What is a fair tax rate?

[Erand7899]

As usual, Saigon is ignorant as all hell.[/B]

10% is fair. 10% across the board. 10% for upper. 10% for middle. 10% for lower. 10% of $100,000,000 is $10 million. 10% of $30,000 is $3,000. The wealthy would still be paying a LOT more.

No capital gains tax. No sales tax. No VAT tax. No property tax. NO other forms of tax - period. I've already been taxed, there is no excusing for taxing me over and over and over and over.

This is 100% sustainable if we have constitutional government. God Himself only asks for 10%. It's completely absurd and asinine that the greedy government and greedy, lazy liberal dumbocrats would ask for more than what God does.

Yet again.... you are not thinking clearly and rationally about the whole picture. We cannot compete globally with your 'plan'. We absolutely must be able to compete on a global scale or the country is fucked.

It the federal government would return to the responsibilities assigned to it by the Constitution, it could well thrive on just 10% State taxes would increase, but people have more control over state government than they do the federal government.

People need to realize that the overwhelming majority of federal expenditures take place in the social programs, defense, and interest on the national debt. The social programs, especailly medicare and medicaid are driving the deficits. Anyone who thinks that Obamacare will help our health care cost situation is a fool.

 

[Erand7899]

In that time we were isolationists with barely a standing armed forces. Drugs were largely legal and we didnt have a huge drug war and prison cost. The same people bitching about the tax rate are many of the same ones who don't want to cut the department of defense a dime.

If you want to cut the tax rate you have to start with the military and end the drug war. And yes you have to address Medicare and Medicaid. ( I am assuming falsely social security is self funding)

Sorry, but the last place you need to cut is the military. Most of the budget goes to pay for bloated income transfer schemes. That's where you need to take the meat axe to.

You are right about your assumptions about Social Security. It hasn't been "self funding" since it was started.

The drug war accounts for a small fraction of the budget. However, I'm in favor of ending that as well.

Social security has been 'self funding" for most of its life. In fact, for most of those years, social security ran a surplus, and that surplus was transferred to the general fund and spent by congress. Now, since Obama has seen fit to cut the social security payroll tax to buy a few votes, social security is running in the red, and taxpayers are picking up the slack.

All of the excess that congress spent, plus interest, is owed to the social security trust fund by American tax payers. I doubt the DNC told you that.

 

[Againsheila]

OK, we'd all like to pay 0%, but what tax rates do you think would be fair - and sustainable?

For simplicity, I've broken it down here into these main categories:

Low income 20%
Middle income 27.5%
High income 35%

Corporate tax 30%

VAT 15%

Tax on dividends & shares 25%

Any other major tax categories needed?

My plan is to raise income for the state with a VAT, which will hit the shadow economy and mean even drug dealers are paying some tax.

With that extra income I can then trim corporate taxes.

Feel free to add more details in - I did this very quickly!

Up to $20,000 no tax meaning for EVERYBODY. Nobody pays any taxes on their first $20,000. On their next $20,000 to $50,000 everybody pays 20% taxes, no exceptions no deductions. Everybody pays 30% on their next $50,000 to $100,000, no exceptions, no deductions. Everybody pays 40% on their next $100,000 to $250,000. Everyone pays 50% on their next $250,000 to $500,000. Everyone pays 60% on their next $500,000 to $1,000,000 and above $1,000,000 70% tax.

Now, if you want to give to a charity, 10% of your income you can deduct off the top of your income. IE, if you make $1,000,000 and you give $100,000 to charity, you now make $900,000. Anything less than 10%, no deductions and no deductions for the boxes of crap you gave to the goodwill. If you give one item worth 10% of you income it must be appraised and an appraisal slip included with your taxes.

No corporate welfare. IE for any money or taxbreaks given to a corporation it must provide and equal or better benefit to society. If it fails to do so, it must pay back the money or taxbreaks. Or the state takes over the corporation.


