary payroll tax "holiday" expired - it was supposed to do last year but was extended.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:03 PM

NCTraveler (963 posts)

4. Thank you all for the answers. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:03 PM

dkf (30,386 posts)

5. This is what you pay so that you can receive a semi-decent social security payment at retirement.

It's part of the premium you pay to insure against abject poverty in your old age.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to dkf (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:16 PM

atreides1 (9,939 posts)

7. No

This is what you pay so that the politicians can take money out of the fund to pay off the deficit for anything unfunded!

And when they raise the retirement age and chain the CPI, you will be living in abject poverty...providing you make it to retirement!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to atreides1 (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:39 PM

dkf (30,386 posts)

18. Chaining the CPI has no impact on your initial payment.

It does determine how well that payment keeps up throughout retirement though.

The longer you live the more impact high inflation will have. That is where the printing of money will be a problem if it is how we have to pay our debts.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to dkf (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 05:28 PM

Progressive dog (405 posts)

33. Really, so initial payments increase with the CPI and we

only go to chained once you start collecting. Sure they do. {sarcasm}

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Progressive dog (Reply #33)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:04 AM

Ms. Toad (7,428 posts)

132. The initial payments have been the same percentage of your income since 1990.

(Except for the 2 year holiday which just expired).

Any increase in your initial payments is tied to your income, not to the CPI.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to dkf (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:58 PM

JDPriestly (35,151 posts)

83. Chained CPI will affect initial payments because they too will not go up with the generally

applicable inflation rate.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to JDPriestly (Reply #83)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:53 AM

dkf (30,386 posts)

175. They use the average wage index to calculate your initial payments, not CPI or chained CPI.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/COLA/awiseries.html

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to dkf (Reply #5)

travis_mcgee This message was hidden by Jury decision.

Response to travis_mcgee (Reply #110)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:52 AM

leftynyc (9,357 posts)

123. Freepers are simply brain dead morons

You know nothing about how SS is structured and you and your party would do well to just sit down and shut the fuck up after putting tax cuts and 2 wars on a credit card and then bitching when the bills have to be paid.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to leftynyc (Reply #123)

travis_mcgee This message was hidden by Jury decision.

Response to travis_mcgee (Reply #128)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:59 AM

leftynyc (9,357 posts)

129. No - fantasy world

is what fox news was feeding you rubes before the election. Hope you choked on what Rove, Morris and Hannity were feeding you. The Democrats will be laughing about that for a very, very long time.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to leftynyc (Reply #123)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:32 PM

Soft Tips (6 posts)

181. "putting tax cuts on a credit card"

99% of those "tax cuts on a credit card" were just made permanent. Makes you sick, huh?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to leftynyc (Reply #123)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:56 PM

owenmagoo (1 post)

183. iraq was bush's disaster, but afghanistan is someone else's

total afghan war spending 01-08:
171.7 billion.
09-12:
385.6 billion.

twice the bush spending, in half the time.
the casualties have also seen a massive expansion.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:16 PM

pinto (96,312 posts)

6. Temp decrease for employee contribution, 6.2% to 4.2%, expired. Returned to previous rate.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/n1036.pdf

The employee tax rate for social security is 6.2%.
Previously, the employee tax rate for social security was 4.2%.

The employer tax rate for social security remains unchanged at 6.2%. The social security wage base limit is $113,700.

The Medicare tax rate is 1.45% each for the employee and employer, unchanged from 2012. There is no wage base limit for Medicare tax.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to pinto (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:26 PM

NCTraveler (963 posts)

12. Thank you for the excellent information. nt.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to pinto (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 05:10 PM

uponit7771 (15,427 posts)

25. +1

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to pinto (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:43 PM

tularetom (16,822 posts)

61. No limit on Medicare tax?

The solution then is not to collect it as a payroll tax but instead add it to everybody's tax bill on your 1040. That way, assholes like Mitt Romney who don't draw a salary but make gazillions of dollars from dividends and capital gains, would be on the hook for 1.45% of their income in medicare payments.

For Romney who had an income of $21 million in 2011 (the only year for which he ever released any returns) his Medicare premiums for that year would have been $304,500.

That's how badly these pricks are fucking the rest of us.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to tularetom (Reply #61)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:24 PM

uhlerster (1 post)

97. I'm sick of them avoiding their fair share

Did you see where Al Gore sold his TV station and his share is $100,000,000? He was trying to get it done last year so he could avoid the higher tax on the rich. Are there no honest men left?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to uhlerster (Reply #97)

travis_mcgee This message was hidden by Jury decision.

Response to uhlerster (Reply #97)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:54 AM

titaniumsalute (1,296 posts)

125. Huh??

Ok you know taxes are going to go up. You are in the process of selling something you own. The have a choice to try to make it happen to pay less taxes? Who in their right mind wouldn't do that? I'm an honest person and I would have done the same thing. When the big benefits for home buying were going on years ago I rushed to buy a house for an extra low interest rate after Sept. 11, 2001. Does that make me a bad person or smart investor?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to uhlerster (Reply #97)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:56 AM

leftynyc (9,357 posts)

127. Another asshole freeper

What was so dishonest about what he did? Is it too hard to understand that while one party is asking the wealthiest to pay their fair share (and Mitt Romney having an effective tax rate that is half of mine is just not fair), the other is wanting to fellate the wealthy with more tax cuts. That's the difference but I'm thinking the two brain cells you have cannot handle complex thinking. It's a problem with all you slimebags on the right.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to leftynyc (Reply #127)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:42 AM

Earthworm (1 post)

159. It's not what he did but the hypocrisy behind it

I would also do whatever I could to avoid paying higher taxes, but I am also not one who complains about the rich not paying their "fair share".

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Earthworm (Reply #159)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:04 AM

Live and Learn (1,230 posts)

165. Yet, I bet you are one that complains whenever your car hits a pothole.

How the heck do you know what Gore was thinking? You don't and providing biased speculation about other peoples motives does not make you a moral exemplar.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Earthworm (Reply #159)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:42 AM

leftynyc (9,357 posts)

173. Who wants to pay higher taxes?

The answer is nobody. Now let's discuss the actual issue - the monstrosity that is our tax code which allows the wealthy to pay a much lower effective tax rate than everyone else which is most certainly NOT THEIR FAIR SHARE. Is that too complicated for you? The difference between the parties is that one wants to make things ACTUALLY FAIR and the other wants to make it more inequitable.

