It's like you're a child. I'm posting ssa/irs official documentation. You're posting wikipedia. You win the wikipedia contest. Have a nice life.
Feel the Bern...the campus has been compromised
- Thread starter PurduePete
- Start date
You just keep being wrong, amazingly wrong.
"high-earners" whatever you mean that term to be, but let's assume it's anyone who makes say 250K a year or more, since that's usually the political cutoff both sides seem to agree on...those folks pay SS tax on less than HALF of their income. Everyone else who makes 113.7K or less pays it on their ENTIRE income. The more you earn, the less you pay into FICA as a percentage of your personal income.
Also, unearned income doesn't have FICA apply to it AT ALL. Guess who is most likely to have unearned income? "High-earners."
For folks who run a business, their FICA is tied to the number of people they employ NOT how much income the business earns. So, a highly profitable business with few workers, pays less than a business just scrapping by with more workers.
You know what would actually erase all or most of that shortfall? Raising the cap.
There are other possible solutions to garner more money to erase the shortfall of course that don't involve cutting benefits or raising retirement age.
As far as "horrifically managed." You mean the program that has been around
Of course, the absolute silliness of 75-year actuarials is self-explanatory to most...our record of projecting economic realities even out to 10 years is pretty spotty.
You don't understand what you are posting from the IRS. I'm trying to post it at a reading level I think you'd understand.
Sadly, I was wrong.
it has NOTHING TO DO with either the number of people OR business income. IT IS BASED ON THE WAGES OF THE EMPLOYEES. PERIOD. wtf is wrong with you?
Taxes under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) are composed of the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance taxes, also known as social security taxes, and the hospital insurance tax, also known as Medicare taxes. Different rates apply for these taxes.
Social Security and Medicare Withholding Rates
The current tax rate for social security is 6.2% for the employer and 6.2% for the employee, or 12.4% total. The current rate for Medicare is 1.45% for the employer and 1.45% for the employee, or 2.9% total. Refer to Publication 15, (Circular E), Employer's Tax Guide, for more information; or Publication 51, (Circular A), Agricultural Employer’s Tax Guide, for agricultural employers.
Additional Medicare Tax Withholding Rate
Additional Medicare Tax applies to an individual’s Medicare wages that exceed a threshold amount based on the taxpayer’s filing status. Employers are responsible for withholding the 0.9% Additional Medicare Tax on an individual’s wages paid in excess of $200,000 in a calendar year, without regard to filing status. An employer is required to begin withholding Additional Medicare Tax in the pay period in which it pays wages in excess of $200,000 to an employee and continue to withhold it each pay period until the end of the calendar year. There is no employer match for Additional Medicare Tax. For more information, see Questions and Answers for the Additional Medicare Tax.
Wage Base Limits
Only the social security tax has a wage base limit. The wage base limit is the maximum wage that is subject to the tax for that year. For earnings in 2016, this base is $118,500. Refer to "What’s New" in Publication 15 for the current wage limit for social security wages; or Publication 51 for agricultural employers.
There is no wage base limit for Medicare tax. All covered wages are subject to Medicare tax.
I'm going to try one more time in as simple a manner as I can to explain this to you, and then I'm going to just assume it's like explaining quantum physics to a cat.
If I have ONE employee I'm going to pay a certain amount of FICA. If I have TEN employees, no matter what any of those employees earn, I'm almost definitely going to pay a ton more in FICA.
Ten is bigger than one.
So yes, if I have a large business I'm going to pay more, REGARDLESS of how much my employees make, and if I have a tiny business, I'm going to pay less, REGARDLESS of how much my employees make, except in some very weird and unusual situations.
ok here's a math problem for you. You have 1 employee that makes 100k salary. How much do they pay?
1*100000*.062=???
Now, instead, let's say you have 10 employees that each make 10k salary. How much do they pay?
10*10000*.062=???
seriously. get help.
So you think there are a ton of business out there, that either:
have 1 employee that makes 100K?
or
have 10 employees that make less than the minimum wage?
Thus the problem you have with your argument, it requires an extreme set of facts to make it work, which is why I typed "except in some very weird and unusual situations."
Well, not to take this too far in another direction but if you 1099 all of your employees you pay no payroll tax and the employee would see FICA as an income tax since it is caculated on net income.
This is one area of the minimum wage debate that is overlooked, 1099, and being in an industry that I assume utilizes it at a far greater rate than most others how things like FICA, which they now owe the employer side as well, let alone the difficulty most construction workers may have properly calculating their net income, with requirements of many employers that they own a vehicle, smart phone, tools, auto/comp/GL insurance... mean $15 an hour isn't a living wage in most parts of the country.
Like I said, I'm sure one can come up with ways to play the system or extreme examples where one person costs more than 10, but in the VAST majority of situations, the more you employ, the more you pay...regardless of success...and that was TSB's "point" to the extent he has points...that SS was somehow a penalty on "higher earners."
It's not, as reality, and your exception, and the fact that unearned income isn't taxed by FICA at all, shows.
No, I'm not disagreeing with you.
I was headed into the abuses of 1099 and have found it interesting that comp and GL insurers seem to have figured it out and are forcing employers into openly stating employees need to carry it themselves or I've heard some will deduct it and bring them on theirs. I think FICA should be handled in a similar way, and income tax as well, give a period of amnesty for all the years 1099 employees didn't file simply because they couldn't afford the lump sum payment at tax time, but then allow the employee to determine if they want a reduced wage with the employer contributing or take it all but at least make them aware of what 1099 really means. Somewhere there has to be a reliable study on just how much 1099 is costing in lost tax revenue and FICA, construction alone would be measurable I'm sure.
other than a sadistic misanthrope, who cares about nominal amounts when talking about fairness of taxation. Even if the single mother of 2 working minimum wage donated all her $15k annual income to taxes, its still peanuts to the person clearing millions yearly. Nominal amounts have no point in this debate.
I won't be too quick to make that assertion. Have you seen recent life tables about how life expectancy varies with income level. The difference in life expectancy between high income quintile and lowest is almost 7 years. Poorer people die earlier. Also generally speaking, lower income people often began working earlier since they didn't spend years acquiring education. And finally, they paid a much higher percentage of their income in FICA than the richest since we have a cap on how much income is subject to FICA tax.
Somebody already pointed out the absurdity of 75 year projections. But hey, heres a simple fix. Just raise the cap so the millionaire pays FICA at the same tax rate at as the laborer and IU grad running McD cashier. Problem solved.
well you split my sentence to make yourself feel better...They DO have a point when you talk about them with respect to the benefit which is what I did...
Life expectancy varying with income is not causal. How about intelligent and careful people live longer than stupid people with high risk behaviors (smoking, drug use) and intelligent and careful people are also more likely to be wealthy. It has been found that a 15-point IQ advantage translated into a 21% greater chance of survival. For example, a person with an IQ of 115 was 21% more likely to be alive at age 76 than a person with an IQ of 100 (the average for the general population).
Look, I didn't make the 75 year projections. This is pulled straight from the SSA website. I'm not making this up. This is the gov's own data. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p1.html
I agree something needs to be done. All I'm pointing out is the last few administrations have ignored the 21 years worth of reports saying it's out of balance, supporting my original argument of mismanagement.
I see your point...Reagan has maybe been beatified a bit early...but let's put it this way...he's the last president that I was not ashamed to have as head of state...OK, maybe Bush 1. Every clown since has progressively pushed the office to new lows...and that streak will continue, it would appear, regardless of which one of the current clown-didates wins the general election.
