FICA

[Supposn]

Proposed reduction of payroll-based taxes.
FICA, the Federal Income Contributions Act's taxes upon payrolls, is the most regressive of all federal taxes. It's substantially financially detrimental to lower income employees' and their families, particularly those of the working-poor. Payroll taxes do impact middle income earners and they have extremely insignificant affect upon our nation's wealthy and their families.
Additionally, taxing enterprises based upon their payrolls does not induce creation of jobs.

Proposal (A): If our current the the payroll tax BASED upon wages, (i.e. the values of USA's entire payrolls). wouldn't exceed ½ of a general value added, VAT) sales-based tax base;
I advocate that the current 7.65% payroll taxes, paid by both employees and their employers should be reduced to be 3.10% payroll taxes paid by both employees and their employers.
The consequential tax revenue losses due to the reduction upon payroll-based taxes to be replaced by a 4.55% value added tax, (VAT).
///
Proposal (A): If the Congressional Budget Office, (CBO) projects a future 4.55% value added tax would not replace tax revenues lost due to reducing employees and their employers 7.65% payroll taxes to be 3.10% payroll taxes:
I alternatively advocate the same A-plan's rate of VAT and rate of employees' payroll-taxes upon their wages, but a greater rate of employers' payroll- tax to cover any lost revenue.
The CBO should project the extent beyond 3.10% needed to not suffer any tax revenue loss.
///

For both the (A) or (B), the enacted tax act should then and henceforth explicitly limit the the employees' portions of their payroll-based taxes allocated to Social Security Retirements', to never exceed ¼ of net funds allocated for Social Security Retirement.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Blues Man]

Proposed reduction of payroll-based taxes.
FICA, the Federal Income Contributions Act's taxes upon payrolls, is the most regressive of all federal taxes. It's substantially financially detrimental to lower income employees' and their families, particularly those of the working-poor. Payroll taxes do impact middle income earners and they have extremely insignificant affect upon our nation's wealthy and their families.
Additionally, taxing enterprises based upon their payrolls does not induce creation of jobs.

Proposal (A): If our current the the payroll tax BASED upon wages, (i.e. the values of USA's entire payrolls). wouldn't exceed ½ of a general value added, VAT) sales-based tax base;
I advocate that the current 7.65% payroll taxes, paid by both employees and their employers should be reduced to be 3.10% payroll taxes paid by both employees and their employers.
The consequential tax revenue losses due to the reduction upon payroll-based taxes to be replaced by a 4.55% value added tax, (VAT).
///
Proposal (A): If the Congressional Budget Office, (CBO) projects a future 4.55% value added tax would not replace tax revenues lost due to reducing employees and their employers 7.65% payroll taxes to be 3.10% payroll taxes:
I alternatively advocate the same A-plan's rate of VAT and rate of employees' payroll-taxes upon their wages, but a greater rate of employers' payroll- tax to cover any lost revenue.
The CBO should project the extent beyond 3.10% needed to not suffer any tax revenue loss.
///

For both the (A) or (B), the enacted tax act should then and henceforth explicitly limit the the employees' portions of their payroll-based taxes allocated to Social Security Retirements', to never exceed ¼ of net funds allocated for Social Security Retirement.
Respectfully, Supposn

So you're proposing a new welfare system.

The better option would be to allow people to hold their and their employers SS contributions in private accounts where they can actually build wealth

 

[POM]

4.55% value added tax, (VAT). Absolutely not. No way

 

[Supposn]

So you're proposing a new welfare system.

The better option would be to allow people to hold their and their employers SS contributions in private accounts where they can actually build wealth

Blue Man, no, it's a proposal to reduce payroll-based taxes and providing federal tax revenues that's no less and possibly more than our current federal payroll-based tax revenues.

It would reduce all employees and employers' payroll-based taxes. It would reduce employees' payroll-based FICA taxes by 4.55% , and it would reduce employers' payroll-based taxes to some extent dependent upon CBO's projected analysis of the proportional ratio between USA's current entire payroll tax base and the a propose general VAT-based tax.

