Have you cut back due to tax increases?

Have you cut back due to tax increases?

Posted in the Rolla Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
FireGuy

Rolla, MO

#1 Jan 25, 2013
Have you cut back due to the recent tax increases? How much are you down each pay period? What have you cut back on?
Me, I am down over $40 each pay period, and I am getting rid of Cable, and I don't dine out nearly as much as I used to. That tax increase is 2 less tanks of gas a month for me. How is it affecting your budget?

“I'm right”

Since: Oct 12

Rolla, MO

#2 Jan 25, 2013
It now costs 2% more to hire employees. That ought to help out the employment situation. Good job Obama.
Hometown Girl

Oak Grove, MO

#3 Jan 25, 2013
Unless I'm missing something, the tax "increase" is simply going back to original amount of Social Security with holding. A few years ago it was cut in half, and that has since run out. Is there some other tax that I don't know about?

“I'm right”

Since: Oct 12

Rolla, MO

#4 Jan 25, 2013
Hometown Girl wrote:
Unless I'm missing something, the tax "increase" is simply going back to original amount of Social Security with holding. A few years ago it was cut in half, and that has since run out. Is there some other tax that I don't know about?
That's a 2% increase. Labor costs are typically the biggest cost to any business. And it's now 2% more expensive to hire you.

Taxes go up. Taxes go down. Just because someone calls it temporary doesn't mean it's not an increase.
spoonme

Windsor, MO

#5 Jan 26, 2013
Yep sure have got a 43 a week cut. Living with the bare minimum now. And have to have health insurance yeah. Can't afford that either
jokster

United States

#6 Jan 26, 2013
No killa. The employers still paid the original amount. They never got a tax break on the social security so it does not cost more for the employer to hire people. Second of all this was a honeymoon break that Obama fought to give you. Look at it this way. An item you have to buy was suddenly "on sale" for $40 less than you normally pay. Now it's gone back to its regular price; the sale is over. Deal with it.

“I'm right”

Since: Oct 12

Rolla, MO

#7 Jan 26, 2013
jokster wrote:
No killa. The employers still paid the original amount. They never got a tax break on the social security so it does not cost more for the employer to hire people. Second of all this was a honeymoon break that Obama fought to give you. Look at it this way. An item you have to buy was suddenly "on sale" for $40 less than you normally pay. Now it's gone back to its regular price; the sale is over. Deal with it.
That's the biggest lie out there. Employers pay the entire tax. It is all part of the total compensation package. Let me give you an example.

Jokster makes $100,000.

Before tax:(Medicare/SS)
Jokster's portion:($1450/$4000)
Employers:($1450/$6000)
Total cost to employer:$112,900

After tax:
Jokster's portion:($1450/$6000)
Employer's:($1450/$6000)
Total cost to employer:$114,900

All taxes are temporary. Obama had the choice of keeping it the same and he chose not to.

“I'm right”

Since: Oct 12

Rolla, MO

#8 Jan 26, 2013
killa_the_compassionate wrote:
<quoted text>That's the biggest lie out there. Employers pay the entire tax. It is all part of the total compensation package. Let me give you an example.

Jokster makes $100,000.

Before tax:(Medicare/SS)
Jokster's portion:($1450/$4000)
Employers:($1450/$6000)
Total cost to employer:$112,900

After tax:
Jokster's portion:($1450/$6000)
Employer's:($1450/$6000)
Total cost to employer:$114,900

All taxes are temporary. Obama had the choice of keeping it the same and he chose not to.
And actually I messed that up, because you have to deduct your portion from your salary. But I is still same concept.

