Again, the impact of removing as much as $150 billion from the already weak consumer economy seem to be lost on opponents of the extension. Or, they just want to screw the President.
SOURCE
Showing posts with label extension. Show all posts
Showing posts with label extension. Show all posts
Thursday, December 8, 2011
What Not Extending The Payroll Cut Looks Like
Dec 8th, 2011
Again, the impact of removing as much as $150 billion from the already weak consumer economy seem to be lost on opponents of the extension. Or, they just want to screw the President.
SOURCE
Again, the impact of removing as much as $150 billion from the already weak consumer economy seem to be lost on opponents of the extension. Or, they just want to screw the President.
SOURCE
Thursday, September 8, 2011
The Coming Republican Tax Increase
Sept 8th, 2011
by F. Grey Parker
One of President Obama's central talking points in this evening's "jobs speech" was the call to extend the current "payroll tax cut." I think we, the people, can expect the Republicans not to do so.
Really. They are planning to raise taxes. Disproportionately on the poor. That's their plan.
Sara Murray writes today in the WSJ:
"The tax cut reduced an employee's share of the Social Security payroll tax to 4.2% from 6.2% for 2011, at a cost to the government of $111.7 billion."
As a regular reader of the Journal, this is very telling. It is not often that the editors of this particular outlet allow a tax cut to be referred to as a "cost to the government." In fairness, Murray's piece is not overtly participatory in the War on the Poor. She points to one factor that may have mitigated the policy's benefit:
by F. Grey Parker
Really. They are planning to raise taxes. Disproportionately on the poor. That's their plan.
Sara Murray writes today in the WSJ:
"The tax cut reduced an employee's share of the Social Security payroll tax to 4.2% from 6.2% for 2011, at a cost to the government of $111.7 billion."
As a regular reader of the Journal, this is very telling. It is not often that the editors of this particular outlet allow a tax cut to be referred to as a "cost to the government." In fairness, Murray's piece is not overtly participatory in the War on the Poor. She points to one factor that may have mitigated the policy's benefit:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