It doesn't seem like a difficult concept but you righties just repeat whatever moronic theory rush, sean or oreilly have that day - you're tiresome and while I know it's hard to get your asses kicked like you did on election day, try using your brain once in a while. I promise it'll only hurt a little. Or you can continue voting against your own interests cuz rush told you to.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to uhlerster (Reply #97)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:55 AM

Live and Learn (1,230 posts)

162. I see no credible source for that information.

In fact, if avoiding taxes was his goal he would have taken Beck's offer up. He didn't and the deal went through in January, so please stop regurgitating FAUX News bs.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to tularetom (Reply #61)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:40 PM

REACTIVATED IN CT (2,939 posts)

194. No, no limit on Medicare taxable wages

The limit was removed sometime in the 80's or 90's. IIRC, it was capped at $135,000 at the time. (I did payroll for 20 years)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to tularetom (Reply #61)

houkster This message was hidden by Jury decision.

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:19 PM

JoePhilly (14,829 posts)

9. That break was one of the only stimulus options Obama had left two years ago.

It was intended to put a few extra bucks in your (and my) pocket while the economy was still very weak.

Now that the economy seems to be growing again, albeit slowly, that temporary tax cut is expiring.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to JoePhilly (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:58 PM

fingusernames (4 posts)

196. Illinois

For those of us unfortunate enough to live in Illinois, it didn't even put money in our pockets. Rather, it just masked the state income tax hike. No benefit, all pain now.

Of course, the Illinois income tax hike is temporary, so we'll get a "stimulus" when it expires in 2015. In other news, pigs learn to fly!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to fingusernames (Reply #196)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:02 PM

JoePhilly (14,829 posts)

197. As always, state tax issues are state tax issues.

I used to live in Montgomery County Maryland. There, they take your State income tax, and then you pay an additional tax to the county that is 50% of whatever your state tax was.

North Carolina has no such city or county tax above the State tax. One of the reasons I moved to NC.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:23 PM

denverbill (10,140 posts)

10. Just so you know, Obama and many Democrats wanted to keep the lower SS withholdings.

Republicans did not. We did not get everything we wanted.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to denverbill (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:00 PM

JDPriestly (35,151 posts)

84. I don't want the lower withholdings. I paid the higher taxes and am now on Social Security.

Lower holdings mean a weaker system and give politicians more excuses to pull tricks like the chained CPI or lower monthly benefits.

Between $1200 and $1300 for an elderly person on the average means a lot of people receive less. It's not that much for seniors to live on as it is.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to denverbill (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:37 AM

travis_mcgee (10 posts)

112. Because the "holiday" was speeding up SS's path to bankruptcy.

If you want something, you have to pay for it. You support SS? Pay for it.

You punks all want the government to do everything, but want someone else to pay for it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to travis_mcgee (Reply #112)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:07 AM

SammyWinstonJack (34,831 posts)

147. +1.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to denverbill (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:46 AM

Freddie Stubbs (28,274 posts)

118. Wouldn't doing that underfund Social Security?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #118)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:31 PM

dixiegrrrrl (28,164 posts)

180. Yes, and that was the point.

Decreasing revenues going into Soc. sec. is one way the Repugs had of killing off the fund faster.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #180)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:05 PM

Ratteau (2 posts)

185. Repugs want to kill off the fund? Really?

Are you seriously saying the point of the SS tax holiday was a Republican effort to "kill off the fund faster"? The tax holiday was passed in 2010. You might want to take a second look at who controlled *both* houses on Congress and the Presidency at that time.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Ratteau (Reply #185)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:47 PM

fingusernames (4 posts)

195. Indeed

The payroll tax holiday was a part of the stimulus plan, to put money into the pockets of people. Per an interview with Larry Summers, of the Obama administration, speaking about the holiday:

Q So the only reason that the payroll tax holiday will provide more stimulus is because it’s twice as large. Making Work Pay was capped. Why didn’t you preserve Making Work Pay? Is it because, as the President said some months ago, it’s just a kind of invisible tax cut and didn’t provide any political benefit for the White House?

MR. SUMMERS: No, it came out of the process of compromise with the Republicans who were more attracted to the payroll tax holiday concept, and that was a proposal that, as had been coming out of here, we had been giving considerable thought to in the context of the President’s budget.

It was a bi-partisan concept, proposed by Republicans and adopted by Democrats.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:23 PM

Bake (20,712 posts)

11. But hey, everybody says it's a good thing!

My paycheck just went down. So did my wife's. This hurts us. But everybody says it's a good thing, so I guess we just suck it up and get used to it.

I call it a tax increase on the middle class. I wonder what they call it. Somebody on this thread called it a "premium." Nope. It's a tax, and it just went up.

Bake

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Bake (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:29 PM

NCTraveler (963 posts)

13. I really can't handle the decrease right now.

It's not like I am rolling in the money. Really felt like my taxes went up when I opened my paycheck and it was smaller.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:34 PM

Amonester (9,793 posts)

15. The works of tearorists in the house, once more. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 05:12 PM

Sekhmets Daughter (2,577 posts)

26. 2% smaller....

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 05:19 PM

napi21 (39,415 posts)

32. I don't want to make light of this situation, but the increase oin deductions is 2%!

Unless of course you make over $400,000. Then your taxes DOD gp up. We're really not talking about a olot of money here.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to napi21 (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 06:53 PM

NCTraveler (963 posts)

40. Pretty sizable chunk of change. Almost a weeks worth of groceries.

And I am in no way making lots of money.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #40)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:40 AM

travis_mcgee (10 posts)

113. Did you vote for the Ryan plan to preserve SS?

If not, then you voted to preserve the status quo. And the status quo was hurtling even faster towards bankruptcy with the 2% payroll tax holiday.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to travis_mcgee (Reply #113)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:47 AM

NCTraveler (963 posts)

119. "hurtling even faster towards bankruptcy "

That's funny. Towards bankruptcy.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #119)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:51 AM

travis_mcgee (10 posts)

122. Why is that funny?

Do you think that the government can't go broke? SS is already on the border of being in the red. Where do you think that the money is going to come from when it does?

Do you think that the money you pay in now will be there for you when you retire?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to travis_mcgee (Reply #122)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:12 AM

NCTraveler (963 posts)

135. That is nothing but a wore out rw meme.

It's going bankrupt my ass. Take your shit elsewhere.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #135)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:51 AM

skinnydipinacid (7 posts)

160. Not only an ignorant notion...

... but I think you've quantum leaped into a whole new dimension of stupid there.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to skinnydipinacid (Reply #160)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:25 AM

NCTraveler (963 posts)

171. Cute Travis, cute. Have a nice day. nt.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #135)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:07 PM

Soft Tips (6 posts)

186. The Debt-Paying Generation Speaks

"Glad I learned all of those Ramen Noodle recipes while I was in college, 'cuz I'm gonna need them again when I 'retire.'" - RJ Caster
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-beach/national-debt-and-youth-vote_b_1383704.html

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #40)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:08 AM

Ms. Toad (7,428 posts)

133. It shouldn't impact each paycheck that much -

are you talking about your salary for the year?

