Originally Posted by Dvae (Post 19415950)

Let me get this straight the Bush tax cuts were a tax increase when the expired but the Obama payroll tax is not a tax increase when it expired.
What kind of screwy thinking is this?

Originally Posted by SAC (Post 19416048)

the employer doesnt pay shit on their employees behalf FICA is factored into employees wage/salary. basically all working slaves pay 15% flat tax to the govt on first $113,700

Originally Posted by epitome (Post 19416065)

The Bush tax cuts were temporary in nature in that they had to keep being renewed. Only idiots call the expiration of something temporary an increase. If I recall it is your kind that was running around calling them an increase. I've always made the same argument... Temporary does not equal perpetual.

Originally Posted by Dvae (Post 19416108)

Ask those who see more being taken out of their paychecks if it was an increase.

Originally Posted by L-Pink (Post 19416085)

Actually the employer matches all FICA payroll deductions of employees. The full amount is only paid by self employed.

.

Originally Posted by Dvae (Post 19416108)

Technically both are an increase. Ask those who see more being taken out of their paychecks if it was an increase.

Originally Posted by epitome (Post 19415650)

Oh it was hard to tell.

On a household making $50k a year it's about a $500 difference. One less iPad and they're good to go. If someone is making $50k and having a hard time making ends meet well ... they have bigger problems.

Originally Posted by SAC (Post 19416142)

employers factor in what they have to pay on your behalf into your wage/salary

if an employer has a $50000 budget for a new employee, he/she will make $46511

(above example just includes FICA theft and not other taxes/benefits, he'she would probably make $40000 or less)

Originally Posted by Minte (Post 19415902)

The enthusiasm you Obamatrons have for giving the federal government more of your hard earned money is very curious.

Originally Posted by seeric (Post 19415647)

Right. Maybe I should have been more clear. The point was, just when the middle class can't take any more beating, they kick them again when their down. Not sure where all of you live, but in California there are lots of folks barely making ends meet. This is going to really hammer them. It is an increase that the layman did not expect and from the looks of the social networks today, folks did not expect it to happen.

Just saying.

Originally Posted by epitome (Post 19415650)

If someone is making $50k and having a hard time making ends meet well ... they have bigger problems.

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 19416276)

Really? How big of a household should 50k sustain? In what state?

Originally Posted by JoshGirls Josh (Post 19416296)

in states like texas & the deep south, where housing sells for dirt (in MO, AR & OK you can get a low end house for 30-40K) 50K is like upper middle class. octomom could live in luxury in little rock on 50K. the problem of course, is living in little rock.

Originally Posted by HandballJim (Post 19416150)

depends where you live, with only $50k I would need to move back to the Bronx.

The tax change is costing me and my wife about 3k out of our take home pay this year :mad: