MCViewPoint

A bunch of baloney designed to keep your stolen money and keep you under the thumb.

Follow the link below to view the article.
http://erietimes.pa.newsmemory.com/?publink=19393d5c0

One thing President Donald Trump has been consistent about in his coronavirus response is that he wants Congress to cut payroll taxes for all Americans and employers until the end of the year. He mentioned it in his national address Wednesday and tweeted about it Friday, and The Washington Post reported it was a reason a coronavirus aid package was held up in Congress for much of the week.

But the one thing both parties in Congress immediately agreed on is they don’t want to give it to him. Why? On the surface, it sounds nice: More money in Americans’ and employers’ pockets to help stem a nosediving stock market and an economy that soon will feel the weight of cancellations everywhere.

But Congress says it’s an expensive, unrealistic effort that could paper over the real economic struggles that the coronavirus brings to Americans.

Cutting taxes is always unrealistic to those who rely on the power, wealth and control gleaned from taxes.

Here’s why Trump didn’t get his payroll- tax cut in this round of legislation and probably won’t: Any tax break on paychecks would come out of the Social Security fund: That would risk seriously denting it or even depleting it, meaning people who depend on their Social Security check each month might not get it in a worst-case scenario. That’s the primary reason Republicans oppose a cut, said a senior Republican Senate aide.

Why not from the bloated defense budget? The defense budget that is as big as the next 10 largest defense budgets in the world combined.

It’s super expensive: Eliminating the payroll tax for both employees and employers would cost the government about $90 billion a month, aides in Congress estimated. Multiply that over the entire year and you’re looking at about $1 trillion in lost government revenue. The New York Times Jim Tankersley put that in perspective: That’s more than the 2008 Wall Street bailout or the 2009 stimulus bill to prop up the economy after the crash that ignited the Great Recession.

Jim Tankersley conveniently forgets, as only a willing NYT government hack can, we are talking about the public’s own hard-earned money. Money stolen before we even have a chance to look at it.

$90B seems closer to payroll tax elimination than a cut. Not that payroll tax elimination would be bad. Having to pay everything all at once would wake up most of the sleeping sheeple.

It would increase most paychecks by 7.65 percent, butthat doesn’t help shift workers or those who rely on tips, said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, on Wednesday. That’s because most of their money doesn’t come from paychecks.

Wrong! People would have more disposable income to spend on shiftwork projects and tipping.

It only helps people who are working now: So if you’re unemployed – or lost your job because of the coronavirus – this wouldn’t help you.

Wrong! More money spent means a more active economy that generates jobs.

And from Democrats’ perspective, it could distract from the real goal they want: mandatory paid sick leave. “If a single mom gets a notice from school her child has to stay home, her getting a payrolltax deduction or refund isn’t going to help her if she loses her job,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., said Friday on MSNBC.

Right and wrong! Mandatory paid sick leave may be the goal but a more active economy will reduce the chance of losing jobs.

Be seeing you