The "Fiscal Cliff"

Bardox

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Posts
2,234
Media
38
Likes
551
Points
198
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Well, last night was the night we went over the "cliff". Any survivors? Has the world been set a blaze? Are politicians running naked through the streets being chased by people with caddle prods? What horrors have befallen the us?

For those witnessing the devastation of going off the cliff, FEAR NOT! There is a phantom bill bouncing around congress that will rewrite history and make it as though a deal was reached last week... if the house passes it that is...
 
D

deleted213967

Guest
Well, last night was the night we went over the "cliff". Any survivors? Has the world been set a blaze? Are politicians running naked through the streets being chased by people with caddle prods? What horrors have befallen the us?

For those witnessing the devastation of going off the cliff, FEAR NOT! There is a phantom bill bouncing around congress that will rewrite history and make it as though a deal was reached last week... if the house passes it that is...

...and it seems to reflect a "balanced approach": no spending cuts, no fix for entitlements and all taxes (if ever so slightly less than expected). :rolleyes:
 

D_Aurifice_Stupher

Account Disabled
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Posts
703
Media
0
Likes
69
Points
63
I just viewed my pay stub for the first check of the year. Just the 2% increase for the Social Security deduction hit me for $52.00. I can live with that and not complain, but I'd rather have it than not. I do not expect to ever see a dime of SS myself, and have having to pay into it thus. :mad:

Edit: I am paid bi-weekly, so that is $104.00 per month just for the SS deduction. If any of the other taxes increase, I will start eliminating things. First off, medical deduction, don't need it. If I ever get so sick I need special medical treatment, I am just going to go off myself.
 
Last edited:
D

deleted213967

Guest
I just viewed my pay stub for the first check of the year. Just the 2% increase for the Social Security deduction hit me for $52.00. I can live with that and not complain, but I'd rather have it than not. I do not expect to ever see a dime of SS myself, and have having to pay into it thus. :mad:

Indeed. We have to keep the promises somebody else made.

It's called inter-generational theft.

What you can do is make more babies to keep the scheme afloat.

I would help myself but I just haven't found the right girl yet.

 

slurper_la

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Posts
5,877
Media
9
Likes
3,761
Points
333
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male

MMT22

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Posts
342
Media
12
Likes
1,155
Points
498
Location
Tennessee (USA)
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Well, last night was the night we went over the "cliff". Any survivors? Has the world been set a blaze? Are politicians running naked through the streets being chased by people with caddle prods? What horrors have befallen the us?

For those witnessing the devastation of going off the cliff, FEAR NOT! There is a phantom bill bouncing around congress that will rewrite history and make it as though a deal was reached last week... if the house passes it that is...

That would be fun to watch!
 

KTF40

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
1,877
Media
3
Likes
60
Points
133
Location
DC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male

I don't have time to go through all your links because I know they're BS, but I will rip apart the first one quickly. The author states:

"But due to demographic and economic changes (more on that in a minute), it's expected that insurance payments will begin to exceed income in 2021. Around 2033, the fund will run out.

But even then, the revenue Social Security collects each year would still be enough to pay out about three-quarters of scheduled benefits as far as the eye can see."

This is the standard definition of bankruptcy. If you are unable to fulfill your obligations, which the author wants to minimize for some unknown reason, you will be bankrupt. Try paying 3/4 of your bills and see where you end up.

The author even admits the system will need at least an addition $1 trillion+ to keep the system solvent as he says, "We only need to come up with about 0.9% of GDP in order to make Social Security's revenues match up with its expenses for the next 75 years." Now I don't know if that's true or not, but the author then goes onto to blatantly lie when he says, "To put that into perspective, 0.9% is close to the cost of unemployment insurance, the high-end Bush tax cuts, or one-fifth of the Defense budget." This is just plain factually inaccurate. 1/5 of the defense budget isn't close to a trillion dollars. It's closer to $100 billion. Bush Tax cuts on the rich annually are closer to $70-80 annually depending on who you believe as I noted in the original post of this thread.

So the point is the guy is factually lying and completely fails to understand the definition of bankruptcy. He wants to play a game of semantics stating that as long as you can pay 75% of your bills, you're doing just fine.

