Mon, May 28, 2012, 6:22 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed for Memorial Day

Senate Democrats push Obama payroll tax cut

Senate Democrats push Obama plan to cut payroll tax, financed by tax on income over $1M

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democrats are pressing ahead on President Barack Obama's plan to cut in half every worker's payroll taxes next year — paid for by a 3.25 percent tax surcharge on the very wealthy.

The $248 billion plan would trim Social Security payroll taxes from 6.2 percent to 3.1 percent in hopes of propping up the still-weak economy. It also would cut in half the 6.2 percent tax paid by employers on the first $5 million of their payroll.

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., says Democrats will hold a test vote on the plan later this week.

A 2 percent payroll tax holiday enacted a year ago expires on Dec. 31 and it tops the agenda in the waning days of this congressional term.

Republicans are likely to oppose the plan because it would post a permanent surcharge on income exceeding $1 million, including income earned by many small businesses.

"Any attempt to pass another temporary stimulus funded by a permanent tax hike on the very people we're counting on to create the private-sector jobs we need is purely political, and not intended to do a thing to help the economy, since we all know it's likely to fail with bipartisan opposition," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Monday.

Reid's move is the latest political salvo by Democrats as the two parties spar over the best way to create more jobs. Monday's move appears aimed at drawing a distinction between Democrats and Republicans on taxes, with Reid seeking to maneuver Republicans into opposing the payroll tax cut.

Indeed, the payroll tax cut is unpopular with many Republicans who say the existing 2 percent cut hasn't done much to create jobs.

But many economists say that allowing the tax cut to expire is likely to do at least some damage to the economy.

"More than 120 million families took home an extra $120 billion this year thanks to payroll tax cuts Democrats championed," Reid said. "The average family held onto $935 more of their heard-earned dollars this year. We need to assure those families that they can rely on that tax cut next year as well."

Republican leaders have signaled a willingness to work with Democrats on both the payroll tax cut and a further extension of jobless benefits for people who have been unemployed for six months or more. But the proposals are so expensive that it's unlikely that lawmakers will find a way to fully pay for them.

Instead, after spending most of the fall waiting for the deficit "supercommittee" to devise a plan to cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion or more, it seems that lawmakers are actually on track to increase the deficit as the congressional session comes to a close.

 

245 comments

  • BobG  •  6 months ago
    Durbin and logic do not go together. How are these working families ever going to get Social Security if he keeps defunding it? Durbin loves taxes but NEVER cuts any spending.
    • WebDesigner 6 months ago
      Bob, the point is, why should we be giving our taxes to a system that's going to be depleted when we retire. I'm all for a 3.5% tax cut on my wages!
    • Universe pal 6 months ago
      MAKE POLITICIANS LIVE ON MY EARNINGS
      PASS A RESOLUTION SHOWN BELOW
      1. The president, congress and senate shall be elected at the same time for six years.
      2. Take away powers of senators to filibuster, hold presidential appointments indefinitely and to deny president choice of his cabinet.
      3. Simple majority in the senate just like in the house passes the bill.
      4. The bill concerning economical agenda of the country shall not be combined with the non economical agenda.
      5. The national, state and local defense system shall be financed by the wealth tax. (Poor and middle class is already paying with their lives let wealthy pay with the tax on their wealth)
      6. Professional such as doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants, real estate agents, auto mechanics etc. is to be licensed by the board consists of majority of the general public and the professionals themselves. The licensing board shall truly represent economic status of the society.
      7. Government employees to be disciplined/fired by the board consisting of the citizens.
      8. At the end of their six year term all politicians will be required to live for the next six years at the economic level representing general masses, i.e. if the unemployment is 9%, then 9% of the members of the senate and congress have to live on earnings equal to the earnings of 9% unemployed and 9% of the six year the president has to live on earnings equal to the earnings of 9% unemployed. If the under employment is 5%, then 5% of the members of the senate and congress have to live on earnings equal to the earnings of 5% underemployed and 5% of the six year of the time president has to live on earnings equal to the earnings of 5% underemployed. Similarly all other economic level of the society is to be reflected on what the members of the senate, congress and the president as a part of his six years will be required to live on earnings.
    • Sarab 6 months ago
      I pay social security taxes and will never see a penny back. I have no problem paying taxes to support defense education even healthcare which are all important for the survival of this country but social security is a joke unemployment welfare are jokes. The education in this country is lacking at best and is continuesiouly cut so the democrats can save social security which has been broke for 40 years even before it was put into law. There is no way anyone could have believed that people would keep having kids and enough of them to support the baby boomers who were a huge increase in population grow but not the normal or average of it. My parents are boomers and deserve as much SS as they can get even though their not poor they worked hard I i'm proud to cover them but seriously its a lost program that democrats have know since it started it was flawed certainly know it was for at least 30 years and yet failed to do anything about it other then kick it down the line hoping for a miracle all while gutting education. Same with Welfare. Congress should not get paid until they address things and we are on a balanced budget its time for accountability.
  • JR  •  6 months ago
    "Let's cut 1 trillion in spending a year by cutting 5 wasteful and bloated govt department so that we can afford to cut taxes". - Ron Paul 2012
    • yeah, yeah 6 months ago
      Gee, Cutting 5 govt departments ??? Which ones.. Does it matter... should we flip coins to decide? BTW, how many more unemployed with that create?

