Forum Groups

 

Forums / Politics / extend payroll tax with pipeline?

extend payroll tax with pipeline?

23 posts
  1. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    12/14/2011 11:12 AM
    You all know which way I typically lean, but putting the pipeline issue on the extending the payroll tax isn't smart in my opinion. I like things to stand on their own merit when drafting legislation, just wonder why the republicans wanted to add that important issue to the tax extension bill? I understand they don't want to surtax millionaires on the 2nd and 3rd millions to pay for it, but I would have thought both sides could find some compromise to pay for the extension without adding the pipe line. The pipe line which I don't have a problem with personally, but because of the possible implications to Nebraska and other areas that should be thoroughly debated, which it won't being attached to this bill, in my opinion.

    Interested in hearing others thoughts.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  2. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    12/14/2011 12:12 PM
    Hmmmmmm one reason could be that the pipeline creates some fairly high paying jobs for a considerable amount of time. As far pipelines causing someone a problem......well there are approximately 50 gazillion miles of pipeline underneath this country of ours many since the turn of the century. We go about our daily lives with little thought or worry about a pipeline 50 ' below the surface. Unfortunately Mel BOTH sides are always guilty of hanging some langinappe onto a bill...........it ain't new.



  3. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    12/14/2011 2:12 PM
    The pipeline was a non-issue. The President was given 60-days in the House Bill to ensure that adequate time was allowed for environmental studies to be completed prior to the beginning of construction. The killer is asking Federal Employees, the elderly, the unemployed and healthcare reform to pay for it while giving the million plus earners a pass.



  4. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    12/14/2011 2:12 PM
    I get what you are saying David, and don't disagree, but heck when the president told them that he would veto it and they still put it in, I just don't understand it. I know both sides do it, just wish they wouldn't.

    Another question on the jobs it would provide, and I guess this goes to both sides in their campaign promises and political speak. For example, word is that the pipe line would provide 20,000 jobs, some independent I think it was an university study said it would provide 3,500. Who's right on this? And like I said I hear it in other campaign speeches and debates, the president when he is talking, is there really a way to track all of this stuff.

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  5. Kauffman John M
    Kauffman John M avatar
    12/14/2011 3:12 PM
    BallMark said: but heck when the president told them that he would veto it and they still put it in, I just don't understand it.


    This quote tells us a lot about how we think in regards to government function. It insinuates that the president is the end-all-be-all of legislation, as well as indiciating that he knows what's best for everyone. I think the last three years have accentuated that the president doesn't know what's best for everyone.

    Even if you think he does knoz best, the president isn't in control in our country -- Congress is in control. Although its unlikely, Congress could override a veto. A threat of veto doesn't mean much.

    What I find interesting to watch is how political parties don't maintain a consistent ideology. Republicans usually claim to despise big government, but they instituted one of the largest expansions of Medicare. Democrats usually like progressive tax policy and Social Security, but the payroll tax cut they're looking for takes funds away from Social Security, and it benefits those at the top of the scale more than thoseat the bottom. If you make $100,000 you get a $2,000 tax cut. But, if you make $20,000 you only get a $400 tax break. Why do the $100k people need a bigger tax break than the $20k people?



  6. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    12/14/2011 3:12 PM
    jkauffm1 said: ...they're looking for takes funds away from Social Security


    The 3% tax on incomes over $1 million is supposed to pay for the 2% payroll tax break.



  7. Sandy Clark
    Sandy Clark avatar
    0 posts
    12/14/2011 3:12 PM
    Because they are already paying nearly all the taxes! Why should someone else be picking up the tab for another persons Social Security? It was a stupid tax break in the first place. Now people feel entitled to pay less of their portion and expect someone else to take on that responsibility. Everyone seems to think that other peoples money will solve all of their problems. Funny thing about that belief, it has never worked!



  8. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    12/14/2011 3:12 PM
    sandy1 said: Because they are already paying nearly all the taxes! Why should someone else be picking up the tab for another persons Social Security? It was a stupid tax break in the first place. Now people feel entitled to pay less of their portion and expect someone else to take on that responsibility. Everyone seems to think that other peoples money will solve all of their problems. Funny thing about that belief, it has never worked!


    Rush Limbaugh and Fox News want Obama and in turn this country to fail. Supply side economics does not work. It is time to put money into the hands of people who not only need it, they spend it. It is not fair to hit me up for 2% of everything I make when the alternative is 3% of everything over $1 million. Demand creates jobs.