Oh, and corporate tax is on profits after labor and then 30%. If labor is more than 30% of it's cost, then the taxes on the corporation is nil, provided of course that 30% is distributed so that no one makes more than 50 times what anyone else makes. Any stocks given or paid to anyone is INCOME.

All income including capital gains will be taxed as INCOME. Any any income made in the stock market will not be taxed until the stocks are sold (except of course if the stocks are given or paid to you, then they are taxed as income when given and not taxed again until sold). Any income from your home will not be taxed until that home is sold. If you inherit, that's INCOME.

No VAT tax.

No excise tax.

Income tax only! No sales tax. No duty, no nothing, only income.

We will allow a one time only $1,000,000 free inheritance. If your parents die and leave you a $1,000,000 farm, the farm is not taxed UNTIL YOU SELL IT, Then it is income on any value between the $1,000,000 when you inherited and what it is sold for. If the farm is worth $1,000,050, that last $50 is added to you income immediately, etc. Everyone is allowed to inherit up to $1,000,000 without paying taxes on it.

The $1,000,000 will be attached to the cost of living, as will everything else. IE, $20,000 today may be $25,000 next year, etc.

So you're saying that the ******* government is entitled to everyone's net worth over a million dollars?

Shit why wait until people die to steal their money? Every time your net worth goes over 1 million the ******* government should confiscate the "excess".

No, I'm saying if you inherit $1,000,050 then you should add that $50 to you income and pay whatever tax rate you own on your INCOME. If you make $19,050, you owe NO income. If you make $20,000, you owe 20% of that $50 to the government.

 

[Againsheila]

Again.. easy for someone to want to punish those they vilify by treating them unequally... and Sheila is showing the perfect example of that... they act as if everything is the government's, and they decide how much is too much for persons.... that plan is just as bad as the reverse, where lower incomes would be taxed at a higher rate and higher incomes would be taxed nothing or close to nothing... it is ALL pandering, it is all unequal treatment, and it is all bullshit

No it's not, you can't get blood from a turnip. You can make someone who has nothing pay anything. Those making more can afford more. Call it punishment if you like, I prefer to call it paying your way and repaying society for the good it has done for you.

 

[LilOlLady]

I believe a fair income tax rate would be 10% no matter how much you earned and no earned credit or child deductions. Simple as that. We pay tax on a dollar when we buy shoes. Rich would pay more there because they would purchase more. I don't think it is fair to pay twice on earnings.

 

[Againsheila]

I believe a fair income tax rate would be 10% no matter how much you earned and no earned credit or child deductions. Simple as that. We pay tax on a dollar when we buy shoes. Rich would pay more there because they would purchase more. I don't think it is fair to pay twice on earnings.

So you make $10,000 a year and you pay $1000 in taxes. You can't even afford to pay rent, or buy food, but you gotta pay those taxes, yeah, makes sense to me, NOT!

 

[alan1]

I keep hearing that corporate taxes are truly paid for the most part, by the consumer who buys the corporation's product....

Do you think this is true or close to being true boe?

According to Economics 101 it is true.
A business always passes the cost of doing business onto the consumer, including taxes.

Let us suppose for a moment that you, Care4all, own a business. After expenses and taxes you make $70,000 a year. Now, suppose that the government raised your business taxes by $35,000 a year. Would you just suck that up and allow your income to be reduced by $35,000 a year, or would you raise prices to offset the increased taxation?

Depends on price elasticity. If prices are inelastic, then the consumer would swallow most of the tax. If prices are highly elastic, then the shareholder eats much of the tax.

Good point.
How many of those shareholders are the average person making somewhere between $35k and $95k with an IRA or 401(k)? You know, a middle class person that is a consumer that still expects his/her investments to turn a decent profit?

 

[alan1]

I keep hearing that corporate taxes are truly paid for the most part, by the consumer who buys the corporation's product....