      Great idea, Brainiac.
    • Liberty 6 months ago
      Why does Ron Paul want a 2nd Great Depression? That's what would happen with his plan. What is his true agenda?
    • sherrym 6 months ago
      funny how the people who complain about government pay and pensions wouldnt want to see them out of job, like the millions of other people.
  • Martin S  •  6 months ago
    A temporary cut to the SS tax is not going create jobs all it will do is cause more debt and put social security closer to being broke. Obama will do anything to get votes and bring the country closer to a socialist society.
    • Aldoro 6 months ago
      good job Martin! thanks for supporting our founders constitution!
    • Marsaili or Mars 6 months ago
      Did you even read the article???? Any of you???
    • D 6 months ago
      Wait, defunding a social program will bring us closer to socialism?

      You're bad at government, Martin.
  • Dusty  •  5 months ago
    Reduce spending - Reduce spending - Reduce spending..........Say that over and over until it sinks in. When we reduce spending we will lose some jobs. But if we do not reduce spending we will be in an economic downward-spiral until we hit bottom. Reduce spending; We will all see more severe hardship but it is unavoidable............... What happened to the American ideal of enduring hardship so that our children might have a better life then we have enjoyed.........There is no real solution that would avoid more job loss and hardship. Get started - Do Something.
  • don  •  6 months ago
    If SS is going broke as I have read why do democrats for the first time in history want to cut a tax?
    • Hedley Lamar 6 months ago
      Well, gee..... that's a really good question, isn't it?
    • Aggie in CA 6 months ago
      The program is supposed to be completely solvent until 2035. It is not going broke.
    • Karen 6 months ago
      Which is quite a reduction in years since they announced solvency for 75 yrs when the Obama deficit team was formed a couple of years ago. Now I am hearing unsolvent by 2025, 2020, and 2017.

      Isn't it strange that my ~$200K that has been paid in my employer and myself over 38 yrs actually has less value return than the a lesser amount paid in by public sector, union workers after just 25-30 yrs of service who end up with higher pay and better benefits?
  • AJ  •  6 months ago
    It's a stinking bribe at the expense of social security, which was already ripped off of its cash for worthless US IOUs. This is a rush to bankrupt soc security. It's the one tax that shouldn't be cut. Dems are a hypocritical bunch hurting old people with this bill, and taking $50 billion/year from medicare to cover a tiny portion of Obamacare costs. Little Dickie Durbin is a blatant manipulator of facts and truth.
    • Robert 6 months ago
      Did you even read the whole article?
      They're cutting the amount workers and businesses pay into S.S from 6.2% to 3.1% and increasing the amount people who make over $1,000,000.00 pay by 3.25%.
      No funding is lost, they're just changing who pays what.....
    • Karen 6 months ago
      You need to recalculate your figures. First the total percentage of the cuts is 6.2% though for employers that is limited to the first $5 million in salary. The current tax cut caused a $120 billion in lost revenue for S.S. That amount more than doubles to $248 Billion in lost S.S. revenue if these new tax cuts are passed. Are you also aware than any shortage is deducted from the money the feds owe S.S.? Tell me exactly how Democrats are "saving" Social Security?