  9. Sandy Clark
    Sandy Clark avatar
    0 posts
    12/14/2011 3:12 PM
    The Congress should force Obama's hand. Is he for jobs or for some other agenda? That project has been studied to death and even re-routed. We need the 20,000 good paying jobs directly related to the pipeline and the other 18,000 jobs that are also affiliated. Obama is only pushing this off in order to maintain the environmentalist vote. If he were to be elected and be a lame duck, he will throw the environmentalists under the bus anyway. Now who is playing politics. The Republicans have said yes to maintaining the foolish tax cut to Social Security and yes to creating jobs. Reid and Obama are the ones playing politics. Just have to love Boxer for being able to read the future and count dead bodies and blame the Republicans.



  10. Kauffman John M
    Kauffman John M avatar
    12/14/2011 3:12 PM
    wahlins said:
    sandy1 said: Because they are already paying nearly all the taxes! Why should someone else be picking up the tab for another persons Social Security? It was a stupid tax break in the first place. Now people feel entitled to pay less of their portion and expect someone else to take on that responsibility. Everyone seems to think that other peoples money will solve all of their problems. Funny thing about that belief, it has never worked!


    Rush Limbaugh and Fox News want Obama and in turn this country to fail. Supply side economics does not work. It is time to put money into the hands of people who not only need it, they spend it. It is not fair to hit me up for 2% of everything I make when the alternative is 3% of everything over $1 million. Demand creates jobs.


    We had a thread not long ago about how supply side economics works, why it works, when it has worked, and why demand side economics had not worked. You responded that you didn't like to read about it. Remember, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.



  11. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    12/14/2011 4:12 PM
    I think it should be possible to make your point without taking up too much of somebody's time. The Bush Supply-Side fiasco is not even history, and you want to repeat it!



  12. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    12/14/2011 4:12 PM
    sandy1 said: The Congress should force Obama's hand. Is he for jobs or for some other agenda? That project has been studied to death and even re-routed. We need the 20,000 good paying jobs directly related to the pipeline and the other 18,000 jobs that are also affiliated. Obama is only pushing this off in order to maintain the environmentalist vote. If he were to be elected and be a lame duck, he will throw the environmentalists under the bus anyway. Now who is playing politics. The Republicans have said yes to maintaining the foolish tax cut to Social Security and yes to creating jobs. Reid and Obama are the ones playing politics. Just have to love Boxer for being able to read the future and count dead bodies and blame the Republicans.


    Like I said before, the pipeline was a non-issue. Obama was given everything he needed to put that off as long as he wanted. The problem is asking more from the poor, weak and infirm when there is a class of people in this country who are making more than their wildest dreams because the own the political process. The country is what is important not the mega rich, and the conservatives have lost sight of that.



  13. Kauffman John M
    Kauffman John M avatar
    12/14/2011 4:12 PM
    wahlins said:
    jkauffm1 said: ...they're looking for takes funds away from Social Security


    The 3% tax on incomes over $1 million is supposed to pay for the 2% payroll tax break.


    This isn't quite as simple as the talking heads make it sound. It doesn't need to be paid for at all, I suppose. The first payroll tax holiday wasn't paid for -- it cut revenues to Social Security by $105 billion. The backwards way the government treats SS money is what the flap is all about.

    Social Security doesn't operate out of a lockbox or a special account -- it operates just like any other expenditure would. But, to keep acocunts seperate, it is accounted for differently. Since its inception, the law has required that all payroll tax funds in excess of what was needed for Social Security, MediCare, and MedicAid for the year were to be used to buy government bonds, which allows the government to spend that money as it pleases. The bonds are cashed in to fund Social Security, MediCare, or MedicAid when inputs are less than expenditures, as they were in 2010.

    So, what does this have to do with paying for the tax cut? Bonds are counted as debt and must pay interest. When payroll taxes are cut, the loaned money in the form of bonds becomes due. The governmetn doesn't havethe money to pay back to itself what it borrowed, so it needs to make up for it somehow other than simply OK'ing more debt -- the credit agencies wouldn't look favorably on that.

    If it were as easy as taxing millionaires more, then why don't we do it? The democrats in the Roosevelt Administration in the 1930s and 40s knew about the volatility of higher incomes (it was even written about by French economist Bastiat in the 1800s). As I had posted some time ago, between 2009 and 2011, higher income folks saw their incomes drop much more (both in real dollar and percentage) than lower income folks. Even in the 1940s, they saw that high incomes couldn't be the source for social program funds, since they're more volatile and provide a much less stable funding source.