If proposal (A) is enacted, it will reduce employers' payroll-based taxes by 4.55% .
If proposal (B) is enacted, it will reduce employers' payroll-based taxes by somewhat less than 4.55% .

Social Security Retirement benefits are not a new system. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

4.55% value added tax, (VAT). Absolutely not. No way

POM, unlike the FICA's payroll-based tax, this proposed VAT would offset reductions of our current payroll-based taxes by 4.55% . Everyone, not just wage earners and their dependents spending any part of their incomes from any sources, would be subject to a general federal VAT type sales tax. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Oddball]

Abolish it all.

 

[POM]

POM, unlike the FICA's payroll-based tax, this proposed VAT would offset reductions of our current payroll-based taxes by 4.55% . Everyone, not just wage earners and their dependents spending any part of their incomes from any sources, would be subject to a general federal VAT type sales tax. Respectfully, Supposn

Absolutely NOT! I pay too much taxes as it is!

 

[Supposn]

... The better option would be to allow people to hold their and their employers SS contributions in private accounts where they can actually build wealth

Blues Man, this tread's a proposal to reduce our federal payroll-based taxes and enact a federal Vat tax would modify our current method of funding our federal Social Security Retirement program and partially funding of our Medicare programs. You're advocating modification of our Social Security Retirement program's purpose.

Social Security Retirement's accomplishes its primary purpose; it reduces the incidences and extents of poverty among the USA elderly; but we should always try to improve its performance.
Our federal tax-deferred programs' intended purposes are to assist individuals' accumulations of wealth set aside for their old-age or estates after they die.

The Reagan administration attempted to privatize SSR and congress rejected it; the proposal was and has thus far continued to be net detrimental to the Republican Party. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Absolutely NOT! I pay too much taxes as it is!

Blues Man, apparently you're not primarily dependent upon wages or you earn more than the maximum wage subject to the Social Security portion of the FICA payroll-based tax.
This proposal was crafted to be of some net benefit to wage earners earning no more than the amount subject to that maximum and is proportionally progressively more beneficial to lesser earning employees. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[POM]

Blues Man, apparently you're not primarily dependent upon wages or you earn more than the maximum wage subject to the Social Security portion of the FICA payroll-based tax.

This proposal was crafted to be of some net benefit to wage earners earning no more than the maximum subject to that maximum and is proportionally progressively more beneficial to lesser earning employees. Respectfully, Supposn

I am not interested in paying a VAT. This is not the EU.
Nor am I Blues Man. I am POM

 

[Supposn]

I am not interested in paying a VAT. This is not the EU. Nor am I Blues Man. I am POM

Pom our individual concepts and policies differ. I'm open to superior products and concepts without great regard for their source. You apparently wouldn't do so.
Value added tax, (VAT) is the superior method for administrating a sales tax.

I was in error, and I forgive you for not being Blues Man. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[POM]

Pom our individual concepts and policies differ. I'm open to superior products and concepts without great regard for their source. You apparently wouldn't do so.
Value added tax, (VAT) is the superior method for administrating a sales tax.

I was in error, and I forgive you for not being Blues Man. Respectfully, Supposn

I already pay 8.25% Sales Tax. I have no interest in paying any more. If you add VAT to only Cigarettes, Tobacco, Alcohol. Junk food, fast food, etc.. I am all for it. I never have nor will I ever use those products. Tax the smokers and the obese. I live a very very clean and healthy lifestyle.

 

[Supposn]

I already pay 8.25% Sales Tax. I have no interest in paying any more. If you add VAT to only Cigarettes, Tobacco, Alcohol. Junk food, fast food, etc.. I am all for it. I never have nor will I ever use those products. Tax the smokers and the obese. I live a very very clean and healthy lifestyle.

