Today on CNN Newsroom

The latest news and information from around the world. Also connect with CNN through social media. We want to hear from you.
December 8th, 2010
02:32 PM ET
soundoff (7 Responses)
  1. Don Lennert

    Do I have this corrrect: Bush era tax cut extension / 2% FICA reduction for employee's / expiration of the Obama Administration program that gave everyone approx $400 per individual / $800 per couple this past year.

    There are a number of workers in the country that do not contribute to SS (FICA) because they are covered by another "retirement / pension" system. Question: If those workers lose the $400 / $800 per year and don't get to take advantage of the corresponding reduction in FICA withholding, their net pay would go down and they'd have LESS to spend and contribute to the economy.

    How far off base am I on this?

    December 8, 2010 at 4:30 pm |
  2. Christy Benson

    Hi Ali, The basic problem here is we keep repeating the same mistakes with LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY over and over! Specifically, we are giving away costly tax cuts to the wealthy with NO STRINGS ATTACHED or PROOF of job creation required. Just like 2008, when firms could take the bailout funds with no strings attached, so of course within 6 – 12 months later we see AIG throwing lavish parties and wall street firms paying record exec bonuses. We could easily have built into the TARP legislation a FREEZE ON EXEC BONUSES as a basic condition of taking bailout funds but failed to do so. This tax extension is the exact SAME MISTAKE... If the Republicans argue that it is the richest 5% of the country who can create the most jobs, then it is simple enough to structure the tax extension in a manner that MAKES THEM PROVE IT!! Folks earning more than $250k should simply be required to file an additional tax schedule DOCUMENTING that they actually invested their money into JOB CREATING SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED BUSINESSES, requring them show how many people their companies hired during the tax year! To actually create jobs, tax cuts must support real entrepreneurs and the NOT Lindsay Lohan trust fund babies. It needs to give high income company owners strong INCENTIVES to hire again in order to take advantage of the tax break. Why can't we ever learn from mistakes? Don't give so much away (billions in tax cuts) without making sure we get something back (millions of new jobs).

    December 9, 2010 at 10:34 am |
  3. wiliam ryals

    This tax cut package is a very bad idea. extending the tax breaks for those making up to 1 million would have been acceptable but the inheritance tax break is ridiculous and so is the payroll tax break.
    When will the situation be bad enough for politicians and the news media to explore alternatives. Here is one that will work and not cost a fortune: Require retailers to purchase a percentage of their resale goods in certain categories and when available in the form of american made products.
    I have been told that this is a taboo subject. My question is why and who has made it taboo. I can't get even get a response arguing that it wouldn't work–just stonewalling.

    December 9, 2010 at 1:34 pm |
  4. Steve

    Dems need to let the estate tax go the republicans way. We need to protect the wealth of American entrepreneurs. Reset the taxes for individuals making 1 million or more and buisinesses making 1 billion or more. That would pay for unemployment benefits. Pass the DADT, health benefits and DREAM. Problem solved yall.

    December 10, 2010 at 11:39 am |
  5. Ryan Wilmot

    Hi Ali. Your guest commented that tax cuts for the rich will allow small businesses to create jobs. I keep hearing this line. I own a small business, and I can tell you that these tax cuts having nothing to do with helping create jobs. The tax in question is on profits and income that people make over $250K! Most small business owners do not make that much profit, and if they do, they can easily reinvest some money back into their business to avoid the tax.

    If congress wants to help small businesses hire, then they should take the $600B, and instead create a tax cut on the payroll taxes that small businesses pay, which is to say the employer half of Social Security and Medicare. This could make each employee as much as $300/mo. cheaper, which would really help make our workers more competitive in the global market.

    It's so important for people to understand that those legacy costs (SS and Medicare), along with health insurance are killing small businesses, because these costs add on roughly $1000 per month to each employee on top of their pay. If there is anyway that a business can instead hire someone overseas, that cost gets totally eliminated. That has proven to be a massive incentive to outsource, which is why we have few jobs left. If we removed that burden from small businesses, and replace it with another tax such as a small national sales tax, it would make our workers vastly more competitive globally, and small businesses would boom, which in turn would cause our economy to boom.

    December 11, 2010 at 2:30 pm |
  6. Catherine Connolly

    The new tax cut proposal would effectively renew the jobless extensions that have already been passed for another 13 months, but it would not extend them beyond the current 99 week limit. The 99ers are the real long-term unemployed and are losing everything! How can the President and Congress continue to ignore 5 million people!!!!
    That means, under the new plan, someone who has exceeded their initial 26 weeks of benefits would be able to continue collecting for an additional 73 weeks, which is certainly not insubstantial to the families who rely on those benefits to put food on the table.
    However, this extension would do nothing for the many Americans who have been unemployed for 99 weeks or longer!

    What are we supposed to do?
    The 99'ers need help!

    Catherine Connolly
    Jersey City, NJ

    December 12, 2010 at 7:22 pm |
  7. Raj

    If you have a child during 2009 than yes you will get a tax break when you file taxes next year. For crchdiale you can receive some of that back but its a really high amount that you have to qualify. Also, if you have any medical expenses you have to pay for yourself than thats a tax deduction also.

    May 12, 2012 at 9:56 pm |

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.