|
|
|
|
|
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007...b409456532.txt
By Sen. Barack Obama | Friday, September 21, 2007
I do not want to cut benefits or raise the retirement age. I believe there are a number of ways we can make Social Security solvent that do not involve placing these added burdens on our seniors. One possible option, for example, is to raise the cap on the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax. If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500, we could virtually eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall.
Of all his ideas, this one strikes me as one of the least stupid. If I have to pay 15% of my salary to Social Security, why does someone who makes 4X what I make only have to pay basically the same amount? I'm paying 15%, they're paying about 4%. It's one of the most regressive taxes there is.Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
We might as well do away with the fiction that SS is anything other than a tax and just make it an even one (surely fair tax people would support that idea right?)
I doubt he's right about making up the shortfall that way (and it'd probably not be economincally sound), but it's hardly unfair to ask everyone to pay the same percentage of tax.
(and please don't try to tell me that I only pay 7.5% and my employer pays the other half)
The payouts from SS aren't ratioed based on what you pai in
if you are employed by someone you do. If you're self-employed, you pay the whole amount yourself.
Neither is any other tax--I don't get goods and services to match my pay in to income tax, and neither does anyone else. Makes no difference.
If you're self-employed, you see it come out of your pocket. If someone else employs you, the employer takes the money he could pay you in salary and pays it in FICA. The effect is the same. Employers look at total cost of employment, not salary. If there's no FICA, they could pay more.
Corporate payment of SS is not really any different from other corporate taxes. It's just a way to hide the tax from the one who's really paying it.
No kidding. Really?
Learn something new everyday.
The self employeds I know around here are only paying themselves the salary that ssn says they are taxed on. The rest of their income is paid as profits and therefore unearned income which is not taxed for social security. Another one of those loopholes.
They would be better off paying them selves the bonus if they are a Sub-s or C-corp -
If they are an LLC/1065 they are drawing out profits (EARNED INCOME) that are then subject to SS & medicare & high tax rate (Income subject to self employment) - and just accounting for it incorrectly on thier personal tax return and opening up a huge potential liability - (most likely)
If they are a sub-s they could be drawing out excess earnings and subject to a higher tax and basis charge (which is 2nd most likely) - just deferring the taxes until there is a partnership change and then there is a BIG price tag -
Best thing to is to hire a GOOD CPA and make sure they have their bases covered - if it is a business and they are drawing out money it is EARNED INCOME in some shape form or fashion - if it is rental, it is still subject to tax and the various basis rules but it has to be a TRUE RENTAL or it is subject SE....
''Don't be a bad dagh..."
So you obviously don't have a problem with increasing the income tax rate either.
It amazes me that otherwise conservative individuals can be indoctrinated into believing certain things about taxation.
Please read all about the original intent for the SS system and why it is now in trouble. I can assure you it is not because of the lack of funds received.
I understand your point, but I just don't know that it matters anymore. Regardless of the original intent of SS, what it is now is a tax on those who are working to support those who are retired. No question it is that way because it's been butchered, but I was just addressing where we are--not where we should be. Legitimate fixes to SS are not politically possible, imo.
Regressive taxes are the most fair.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
That video speaks for itself. John McCain gets it, Hillary Clinton gets it, Obama and Biden do not. I am also not convinced that just 5% of American families fall into the "rich" category. I am not rich and certainly not a Sam Wyly rich. The IRS or GSA need to verify this so Obama can stop walking around all authoritative saying that the supposed rich folks do not pay enough. In one debate John McCain I think jokingly said that rich was those making more than five million. I think McCain is closer to the number than Obama. What they all fail to realize or consider is that most of us just do not get out of college making 150-250K. We work hard for many years at much low wages working our way up to get there. Now that we make a good wage its time to tax the heck out of us. By doing that we then have to work much longer to save for retirement, pay off mortgages, put kids through school, help aging parents and on and on. I am all for paying my fair share of taxes and have done so every year and do not cheat on the taxes at all. I am just not prepared to part with more. The government needs to cut spending first, make government more efficient, and then come to us with the shortfall if there is one. The first thought should not be to immediately raise taxes and start new social programs.
The other aspect to shifting the tax burden to exclusively the "rich" as defined by the democrats is that it may discourage people for trying to make more and discourage small businesses and entrepreneurs. It will get to the point where if you make over a certain amount you have to consider if the tax bump from say 250K has the net effect of take home pay that matches a lower salary that falls under the high bracket. It seems to me if I will get hammered with taxes starting at 250K that either I stay under it or greatly surpass it so the pain of the taxes are not as bothersome. It will depend how the new taxes are assessed but something taxpayers might consider when they are enacted.
Either way to slice it, many middle class americans will be paying more in taxes. Even if the evil corporate empire pays part of it, the sheep in the "hate corporate america" crowd don't realize that this is why jobs get exported to other countries.
Even Democratic economists speculate that the number for which the Obama tax plan will realistically be the point where you will not have your taxes raised is 120K. In actuality, it will probably be around 90K. But hey, the land of bubble gum and farts is cozy, so daybreaker2 can just take off work early if he gets promoted.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