(for $30,000 the weekly drop should be around $11.53)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #133)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:10 AM

NCTraveler (963 posts)

134. That is $46 a month.

I do consider that sizeable and close to a weeks worth of groceries for someone living by themselves.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #134)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:21 AM

Ms. Toad (7,428 posts)

151. I was just trying to figure out your time frame.

since you didn't say how long a pay period would be a week's worth of groceries. A single paycheck just received (how this thread started) shouldn't be short a week's worth of groceries - since it only covers 3 days in 2013 and if you just received a paycheck that was short a week's worth of groceries, something else was going on that you should explore.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #151)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:23 AM

NCTraveler (963 posts)

168. Payroll is taxed on the day the check is written.

In other words, if the paycheck is dated 1/2/2013, it will all be taxed at 2013 rates. Not 5 days at the 2012 rates, and 2 days at 2013 rates.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #168)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:10 PM

Ms. Toad (7,428 posts)

177. Makes sense.

I didn't check it specifically - but thinking about when income is taxed, all of my December 2012 income is taxed in 2013 (I get paid monthly) - so FICA is probably the same. But most people aren't paid monthly - so it is likely (at most) 2 weeks worth of FICA payments; still likely less than a week's worth of groceries additional deductions from the single check.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #151)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:27 AM

NCTraveler (963 posts)

172. Wanted to add. I do see what you are saying.

I was not specific that I was talking about pay for a full month. It is about a weeks worth of groceries for a months pay. Not a weeks pay. I wasn't clear on that.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #40)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:19 AM

Puzzledtraveller (878 posts)

139. Not to mention the prices are higher than two years ago for a variety of goods

food, gas, natural gas.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to napi21 (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:24 PM

former9thward (5,477 posts)

50. Its $1000 a year if you make $50,000.

Maybe $1000 is not alot for you.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to former9thward (Reply #50)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 08:09 PM

SoCalNative (1,694 posts)

68. It's not a lot

considering I want to actually be able to collect my SS pension when I retire.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to SoCalNative (Reply #68)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:21 AM

former9thward (5,477 posts)

166. This had nothing to do with collecting SS when you retire.

The 2% was being made up by the General fund.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to SoCalNative (Reply #68)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:10 PM

Ratteau (2 posts)

187. That would be nice...

but don't count on it in the event that it's not there when you need it. Those that are irresponsible and don't save some now could wind up with nothing if they planned to rely upon SS, should not expect the rest of us to bail them out.

Me? I wish they'd offer a public option on SS. I'd opt out in a minute and they could keep what I've contributed the past 27 years. You get better growth by putting your money in a checking account.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to former9thward (Reply #50)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:13 PM

napi21 (39,415 posts)

71. That's about $20/week. It's nothing to sneeze at, but

@ $50/m a year, it sure shouldn't breaki you either!

Many prople make a lot less than that and live just fine.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to former9thward (Reply #50)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:05 PM

JDPriestly (35,151 posts)

86. $1000 divided by 52 weeks is about $20 per week.

Doesn't buy a lot of groceries. But it isn't nothing.

The Social Security and Medicare taxes do come back to you and when you really need it, so it isn't smart to complain about them.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to JDPriestly (Reply #86)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:54 PM

Honeycombe8 (15,669 posts)

94. $86 a month is a lot. That would pay for....

Groceries for a week, as someone said.

More than what I pay for parking every month, after my employer's contribution to that.

A new computer after a year.

A new quality pair of shoes...every month.

Months of my copay for my hormones.

A new thick coat (on sale or at discount place)

It would pay for what I spend on my dogs every month...food, vitamins, treats.

BUT, it's necessary to keep SS healthy, to make sure there are enuf funds to pay for the benefits.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #94)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:36 AM

JDPriestly (35,151 posts)

99. It isn't a pittance, but someone earning $50,000 per year is doing a lot better

than the average person on Social Security receiving $1200-1300 per month.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to napi21 (Reply #32)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:03 AM

d_r (2,257 posts)

101. I know I would like to get a 2% raise

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #13)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:54 AM

Puzzledtraveller (878 posts)

124. I feel your pain and will be soon when I get my check

I barely, if not even barely make ends meet and I work full time, live within my means and have to pay things late every month, this will hurt.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Bake (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:59 PM

dragonlady (2,507 posts)

22. If it makes you feel any better

those of us who are self-employed pay twice as much out of our earnings (we are both employer and employee).

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Bake (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 05:17 PM

jberryhill (27,740 posts)

28. Remind me of the Republican proposal to extend the temporary 2% reduction

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to jberryhill (Reply #28)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:41 AM

travis_mcgee (10 posts)

114. Wait, I thought that tax cuts were eeeevil!

SS is going bankrupt. But the payroll tax holiday was bringing that day forward.

If you want to preserve SS in its current form, payroll taxes will have to go up, dramatically.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to travis_mcgee (Reply #114)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:52 AM

Coyotl (3,511 posts)

145. Actually, you are quite wrong, doubly wrong even.

Last edited Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:53 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

1.) SS is not going bankrupt at all.
2.) Payroll taxes will NOT have to go up.

All that is needed is to adjust the cap. That will happen as soon as the stupid slime Rs in the House are in the minority.

On edit. Enjoy your short stay!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:33 PM

lonestarnot (70,429 posts)

14. Looks like someone didn't prepare. What about temporary holiday didn't you understand?

Dugh.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to lonestarnot (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:37 PM

NCTraveler (963 posts)

17. Guessing this is sarcasm. Normally I can easily detect it. nt.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 05:08 PM

ieoeja (7,718 posts)

24. Probably not sarcasm. The holiday was only two years.

Complaining about the holiday expiring on schedule is a bit like taking out a credit card with 0% interest for 6 months then complaining when the interest goes to 18% after 6 months.

When your social security taxes went down two years ago, did you think it was permanent?

Hope you enjoyed the extra money for awhile. But the holiday is over, and things are back to normal.

Given that the income tax holiday was a lot larger, I guess you would have been in a ton of trouble had the Democrats not just made that permanent. I assume you make much less money now as it certainly would have been foolish building such dependance on temporary income.

I'm so old I remember when the Democratic Party was economically responsible. Now they are just as bad as Republicans when it comes to not paying the bill. We have cut taxes a couple dozen times in my career. And every cut has led to more debt and a worsening economy. I miss the old party.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to ieoeja (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 05:14 PM

Sekhmets Daughter (2,577 posts)

27. Amen...

That Dems were fiscally responsible was one of my original attractions to the party.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to ieoeja (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 06:57 PM

NCTraveler (963 posts)

41. Were any other cuts set to expire. So no, it wasn't expected.

Many temporary cuts were just extended. I am sure you and lonestar are aware of that when making your arguments. You say they were temporary, so it is expected that they went up. Yet I just watched many temporary items get extended. I do understand the loss is not felt by some.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #41)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:43 AM

travis_mcgee (10 posts)

116. Yes, all of the Bush tax cuts were set to expire

And your income taxes would have also gone up. Lucky for you, the eeeevil Bush tax cuts were made permanent for 98% of income earners in the fiscal cliff deal.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to travis_mcgee (Reply #116)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:49 AM

NCTraveler (963 posts)

121. But should I have expected them to expire and planned on it.

That was what was inferred with the post to which I was replying. Lucky, I doubt it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #121)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:32 AM

Puzzledtraveller (878 posts)

142. You will find little sympathy here, it is less a trait these days of the left

Sadly. As I see many become like what they despise, it's a version of the "I got mine" attitude, except it's the "I'm doing okay, therefore most people must be" attitude.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:36 PM

LWolf (35,027 posts)

16. I won't be happy taking less money home.

I never wanted to take home more money by cutting what I was paying into SS.