      Why did the Democrats not choose to lower the federal tax rate? Because that would have mean borrowing even more money to fund their projects. Now when they borrow more money they can blame it on increased outlays for S.S. and demand that benefits be cut, when in reality the feds caused this problem by reducing the revenue. Basically Democrats are hastening the demise of Social Security by reducing the incoming revenue and forcing any shortfalls caused by the revenue reduction to be deducted from what is owed. Then they will continue to blame Republicans when in fact both parties are at fault. But the hastening of the demise of S.S. over the past 3 years places the full blame on Pres. Obama for signing the legislation.
    • Hal 6 months ago
      Karen...the Democrats created social security, and the Republicans have tried to end it ever since it was passed, and it began in 1936. They use the same argument, among many other bogus arguments, as they don't want the wealthy to have to help pay for someone 's retirement other than their own. As of now, those making over $106,800 do not pay into social security. That leaves millions of those whose income run into millions and billions of dollars no longer having to pay into the fund. They still get their social security when they retire, however, at a lower rate, of course. The wealthy already are paying at their lowest tax rate in fifty years, but their greed (and lobbyists) know no bounds. As to answer another bogus comment...the money from social security that goes into the general budget fund, is replaced with federal reserve bonds and notes, the most secured in the world, and that's why they are so desired by Americans (who own the overwhelming majority...not China) and others. The ss fund has a two trillion dollar surplus, and next year, even with the cuts, will have a three trillion dollar surplus. It will have a surplus at least till 2038. Anyone who says different is a liar, and deliberately trying to end social security. I lived through the Great Depression, and where were all of these neocons when Bush gave us a ten trillion dollar debt cutting taxes for the wealthy, and giving us two unfunded off budget wars, and almost seven thousand dead? To expect Obama to end the Great Recession in less than three years is ludicrous. Read U.S. History, and see what Roosevelt had to do to help us survive the last Republican debacle. It took him eight years to bring unemployment down to 10% before World War II.
  • Ponsonby  •  5 months ago
    If the payroll tax cut is not extended, I suggest you make the tax cut for yourself by cutting your needless and wasteful spending by the amount of the tax cut. The cut is 3.1% of your wages, up to $110,100. The tax cut could be $1,000, $1,500 all the way to $3,300. Here’s how to do it:

    1. Cut your cable subscription to “basic”. We did that a few years ago and have saved $900 per year.
    2. Cut your dining out and bar room tabs by going out less often and eating [and drinking, if needs be] at home. You will be shocked…shocked by how much you save. You could save the entire tax cut on this item alone.
    3. Stop buying all the junk you buy at malls. Consumer goods sold in this country have fallen terribly in quality and are for the most part cheap plastic junk made by child slave labor in third world countries.

    Who do you think owns the businesses that sell this junk to you? It is the 1% we keep hearing about. RICH PEOPLE DON’T BUY THINGS…THEY SELL THINGS…TO PEOPLE SUCH AS YOU. Your continuing to buy this junk is what keeps you in the 99%. You keep yourself poor.

    Put your savings into an IRA and resolve to keep doing this, year in, year out. How do you like being broke all the time? Being broke is not only embarrassing and inconvenient; it can be fatal.

    I’ve been an attorney dealing with trust and estate clients for over 30 years. I’ve seen the habits of wealthy people. I’ve seen how they’ve got and remain wealthy and I share some observations with you.

    Remember: A. Rich people don’t buy things, they sell things.
    B. There is no future whatever in spending money but there is a splendid one in saving and investing it.

