

Why your paycheck is getting smaller, no matter what - pebb
http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/30/news/economy/payroll-tax-consumer/index.html

======
w1ntermute
> Concern over these tax hikes are already holding shoppers back.

> During the holiday shopping season, between Oct. 30 to Dec. 24, shoppers
> spent just 0.7% more than they did last year, according to a MasterCard
> Advistors SpendingPulse report released last week.

Has anyone stopped to consider that maybe we should stop wasting so much money
during the holiday season? I thought that Christmas was supposed to be about
spending time with loved ones, not about blowing thousands of dollars on
unnecessary gifts. All the consumerization of the holiday season does now is
funnel more money to Chinese factories. Only a fraction of the revenue goes to
retail workers in America.

Ideally, that extra payroll tax money would be used for constructive purposes,
such as rebuilding badly worn-out infrastructure, which could also put
countless unskilled laborers in America back to work. But we all know it'll
most likely be wasted on killing more Arabs or on corporate welfare, thanks to
constant lobbying and large campaign donations from big business and the
military-industrial complex.

~~~
noibl
> I thought that Christmas was supposed to be about spending time with loved
> ones, not about blowing thousands of dollars on unnecessary gifts.

Did you really? I guess that means you don't have kids.

> Has anyone stopped to consider that maybe we should stop wasting so much
> money during the holiday season?

Actually lots of people, since before Dickens, and often with ironic reference
to the basic moral tenets of Christianity. And yet here we are. Like the
Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II, it is what it is.

> more money to Chinese factories ... killing more Arabs or corporate welfare

You seem to be saying that on the one hand, workers don't know how to spend
their pay while on the other hand, neither does the government. So perhaps
'ideally' it's not such a bad thing to have the money end up in a part of the
world where millions of people a year are actively raising themselves out of
poverty on the back of export demand.

~~~
w1ntermute
> Did you really? I guess that means you don't have kids.

No, I don't. But I don't see how that's important. When I was a kid, I didn't
receive extravagant presents, despite growing up in an upper-middle class
family that could have easily afforded them without going into debt. I
received useful presents, usually something that I practically needed or
something constructive, such as new clothes or books.

> Actually lots of people, since before Dickens, and often with ironic
> reference to the basic moral tenets of Christianity.

Dense works of literature (or their film adaptions) clearly aren't an
effective way of reaching the masses. Then again, perhaps most people are just
too stupid to get the message, or too afraid of being the first to break
social convention.

> You seem to be saying that on the one hand, workers don't know how to spend
> their pay while on the other hand, neither does the government.

Correct. But while people will (probably) always be stupid, I believe the
government can and should be reformed so that it is more responsive to the
needs of the people and less responsive to lobbyists and campaign donors.

------
greenyoda
Everyone knew that the 2% cut in the Social Security tax was a temporary
measure designed to boost the economy. The fact that it's expiring as planned
is not a surprise, and hardly newsworthy.

~~~
thrownaway2424
Everybody knew that the Bush top-bracket rate cuts were temporary, too. And
yet the entire argument revolves around extending them. Nobody is arguing that
we should extend the lower rates on payroll. That is remarkable.

~~~
ericdykstra
It's interesting how temporary tax cuts always seem to expire, but temporary
taxes never seem to.

~~~
fennecfoxen
Add to this temporary spending programs. GWBush's last year added ~$1 trillion
in "emergency" spending, growing federal spending by an astounding ~50%, and
SOMEHOW four years later it's turned into entitlements and the like, part of
the permanent spending baseline.

(This is the same baseline-based math which calls a reduction in the rate of
spending growth some sort or another of a "devastating cut", naturally, though
you'll see more ostentatious examples of this rhetoric with California's
recent education-policy games than you will at the national level.)

------
hippich
Even if government extend this payroll tax cut, your annual raise (if such
thing exist where you work) will hardly cover inflation rate (or in my case
will be less then inflation rate.) So you are loosing anyway. The only way to
keep up - sharp existing skills or get new ones and change jobs.

------
Locke1689
This is definitely _not_ Hacker News.

I can see no way in which this gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

------
dothemath
It's the spending stupid. Even with tax rates going up and the cuts going into
effect, we still spend more than we take in. Cut defense 100% and tax the rich
at 100%, we still are not at a balanced budget. The federal government does
not have an income problem, it has a spending problem.

~~~
zacharycohn
If you're going to make statements, rather than opinions, please base them on
facts. If you cut defense 100% and make no other changes, the budget would be
balanced.

2012 deficit: $1.1T [1] 2012 military budget: $1.03T to $1.4T [2]

[1]
[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?packageId...](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?packageId=BUDGET-2012-BUD)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_S...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#cite_note-
Budget_FY2011-22)

~~~
ryguytilidie
No no no, that doesn't fit into the whole republican narrative that taxes need
to be lower and spending needs to be lower. How a moderator makes the comment
that guy made just blows my mind. Complete and utter ignorance.

Edit: Just noticed his name was dothemath, head explodes.

~~~
dothemath
I'm a Libertarian. Even if I were a Republican, you can't argue the facts that
spending is totally out of control. Can you name one country that spent itself
into prosperity?

~~~
ryguytilidie
"you can't argue the facts"

You've presented one single fact and it was incorrect. Now you're presenting
an opinion.

"Can you name one country that spent itself into prosperity?"

The United States has been pretty awesome at cyclically spending a ton of
money on infrastructure projects after recessions. WPA is probably one of the
most successful things we've ever done. Feels like you should keep an open
mind in discussions like these versus using opinions as facts.

------
greghinch
Wasn't the 2% tax cut on the side the employer pays? That means if you
paycheck goes down because of it, your employer is pretty much a jerk.

~~~
MRSallee
I don't work in HR so I'm not familiar with how companies deal with this, but
I would be surprised if it doesn't hit your paycheck somehow -- directly
deducting it from your current pay may be less likely than factoring the added
cost into funds available for annual raises.