I'd like to have the paycuts I've taken over the last 5 years to be restored.

COLA in my contract went away first. Not just future colas, but the cola we'd negotiated the previous spring. Disappeared; paycheck smaller.

Next the # of days in the contract was cut. Every year. This year, it amounts to fewer days of work. Since I'm paid a daily rate, per day worked, that hurts.

Then, 2 years ago, all step and column increases, based on years worked and further education, were frozen. We're all 2 years behind.

At first, I made up a little of the difference by taking on "extra duty." That's where you work extra hours outside of the contractual day for a stipend or an hourly rate. The stipend or hourly rate, rather than earning an amount equal to what it would be worth in the contractual day, pays about HALF of what I make if you divide my daily rate by the 8 hours I'm contracted to work to earn it. No time and a half for overtime, here. I have to work unpaid overtime just to finish my contractual duties, since they can't be finished in a contractual day. Add the "extra duties," and I'm at work 11 or 12 hours a day, every work day, and end up working on days off to try to keep up. I went in and worked a full day for nothing on New Year's Day so that I wouldn't be overwhelmed on Monday.

This year, I lost a stipend for an extra duty; it's become quite competitive, since so many of us haven't been able to make mortgages with reduced paychecks for the last few years, and those carroty stipends are being spread around.

So...I took on OTHER extra duties to try to make my own mortgage, and discovered that THIS year, they have cut the hourly rate for some of those duties in half. The same job, 50% of the previous pay.

I'd like to get a full contract, and full contractual pay, back. Then I wouldn't have to worry about extra duties. They'd have to hire people at decent wages to get those jobs done, instead of paying us less and less for more and more.

I WANT to pay full SS. At the rate I'm going, I'm not going to have much else to depend on when I retire in another decade or so. I'm going to need it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to LWolf (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:41 PM

NCTraveler (963 posts)

19. I hope in the end it all works out for you.

I hope you are able to get a full contract. Sorry that hope isn't much.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #19)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:23 AM

LWolf (35,027 posts)

169. Thanks for the good thoughts. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to LWolf (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 05:18 PM

Sekhmets Daughter (2,577 posts)

30. That is one awful story.

I hope things improve for you soon.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #30)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:23 AM

LWolf (35,027 posts)

170. I do, too. Thanks. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to LWolf (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:46 AM

travis_mcgee (10 posts)

117. If you keep voting for policies that harm business...

... then expect more of the same.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to travis_mcgee (Reply #117)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:02 AM

HughBeaumont (19,767 posts)

131. Oh look, we have a "success punisher" belcher.

What we're doing with the wealthy and their businesses in this country are light years . . . read, LIGHT YEARS away from "punishment". Your vaunted "business" is getting away with murder in America. The wealthy that run corporations are richer than ever and income inequality is WORSE than ever. What makes a peasant carry water for their "betters"? Think you'll BE them someday?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to travis_mcgee (Reply #117)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:17 AM

jpak (26,156 posts)

137. I vote for policies that hurt RW douchebags

expect more of the same...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to jpak (Reply #137)

Jim pel This message was hidden by Jury decision.

Response to travis_mcgee (Reply #117)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:16 AM

ProudToBeBlueInRhody (9,565 posts)

150. Go fuck yourself, freeper

Guess you get bored sucking RimJob all day?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to travis_mcgee (Reply #117)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:22 AM

LWolf (35,027 posts)

167. "Voting for policies that harm business."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:54 PM

ORINOCO (1 post)

20. Its OK

Your taxes went up because the leaders need to dig us out of this criminal deficit hole we are in which has been caused because taxes were too low during the Bush years. Everyone has to help by spreading the wealth around a little. Power to the correct people!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to ORINOCO (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 06:21 PM

Xipe Totec (28,895 posts)

37. Welcome to DU!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to ORINOCO (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:09 PM

leftstreet (21,609 posts)

46. LOL

Power to the correct people!

Indeed

Welcome to DU

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:59 PM

Amonester (9,793 posts)

21. If the tearorists succeeded to make you struggle too much, maybe DUers could...

help

Dunno what else to say.

Only hating these tearorists more.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 05:04 PM

madfloridian (77,105 posts)

23. Actually if that cut continued it would change the very nature of Social Security..

as self-funding.

From last year, several links:

Payroll tax cuts "rob the poor to feed the rich"...will harm those already on Social Security.

From Nancy Altman of Social Security Works:

"Given that the present Congress is unwilling to roll back the Bush tax cuts and raise even a nickel in additional taxes from millionaires," she says, "it's hard to believe that a more conservative Congress, in an election year, will increase the payroll tax from 4.2 to 6.2 percent — a 30 percent increase — on the very first dollar earned by virtually every single worker in the country." She thinks the cut could well become permanent.

If that happens, Social Security’s long-term shortfall could double over 75 years, she says, and political pressure to downsize the program could mount. That could lead to converting Social Security from a universal insurance program to a welfare program, with the numerous drawbacks of programs for the poor, including low public support. If this scenario unfolds, says Altman, "it's good-bye, Social Security."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to madfloridian (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:25 PM

AZ Progressive (302 posts)

51. Just to be clear, the holiday actually decreased SS taxes to 10.4% from 12.4%

Last edited Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:27 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2)

Your employer, even through the payroll tax holiday, has paid 6.2% tax on your income for Social Security. Sole Proprieters / small businesses owners have to pay both the employer and employee sides, which means that they have to pay the full 12.4% in income for social security tax / insurance now (and were paying 10.4% for the past 2 years.)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to AZ Progressive (Reply #51)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:48 AM

madfloridian (77,105 posts)

100. It's worth it for the cause.

I never expected that Medicare and Social Security would be put into play as political pawns. I just assumed they were, as Obama called them...."sacred cows". I believed they should remain sacred cows.

I remember my grandmother talking about the Great Depression years before SS was enacted in 1935. There had been no recourse till then.

