SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Alighieri who wrote (625348)8/21/2011 11:45:03 AM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573211
 
GOP may OK tax increase that Obama hopes to block

By CHARLES BABINGTON
Associated Press

(AP:WASHINGTON)

News flash: Congressional Republicans want to raise your taxes.

Impossible, right? GOP lawmakers are so virulently anti-tax, surely they will fight to prevent a payroll tax increase on virtually every wage-earner starting Jan. 1, right?

Apparently not.

Many of the same Republicans who fought hammer-and-tong to keep the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts from expiring on schedule are now saying a different "temporary" tax cut should end as planned. By their own definition, that amounts to a tax increase.

The tax break extension they oppose is sought by President Barack Obama. Unlike proposed changes in the income tax, this policy helps the 46 percent of all Americans who owe no federal income taxes but who pay a "payroll tax" on practically every dime they earn.

There are other differences as well, and Republicans say their stand is consistent with their goal of long-term tax policies that will spur employment and lend greater certainty to the economy.

"It's always a net positive to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn," says Rep. Jeb Hensarling, "but not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again." The Texas lawmaker is on the House GOP leadership team.

The debate is likely to boil up in coming weeks as a special bipartisan committee seeks big deficit reductions and weighs which tax cuts are sacrosanct.

At issue is a tax that the vast majority of workers pay, but many don't recognize because they don't read, or don't understand their pay stubs. Workers normally pay 6.2 percent of their wages toward a tax designated for Social Security. Their employer pays an equal amount, for a total of 12.4 percent per worker.

As part of a bipartisan spending deal last December, Congress approved Obama's request to reduce the workers' share to 4.2 percent for one year; employers' rate did not change. Obama wants Congress to extend the reduction for an additional year. If not, the rate will return to 6.2 percent on Jan. 1.

Obama cited the payroll tax in his weekend radio and Internet address Saturday, when he urged Congress to work together on measures that help the economy and create jobs. "There are things we can do right now that will mean more customers for businesses and more jobs across the country. We can cut payroll taxes again, so families have an extra $1,000 to spend," he said.

Social Security payroll taxes apply only to the first $106,800 of a worker's wages. Therefore, $2,136 is the biggest benefit anyone can gain from the one-year reduction.

The great majority of Americans make less than $106,800 a year. Millions of workers pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes.

The 12-month tax reduction will cost the government about $120 billion this year, and a similar amount next year if it's renewed.

That worries Rep. David Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, and a member of the House-Senate supercommittee tasked with finding new deficit cuts. Tax reductions, "no matter how well-intended," will push the deficit higher, making the panel's task that much harder, Camp's office said.

But Republican lawmakers haven't always worried about tax cuts increasing the deficit. They led the fight to extend the life of a much bigger tax break: the major 2001 income tax reduction enacted under Bush. It was scheduled to expire at the start of this year. Obama campaigned on a pledge to end the tax break only for the richest Americans, but solid GOP opposition forced him to back down.

Many Republicans are adamant about not raising taxes but largely silent on what it would mean to let the payroll tax break expire.

Republicans cite key differences between the two "temporary" taxes, starting with the fact that the Bush measure had a 10-year life from the start. To stimulate job growth, these lawmakers say, it's better to reduce income tax rates for people and for companies than to extend the payroll tax break.

"We don't need short-term gestures. We need long-term fundamental changes in our tax structure and our regulatory structure that people who create jobs can rely on," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., when asked about the payroll tax matter.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., "has never believed that this type of temporary tax relief is the best way to grow the economy," said spokesman Brad Dayspring.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says payroll tax reductions give the economy a short-term boost. But it says the benefit is bigger if employers get the tax break instead of, or along with, workers.

Some top Republicans have taken a wait-and-see approach, expecting the payroll tax issue to be a bargaining chip in the upcoming debt reduction talks.

Neither House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, nor Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has taken a firm stand on whether to extend the one-year tax cut.

Most GOP presidential candidates also are treading lightly.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney did not flatly rule out an extra year for the payroll tax cut, but he "would prefer to see the payroll tax cut on the employer side" to spur job growth, his campaign said.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich said Republicans will fall under increasing pressure to extend the payroll tax cut. If they refuse, he said in a recent speech, "we're going to end up in a position where we're going to raise taxes on the lowest-income Americans the day they go to work."

Many Democrats also are ambivalent about Obama's proposed tax cut extension. They are more focused on protecting social programs from deep spending cuts. Some worry that a multiyear reduction in the tax designated for Social Security could undermine that program's health and stature.

For decades the payroll tax generated more revenue than the Social Security paid out in benefits. The excess was used to fund other government operations. Last year, however, Social Security benefits began outstripping revenue from its designated sources, forcing the program to start tapping its "trust fund" of government obligations.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.



To: Alighieri who wrote (625348)8/21/2011 11:48:53 AM
From: Sdgla3 Recommendations  Respond to of 1573211
 
You run and hide when presented with facts Al.. And your girl friend teddy sticks his head under your skirt rather than face facts.