    But, to answer my rhetorical question and Scott's rebuttal, the payroll tax holiday was not paid for in its first incarnation and will not be paid for now. The millionaire surtax is all about replacing the money that the payroll tax would have lent to the government. Cutting the payroll tax will still short-change Social Secutiry.



  14. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    12/14/2011 4:12 PM
    Once again, if I am going to take this much time reading an article I am going to do it with someone whose credentials have presented to me. If you have credentials I would be happy to read those first.



  15. Kauffman John M
    Kauffman John M avatar
    12/14/2011 5:12 PM
    wahlins said: Once again, if I am going to take this much time reading an article I am going to do it with someone whose credentials have presented to me. If you have credentials I would be happy to read those first.


    You didn't read anything I posted from those with economic credentials and you post only videos from people who coudln't be farther from credentialed. But, I'll give it a try.

    The condensed version:

    1) The first payroll tax cut wasn't paid for ($1.5 billion cut in Social Security funds)
    2) The millionaire tax doesn't pay for it, either -- it only pays for some of the loans behind the SS mess
    3) Even if milloinaire tax is passed, SS funds are still cut by more than $100 billion
    4) Its been known for years that high incomes are volatile, so they aren't a good source for safety net funding

    Sorry to have taken up so much of your time.



  16. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    12/14/2011 5:12 PM
    I like the condensed version. It still does not convince me that supply side economics is the way to go. Common sense tells me that America works because if there is a need someone will fill it, even if they have to pay taxes on the income they make.



  17. Kauffman John M
    Kauffman John M avatar
    12/14/2011 5:12 PM
    Maybe it doesn't convince you because you haven't taken the time to understand it.

    Recall Frederic Bastiat, the French economist:

    There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that cannot be seen.

    There are effects of all actions that go beyond the initial impact. You know that when a life is lost in a traffic accident, it affects more people than just the ones in the cars. Similarly, when taxes are levied, it impacts behavior beyond the simple act of collecting the tax.

    I am considering all behavior -- the impact on the family of the accident victim, if you will. You are only looking at the collection of the tax -- the impact for only the accident victim.



  18. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    12/15/2011 6:12 AM
    Mel,
    Not sure how many jobs will be created but a lot for certain. Working in non right to work states many of the jobs will be union and high paying and even in the right to work states the pay is high. But another thing is certain, we can build it, pump the oil to Texas and let American companies refine it or the Canadians will build a pipeline to the west coast and China will buy it. We hear the president constantly preaching energy independence, perhaps its time to see if he can actually walk the walk. JK......you're talking to the deaf, it's a no win arguement on your part.



  19. Mark Claburn
    Mark Claburn avatar
    6 posts
    12/15/2011 4:12 PM
    I would be VERY skeptical of any study that says this pipeline will create only 3500 jobs, A new pipeline went through the Permian Basin in the mid 80's and unemployment went from around 18% ( due to the oil collapse) quickly down to 6%. You couldn't get a welder because everyone was on the pipeline. The 3 inch stack of applications at the grocery store I worked at disappeared-I even was able to get extra work doing oilfield construction. The XL pipeline isn't new, just new opposition. Here is a link from Plains Pipeline that shows all of the major lines-I grew up in that mess in west Texas and somehow we didn't suffer an environmental collapse.

    http://www.paalp.com/fw/main/Our_Asstes ... -1570.html

    Mark Claburn-degreed economist UNT '99 (for Scott)
    Arlington, Texas



  20. Mark Claburn
    Mark Claburn avatar
    6 posts
    12/15/2011 5:12 PM
    if you want to see how truly silly the XL pipeline controversy is compare this:



    http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengr ... fullscreen
    to this:
    http://www.vector1media.com/spatialsust ... l_pipe.jpg



  21. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    12/19/2011 7:12 AM
    [This message has been deleted in conjunction with GCSAA's forum policies.]



  22. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    12/20/2011 9:12 AM
    Damn forgot what I wrote.....obviously not up to standards.



  23. Trevor Monreal
    Trevor Monreal avatar
    5 posts
    12/22/2011 1:12 PM
    Never mind...my post didn't quite fit.



View or change your forums profile here.