Post your tax rate.

[Engineer]

I guess you have never employed anyone or ran a business.

Strawman argument. That has nothing to do with what you stated. Still haven't backed up what you stated (and most likely...won't or can't). Your goal was to make it look like individuals are paying more taxes than they really are by stating that the EMPLOYER part of FICA was coming out of the EMPLOYEE check.

 

[Patranus]

That has nothing to do with what you stated. Still haven't backed up what you stated (and most likely...won't or can't). Your goal was to make it look like individuals are paying more taxes than they really are by stating that the EMPLOYER part of FICA was coming out of the EMPLOYEE check.

Everything that is part of your compensation package is taken out of your check.

 

[Engineer]

Everything that is part of your compensation package is taken out of your check.

Just because you keep stating the same thing does not make it true. If you have nothing more here, we're through and you can shove the "ultra facepalm" up your non proven argument's ass.

 

[Patranus]

Just because you keep stating the same thing does not make it true. If you have nothing more here, we're through and you can shove the "ultra facepalm" up your non proven argument's ass.

Say you sign a contract "worth" $100,000 the actual value of that contract is really $150,000. That $150,000 is your revenue and everything else is taken out of that such as health care, that coke you drink for the company fridge, your vacation days, ect. - including the other half of your FICA tax.

So yes, it is taken out of your contract.

 

[Engineer]

Say you sign a contract "worth" $100,000 the actual value of that contract is really $150,000. That $150,000 is your revenue and everything else is taken out of that such as health care, that coke you drink for the company fridge, your vacation days, ect. - including the other half of your FICA tax.

So yes, it is taken out of your contract.

You stated that EVERYONE pays 15.3%. I stated if you are self employed or on contract, you pay 15.3%, otherwise, you pay 7.65% and YOUR EMPLOYER pays the other half. If you mean self employed/on contract, edit your previous statement and quit arguing.

 

[spidey07]

Just because you keep stating the same thing does not make it true. If you have nothing more here, we're through and you can shove the "ultra facepalm" up your non proven argument's ass.

Its well understood that the employer share is and added cost to the total compensation/expense of an employees. The employee is paying it indirectly by means of less in salary.

This is well understood in business. You just don't get it. My services are worth a specific cost to the company, they care not about the tax just what they'll pay for that service. Think it through from a business perspective and all will become clear to you. You're flat out wrong. If you've been on the 1099 side you'd understand.

 

[Engineer]

Its well understood that the employer share is and added cost to the total compensation/expense of an employees. The employee is paying it indirectly by means of less in salary.

This is well understood in business. You just don't get it. My services are worth a specific cost to the company, they care not about the tax just what they'll pay for that service. Think it through from a business perspective and all will become clear to you. You're flat out wrong. If you've been on the 1099 side you'd understand.

I've stated that contract (1099) and self employed people pay the full FICA rate. You're saying that my income would be boosted by 7.65% if the employer part was removed. Prove it. Doesn't matter if you consider it compensation or not, YOU are not paying the employer half of FICA and it doesn't show up anywhere on your check unless you are contract/self employed, period. Prove me wrong.

 

[MiniDoom]

5% bitches...

 

[spidey07]

I've stated that contract (1099) and self employed people pay the full FICA rate. You're saying that my income would be boosted by 7.65% if the employer part was removed. Prove it. Doesn't matter if you consider it compensation or not, YOU are not paying the employer half of FICA and it doesn't show up anywhere on your check unless you are contract/self employed, period. Prove me wrong.

I did prove it. My hourly rate is significantly higher than my w2 rate. Same service being provided. Part because they are to pay more because of no SS tax on them. All business cares about is what your service costs.

If 2 people wanted to do a job for you, do you care about what tax goes where? No. You care about what the total operating cost is.

 

[Engineer]

I did prove it. My hourly rate is significantly higher than my w2 rate. Same service being provided. Part because they are to pay more because of no SS tax on them. All business cares about is what your service costs.

If 2 people wanted to do a job for you, do you care about what tax goes where? No. You care about what the total operating cost is.

YOU are in the minority in the country. MOST people don't pay the employer half of FICA....the employer does. You didn't prove shit. Talking to you two is like talking to a damn rock.

 

[spidey07]

YOU are in the minority in the country. MOST people don't pay the employer half of FICA....the employer does. You didn't prove shit. Talking to you two is like talking to a damn rock.

I proved that the employer is willing to pay a set cost based on service, this is just business common sense. For the purpose of this question and discussion it probably shouldn't be included, but people DO need to realize they are paying the full tax. But that doesn't mean you, the employee, doesn't pay it indirectly via reduced salary.

Employer paying it means less money in your pocket, so you DO pay it indirectly. It's just hidden from you since you've never been on the other side of selling your services. I'm of the opinion the employer should list it as your compensation (because that's what it is) on your paycheck as taxes paid/withheld.

 

[HAL9000]

0% - below the tax bracket, not required to pay.

 

[Engineer]

I proved that the employer is willing to pay a set cost based on service, this is just business common sense. For the purpose of this question and discussion it probably shouldn't be included, but people DO need to realize they are paying the full tax. But that doesn't mean you, the employee, doesn't pay it indirectly via reduced salary.

Employer paying it means less money in your pocket, so you DO pay it indirectly. It's just hidden from you since you've never been on the other side of selling your services. I'm of the opinion the employer should list it as your compensation (because that's what it is) on your paycheck as taxes paid/withheld.

Unless you are self employed or on contract, it should 100% not be included because YOU didn't pay it (the EMPLOYER 7.65% of FICA).

So if the tax was repealed, my "gross" paycheck would go up by 7.65%? Yes or no? Don't give me this maybe shit as you can't prove it.