Do you think this is true or close to being true boe?

According to Economics 101 it is true.
A business always passes the cost of doing business onto the consumer, including taxes.

Let us suppose for a moment that you, Care4all, own a business. After expenses and taxes you make $70,000 a year. Now, suppose that the government raised your business taxes by $35,000 a year. Would you just suck that up and allow your income to be reduced by $35,000 a year, or would you raise prices to offset the increased taxation?

if taxes went down that $35000, do you think corporations would lower their prices by the $35000 and pass the savings along to the consumer, or do you think they would pocket it as profit?

You failed to answer my question.
I'll answer yours after you answer mine.

 

[Care4all]

According to Economics 101 it is true.
A business always passes the cost of doing business onto the consumer, including taxes.

Let us suppose for a moment that you, Care4all, own a business. After expenses and taxes you make $70,000 a year. Now, suppose that the government raised your business taxes by $35,000 a year. Would you just suck that up and allow your income to be reduced by $35,000 a year, or would you raise prices to offset the increased taxation?

if taxes went down that $35000, do you think corporations would lower their prices by the $35000 and pass the savings along to the consumer, or do you think they would pocket it as profit?

You failed to answer my question.
I'll answer yours after you answer mine.

I'm sorry alan, I had answered your basic question in a post to someone else and presumed you had read it....I do believe that I and any corporation would raise the price of the product to cover that 35k more in taxes, IF AND ONLY IF the market, the consumer could absorb the full hike without it hurting my sales....if it was going to cut my sales +/ - in half due to the product being way over priced then I would have to absorb that 35k and have to find other means of cutting back my cost of goods or expenses, to cover such, without raising the price of the product.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Again.. easy for someone to want to punish those they vilify by treating them unequally... and Sheila is showing the perfect example of that... they act as if everything is the government's, and they decide how much is too much for persons.... that plan is just as bad as the reverse, where lower incomes would be taxed at a higher rate and higher incomes would be taxed nothing or close to nothing... it is ALL pandering, it is all unequal treatment, and it is all bullshit

While we were paying off the 2nd WW debt anyone who earned more than $300,000 per year paid 91% of the excess in federal income tax. Who the **** is going to pay for the absolute mess left by Reagan and the Bushes?


In the mid and late 1930's there was no such thing as benefits, no unions, no sick leave, no unemployment insurance, no health care, etc...no time off for any reason. Folks worked 12 hours a day for $0.75 and their lunch. If one was lucky enough to have a regular job and they missed more than two days and weren't related to the management they were fired. There were ten people standing in line waiting for a job.

Ever hear of county poor farms? When I was a child in the mid and late 1930's hard working folks used to joke about ending up in the poor house. A poor farm was a couple of acres owned by counties where the poor and invalid ended up and the ones who were still able raised and canned enough vegetables during the growing season to keep them alive till the next harvest began. This country is still peppered with unmarked graves located at or near those old houses. They continued until Roosevelt's first social security payments began in the mid and late 40's. That's where the right wing assholes want to take as many of those who didn't inheirit something or manage to get an education back to right now and you know what.....this last fiasco by the George W. Bush years damn sure started the nation back in that direction. The Republican mantra has turned into "I've Got Mine...Now By God You Get Yours"

Every right, every freedom, every financial system, etc. in America was bought and paid for by the shedding of young blood and now the elitist bastards who take everything for granted don't have the balls or courage to even serve. They've slowly changed the system so that those with little education and little to look forward to go and fight the battles which are usually started by choice by politicians with little reason or justification.

Wealthy people make my arse crave buttermilk.They believe that because they have more than others that they are entitled. They don't even want to pay taxes.

In 1946-48 anyone making 20K was in the 53% Bracket

So be careful what yo wish for when you pine for the so called good ole days

I didn't say it was the good old days. I said we used to pay our debts. Look at this:

Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[alan1]

if taxes went down that $35000, do you think corporations would lower their prices by the $35000 and pass the savings along to the consumer, or do you think they would pocket it as profit?