    Good Luck.
  • EdwardJ  •  6 months ago
    if the dems want to do this, they have to find money from a program to transfer to the SS trust fund so as not to damage the SS FCund further and also not raise taxes which damages the economy. Are they that incompetent that they cannot find the money in all the government waste???
  • Army Vet  •  6 months ago
    I have no issue paying into the SS fund, as long as its there when I need it in 20 years, so maybe this is not such a bad idea after all, lol lol. When you pay less into this fund, you're gonna get less benefits when you collect at retirement. If this was a federal withholding tax reduction, that would mean you are paying less federal taxes, that would mean something.
  • Dowjones1234  •  6 months ago
    Pay roll tax cuts... What cuts are the democrats going to make to pay for that?
  • Dusty  •  5 months ago
    Cutting the Social security tax paid in does NOT save the worker money. Workers have to pay for the national debt and have to make payments to present retirees.That is because the government (in effect) stole all the social security funds and there is over a Trillion dollars missing that should have been secure..,....Now, If we pay more into SS the government will have to steal the money from there again and leave more IOU's. But at least they will owe us.....If we do not pay more into SS, the government will steal money from us in some other way to make payments.( They have to take CASH from somewhere. ) The difference is that- then- the Gov will not owe the workers anything ..Not paying into SS saves the Gov money. It would cost the workers SS money at a later date....... Meanwhile they continue to try to stop money from going into Social Security. And the GOP doesn't want the rich or business to repay the money stolen. The GOP wants the money stolen from the workers to be paid back by the workers ONLY.......The Government is continuing to undermine SS. And they are trying to get SS in the worst possible condition so they can implement some crazy scheme that is going to end up screwing millions of workers".............................
  • Dad  •  6 months ago
    This is all smoke and mirrors there are 17 million people in this country that will not be affected by this. They don't have jobs!
  • DonR  •  6 months ago
    Harry Reid is so wrong for America.
  • Connie  •  6 months ago
    Why don't they say upfront these tax cuts are coming directly at the expense of Social Security. Why are the seniors descending on DC? Continued extension of these cuts will eventually mean a reduction in benefits. Oh, do not think for a minute that the any taxes
    collected will pay SS back ad the govt already owes SS trillions.
  • Jim  •  6 months ago
    I guess nobody can remember back a year or so ago when the Dems had supermajority (in the house, senate and the white house). They could have passed any laws they wanted, enacted any tax on the wealthy, cut corporate loop holes, done all of these supposed "great" things. DId you ever stop and wonder why they didn't? Nothing has changed in a year. Oh wait I forgot, Obama is running for reelection and they need a boogeyman to point the finger to and say look it's their fault. WAKE UP PEOPLE
  • Garrett  •  6 months ago
    Why not pay for the payroll tax cut by reducing spending! Instead, Democrats want a permanent tax increase to pay for a temporary tax reduction. This proposal is nothing more than an election gimmick that has zero chance of passage.
  • SGR  •  6 months ago
    When the democrats had Obama leading them and super majorities in the House and the Senate they increased the budget deficits 1,3, 1,4 and 1,5 Trillion dollars.
    They added $5.2 Trillion dollars to our National debt. They rammed through Obama-care over the objections of the American people and the helpless Republican Minority in both Houses. Rammed through a (UN) stimulus bill.The word Compromise was never uttered by any of the Democratic leaders. Over the next 10 years based on the budget baseline set up by the Democrats our National debt goes up $9 Trillion dollars from $15.2 Trillion to 24.2 Trillion. Our GDP( @ 15 Trillion ) to debt ratio is @ 100% now. In 10 years it will be @ 150%. (About where the Socialist countries in Europe are defaulting on their debt). That is if they do cut the additional 1.2 Trillion. 24.2-1.2 Trillion leaves a National debt of $23 Trillion. 23T divided by 15.2 trillion - 151% GDP to Debt ratio.Obama and Dem lawmakers want to raise taxes by a Trillion dollars. For what? -to apply it to reducing debt? of course not - so they can spend even more. The old mantra -Spoend and Tax. Obama cannot run on his abysmal record. So he has to propose policies that he knows the republicans and some democrats will oppose to try to run on a platform of blaming Republicans.
    It won't work folks . the democrat controlled Senate has not passed a budget in 3 years. On purpose. Obama's fiscal 2012 budget proposal with a $1.65 Trillion dollar
    deficit was defeated in the democratic controlled Senate 97 to zero. The House passed budget for fiscal 2012 was sent to the Senate and good old Obama stooge Harry Reid declared it dead on arrival. The house bill was not debated , amended and a senate version voted and passed and then the two bills sent to a bi partisan house and senate to work out the differences. No sir= the democrats would have none of that.All for political reasons- Democratic party politics before country.
    Why the H*ll should the American voter vote Democrats into office?
  • red99ryder  •  6 months ago
    I am all for a tax cut ,, but not if they are just going to tax someone else to make up the money . how about cutting some spending instead ?
  • A Yahoo! user  •  6 months ago
    By proposing a tax increase on the wealthy to pay for a payroll tax holiday Democrats are essentially admitting that they view Social Security and Medicare as welfare programs rather than the stand-alone, self-funded programs they were always portrayed as being.
  • S. Charles  •  6 months ago
    I though that the Democrats didn't like tax cuts?
    Oh, that's right, these are not tax cuts, but rather
    only a down payment for votes come November, 2012.
 
Recent Quotes
Symbol Price Change % Chg 
Your most recently viewed tickers will automatically show up here if you type a ticker in the "Enter symbol/company" at the bottom of this module.
You need to enable your browser cookies to view your most recent quotes.
 
Sign-in to view quotes in your portfolios.

Trading Center

Yahoo! Finance on Facebook

  YAHOO! FINANCE ON TWITTER