Why Hasn’t the Economic Recovery that Obama Promised Happened?
August 20, 2011 - 6:04 am - by Roger Kimball

Part of the answer came in the mail yesterday. Something called “Quicken Loans” (“Engineered,” the letter promised, “to Amaze™”) arrived with the rest of the junk mail offering me an “excellent refinance opportunity.” It turns out that I’m “pre-qualified” for gobs of cash at a special low, low interest rate. Apparently, all I need to do is call their 800 number to discuss my “specific situation” and then toddle around and help myself to the lucre.

This attractive offer is made possible by the outfit’s “partnership” with the Federal Housing Administration, “the largest insurer of mortgages in the world.” The loan would be, the flyer explains, a “great choice in today’s market.” And why? Because FHA loans “offer less strict credit and qualifying guidelines than other mortgages.” That’s right folks, Quicken Loans can offer

* Minimal credit requirements
* Refinance up to 97.75 of your home’s value
* Cash-out refinance up to 85% of your home’s value

And who underwrites the risk? Why you do, chump. You, the taxpayer, pay for the indemnification. You take the bath in case of default and foreclosure. (In 2010, by the way, banks repossessed 1 million homes.)

Now, class, why did the 2008 economic collapse happen? You there, waving your teleprompter: Mr. Obama: what say you? George Bush? Wrong answer.

I’ve been over this before. Review an earlier reading assignment: “Who caused the global economic crisis (Hint: it Wasn’t George W. Bush“). Here’s the formula:

1. Make $1.5 trillion of risky loans to people you know are unlikely to repay them;
2. Allow financial instituions to slice, dice, and repackage the loans, leveraging them up to 30-1;
3. Require financial institutions to value their assets according to strict “mark-to-market” rules, thus denying businesses needed flexibiity during a crisis;
4. Impose onerous new regulations not only on financial institutions but on U.S. business across the board;
5. Keep talking about raising taxes so people and businesses pay their “fair share,” even though 43.4 percent of those who file pay no income tax at all;
6. Create an economic leviathan in the form of health care legislation that will simultaneously worsen health care in the U.S. while also making it wildly more expensive;
7. Keep emphasizing “green” jobs and “green” energy production at a time when unemployment is above 9 percent and energy costs are skyrocketing;
8. Invest billions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money into failing private businesses with huge union obligations to keep the business going for a while longer so that the unions can squeeze more money out of the taxpayers.
9. Ignore the warnings of credit-rating agencies when they warn you are spending too much money and do not have a credible plan to address your skyrocketing deficits and then blame them when, months later, they downgrade your credit rating.

I’m sure there are other elements needed to complete the picture. But those 9 steps are a good start for anyone wishing to wreck the mighty U.S. economy. And here’s the thing: my letter from Quicken Loans shows that we haven’t learned a thing. The FHA, part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (another albatross brought to you by Lyndon Johnson’s cruelly named “Great Society”) , smiles broadly as companies actively seek out risky loan prospects to whom they can dispense their, i.e., your largess.

Meanwhile, President Holiday (AKA “President Downgrade“) has abandoned his shiny new Canadian built luxury bus in order to eat ice cream and play golf on Martha’s Vineyard. He’ll be back, though: the bus is idling, just like the U.S. economy, and so long as there is any hint of wealth creation in America, his work is not done.



To: Alighieri who wrote (625348)8/21/2011 1:52:57 PM
From: Jim McMannis  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1573211
 
I remember when Buffet used to pay himself only about $100k/year. Token. Trust me, if he pays himself more now a days it's to his tax advantage. I bet he won't cough up his return. Wanna bet?

-----------------------------------

Seems I was right.............still doing it.
Wheres the apology AL?

Buffett Retains $100,000 Salary After Faulting Pay Excesses

bloomberg.com
Enlarge image
Berkshire Hathaway Inc chairman and CEO Warren Buffett

Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

Warren Buffett, chairman and chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

Warren Buffett, chairman and chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

Warren Buffett, the billionaire chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A), was paid a $100,000 salary for a 30th straight year after warning that excessive executive compensation can hurt shareholders.

Buffett, 80, received no bonus in 2010 and he doesn’t get stock options or grants, the Omaha, Nebraska-based firm said today in a filing. Buffett’s personal and home-security services paid for by Berkshire cost $349,946. The company’s compensation committee has determined salaries since 2004. Buffett, Berkshire’s chairman and largest shareholder, formerly recommended his own salary to the board.

Buffett built Berkshire over four decades of acquisitions and stock picks, bringing the value of his personal stake in the company to about $50 billion, almost all of which he has pledged to charity. He has said executive compensation needs to be more closely tied to a company’s long-term performance, rather than to annual profits that may be wiped out.

“His own frustration with regard to executive pay practices is reflected in not only talking the talk, but he and his organization walk the walk,” said Frank Glassner, CEO of Veritas Executive Compensation Consultants in San Francisco.“He in the past noted he considers himself the ‘Typhoid Mary’of compensation committees, so he very clearly believes in his mantra, that total shareholder return must take place before the executives are paid.”

Berkshire Class A shares rose about 21 percent in 2010 to $120,450 on the New York Stock Exchange. The stock has climbed another 5.7 percent this year to $127,346 as of 2:31 p.m.

Buffett told the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in May that top executives must be held responsible for the performance of companies that falter.

At the Top