You failed to answer my question.
I'll answer yours after you answer mine.

I'm sorry alan, I had answered your basic question in a post to someone else and presumed you had read it....I do believe that I and any corporation would raise the price of the product to cover that 35k more in taxes, IF AND ONLY IF the market, the consumer could absorb the full hike without it hurting my sales....if it was going to cut my sales +/ - in half due to the product being way over priced then I would have to absorb that 35k and have to find other means of cutting back my cost of goods or expenses, to cover such, without raising the price of the product.

Thanks Ms Care4all,
now my reply....

Corporations often lower prices for items, for many reasons, including cost of raw materials, cost of transportation, market demand and many other things. Cost of taxes would just be another thing that affects the final consumer cost. Lowering taxes for an item or company would reduce the cost to the consumer. For example, CA has a higher state tax rate on gasoline than SC has and guess what, in SC gasoline costs less than in CA. So yes, taxes do contribute to and affect the cost of goods. If CA lowered their taxes on gasoline, the price would drop for the consumer.

 

[Care4all]

You failed to answer my question.
I'll answer yours after you answer mine.

I'm sorry alan, I had answered your basic question in a post to someone else and presumed you had read it....I do believe that I and any corporation would raise the price of the product to cover that 35k more in taxes, IF AND ONLY IF the market, the consumer could absorb the full hike without it hurting my sales....if it was going to cut my sales +/ - in half due to the product being way over priced then I would have to absorb that 35k and have to find other means of cutting back my cost of goods or expenses, to cover such, without raising the price of the product.

Thanks Ms Care4all,
now my reply....

Corporations often lower prices for items, for many reasons, including cost of raw materials, cost of transportation, market demand and many other things. Cost of taxes would just be another thing that affects the final consumer cost. Lowering taxes for an item or company would reduce the cost to the consumer. For example, CA has a higher state tax rate on gasoline than SC has and guess what, in SC gasoline costs less than in CA. So yes, taxes do contribute to and affect the cost of goods. If CA lowered their taxes on gasoline, the price would drop for the consumer.

if the gvt would eliminate all corporate taxes tomorrow, I do not believe corporations would all lower their retails tomorrow....one, because the retail of their products have been established already, and they know consumers are willing to pay the price that was established, so there is absolutely no incentive to lower their prices, only an incentive to collect more profit for themselves....

BUT, eventually one of their competitors, in order to capture more market share, or to capture their competitor's consumer, may lower their price because there is room to do such without these corporate taxes....which can EVENTUALLY lead to a price war which could end up lowering the retail prices.

Gasoline is not a market like most retail and I don't understand it, or know enough about it to comment one way or the other.....but widgets for sale, with true competition, I do understand, thus my answer above....

 

[alan1]

I'm sorry alan, I had answered your basic question in a post to someone else and presumed you had read it....I do believe that I and any corporation would raise the price of the product to cover that 35k more in taxes, IF AND ONLY IF the market, the consumer could absorb the full hike without it hurting my sales....if it was going to cut my sales +/ - in half due to the product being way over priced then I would have to absorb that 35k and have to find other means of cutting back my cost of goods or expenses, to cover such, without raising the price of the product.

Thanks Ms Care4all,
now my reply....

Corporations often lower prices for items, for many reasons, including cost of raw materials, cost of transportation, market demand and many other things. Cost of taxes would just be another thing that affects the final consumer cost. Lowering taxes for an item or company would reduce the cost to the consumer. For example, CA has a higher state tax rate on gasoline than SC has and guess what, in SC gasoline costs less than in CA. So yes, taxes do contribute to and affect the cost of goods. If CA lowered their taxes on gasoline, the price would drop for the consumer.

if the gvt would eliminate all corporate taxes tomorrow, I do not believe corporations would all lower their retails tomorrow....one, because the retail of their products have been established already, and they know consumers are willing to pay the price that was established, so there is absolutely no incentive to lower their prices, only an incentive to collect more profit for themselves....

