Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Fiscal Cliff Deal - Increased Taxes for 77% of the U.S.
I don't get it. Obama ran on NOT increasing taxes for the middle class, yet with this new deal MOST Americans will see tax increases.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/02/despite-deal-taxes-on-most-americans-will-go-up/
"But there will be federal tax hikes in 2013. That's because the legislation pushed through the Senate and House on Jan. 1 does nothing to prevent a temporary cut in the Social Security payroll tax from expiring. That means, under the agreement brokered by the White House and Senate Republicans, 77 percent of American households will be forced to fork over higher federal taxes in 2013.
Households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will face an average tax increase of $579 in 2013, according to the Tax Policy Center's analysis. Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will face an average tax increase of $822.
This bill was drafted first between the White House and a Democrat-majority Senate. The very people who vowed no tax increases on the middle class DID THAT!
So, all you Nesties who voted for Obama - are you happy about this?
Re: Fiscal Cliff Deal - Increased Taxes for 77% of the U.S.
The payroll tax holiday was always meant to be temporary.
For someone who cares so much about the deficit and fixing entitlement spending, you seem awfully upset about this.
Also, LOL at how you underlined "White House" but not "Senate Republicans."
I did that because Obama AKA The White House campaigned on NOT raising taxes on the middle class. Period. Senate republicans (a minority there) didn't focus on that as much as Obama did.
99% yadda yadda. Made the 1% seem greedy and look like hoarders.
The Senate is headed up by the Democrats now. This means the president and his party DO NOT HAVE THE MIDDLE CLASS AT HEART. They drafted this bill and then it was sent to the House floor. They did.
I find this disheartening since we went round and round on this board about Obama caring about the 99% (and people voting for Romney were painted to be greedy, non-caring, insensitive, pigs). Obviously, he doesn't care when 77% of the population can expect tax increases.
Let's just be honest...Obama hasn't stuck to what he said he would do/not do. We aren't even one month into the new year of his term and what inconsistency. I'm not mad at him - I figured as much from him; I am not surprised...this is just more BS like what he gave in the first term.
So, despite all this BS - there's still a "I will follow you wherever you may go" Obama crowd???
Really???
This was set to be a 2 year temporary tax break. Obama pushed hard for it in 2011, and pushed hard to extend it in 2012. Even in November he talked of wanting to extend it further. Problem is it was never fully embraced by the Democrats or Republicans in the senate or house so I'm guessing he thought it was more important to find a compromise and prevent going off the fiscal cliff.
I prefer to think of it as an added bonus that I wasn't expecting for those two years.
I love this! this was supposed to be a temporary tax relief. We don't make this much so it won't affect us BUT my parents do. My mom told me today that they should never do temporary things because people get use to it. they will be seeing around $200 less a paycheck and my mom told me she will start coloring her hair at home instead of at the salon. Regardless, it will affect everyone's pocket. I just think the whole thing is a joke, I am not impressed with anyone in washington right now. No one feels like a "real" leader to me. It's all about passing bills with lots of pork in them. DH was watching this fiscal cliff thing all day yesterday. I told him "you know what's going to happen, why get frustrated". I just don't understand how come they can't cut spending. it's ridiculous.
LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO
Right. The Republicans hardly EVER talk about how they won't raise taxes. Never, ever. It's like, wayyyyy down on their list of things that they talk about. They definitely wouldn't ever have anything to do with Grover Norquist or take some kind of 'i will never raise taxes ever ever' pledge.
Seriously. LMAO.
thank you, Geraldo! My mouth was a bit agape at ML's assertion.
Also, ML, you act so informed, but you thought the payroll tax cut would go on forever and ever? Why don't you thank the President for the short time you had it? You a super divisive and a huge hypocrite.
This is how I thought of it as well. I find it strange that most of the people who seem to complain about it expiring, never even noticed it when it started. I remember hearing, "what has Obama done for ME in this recession?" I had to be all, "check out your paycheck, homie." I heard a lot of, "oh! I didn't notice that."
ETA: obviously, I have no idea if "most" of the people complaining about it never even noticed it. Just the ones I've talked to.
do you think that the bill would have looked as it did if they had not had to compromise with the Republicans who were refusing to raise taxes on the wealthy and were willing to let the majority of Americans suffer by cleaving to their Norquist agreement? Please.
I agree with others that it was temporary. Lets all recall how the Bush tax cuts were temporary as well. That is why they had an experation date. The fiscally responsible thing would be to let this temporary break expire so that soc. sec. Can stay intact. We know Americans aren't saving enough for retirement and soc. sec. is the safety net.