Yes, it's true the Govt could spend revenues collected elsewhere to pay for Social Security, but that's the point, Social Security can no longer sustain itself and will need trillions in additional government spending to keep it afloat.

And personally, since the politicians have shown zero interest in reforming the system, I see no reason why I should pay thousands into a system that won't be there for me if/when I retire.
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,854
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I just viewed my pay stub for the first check of the year. Just the 2% increase for the Social Security deduction hit me for $52.00. I can live with that and not complain, but I'd rather have it than not. I do not expect to ever see a dime of SS myself, and have having to pay into it thus. :mad:

Edit: I am paid bi-weekly, so that is $104.00 per month just for the SS deduction. If any of the other taxes increase, I will start eliminating things. First off, medical deduction, don't need it. If I ever get so sick I need special medical treatment, I am just going to go off myself.
So you had an increase taken from a check you received for hours you worked prior to Dec. 31st? Funny. And unusual too. I think your story is :bsflag:
Your check would have been issued based on the period you worked which would be prior to Jan. 1, 2013 so still under the 2012 rates.
 

D_Aurifice_Stupher

Account Disabled
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Posts
703
Media
0
Likes
69
Points
63
^^^^^

It is the first pay check for 2013, I get the funds on Friday. Since the check is dated 2013, the taxes are based on the new tax levels. You can call BS all you want, but I have viewed my pay online, as the document is viewable on the Tuesday of the week you receive the funds. It is a two week check. It went from $1498 to $1446 take home. The entire increase was in the Social Security deduction, which went from 4.2% to 6.2% this year.

I do not care if you think it BS or not, it is fact. Every company does their taxes differently, mine (USAF civilian, so Fed. Gov.) says that if you receive the pay in 2013, the taxes are based on 2013 tables.
 

KTF40

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
1,877
Media
3
Likes
60
Points
133
Location
DC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Yeah, I'm kind of wondering if Stormfront doesn't understand the concept of bi-weekly pay periods. I'm in the same position as VZR1800 (bi-weekly) in that I'll be receiving one on Thursday and will no doubt see my taxes increased due to the payroll tax.
 

D_Aurifice_Stupher

Account Disabled
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Posts
703
Media
0
Likes
69
Points
63
Yeah, I'm kind of wondering if Stormfront doesn't understand the concept of bi-weekly pay periods. I'm in the same position as VZR1800 (bi-weekly) in that I'll be receiving one on Thursday and will no doubt see my taxes increased due to the payroll tax.

Absolutely, you hit that one right on the head, figuratively speaking of course. I have not had the luxury of a weekly check since, like 1999. Hell, I had a job in Calipornia in 2002 that paid once a month. That one sucked.
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,854
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Yeah, I'm kind of wondering if Stormfront doesn't understand the concept of bi-weekly pay periods. I'm in the same position as VZR1800 (bi-weekly) in that I'll be receiving one on Thursday and will no doubt see my taxes increased due to the payroll tax.
Aww, you figured it out. I'm secretly a multi billionaire trust fund kid. I've never worked a day in my life and have no idea what a paycheck is:rolleyes:
My current job is paid bi-weekly and my deduction is the same as it was two weeks ago and two weeks prior to that one.
 

KTF40

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
1,877
Media
3
Likes
60
Points
133
Location
DC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Aww, you figured it out. I'm secretly a multi billionaire trust fund kid. I've never worked a day in my life and have no idea what a paycheck is:rolleyes:
My current job is paid bi-weekly and my deduction is the same as it was two weeks ago and two weeks prior to that one.
Well I'm not sure what deduction you're referring too, but if you have to pay ss tax, whatever you receive this year will not be the same as last year. That's a fact.

It's also a fact and not "Funny. And unusual too" that one can receive a bi-weekly pay check for work performed the previous year which is why I'm not convinced you understand bi-weekly pay periods.
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,854
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Well I'm not sure what deduction you're referring too, but if you have to pay ss tax, whatever you receive this year will not be the same as last year. That's a fact.