BUT, eventually one of their competitors, in order to capture more market share, or to capture their competitor's consumer, may lower their price because there is room to do such without these corporate taxes....which can EVENTUALLY lead to a price war which could end up lowering the retail prices.

Gasoline is not a market like most retail and I don't understand it, or know enough about it to comment one way or the other.....but widgets for sale, with true competition, I do understand, thus my answer above....

Would lower prices. Markets work that way.

 

[logical4u]

Government spending as a percentage of GDP is the same now as when Reagan was in office....23%. But since the financial crisis in 2008, revenues as a share of GDP have hit 60-year lows, coming in at around 15%. And yet the Republicans signed the Grover Norquist "tax pledge" not to raise taxes.

Didn't the dems control both houses and the Presidency when they extended the "now" Obama tax cuts?

 

[Care4all]

Thanks Ms Care4all,
now my reply....

Corporations often lower prices for items, for many reasons, including cost of raw materials, cost of transportation, market demand and many other things. Cost of taxes would just be another thing that affects the final consumer cost. Lowering taxes for an item or company would reduce the cost to the consumer. For example, CA has a higher state tax rate on gasoline than SC has and guess what, in SC gasoline costs less than in CA. So yes, taxes do contribute to and affect the cost of goods. If CA lowered their taxes on gasoline, the price would drop for the consumer.

if the gvt would eliminate all corporate taxes tomorrow, I do not believe corporations would all lower their retails tomorrow....one, because the retail of their products have been established already, and they know consumers are willing to pay the price that was established, so there is absolutely no incentive to lower their prices, only an incentive to collect more profit for themselves....

BUT, eventually one of their competitors, in order to capture more market share, or to capture their competitor's consumer, may lower their price because there is room to do such without these corporate taxes....which can EVENTUALLY lead to a price war which could end up lowering the retail prices.

Gasoline is not a market like most retail and I don't understand it, or know enough about it to comment one way or the other.....but widgets for sale, with true competition, I do understand, thus my answer above....

Would lower prices. Markets work that way.

yes, if there is TRUE competition and they are not (illegally) in collusion with each other , it would eventually lower prices!!!


Here's another one....
Do you think if SS taxes were taken away from businesses, they would give that amount of ss taxes to the employee they were paying them on as an increase in their compensation, pass it on to the consumer, or keep the extra profit for themselves?

 

[Oddball]

While we were paying off the 2nd WW debt anyone who earned more than $300,000 per year paid 91% of the excess in federal income tax. Who the **** is going to pay for the absolute mess left by Reagan and the Bushes?


In the mid and late 1930's there was no such thing as benefits, no unions, no sick leave, no unemployment insurance, no health care, etc...no time off for any reason. Folks worked 12 hours a day for $0.75 and their lunch. If one was lucky enough to have a regular job and they missed more than two days and weren't related to the management they were fired. There were ten people standing in line waiting for a job.

Ever hear of county poor farms? When I was a child in the mid and late 1930's hard working folks used to joke about ending up in the poor house. A poor farm was a couple of acres owned by counties where the poor and invalid ended up and the ones who were still able raised and canned enough vegetables during the growing season to keep them alive till the next harvest began. This country is still peppered with unmarked graves located at or near those old houses. They continued until Roosevelt's first social security payments began in the mid and late 40's. That's where the right wing assholes want to take as many of those who didn't inheirit something or manage to get an education back to right now and you know what.....this last fiasco by the George W. Bush years damn sure started the nation back in that direction. The Republican mantra has turned into "I've Got Mine...Now By God You Get Yours"

Every right, every freedom, every financial system, etc. in America was bought and paid for by the shedding of young blood and now the elitist bastards who take everything for granted don't have the balls or courage to even serve. They've slowly changed the system so that those with little education and little to look forward to go and fight the battles which are usually started by choice by politicians with little reason or justification.