Well, actually, I never thought I would see public education on the chopping block by both parties, so I am getting a lot of surprises lately.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to madfloridian (Reply #100)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:04 AM

PETRUS (2,216 posts)

102. Worth it? I don't know.

Last edited Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:04 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

I understand your point about how opponents of Social Security could (and would, I'm sure) argue about funding problems if we continued the payroll tax holiday. But, we are looking at around $100 billion dollars less in spending money in the hands of working Americans in the context of an economy already suffering from lack of demand. Without counteracting stimulus, that's a spoonful of austerity that is likely to result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs -- which sucks all by itself and will reduce tax collections anyway. We've been placed in a no win situation.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to madfloridian (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:42 PM

wryter2000 (33,223 posts)

59. Thank you

I figure I'm losing $936/year or $36 per payday. That's not insignificant, but I don't want to lose Social Security as a program. I want to collect for a few years.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 05:17 PM

Warpy (66,335 posts)

29. You were on holiday

You OASDI taxes went down for a few months. Now they've gone back up. That's what you're seeing. Your income tax didn't go up, just the bite Social Security takes.

Yeah, it hurts. It always hurts when money we think would always be there isn't any more. However, this was only temporary money.

And yeah, it hurts you a lot more since it cuts into what you need to live on. Mr. Billionaire isn't going to feel his 3% income tax hike, it's chump change. That won't stop him from shrieking how poor he is, though.

This wasn't part of the fiscal bluff deal. It was just the end of a holiday.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Warpy (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 06:59 PM

NCTraveler (963 posts)

42. Thanks for the reasoned reply.

I understand. Just kind of came at the wrong time. I think some people see 2% and say that it's not much. It is more than I expected. I will be fine, just kind of annoyed.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 05:19 PM

slackmaster (58,461 posts)

31. Don't worry about it. It's not really a tax.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022110863

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to slackmaster (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:41 PM

Trajan (15,446 posts)

58. OK ... I get your right wing gun philosophy ....

But when you seem to also support Conservative tax policy ...

I am running out of words to place in 'but he supports Liberal policies such as "____", "_____" and "_____"

I have noted your right wing slant ever since you came here ..... I argued with you regarding gun policies years ago, and recognized your right wing stance .... Now that it is clear you don't seem to support Democratic party positions regarding taxation, I have to ask: Where is it that your interests and the interests of Liberals and/or Democrats intersect ?

I think some honesty is in order ..... Aren't we tired of the pretenders ?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Trajan (Reply #58)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:42 AM

slackmaster (58,461 posts)

144. Whuh?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 05:28 PM

OhZone (210 posts)

34. im confused

You sound like you already have a check for this month... Its only the third

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to OhZone (Reply #34)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:00 PM

NCTraveler (963 posts)

43. Yes, I do have a check for this month. By tomorrow, everyone paid weekly will.

Not sure why you think they wouldn't.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #43)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:31 AM

Bluenorthwest (22,019 posts)

155. I have scant experience with 'weekly payroll' jobs. So please explain how and why you are paid

Last edited Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:38 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

in advance of services? How do they deal with those who quit during a month if they pay you all on the first for that month's work? I would have thought that on the first week of this month, you'd get paid for the last part of last month.
Please explain why they pay so many for things they have not yet done?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 05:30 PM

onethatcares (6,480 posts)

35. why did they deduct more

when the law just went into effect two days ago? It's not retroactive into 2012.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to onethatcares (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 05:58 PM

Freddie (1,135 posts)

36. Any IRS changes are effective with "wages paid in 2013"

Even if your pay period ended in 2012 the only thing the IRS cares about is the negotiable date on the check.
It's possible that your check was based on a federal tax (not FICA) table that was issued in Dec. which was presuming that ALL the Bush tax cuts would go away. The IRS issued new tables just today with the voted-on tax rates. Your employer should use the newest table for your next check and possibly your fed tax withholding will be reduced. Don't mind my talking shop I'm a payroll administrator.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to onethatcares (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:04 PM

geek_sabre (675 posts)

95. Regardless of any bill passage, the holiday expired Dec 31st

I'm a teacher, and I'm paid biweekly year round, so my Jan 2 paycheck is for 2013, not 2012. In the past three years, I've become used to my first paycheck of the year being screwed up, since congress can't seem to do their job before the winter recess. My employer "assumes the worst," and usually by the second pay period something passes, and future paychecks are adjusted, if needed.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to geek_sabre (Reply #95)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 06:44 AM

Freddie (1,135 posts)

105. If you got a check dated Jan. 2

Your federal tax (not FICA) was probably over-withheld as the IRS issued tables in Dec. assuming that all of the Bush tax cuts were going away. New tables were issued yesterday with the actual rates that were passed by Congress so your 2nd pay in 2013 should have the correct federal withholding.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 06:25 PM

ecstatic (18,321 posts)

38. Does anyone think congress will extend the payroll tax holiday at some point?

I know the increase isn't that much (for me it will be approx. $92 less per month--which now that I think about it, is a hell of a lot of money!), but it's really the principle that bothers me. Republicans didn't care one bit about the payroll tax holiday expiring, but they fought tooth and nail to protect the top 1 and 2%.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to ecstatic (Reply #38)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:02 PM

NCTraveler (963 posts)

44. It is more than I was expecting.

Mine was less than that per month, but still a good chunk. 2% sounds small. $92 isn't small.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to ecstatic (Reply #38)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:40 PM

PoliticAverse (4,930 posts)

76. At the end most Democrats and Republicans wanted it to expire, only President Obama was

really pushing it to continue.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 06:39 PM

New Proletariat (5 posts)

39. A Good Start

Hopefully this is just the beginning. I am tired of being poor and low class just because I wasn't born into privilege. I wish the government would confiscate property and equalize pay for all. Then we wouldn't have to worry about this. We would be provided for and taken care of in our old age on an equal basis, as we should be!!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to New Proletariat (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:08 PM

Amonester (9,793 posts)

45. Welcome to DU. :)

The gov. could go confiscate all those off-shore bank coffers where the money is hidden.

And if these foreign bank owners were to refuse cooperating, it should put all these drone ships to good use for once.

Too bad it won't ever happen (or I don't think so).

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Amonester (Reply #45)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:19 PM

bigapple1963 (6 posts)

48. so you are advocating an offensive war

to steal other countries' resources?

Is that a progressive position?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to bigapple1963 (Reply #48)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:43 PM

Amonester (9,793 posts)

60. No.

It's not a progressive position.

Why even ask if it's one?

Although hidding money away is as old as money itself, I am not advocating something that will never happen.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Amonester (Reply #45)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:20 PM

DonViejo (2,125 posts)

49. I don't think New Proletariat will be around DU

too long.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to DonViejo (Reply #49)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:40 PM

New Proletariat (5 posts)

77. Interesting...

threat.... :/

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to New Proletariat (Reply #77)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:01 AM

DonViejo (2,125 posts)

130. Not a threat at all...

just a statement of thought triggered by your comment.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to New Proletariat (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:28 PM

OldDem2012 (2,190 posts)

53. So, are you taking any bets?....

....on how long you last on DU?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #53)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 08:11 PM

New Proletariat (5 posts)

70. Not taking any bets....

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to New Proletariat (Reply #39)

OldHardHead This message was hidden by Jury decision.