It's also a fact and not "Funny. And unusual too" that one can receive a bi-weekly pay check for work performed the previous year which is why I'm not convinced you understand bi-weekly pay periods.
What's funny and unusual is that if you get paid on December 31st how can you be penalized for what happens on January 1st? If this was a week or two in the future and he posted that increased deduction was taken it would seem more feasible because part of his pay would include time worked in 2013. It just seems unusual that the deduction would be retroactive to 2012. If we happened to be discussing the pay check he receives in 2 weeks from today then it would not be considered funny to see 2013 deductions taken from 2013 wages
 
Last edited:

KTF40

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
1,877
Media
3
Likes
60
Points
133
Location
DC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
What's funny and unusual is that if you get paid on December 31st how can you be penalized for what happens on January 1st? If this was a week or two in the future and he posted that increased deduction was taken it would seem more feasible because part of his pay would include time worked in 2013. It just seems unusual that the deduction would be retroactive to 2012.
It's not unusual. Everyone's getting a 2% tax increase due to the payroll tax starting on your first check of 2013 as VZR stated.

Check my link from earlier on the other page or just google payroll tax.
 

D_Aurifice_Stupher

Account Disabled
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Posts
703
Media
0
Likes
69
Points
63
The pay period ended Sunday, the work was performed in 2012. But the money is being paid to me in 2013. I do not have a problem with that at all. It's been that way since I've worked here. Different companies may have different policies on this, as long as they are consistent from year-to-year, it matters not one wit.
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,854
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
It's not unusual. Everyone's getting a 2% tax increase due to the payroll tax starting on your first check of 2013 as VZR stated.

Check my link from earlier on the other page or just google payroll tax.
So let's say that a person gets a pay increase on the anniversary of the date they were hired. The employee was hired on January 1st. The employee gets his paycheck on December 31st. Would you expect his pay to be the same or would the pay raise be included on that check? Now let's say that the employee will get paid on January 8th for the 2 weeks prior. The employee will be paid for one week at the old rate and one week with the higher rate. At least that's the way it's been done at just about every place I've ever worked. It's not usual for things to be done retroactively.

What matters to me though is that people now want to cry about that 2% increase. It seems most have forgotten that the 2% break was never intended to be permanent. I'll bet that if Congress doesn't act to reinstate it in just a few months people will forget that they ever had it.
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,854
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
The pay period ended Sunday, the work was performed in 2012. But the money is being paid to me in 2013. I do not have a problem with that at all. It's been that way since I've worked here. Different companies may have different policies on this, as long as they are consistent from year-to-year, it matters not one wit.
Finally something that makes some sense. It is strange though for the deductions to be taken from 2012 income. If the rate had decreased would you have seen an increase in your check?
 

D_Aurifice_Stupher

Account Disabled
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Posts
703
Media
0
Likes
69
Points
63
To me, it's not so much that I have to once again something I paid before. It's that it is going down a toilet bowl. I pay there Social Security taxes, knowing full well that by the time I am old enough to retire, I ain't going to get jackshit. It's like just taking that over $100 every check and just tossing it in the toilet. Pisses me off, I could do better with it myself than is being done with it now.

I know, I know, it's paying for those who are retired now. YAY! Tell me that again when I want to get what I paid in back, and it's not there. Really makes me feel good this first day of the new year.
 

KTF40

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
1,877
Media
3
Likes
60
Points
133
Location
DC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
So let's say that a person gets a pay increase on the anniversary of the date they were hired. The employee was hired on January 1st. The employee gets his paycheck on December 31st. Would you expect his pay to be the same or would the pay raise be included on that check? Now let's say that the employee will get paid on January 8th for the 2 weeks prior. The employee will be paid for one week at the old rate and one week with the higher rate. At least that's the way it's been done at just about every place I've ever worked. It's not usual for things to be done retroactively.


What do I care? You realize that's all irrelevant to the payroll tax discussion right? Unless you're making $113,000 or whatever the exact number cutoff is for when the payroll tax no longer counts against your salary.

This isn't retroactive either. It's a tax increase that is effective January 1st, 2013.

What matters to me though is that people now want to cry about that 2% increase. It seems most have forgotten that the 2% break was never intended to be permanent. I'll bet that if Congress doesn't act to reinstate it in just a few months people will forget that they ever had it.
Cry? lol

Says the guy who is crying due to his inability to understand the concepts of bi-weekly pay periods.