Current SS Tax is 6.2% Employee and Employer and MI is 1.45% for both as well

[PBS Poll-435]

What if we just called off this charade and increased the SS tax to 8% on both sides and MI to 2% for both.

I won't miss a little more that 2% out of my paycheck and the "crisis" is solved. Plus it seems for the huge companies (like GE) it would be the only way to guarantee that they would pay a little more tax to the Federal Gov't.

Abracadabra


And Paul Ryan can go back to milking dairy cows (and I don't mean Greta Van Susteren).

[Motown_Johnny]

1. it makes more sense to remove the cap and let the wealthy pay that tax

on income above the current cap ($106,000/yr. if memory serves)

[PBS Poll-435]

3. It is indexed and changes ever year

(the SS cap). Off the top of my head for TY2011 it is $106,000.

Medicare tax does not have a cap.


But if we as a country wanted to get serious about keeping this programs above water we could bite the bullet and just do it.

[Gold Metal Flake]

5. Current workers are paying for current retirees and future retirees.

Instead of adding additional burdens on workers we should bite the bullet, raise the cap, lower the rate and be done with it forever.

[PBS Poll-435]

6. What about Medicare?

It has no cap and is predicted to be in even worse financial shape than SS.

[Gold Metal Flake]

7. Medicare For All and I would consider paying more.

A lot more.

[DrDan]

2. so - raise the contribution for everyone below the cap

how about just eliminating the cap? Who can afford the increase more - those making over the cap? or those under?

[PBS Poll-435]

4. As a matter of simple math, there are a lot more employees that make less than 106.8K than make more

The point is to make sure that employers like GE, Wal-Mart, and McDonald's do their fair share of the tax burden.

[DrDan]

8. or course there are

and as a matter of simple math - 6% on income over $106K is greater than 0% on income over $106K

[PBS Poll-435]

10. 8% on W2 and SE earners is much more than 6% on incomes over $106.8K

Really. Plus you get the employer to pony up a little bit more too!

[DrDan]

12. I am trying to understand why anyone would support less contribution for those above $106K

[PBS Poll-435]

14. Because the benefit is not linear. Medical costs are not certain, but SS benifits are.

You do get a statement every couple of years from SSA, right?


And you will scoop up way more $$$ for the SS trust fund by getting employers to pay a little bit more.




And also, how many $106.8K earners are there and how many make less than that?

[DrDan]

17. and how many make SIGNIFICANTLY more than $106K

it is far more complex than simply the number of earners below $106K and the number above

after all - one making $1,060K would pay the same as 10 that pay at the cap

[PBS Poll-435]

18. Not a lot. (That is why they are called the 1 or 2 Percent)

Plus they will take deferrals or stock options or some other type of NON-W2 compensation.

Do you honestly think that if the cap was removed it would make a difference?

[DrDan]

19. of couse it would

and deferrals eventually catch up

[PBS Poll-435]

20. Not really. As much bitching is done about the huge megacorps not paying enough in income tax

I believe the only way to actually collect from them is through FICA.

And, again, there are relatively few folks that have a huge number on a W2. That is the purpose of deferrals, stock options, cadillac heath plans, "reimbursements" not subject to 1099, etc.


But what the hell do I know....

:)

[alc]

9. it all comes out of workers' pay

When I want to hire someone, I budget for say $70k/year. Then subtract costs ("employer matching" taxes, insurance, benefits, etc) and can offer $50/year. It doesn't really matter that 1/2 the FICA taxes are listed as "employee" and the other 1/2 as "employer" - they both come from my budget for that employee and it would be the same if it was 100% employee or 100% employer. I also have a tool that shows me employees' raises for the next 5 years. When taxes or benefits go up the raises go down. Raises DO go up if other costs go down. We want to pay as much as we can to keep employees happy and retain them. But any cost for having an employee is reflected in their pay.

This is a pretty large company. But it's been that way everywhere I've been from a company I owned with 2-5 employees to very large companies.

[PBS Poll-435]

11. The fact remains; if you need the help to make revenue you are going to pay what it costs

If you believe that a 3% increase in taxes justifies not increasing your revenue or compliance then you didn't really need to hire in the first place.

[alc]

21. we hire when we need & have budget

We just pay a smaller salary when overhead is higher.

[PBS Poll-435]

22. That seems fair. Hire people when you need them and having them makes more than it costs

Brilliant!

Payroll taxes are deductible for 1120/1120S/1065/Sch C businesses. And for businesses that have tipped employees, any effective wage over minimum wage is a credit back to the business!

[dkf]

13. It only makes sense to overfund these plans if they get invested in assets that produce income.

Otherwise you are simply raising a regressive tax which will be used to reduce or keep progressive income taxes lower.

[End Of The Road]

15. For 2011, the employee SS rate is 4.2%, NOT 6.2%

Employer rate remains 6.2%. But you're correct about the medicare.

[PBS Poll-435]

16. Yeah. This year. But it reverts back to the standard rate in 2012

Thank you for the quick correction.

Generally speaking though, the rate is 6.2%.


Why our Democrats in DC ever agreed to fuck SS contributions via compromise only exacerbates the phony "crisis" the Rand Pauls and Paul Ryans of the world have created.