Response to New Proletariat (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:31 PM

blcartwright (12 posts)

73. if everyone received the same

regardless of whether they worked for it or not, then how many would bother working for it? Once they stop working, where does the govt go to confiscate that which they would give to you? As they used to joke in the Soviet Union "I pretend to work, they pretend to pay me". Everyone was poor and low class, except members of the party, who were more equal than the others.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to blcartwright (Reply #73)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:36 PM

hunter (15,184 posts)

75. I guess we should just let the people who can't find work starve or die of exposure.

Great philosophy you've got there...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to hunter (Reply #75)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:55 PM

blcartwright (12 posts)

81. the point was

if more work never brings more in return, there is no incentive for people to work. Of course we need a safety net but if there's no for achieving little will be achieved.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to blcartwright (Reply #81)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:22 PM

hunter (15,184 posts)

90. It's my experience that most people want to work.

So much so that many work for abusive employers who pay less than subsistence wages.

That's wrong.

The minimum wage needs to be increased and welfare benefits ought to be generous enough to compete directly with crappy, abusive employers.

Every last person ought to be able to say "Take this job and shove it!" without fear of starvation or homelessness.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to hunter (Reply #90)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:55 AM

blcartwright (12 posts)

104. I agree

Last edited Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:56 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

and I always want the employee to have to leverage to walk away from a bad situation.

Employers need incentives to treat workers fairly, and workers need incentives/rewards to maximize productivity. If you work your ass off, but your coworker sleeps the shift away and gets paid the same as you, how long is it before you either kick his ass or slack off yourself? If someone is not rewarded for their work they will start to lose desire. This is abusive if done by an employer, but no less so if it's by govt mandate (pay everyone the same)

_______________________

As employees we are selling our labor. How much is that labor worth? If someone is doing $5 worth of work but the govt says to pay that person $8, there's an increased chance the person will lose their job. Too high of a minimum wage can then cost jobs.

It's up to us to make our labor worth as much as possible. If anyone else off the street can do the same job with little or no training, why would an employer want to pay anything more than minimum?

I made $3.50 an hour delivering pizzas and flipping burgers to pay for college, then got a $4.82/hr ($10k/yr) job doing data entry in a bank. When I had an interview for a job in my field, I told them I was making $5/hr.

I've been with the company for 27 years now and make 7x that in the same job description. I know more about computers than my coworkers and have been given responsibilities. Now I'm 53, but over the past 5 years I've taught myself database programming. Even tonight I found (through LinkedIn) a website that has free books, downloaded a couple to brush up on my probability & statistics and learn some new programming techniques. All the data, software & instructional materials I've found free on the web.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to blcartwright (Reply #104)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:29 PM

ReasonedThoughts (1 post)

191. Time Well Spent

blcartwright I applaud you for investing in yourself over the years to be a more valuable employee. It looks as though your investments have paid off and have been recognized by your employer. How many others on this board who are either unemployed, underemployed or not making the money they believe they should have done what you have done and invested in themselves?

Robert Kiyosaki who wrote the Rich Dad, Poor Dad book series has always said that "the only difference between the rich and poor is how they decide to spend their free time". You have taken the initiative to improve yourself and have been rewarded for that. Congratulations!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to hunter (Reply #90)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 06:57 AM

FlowerGurl (6 posts)

107. Every last person does have the ability to say "Take this job and shove it"

If you don't like or want your job, everyone has the right to go look for another position, or start your own business. The problem is that the employees that do have excellent work ethics usually do well or preplan and look for an employer that is more appreciative, and the ones that don't have stellar work ethics say "take this job and shove it" prior to ensuring they have alternative employment. Why should someone have to make sure you aren't starving or homeless because you don't like your job and decided to quit before you had a new one?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to FlowerGurl (Reply #107)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 07:15 AM

blcartwright (12 posts)

108. 25 years ago when I moved to the DC area

it was because of a lack of jobs back home in Pa. There were lots of us in northern Va, and what I heard from employers was that they liked hiring people from our area because we appreciated having a job. Growing up in a steel town where layoffs were too common, you learned from your parents to never quit a job until you had something new lined up. The people from the DC area grew up with plentiful jobs and seemed to have no problem giving minimal effort, as they knew that even if they were fired they could get something else right away.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to blcartwright (Reply #73)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:45 PM

New Proletariat (5 posts)

78. Inheritance tax?

It would be interesting to crunch the numbers. Would a 100% estate tax do away for the need for an income tax?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to New Proletariat (Reply #78)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:08 PM

blcartwright (12 posts)

87. I don't think so

even if there was no exemption for the inheritance tax. 2013 fed income tax revenues expected to be $1.7 trillion http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/fed_revenue_2013USrn I have to think that's more than the net worth of everyone who died in 2012.

Plus, losing 100% of assets at death would be a great incentive for people to do something else with the money - spend it before they die or give it away under the table. The worst problem is that many of the assets are not cash but homes & businesses - survivors would have to sell family homes & business to pay the tax, some of which happens now but would be greatly exacerbated.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to blcartwright (Reply #73)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:21 PM

dpibel (948 posts)

89. Isn't it fun when they talk to themselves?

This little subthread has had three posters who chose this as the place to make their debut.

What an amazing coincidence!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to blcartwright (Reply #73)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:26 AM

SammyWinstonJack (34,831 posts)

154. Who left the freakin' door open?

speaking of low class

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:19 PM

kenny blankenship (14,673 posts)

47. Had to pay for permanent taxcuts for rich professionals somehow.

Last edited Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:22 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Barack Obama says HELLO!

(standby: in two months we get the rest of the bill)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to kenny blankenship (Reply #47)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:32 PM

customerserviceguy (14,143 posts)

55. Well said

The folks making minimum wage got only a few hundred bucks, while those at or over the cap got a couple of thousand dollars.

The Making Work Pay credit made much more sense for ordinary working people.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to kenny blankenship (Reply #47)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:55 AM

travis_mcgee (10 posts)

126. What on Earth are you talking about?

What "tax cuts for rich professionals" do you mean? The fiscal cliff legislation locked in the Clinton-era rates for individuals making over $400k, and married couples making $450k (which might lead a lot of high-earning married couples to get divorced), and permanently locked in the Bush tax cuts for everyone else.

Btw, SS doesn't come from the general treasury fund. What makes you think that income tax cuts have anything to do with it?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:25 PM

magical thyme (3,155 posts)

52. That seems odd. Wouldn't a paycheck received right now

Last edited Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:36 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

reflect earnings for 2012? So wouldn't the old rates still be in effect?

Ok, I've just read that you are paid weekly and that the drop was almost a week's grocery money. Still, at most 3 days of this check would reflect a change for this tax year, so you would only be seeing about half of the increase...at most.