Wealthy people make my arse crave buttermilk.They believe that because they have more than others that they are entitled. They don't even want to pay taxes.

In 1946-48 anyone making 20K was in the 53% Bracket

So be careful what yo wish for when you pine for the so called good ole days

I didn't say it was the good old days. I said we used to pay our debts. Look at this:

Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

Spending costs money and runs deficits, hackasaurus rex.

 

[alan1]

if the gvt would eliminate all corporate taxes tomorrow, I do not believe corporations would all lower their retails tomorrow....one, because the retail of their products have been established already, and they know consumers are willing to pay the price that was established, so there is absolutely no incentive to lower their prices, only an incentive to collect more profit for themselves....

BUT, eventually one of their competitors, in order to capture more market share, or to capture their competitor's consumer, may lower their price because there is room to do such without these corporate taxes....which can EVENTUALLY lead to a price war which could end up lowering the retail prices.

Gasoline is not a market like most retail and I don't understand it, or know enough about it to comment one way or the other.....but widgets for sale, with true competition, I do understand, thus my answer above....

Would lower prices. Markets work that way.

yes, if there is TRUE competition and they are not (illegally) in collusion with each other , it would eventually lower prices!!!


Here's another one....
Do you think if SS taxes were taken away from businesses, they would give that amount of ss taxes to the employee they were paying them on as an increase in their compensation, pass it on to the consumer, or keep the extra profit for themselves?

I'd negotiate it as a raise for myself. The company would try to keep what it could. It would be a mixed bag, mostly determined by how well an employee could negotiate this scenario that is not likely to materialize.

Speaking of SS, the initial cost to business was 1% of an employees salary and has grown 620% since inception. I'm pretty sure that employers could offer a higher salary if that expense wasn't part of employing a person.

 

[Care4all]

Would lower prices. Markets work that way.

yes, if there is TRUE competition and they are not (illegally) in collusion with each other , it would eventually lower prices!!!


Here's another one....
Do you think if SS taxes were taken away from businesses, they would give that amount of ss taxes to the employee they were paying them on as an increase in their compensation, pass it on to the consumer, or keep the extra profit for themselves?

I'd negotiate it as a raise for myself. The company would try to keep what it could. It would be a mixed bag, mostly determined by how well an employee could negotiate this scenario that is not likely to materialize.

Speaking of SS, the initial cost to business was 1% of an employees salary and has grown 620% since inception. I'm pretty sure that employers could offer a higher salary if that expense wasn't part of employing a person.

Hate to date myself, but SS taxes for employees was just 3% when I got my first job, but shortly afterwards, under President Reagan in the mid 80's I believe, it was DOUBLED to 6%....on every dime I earned, I and all workers, had a 100% increase in taxes....all to supposedly build up a surplus in SS so that when the baby boomers retired there would be enough money to fund the retirements of them....At my last job, (over 10 years ago now cuz I retired young ) I had finally reached the point where I did not have to pay SS taxes on my full salary because I had passed the thresh hold of what was taxed...it was a much lower thresh hold than now back then...

My last employer, a corporation, sent me a statement at the end of the year on what my TOTAL COMPENSATION was for the year.... it included my salary, my bonus, what they paid for my health insurance, any stock I had received, any disability policy they took out and paid for me, the life insurance they paid for me, AND what they paid in social security taxes in my name....soooo, I would have had a statement in hand that they created, to demand the SS taxes they paid in my name that they pegged as compensation for me, as compensation if SS taxes were ever eliminated!!! So, I would have easily been able to get those eliminated taxes added to my salary.

Most employers if not all employers, consider what they pay in SS taxes as part of the employee's total compensation.

 

[Cammmpbell]

yes, if there is TRUE competition and they are not (illegally) in collusion with each other , it would eventually lower prices!!!


