Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Q About The Payroll Tax "holiday"  
User currently offlineAirstud From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2641 posts, RR: 3
Posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 937 times:

As I am to understand it, "payroll tax" is a synonym for what I've always known as FICA. That is, an amount equal to 12.4% of each person's income must be contributed to Social Security, and an amount equal to 2.9% goes to Medicare. If you are self-employed, you're on the hook for the whole 15.3%; whereas if you have an employer, they have to cover half of it: 6.2% comes out of your paycheck and into Social Security; 1.45% out of your check into Medimacare, and the employer coughs up the rest.

For awhile now, we employed folk have had some "relief" from this - I'm not sure of the exact amount, but apparently the dings to our paychecks have been less than 6.2%. Currently there is controversy about extending this "tax holiday;" Obama wants it to go on and the Republicans think it shouldn't.

My first question: Is Social Security just eating this, or is the liability just being shifted in the employees' favor? That is, if my SS contribution has gone down from 6.2% to, say, 4.2%, is my employer ponying up that 2% difference? I've googled this but can't find answers. It seems to me that either the employers are picking it up, or Social Security now has the one thing it desparately needs: lessened revenues.  

If it's the first thing, and the employers are on the hook, then that's also a bad thing: The cumulative cost of that is surely stultifying job creation. My employer has more than 250,000 employees; 2% doesn't sound like a lot, but when you multiply it by 250,000 that's a lot of money being sucked out of a company's coffers, money which could otherwise be used for reinvestment & job creation. Those of us who are lucky to have steady paychecks these days don't need a 2% bonus; what's needed is paychecks for folks who ain't got them.


Pancakes are delicious.
2 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24889 posts, RR: 46
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 923 times:

Yes SS has been eating the lost income, only setting us up even larger future shortfall.

Since January 2011, the employee portion has been reduced 2% while employers still have paid the full 6.2%.

Estimated lost income to the SS fund in 2011 was projected at $112Bil result of the 2% roll back.

Obama's proposal to raise the holiday to 3.1 percent in 2012 is estimated to cost the fund another $175Bil.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2989 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 915 times:

Quoting Airstud (Thread starter):
Obama wants it to go on and the Republicans think it shouldn't.


Please show me the legislation to which you are referring, oh there is none, only a verbal comment in a campaign speech.

Quoting Airstud (Thread starter):
My first question: Is Social Security just eating this, or is the liability just being shifted in the employees' favor? That is, if my SS contribution has gone down from 6.2% to, say, 4.2%, is my employer ponying up that 2% difference


Somebody else, it is kicking the can down the road, decreasing contributions to be back filled by someone else down the road.

Part of the campaign speech indicates that there could be some relief for the employer as well but again only the White house knows there is nothing other than the teleprompter to determine.

From what sources AP, CNN, etc have determined that the money will have to be made up by the "super committee" for the $450B jobs vapor bill, so instead of having to deal with $1.5T now they have to deal with nearly $2T. That only leave 3 sources for the committee to fund $2T, Social Security, Medicare, and Defence.
It is kind of ironic all the people at the campaign speeches clapping, cheering, and kumbaya's on how excited they are over giving up there SS and Medicare.

Again lets see the legislation first then determine if it is worth the costs for a 1 year program. This a political bill which obviously is riddled with bad (you fill in the word). Otherwise, it would have already been presented. If you listened to the speech then you would know that it has a little bit for the teachers unions, a little for the police unions, a little for firefighers union, a little for schools, a little for roads, a little for infrastruce, a little for homeowners that are Tango Uniform, a little for middle income, a little more for unemployment, just a lot of kumbaya from "Central Planning". Why the heck do you think it took over 30 minutes, there is a little something for everybody. I just can not see exactly where is the job creation.

Okie


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
About The Lowered Alcohol Tax In Denmark. posted Mon Sep 29 2003 16:54:46 by Mika
A General PSA About The Flu posted Thu Nov 25 2010 02:06:25 by DocLightning
Funny Cartoons About The Volcano Chaos posted Mon Apr 19 2010 11:49:05 by Yazoo
Letter To The President About The TSA posted Mon Dec 28 2009 13:08:42 by DocLightning
Questions About The Phillipines? posted Thu Dec 17 2009 15:06:09 by KLMA330
Question About The Band Heart posted Sat Oct 24 2009 19:37:05 by Mike89406
Coke (Soda Or Pop If Not From The South) Tax? posted Tue Sep 22 2009 22:52:30 by Texan
Train Buffs: Questions About The SW Chief posted Wed Jul 29 2009 22:04:12 by DesertJets
Infrastructure Question About The USA posted Mon Jun 22 2009 14:13:02 by Klemmi85
Thoughts About The Honda Jazz posted Mon Mar 23 2009 09:43:25 by Signol