“I'm right”

Since: Oct 12

Rolla, MO

#9 Jan 26, 2013
jokster wrote:
No killa. The employers still paid the original amount. They never got a tax break on the social security so it does not cost more for the employer to hire people. Second of all this was a honeymoon break that Obama fought to give you. Look at it this way. An item you have to buy was suddenly "on sale" for $40 less than you normally pay. Now it's gone back to its regular price; the sale is over. Deal with it.
Let's go for try three... You're right. I'm going back to bad.
jokster

United States

#10 Jan 26, 2013
killa_the_compassionate wrote:
<quoted text>That's the biggest lie out there. Employers pay the entire tax. It is all part of the total compensation package. Let me give you an example.

Jokster makes $100,000.

Before tax:(Medicare/SS)
Jokster's portion:($1450/$4000)
Employers:($1450/$6000)
Total cost to employer:$112,900

After tax:
Jokster's portion:($1450/$6000)
Employer's:($1450/$6000)
Total cost to employer:$114,900

All taxes are temporary. Obama had the choice of keeping it the same and he chose not to.
Wrong! The employer pays in their portion and the employees portion. What they didn't pay in taxes on the employee's behalf, they paid out on the employee's check. IT STILL COST THE EMPLOYER THE SAME IRREGARDLESS OF WHO THEY'RE PAYING IT TO. The employer had always paid 6.2 percent on each employee (for SSI). They only changed what was withheld from the employees check which was 2 percent less. What my employer owed me was always the same gross.What they paid in to the IRS for FICA taxes combined was less.( in your example $2000 less) but were paying me more in net for the same amount (in your example $2000) The total amount the employer was expended was the absolute same. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG! Go back to tax class.
Parents

Belton, MO

#11 Jan 26, 2013
Well, you two can argue it out however you like, but the fact is, I get less money on my paycheck than I used to get. "Dealing" with it, as Jokster put it, means I have less money to spend when I am already living paycheck to paycheck. Not really sure how to "deal" with it since I already have two jobs (1 full time and 1 part time). One health emergency and I am in real financial trouble. Folks can argue that Obama is right or Obama is wrong, but my plight is representative of the average, single, middle-aged American.

“I'm right”

Since: Oct 12

Rolla, MO

#12 Jan 26, 2013
jokster wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong! The employer pays in their portion and the employees portion. What they didn't pay in taxes on the employee's behalf, they paid out on the employee's check. IT STILL COST THE EMPLOYER THE SAME IRREGARDLESS OF WHO THEY'RE PAYING IT TO. The employer had always paid 6.2 percent on each employee (for SSI). They only changed what was withheld from the employees check which was 2 percent less. What my employer owed me was always the same gross.What they paid in to the IRS for FICA taxes combined was less.( in your example $2000 less) but were paying me more in net for the same amount (in your example $2000) The total amount the employer was expended was the absolute same. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG! Go back to tax class.
Read my last comment. You probably did by now. You are the first person to correct me in the history of Topix. You have earned yourself a proud distinction. I took some simple concepts and put them together without thinking it through and you caught me.

What's interesting to note about this tax is language of it and how that effects the outcome. BECAUSE it's called an employee tax, employees willingly give up 2% of their income. If this were named anything else, it would be a tax on the employer because the employees would view it as a pay cut.
jokster

United States

#13 Jan 26, 2013
killa_the_compassionate wrote:
<quoted text>Read my last comment. You probably did by now. You are the first person to correct me in the history of Topix. You have earned yourself a proud distinction. I took some simple concepts and put them together without thinking it through and you caught me.

What's interesting to note about this tax is language of it and how that effects the outcome. BECAUSE it's called an employee tax, employees willingly give up 2% of their income. If this were named anything else, it would be a tax on the employer because the employees would view it as a pay cut.
Yes, as I was typing how WRONG you were, you were admitting you were wrong. Although you are wrong on many things I do feel a distinct joy in being able to have you admit you are wrong. My day has definitely been made.
Wilber

Warrensburg, MO

#14 Jan 26, 2013
jokster is correct. I never supported rolling back the social security tax, but understand where Obama was coming from. The funny thing about the whole deal everyone was carrying on when it rolled back...oh wow, it is only $20 or $40 depending on the pay period. They were all crying this isn't helping anything. Heck some people never even noticed they were getting more. Now they are screaming to high heaven and they can't live without the $20/$40. I understand every penny counts today and I have to watch what I spend but I have not made any chances in my life due to the fact the withholding has gone back to 6.2%