You want another underfunded gov't program? No. You just want to complain. If we fund programs it's bad, if we don't fund them, it's bad. I guess the best thing to do is let people starve and not have programs. I will say it again, as a Christian I cannot support that. Therefore, we had no choice in my opinion. DH and I lost our raises but we just increased our retirement by 2% when the tax break came because it was temporary and we didn't want to get used to it. We made a lot of money doing it too. We bought low.
Oh wow, I am going to go bankrupt from the additional $11-$15 the govt. is going to be taking out of my paychecks every week!
Seriously, be a drama queen about it. I'm more than willing to pay these additional taxes, it is not the hardship you are making it out to be. We all have to pay our fair share, including the middle class.
Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Calorie Counter
ML- how else do you propose we make up the difference with regards to funding Social Security? This was a temporary cut in order to boost the economy. Isn't it fiscally responsible to now let it expire and better fund an underfunded program?
Do you have a better solution or do you simply like to bish and moan?
I agree with most everything said here. I'm pretty sure that when people heard no new taxes on the middle class, they knew Obama was referring to income taxes not payroll taxes.
Plus the maximum amount you pay SS tax on is $113,700. Two percent of that is $2,274 or $189.50 less in your paychecks per month. So if you hear anyone whining about more, they are misinformed.
The sad part is that even with the payroll tax holiday ending, social security will still be underfunded. Haven't you heard that by 2033 the program will be bankrupt?
People are living longer and are receiving a much higher benefit than what they paid in. I think raising the retirement age (over time so no one at or near retirement age is affected) and means testing so those who are lower income would benefit more from the program (as it was designed for) are necessary to keep this program alive.
Yes. I know that it is going to run out eventually. I wasn't sure of the exact date. The good news is that we are funding it more again to strengthen it as much as possible.
I am not sure how I feel about a means test. I am very selfish in my thoughts about it. DH and I are saving a lot for retirement and sacrificing things to do so. I feel that I shouldn't be punished for making sacrifices. But in reality I know that I am sacrificing an extra trip to Europe this year where some people are deciding between food and retirement. Therefore, I know I need to shut up and get behind a means test. I just want to take my toys and go home. Lol.
I'll miss the payroll tax cut, but it was always intended to be temporary. I do wish they'd remove the cap though, or at least raise it.
I don't want it to go bankrupt:( I'm afraid we will never be able to retire if that's the case. wah!
Ditto others re: knowing the payroll tax holiday would end.
Also, I am always happy (yes, actually happy) to pay more taxes when a President I support is in office.
Social Security does NOT need to go bankrupt.
Read this if you want to know WTF actually happened with SS:
http://havoconthehill.com/a-serious-scrutiny-of-social-security/
Here's the especially relevant part:
For the 68% of the adult population that cannot read simple charts ? this means that we?ve taken in way more in payroll tax revenue than we?ve paid out in benefits, over $2 trillion worth.
This is by design. In 1983, concerned over the long term solvency of the program, President Reagan appointed Allen Greenspan to lead a commision to reform Social Security. Unfortunately, this was before everyone realized Allen Greenspan was an idiot.
The logic behind reform was simple:
Sounds good right? We?ll just take more money than we need for now and we?ll keep it in a trust fund. Maybe we can even invest it! Can we buy stocks? Let?s buy Apple!
Unfortunately things turned out more like this:
What's interesting about this is that $189 (or, in our family's case, $220) per month is $220 that we'd be spending or, if we were cutting things close (as sometimes happens due to life) as many families are, $220 we' need to live.
And, what's really interesting about this...if you, me, or anyone else for that matter, truly believes that we're going to see that SS tax when our time has come...well, sadly, we're misinformed - it'll never happen.
I think many families would be more approving IF we could see a sincere effort put forth when it comes to spending cuts. That's not going to happen either...
Quoted in full, because this is all just awesomeness that needs repetition.
SS is not broke. The Government has been borrowing against it for decades. If anything, the general fund owes SS, big time. But the only way to make that up would be to increase income taxes... which would largely fall onto the rich and upper middle class. Can't have that, right?
Our financial turmoil for the past years will continue and will be doubled as the tax and other daily commodities rises its cost. Actually, most consumers will be paying more for taxes in 2013 than they did in 2012. However, that is not the only bite your pocketbook will endure in the current year. Here is a review of just some of the things that will cost more in this young year. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, food prices are expected to rise by as much four percent in 2013. Much of that is because of the drought last summer. For an average household, that could mean paying as much as $40 more at the grocery checkout each month. Read more here....
or how about cutting spending? The government cuts spending and starts paying back what they took from Social Security.
I'm fine with that as long as we're talking about cutting defense spending and such, and not trying to fix Social Security on the backs of the poor and middle class. If you mean "let's get rid of poor kids' healthcare and food stamps so we can fix SS without having to cut any defense programs" then....no.