Pom, if you're among the overwhelming majority of USA taxpayers, you and your dependents are primarily dependent upon wages and do not earn more than the maximum wage subject to the Social Security portion of the FICA payroll-based tax. The majority of that population's segment doesn't earn more than USA's median income.

In all those cases, regardless of what is their states' sales tax rate, they will not be paying any net additional taxes if this proposal were enacted into law. There additional sales tax would be entirely, or more than entirely offset by the reduction of their FICA payroll-based taxes.

On the other hand, if you're among USA's wealthier earners, regardless of the additional 4.55% federal VAT, you'd likely net benefit greater amounts of post-tax income due to this proposal's net improvements of USA's economy.
Reduction of enterprises' payroll-based taxes, with no reduction of USA's tax revenues, or net increases of taxes levied upon USA's aggregate population would be of some net improvement to USA's economy. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[POM]

Pom, if you're among the overwhelming majority of USA taxpayers, you and your dependents are primarily dependent upon wages and do not earn more than the maximum wage subject to the Social Security portion of the FICA payroll-based tax. The majority of that population's segment doesn't earn more than USA's median income.

In all those cases, regardless of what is their states' sales tax rate, they will not be paying any net additional taxes if this proposal were enacted into law. There additional sales tax would be entirely, or more than entirely offset by the reduction of their FICA payroll-based taxes.

On the other hand, if you're among USA's wealthier earners, regardless of the additional 4.55% federal VAT, you'd likely net benefit greater amounts of post-tax income due to this proposal's net improvements of USA's economy.
Reduction of enterprises' payroll-based taxes, with no reduction of USA's tax revenues, or net increases of taxes levied upon USA's aggregate population would be of some net improvement to USA's economy. Respectfully, Supposn

Thank you for the consideration.
NO TO VAT TAX

 

[Blues Man]

Blue Man, no, it's a proposal to reduce payroll-based taxes and providing federal tax revenues that's no less and possibly more than our current federal payroll-based tax revenues.

It would reduce all employees and employers' payroll-based taxes. It would reduce employees' payroll-based FICA taxes by 4.55% , and it would reduce employers' payroll-based taxes to some extent dependent upon CBO's projected analysis of the proportional ratio between USA's current entire payroll tax base and the a propose general VAT-based tax.

If proposal (A) is enacted, it will reduce employers' payroll-based taxes by 4.55% .
If proposal (B) is enacted, it will reduce employers' payroll-based taxes by somewhat less than 4.55% .

Social Security Retirement benefits are not a new system. Respectfully, Supposn

I don't see how a tax on everything you buy reduces anyone's tax burden.

And VAT taxes are insidious as they add a tax to every part of the production process not just the end sale.

 

[Blues Man]

Blues Man, apparently you're not primarily dependent upon wages or you earn more than the maximum wage subject to the Social Security portion of the FICA payroll-based tax.
This proposal was crafted to be of some net benefit to wage earners earning no more than the amount subject to that maximum and is proportionally progressively more beneficial to lesser earning employees. Respectfully, Supposn

I retired at age 51 a couple years ago and you would be placing an addition tax on everything I buy.

And you're not helping anyone by just shuffling a tax from a payroll tax to a VAT

 

[POM]

I don't see how a tax on everything you buy reduces anyone's tax burden.

And VAT taxes are insidious as they add a tax to every part of the production process not just the end sale.

What Supposn will not admit is the result will be same as with past tax hikes, more spending and higher deficits.

 

[POM]

I retired at age 51 a couple years ago and you would be placing an addition tax on everything I buy.

And you're not helping anyone by just shuffling a tax from a payroll tax to a VAT

Of course it is not. Another ploy to fleece my pockets. NO to VAT

VAT = BAD FOR AMERICA

 

[POM]

VAT reminds me of "Hope and Change" Supposn Hopes you Support the VAT Tax, and what little change you have? It will all be eaten by VAT Tax.

 

[POM]

CUT SPENDING!!!