If you made minimum wage (what is that now, $7 and change) full time you'd be grossing about $300/week. A 2% increase would be $6.00/week...hardly grocery money.

If you make, say, $15.00 hour, full time you'd gross $600/week and your 2% increase would be $12/week. Still not a week's groceries.

If you spend $25/week on groceries (pretty tight budget at today's prices), you'd need to be earning more than $30/hour and grossing $1250/week.

It's not making sense. Are you sure there isn't some other change reflected in your paycheck that has nothing to do with the end of the tax holiday?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to magical thyme (Reply #52)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:32 PM

NCTraveler (963 posts)

56. No. The date on the check is what matters.

That is when it is consedered to have been earned. When it is paid out.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #56)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:39 PM

magical thyme (3,155 posts)

57. even so, it's hard to believe it's that big a change

with a low income, unless you eat a freakishly small amount of food.

If you made minimum wage (what is that now, $7 and change) full time you'd be grossing about $300/week. A 2% increase would be $6.00/week...hardly grocery money.

If you make, say, $15.00 hour, full time you'd gross $600/week and your 2% increase would be $12/week. Still not a week's groceries.

If you spend $25/week on groceries (pretty tight budget at today's prices), you'd need to be earning more than $30/hour and grossing $1250/week.

It's not making sense. Are you sure there isn't some other change reflected in your paycheck that has nothing to do with the end of the tax holiday?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to magical thyme (Reply #57)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:44 PM

NCTraveler (963 posts)

62. $24 a month might not be grocery money to you.

But it is to soeone making minimum wage.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:30 PM

customerserviceguy (14,143 posts)

54. It's that much less that the deficit goes up for Social Security

The holiday was funded by a transfer of money from the general fund to the Social Security Administration. Since the general fund doesn't cover all of its expenses by taxes raised, some of that money was borrowed, about a third of it.

At least that's ending. Of course, the baby boomers are still coming of either regular or early retirement age, and we will indeed need other things to shore up the system.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:45 PM

1StrongBlackMan (4,211 posts)

63. Nothing, it's just a dream ...

Last edited Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:47 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

go back to sleep.

I find it highly unlikely anyone posting on DU, let alone someone with close to 1,000 posts, would be sincere in that question.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:49 PM

jberryhill (27,740 posts)

64. How did you get your first 2013 paycheck on Thursday, January 3rd?

Last edited Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:49 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

What pay period did that cover?

Do you get paid every two days?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to jberryhill (Reply #64)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 08:11 PM

chrisau214 (218 posts)

69. The Date on the Check Is What Matters

The dates worked are irrelevant.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to chrisau214 (Reply #69)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:35 AM

Bluenorthwest (22,019 posts)

157. That is simply not true. Tax rates are counted from the time and place you did the work, not

from the time or place the check gets cut for that work. Yes. The dates worked are the only thing that is relevant.
This OP is claiming to be paid in advance and taxed in reverse, and that is confusing stuff.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to jberryhill (Reply #64)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:33 PM

blcartwright (12 posts)

74. money show up in ym bank abt 7 am tomorrow

but I got statement from my employer today. I'm $112 shorter than with the holiday.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to blcartwright (Reply #74)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:54 PM

dflprincess (19,349 posts)

80. How often are you paid?

And, are you sure your state or local withholding didn't go up as well?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to dflprincess (Reply #80)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:02 PM

blcartwright (12 posts)

85. paid every two weeks

just checked my pay stub vs spreadsheet I keep, FICA rate was only one that changed. Pa state remains 3.07%, no change in Fed income tax or Medicare (1.45%).

Any pay rate raise would come next check.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to blcartwright (Reply #85)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:31 PM

dflprincess (19,349 posts)

92. Did you check the math?

I was fiddling around calculating what my difference will be so I'm not surprised (looks to be about $53.08/check) and so I started trying figure out what would make such a big difference for you .

Even if you made the 2013 limit of $113,700/year getting paid every two weeks the 2% increase comes out to $87.46 per check. (113,700*.02 = $2,274/26 = $87.46).

Sorry, I'm a data analyst, I can't help myself.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to dflprincess (Reply #92)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:45 PM

blcartwright (12 posts)

98. the math for my SS deduction?

$347.54 was withheld. At 4.2% it would be abt $235. Yeah, I make a lot, but I did start at the company, in the same job description, making $5/hr in 1985.

I work in data science, in an engineering related field, but might be moving into sports management.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:57 PM

Riley18 (1,075 posts)

65. I lose around $80 a month, but I know the

money goes back to SS. However, the unfortunate part is that I did not get any raises in the meantime. Living in Floriduh I actually lost 3% to Rick Scott. So public workers in this state will actually be down 5% of pay.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 08:06 PM

RebelOne (25,472 posts)

67. You will be thankful when you retire and receive your social security checks.

I paid into Social Security for over 50 years and I am thankful that I did pay social security taxes because that is what I have to live on now.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to RebelOne (Reply #67)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:22 PM

LoneMarauder (1 post)

91. I'm 37

I'll never see a social security check.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to LoneMarauder (Reply #91)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:07 PM

Little Star (10,362 posts)

176. If you people keep helping to elect republicans that is almost guaranteed.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:13 PM

RomneyLies (2,901 posts)

72. See post 87. eom

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:56 PM

JDPriestly (35,151 posts)

82. You are being asked to pay the Social Security tax that you used to pay before Obama

gave a payroll tax vacation.

Your tax did not go up. It was artificially low there for a while.

You will get it back when you need it even more than you do now. Don't worry. Stay happy and healthy. You will get it back.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:08 PM

doc03 (13,494 posts)

88. For all those bitching and whining about the 2%

increase in the payroll tax. Do you folks understand the word (temporary)? I retired in 2009
I paid 100% of my payroll taxes for 46 years in order to retire and get a SS check. If you all want to retire someday and you expect to receive SS you have to fund the program. If you don't like paying the 2% why don't we just give you the other 4.2% and just do away with SS.
I know for some people 2% is a lot of money. If you made $10 an hour you have received a total of $832 over the last two years that you otherwise would not have.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to doc03 (Reply #88)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:47 PM

New Proletariat (5 posts)

93. Don't give them the oportunity...

...to take "the other 4% and do away with SS." That is exactly what some would like to do!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to New Proletariat (Reply #93)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:11 PM

doc03 (13,494 posts)

96. I am just so disgusted I can't even make any more comments n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to New Proletariat (Reply #93)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:46 AM

green for victory (208 posts)

103. Welcome to DU! stoopid hurtz i hurd /no further text follows after this period.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to New Proletariat (Reply #93)

WillyF This message was hidden by Jury decision.