“I'm right”

Since: Oct 12

Rolla, MO

#15 Jan 26, 2013
jokster wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, as I was typing how WRONG you were, you were admitting you were wrong. Although you are wrong on many things I do feel a distinct joy in being able to have you admit you are wrong. My day has definitely been made.
After 2200 comments, I was bound to be wrong eventually. I am after all, just a man (despite the rumors).
jokster

United States

#16 Jan 26, 2013
Wilber wrote:
jokster is correct. I never supported rolling back the social security tax, but understand where Obama was coming from. The funny thing about the whole deal everyone was carrying on when it rolled back...oh wow, it is only $20 or $40 depending on the pay period. They were all crying this isn't helping anything. Heck some people never even noticed they were getting more. Now they are screaming to high heaven and they can't live without the $20/$40. I understand every penny counts today and I have to watch what I spend but I have not made any chances in my life due to the fact the withholding has gone back to 6.2%


Precisely!

“I'm right”

Since: Oct 12

Rolla, MO

#17 Jan 26, 2013
Wilber wrote:
jokster is correct. I never supported rolling back the social security tax, but understand where Obama was coming from. The funny thing about the whole deal everyone was carrying on when it rolled back...oh wow, it is only $20 or $40 depending on the pay period. They were all crying this isn't helping anything. Heck some people never even noticed they were getting more. Now they are screaming to high heaven and they can't live without the $20/$40. I understand every penny counts today and I have to watch what I spend but I have not made any chances in my life due to the fact the withholding has gone back to 6.2%
The reality is, everyone working got a pay cut. If you were living within your means, your lifestyle may not have been cut, but it just means 2% less is going into savings.
jokster

United States

#18 Jan 26, 2013
So you are saying you supported the tax break to begin with? Personally, I think it was kind of dumb. Not only did it not amount to much, but this backlash of people boo-hoo-ing about their check being smaller when the break expires, just isn't worth it. I see no real evidence wear it spurred the economy much at all. It amounts to me as buying a few less sodas and lottery tickets--a far cry from economic stimulus.

And I hate to tell you that you're way more wrong than you give yourself credit for.

“I'm right”

Since: Oct 12

Rolla, MO

#20 Jan 26, 2013
Bloodfart wrote:
<quoted text>KTC you are wrong and im going to call you on it!! I do not willing give up taxes. Those bastards in DC take it from me without my consent!
You must be misunderstanding my point or I wasn't very eloquent in my description.

Nothing about taxation at these levels is right. It was a debate about where the theft was occurring.

“I'm right”

Since: Oct 12

Rolla, MO

#21 Jan 26, 2013
jokster wrote:
So you are saying you supported the tax break to begin with? Personally, I think it was kind of dumb. Not only did it not amount to much, but this backlash of people boo-hoo-ing about their check being smaller when the break expires, just isn't worth it. I see no real evidence wear it spurred the economy much at all. It amounts to me as buying a few less sodas and lottery tickets--a far cry from economic stimulus.

And I hate to tell you that you're way more wrong than you give yourself credit for.
I supported the tax cut. A break implies I'm taking off from something I obligated myself to. Temporary tax cuts are silly. You can't make long term plans on temporary legislation. But I'd rather have temporary cuts than none.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rolla Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
I love you guys 1 hr Some love 2
michelle lautebaugh 1 hr Rolla4now 27
Andrew and Ashley at Investment Realty 6 hr Lisa 10
White Trash people in Rolla (Apr '16) 9 hr Okay 64
Wait for good heroin 9 hr Okay 3
seth german 14 hr ImInTheKnow 9
Kaegann Jordan 15 hr JustCurious 12

Rolla Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Rolla Mortgages