Employers in the U.S. are starting to warn their workers to prepare for slimmer paychecks if Congress fails to vote on an extension of Bush-era tax cuts.
“I’ve been doing payroll for probably close to 30 years now, and never have we seen something like this where it gets that down to the wire,” said Dennis Danilewicz, who manages payroll services for about 14,000 employees at New York University’s Langone Medical Center. “That’s what’s got a lot of people nervous. All we can do is start preparing communications with a couple of different scenarios.”
Lawmakers won’t start debating whether to extend the cuts, which expire Dec. 31, until after the Nov. 2 elections. Because it takes weeks to prepare withholding schedules, the Internal Revenue Service will probably have to assume the cuts will expire and direct employers to increase payroll deductions starting Jan. 1, experts say.
Making a withholding-rate change could take longer for small businesses that don’t outsource payroll services, experts said.
Jodi Parsons, manager of payroll and accounts payable at IFMC, a health care management company based in West Des Moines, Iowa, said if the IRS issues two sets of withholding tables, her two-person office could be overwhelmed with processing changes to W-4 forms.
Scott Mezistrano, senior manager of government relations at the American Payroll Association in Washington, said a delay in guidance from the IRS could increase costs for some small businesses.
The lack of responses in this thread is telling.
If Obama were to get his tax increases through, as well as his wishes to eliminate mortgage interest deductions and other credits, it would hit everyone, not just wealthy Republicans.
Many people, if not MOST people, factor in their mortgage interest deductions when they budget for a new home. That is taken greatly into consideration when deciding how much house they can buy. And we're talking about the responsible homebuyers, not the one's that got gobbled up in the subprime crisis.
This would destroy many Americans' financial well-being, and create a huge influx of additional government-dependent citizens. That is Obama's wet dream.
Yep, this would hit a huge percentage of Democrat homeowners, too, which is why there is so much silence in the debate over this.
If you want to balance the budget, taxes have to go up somewhere. Defense spending is treated as sacred. When the Democrats "cut" medicare, they were attacked for it. Social security? No, have to save that because old people actually vote. You're out of options.
I mean, you tell me. Conservatives think cutting more taxes will somehow fix this. Do the math for me, show me a balanced budget that doesn't include higher taxes.
If you want to balance the budget, taxes have to go up somewhere. Defense spending is treated as sacred. When the Democrats "cut" medicare, they were attacked for it. Social security? No, have to save that because old people actually vote. You're out of options.
I mean, you tell me. Conservatives think cutting more taxes will somehow fix this. Do the math for me, show me a balanced budget that doesn't include higher taxes.
What happened to pay go? The answer is cut spending not raising taxes
The answer is actually to cut spending and raise taxes.
If you cut taxes, you will undoubtedly create a shortfall.
See it's guys like you on the forum, that just throw around rhetoric... "Lower Taxes, and everything will be dandy"...
Well that's what you've done for the past 10 years, Obama did cut taxes... doesn't seem to matter a whole lot to you.
Now you could argue that Obamacare raises taxes and all this rubbish but the fact is, Taxes are not the be all and end all. A balance must be struck, if taxes were the only thing that mattered in an economy, Canada would be a **** hole right now.
So how can it be, with our taxes higher... we're in a much better position then you? Could it be we didn't allow our banks to take the same risks yours did? We actually regulated ourselves perhaps? How communist of us.
The answer is actually to cut spending and raise taxes.
If you cut taxes, you will undoubtedly create a shortfall.
See it's guys like you on the forum, that just throw around rhetoric... "Lower Taxes, and everything will be dandy"...
Well that's what you've done for the past 10 years, Obama did cut taxes... doesn't seem to matter a whole lot to you.
Now you could argue that Obamacare raises taxes and all this rubbish but the fact is, Taxes are not the be all and end all. A balance must be struck, if taxes were the only thing that mattered in an economy, Canada would be a **** hole right now.
So how can it be, with our taxes higher... we're in a much better position then you? Could it be we didn't allow our banks to take the same risks yours did? We actually regulated ourselves perhaps? How communist of us.
And stop using Canada as an example. Even most Canadians know what a cluster your economy is, unless you love government-controlled socialism. If you didn't sit on a ton of oil, you'd be a U.S. territory, which you basically are anyway.
Please... enlighten me.
Government controlled Socialism... isn't that an oxymoron? Is there such a thing as privately controlled socialism?
Life is better up here for more people. Reason for that? Who knows. But one of the determining factors of our lives and our economy is not taxes. Our taxes are higher, yet for the vast majority of people, we have a higher standard of living.
That is because there is so much "sameness", you can no longer tell the difference. That's what socialism/communism/collectivism does. And there is HUGE disconnect in Canada between people that live in Toronto or Montreal and someone living in Saskatoon, much moreso than in the states. You guys barely pay attention to each other from province to province.
Ignorance is bliss I suppose.
So when you're done with your rhetoric and blind "knowledge" we'll have a chat. But I have to go to work, a privately owned business... shocked? Yes I know I was too. I use to work in our government Gulags but they let me work at the movie theatre, where I sell popcorn to private citizens who earn money from private businesses to buy our private products... in our communist dictatorship.
See you later Erod!
The bolded is absolutely wrong.
Would you rather have 10 percent of $10, or 8 percent of $20? If you lower taxes, you lessen corporate risk, which will lead to hiring, which will lead to a larger base of people to tax and higher corporate revenues to tax as a result of a lower unemployment and greater consumer spending. That means you collect more taxes by cutting taxes.
If you raise taxes, you get a few more dollars now, but an immediate decrease in tax base due to further corporate budget cuts, higher unemployment, and less consumer spending.
And stop using Canada as an example. Even most Canadians know what a cluster your economy is, unless you love government-controlled socialism. If you didn't sit on a ton of oil, you'd be a U.S. territory, which you basically are anyway.
Seems to me, if you actually look at the budget, those things will only get us part of the way there. One or more of the "sacred" expenditures needs to be involved as well to balance the budget (i.e. Defense, Social Security, Medicare).How about cutting pork, spending, and unneeded bull****?
Can you back this up with historical evidence?
Seems to me, if you actually look at the budget, those things will only get us part of the way there. One or more of the "sacred" expenditures needs to be involved as well to balance the budget (i.e. Defense, Social Security, Medicare).
If you get in the shower with your clothes on, they'll get wet.
Same basic common sense.
Myth on the Right: The Bush tax cuts caused revenues to go up.
Republican spokespeople and other tax-cut enthusiasts have asserted that the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 actually increased revenue. They often point to rising revenues from 2004 through 2007 following the tax cuts in May 2003. Unfortunately, as any Economics 101 student will tell you, correlation doesn't prove causation. Yes, revenue did rise, but we have to answer the question: Would it have risen anyway?
We can never be absolutely sure how the economy would have reacted if the tax cut legislation had failed for some reason in 2001 and 2003, but the consensus among experts is that the economy would have grown in the mid-2000s with or without the Bush tax cuts. That doesn't mean the tax cuts had no feedback effect at all—people reported more taxable income than they would have—but those beneficial effects were not so great that the tax cuts could have "paid for themselves."
The most damaging result of this myth is that Republican lawmakers feel less pressure to propose spending cuts. Why bother when cutting a tax rate will raise more revenue?
So, you've got a conservative tax foundation admitting that there is no correlation between tax reductions and tax receipt revenue growth. Hmmmmmm
Maybe it's not common sense afterall.
Seems to me, if you actually look at the budget, those things will only get us part of the way there. One or more of the "sacred" expenditures needs to be involved as well to balance the budget (i.e. Defense, Social Security, Medicare).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?