Response to doc03 (Reply #88)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:38 AM

SammyWinstonJack (34,831 posts)

158. All this bitching and whining is why this tax holiday was the dumbest idea, period.

Stupid, stupid, STUPID!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 06:48 AM

RandiFan1290 (1,178 posts)

106. You are supposed to SAVE that $$ for your retirement. Not spend it

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:25 AM

Shrek (2,008 posts)

109. Hey, National Review linked your post

I guess they lurk here.

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Shrek (Reply #109)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:43 AM

RandiFan1290 (1,178 posts)

115. It's probably their OP

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Shrek (Reply #109)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:23 AM

CJCRANE (12,908 posts)

153. Please see post #149

I think the OP is being somewhat disingenuous.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:48 AM

Puzzledtraveller (878 posts)

120. Same here, I will find out on the 15th, not looking forward to it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:15 AM

jpak (26,156 posts)

136. The Delicate Flowers cannot bear to pay for Social Security

Clue: SS in NOT an "entitlement" it is a benefit you pay for...

The Obama payroll tax cut was only supposed to be temporary.

Get over it.

yup

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to jpak (Reply #136)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:21 AM

Puzzledtraveller (878 posts)

140. I am a food stamp and medicaid caseworker

You think this doesn't hurt people, and you seem insenstive to maybe people not knowing about this but many people don't, many people do not spend all their time on boards like this or watching cable news.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #140)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:30 AM

jpak (26,156 posts)

141. I think it didn't hurt people before the temporary tax holiday was enacted

and I think it won't hurt people now.

It strengthens Social Security.

That is what you pay for...

Get a clue.

yup

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:16 AM

CJCRANE (12,908 posts)

149. Your OP seemed just a little too faux-naif so I searched the archives

and look what I found, another OP by you on Dec 20th titled "The Fiscal Cliff "Cliff Notes":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022037899

Excerpt:

Taxes

1)Bush Tax Cuts. About 203 billion.

2)2009 Stimulus - Includes expansion of Earned Income Tax Credit, American Opportunity tax credit. Cost of about 10 billion.

3)Payroll Tax Holiday - Reduced payroll tax on employees from 6.2 to 4.2 percent. Cost of about 115 billion.

4)Alternative Minimum Tax - Would not be patched as normally done. Cost of about 114 billion.

5)Extenders - Corporate tax breaks that are routinely extended. Cost of about 109 billion.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to CJCRANE (Reply #149)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:22 AM

greatauntoftriplets (126,543 posts)

152. Good catch!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:55 AM

MjolnirTime (1,182 posts)

161. Nice try, troll.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:00 AM

Ganja Ninja (15,328 posts)

163. Buck up!

You'll get it all back plus interest when you start collecting Social Security.

And by the way, that money coming out of your check proves that Social Security is not a "free ride" or welfare of any kind.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Ganja Ninja (Reply #163)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:16 PM

AZ Progressive (302 posts)

189. For some of us that is in 30+ years

And thats given that it will survive the assault by republicans and third way democrats.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:03 AM

Ash_F (1,094 posts)

164. Thread title is attracting a lot of Freeper drive-byes

Obama wanted to extend the holiday but house pubs weren't having it. REPUBLICANS raised your taxes freepers!

Remember that.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:27 PM

donbrown54 (1 post)

179. Money owed to the Social Security Trust

As of the latest report from Social Security Trust Fund the General Fund owes 2,596,371,000,000 dollars to the Social Security Trust Fund so it is in no way broke. You are now paying what you were supposed to. The tax was just suspended for a couple of years.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Luca This message was hidden by Jury decision.

Response to Luca (Reply #182)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:02 PM

L0oniX (15,535 posts)

184. Elvis has left the building. n/t

Last edited Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:03 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:15 PM

BanTheGOP (997 posts)

188. RUSH LIMBAUGH just read this letter on air

Last edited Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:31 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Be careful what you write here. The Wingnuts are listening!!

Edit: If you noticed DU down for a couple of minutes around 1:20 pm eastern, that's because his cretins crashed the system looking for this.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #188)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:05 PM

Rex (31,960 posts)

200. They are so pathetically desperate that their traditional hate sites

FR and CC are given a pass!

Total failsauce!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:25 PM

REACTIVATED IN CT (2,939 posts)

190. Your takehome pay should be 2% less, in general

In 2012 as part of the stimulus there was a 2% decrease in the Soc Sec tax rate from6.2% TO 4.2%).
I say "in general" because you don't necessarily pay SS tax on all of your wages. Contributions to a Sec. 125 Plan such as a Flexible Spending Account (Sec. 125 Cafeteria Plan)reduce your SS taxable wages

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:38 PM

AZ Progressive (302 posts)

192. BTW, I wonder how many people know that a total of 12.4% of their income goes toward SS

Most people will see their SS withholdings go up to 6.2%, but their employer has been paying another 6.2%, for a total of 12.4% for Social Security (and 10.4% for the past 2 years.) Now whether or not you believe that your employer would pay you 6.2% more if they wouldn't be paying for your SS is up to you. However, small business owners and sole proprieters / freelancers have to pay the full 12.4% of their income, and combined with medicare taxes, about 15% of their income now (and add that to federal income taxes and state income taxes.)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:04 PM

Juan Nation (2 posts)

199. 0. What happened that my SS withholdings in my paycheck just went up.

i just know that i am PISSED.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Juan Nation (Reply #199)

houkster This message was hidden by Jury decision.

Response to houkster (Reply #206)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:26 PM

Rex (31,960 posts)

211. And who put them in debt? Republicans.

Not that facts matter to you in the least bit. That is so sad that your side needs DU to validate things for them. You are all lost little children that still think you can find your way out of the forest.

Pathetic. Back to the bridge with this one!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:06 PM

Rex (31,960 posts)

202. They are withholding a dollar more per paycheck for me

but FOR SOME REASON, I doubt the hate sites are interested in that as much as the sensationalism they can create with the OP.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:06 PM

GeorgeGist (8,844 posts)

203. You worked ONE-TWO day this year and your paycheck went down by an uncomfortable amount?

Last edited Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:07 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #203)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:10 PM

Rex (31,960 posts)

205. I like your bullshitometer!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:08 PM

slackmaster (58,461 posts)

204. I just got my first fortnightly paycheck for 2013. It's $113.08 less than my previous paycheck.

That's $2,940.08 less that I will be able to spend on discretionary purchases this year.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to slackmaster (Reply #204)

houkster This message was hidden by Jury decision.

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

marty waltin This message was hidden by Jury decision.

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:20 PM

Juan Nation (2 posts)

210. fsdasadf

democrats are going to have to work PRETTY DAMN HARD TO GET MY VOTE IN THE FUTURE. IF IT'S EVEN POSSIBLE. MY GIRL AND I COMBINED ARE TAKING A HIT HERE.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Juan Nation (Reply #210)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:29 PM

Rex (31,960 posts)

212. How did you find this site?

Just curious.

Cannot reply in locked threads

General Discussion (Forum)