Here's another one....
Do you think if SS taxes were taken away from businesses, they would give that amount of ss taxes to the employee they were paying them on as an increase in their compensation, pass it on to the consumer, or keep the extra profit for themselves?

I'd negotiate it as a raise for myself. The company would try to keep what it could. It would be a mixed bag, mostly determined by how well an employee could negotiate this scenario that is not likely to materialize.

Speaking of SS, the initial cost to business was 1% of an employees salary and has grown 620% since inception. I'm pretty sure that employers could offer a higher salary if that expense wasn't part of employing a person.

Hate to date myself, but SS taxes for employees was just 3% when I got my first job, but shortly afterwards, under President Reagan in the mid 80's I believe, it was DOUBLED to 6%....on every dime I earned, I and all workers, had a 100% increase in taxes....all to supposedly build up a surplus in SS so that when the baby boomers retired there would be enough money to fund the retirements of them....At my last job, (over 10 years ago now cuz I retired young ) I had finally reached the point where I did not have to pay SS taxes on my full salary because I had passed the thresh hold of what was taxed...it was a much lower thresh hold than now back then...

My last employer, a corporation, sent me a statement at the end of the year on what my TOTAL COMPENSATION was for the year.... it included my salary, my bonus, what they paid for my health insurance, any stock I had received, any disability policy they took out and paid for me, the life insurance they paid for me, AND what they paid in social security taxes in my name....soooo, I would have had a statement in hand that they created, to demand the SS taxes they paid in my name that they pegged as compensation for me, as compensation if SS taxes were ever eliminated!!! So, I would have easily been able to get those eliminated taxes added to my salary.

Most employers if not all employers, consider what they pay in SS taxes as part of the employee's total compensation.

I began to pay social security tax in December 1950 and continued till October 1993. The last 15 years I earned more than the maximum so payments were discontinued before the end of the calendar year. That's one thing which should be changed. In my opinion every employee should pay the same percentage on their entire salary.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'd negotiate it as a raise for myself. The company would try to keep what it could. It would be a mixed bag, mostly determined by how well an employee could negotiate this scenario that is not likely to materialize.

Speaking of SS, the initial cost to business was 1% of an employees salary and has grown 620% since inception. I'm pretty sure that employers could offer a higher salary if that expense wasn't part of employing a person.

Hate to date myself, but SS taxes for employees was just 3% when I got my first job, but shortly afterwards, under President Reagan in the mid 80's I believe, it was DOUBLED to 6%....on every dime I earned, I and all workers, had a 100% increase in taxes....all to supposedly build up a surplus in SS so that when the baby boomers retired there would be enough money to fund the retirements of them....At my last job, (over 10 years ago now cuz I retired young ) I had finally reached the point where I did not have to pay SS taxes on my full salary because I had passed the thresh hold of what was taxed...it was a much lower thresh hold than now back then...

My last employer, a corporation, sent me a statement at the end of the year on what my TOTAL COMPENSATION was for the year.... it included my salary, my bonus, what they paid for my health insurance, any stock I had received, any disability policy they took out and paid for me, the life insurance they paid for me, AND what they paid in social security taxes in my name....soooo, I would have had a statement in hand that they created, to demand the SS taxes they paid in my name that they pegged as compensation for me, as compensation if SS taxes were ever eliminated!!! So, I would have easily been able to get those eliminated taxes added to my salary.

Most employers if not all employers, consider what they pay in SS taxes as part of the employee's total compensation.

I began to pay social security tax in December 1950 and continued till October 1993. The last 15 years I earned more than the maximum so payments were discontinued before the end of the calendar year. That's one thing which should be changed. In my opinion every employee should pay the same percentage on their entire salary.

People should be able to keep what the ******* government confiscates from them for the SS scam.

If people controlled that 15% of their lifetime income even those making average salaries could retire wealthy and leave a legacy to their families.