It's your opinion, nothing more. Unless you are on contract or self employed, YOU pay 7.65% into FICA...and your EMPLOYER pays 7.65% into FICA. It does not effect my tax rate one darn bit. Does it effect my compensation? Maybe...maybe not but it does not currently effect my tax rate and my taxes are not 7.65% higher (as a % of income) than what is on my check. My employer's are but not mine. You and Patranus are wanting people to add the 7.65% into the taxes and then divide by income (without adding anything) to make it look like the average Joe on the street pays more than they do. Of course, then you state that 50% of the people pay NO federal taxes and if they tried to throw in the 7.65% FICA (not to mention 15.3%), you would cry like a baby stating that doesn't count.

I pay 7.65%, as do the overwhelming majority of working Americans, out of MY CHECK for FICA.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

So if the tax was repealed, my "gross" paycheck would go up by 7.65%? Yes or no? Don't give me this maybe shit as you can't prove it.

If the 7.5/7.5 went to 8/7 you're argument is that your pay would go up .5 right? And if it went to 13/2 your pay would go up 5 right?

At what point does the employer paying a "employing someone tax" that is directly tied to how much the employer pays the person going to impact how much the employer pays for that person?

When you higher someone you don't think about how much that person is taking home; you think about how much you have to spend inorder to obtain the person. Sometimes there are expenditures that the employee appreciates more than the extra cash, like medical and retirement; some times there are costs that the employee doesn't appreciate at all, like this stupid tax.

Either way there's a particular amount at which a company pays little enough for someone that it profits them to bring the person on-board and the over-all cost of that isn't going to be exceeded. The only reason any company pays anyone more than minimum is because other companies are willing to pay more for that same person. If you levy a tax against the entire employment market (all employers) then all employers at once can pay less for the employee.

The outcome is that everyone is paid less because money is going to the government.

 

[boomhower]

Low but not sure since I falled with the wife. Wife was hurt last year so she got EIT plus we have two kids so we got a pretty nice return. Buying a house this month so hopefully next year will be nice as well, I may actually be able to pass the general deduction.

 

[Bateluer]

This is ATOT . . . . everyone is a millionaire. Minimum tax rate for ATOT is going to be 50%+.

 

[Engineer]

If the 7.5/7.5 went to 8/7 you're argument is that your pay would go up .5 right? And if it went to 13/2 your pay would go up 5 right?

At what point does the employer paying a "employing someone tax" that is directly tied to how much the employer pays the person going to impact how much the employer pays for that person?

When you higher someone you don't think about how much that person is taking home; you think about how much you have to spend inorder to obtain the person. Sometimes there are expenditures that the employee appreciates more than the extra cash, like medical and retirement; some times there are costs that the employee doesn't appreciate at all, like this stupid tax.

Either way there's a particular amount at which a company pays little enough for someone that it profits them to bring the person on-board and the over-all cost of that isn't going to be exceeded. The only reason any company pays anyone more than minimum is because other companies are willing to pay more for that same person. If you levy a tax against the entire employment market (all employers) then all employers at once can pay less for the employee.

The outcome is that everyone is paid less because money is going to the government.

As of now, my employer is paying the tax and I'm not. Whether I would be making more or not if the tax were gone is a big fat maybe. Has nothing to do with the OP and the only way you would include 15.3% of FICA in your calculations is if you paid is either as A: Contract worker...B: self employed. To add that in to the OP calculations without either of the above is flat out lying to make it look like you are paying more taxes than you are.

My employer is currently out 7.65% of my income and, if repealed, MAY give it to me or part of it to me but there are no guarantees. Just look at the $30 government fee that the airlines lost a year or so ago. Did they lower the ticket prices down by $30? Hell no.

Regardless, that compensation has nothing to do with it as MOST people don't pay the EMPLOYER 7.65% of FICA directly from their check and are not to count it in calculations.

How about I figure how much Chrysler paid in taxes per car so I can figure out how much of it was built in to my wife's new car (last year) and included that as taxes paid? How about I figure out how much their suppliers paid in taxes and include my portion of that? My argument is a strawman just like theirs is stating that everyone is paying 15.3% and should add it in as such. Bullshit.

 

[FoBoT]

This is ATOT . . . . everyone is a millionaire. Minimum tax rate for ATOT is going to be 50%+.

and yet only two of us answered appropriately :hmm:

 

[spidey07]

<snip>
How about I figure how much Chrysler paid in taxes per car so I can figure out how much of it was built in to my wife's new car (last year) and included that as taxes paid? How about I figure out how much their suppliers paid in taxes and include my portion of that? My argument is a strawman just like theirs is stating that everyone is paying 15.3% and should add it in as such. Bullshit.

Now you are starting to get it. You paid a price for a product or service, you did not care how much of that was tax. That was what you were willing to pay for that product or service.

Glad the light bulb finally went off for you.

 

[Engineer]

Now you are starting to get it. You paid a price for a product or service, you did not care how much of that was tax. That was what you were willing to pay for that product or service.

Glad the light bulb finally went off for you.

Shut up. Doesn't change the argument one bit and you know it. I'm tired of arguing with your stupid ass. As a matter of fact, I'm so tired of you, I'm putting you (and a few others) on ignore.

 

[Elbryn]

3% this year and not a student.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

My argument is a strawman just like theirs is stating that everyone is paying 15.3% and should add it in as such. Bullshit.

as per the OP you are right.

As per this statement:

Whether I would be making more or not if the tax were gone is a big fat maybe.

you are right and wrong.

You are right in saying that, if tomorrow, the tax was shifted to 100% "you" paying it, there is no way to know if your boss will up your pay right away.

You are wrong if you think that, over a reasonable market-correction period of time, the price companies are willing to pay for your labor would fail to go up.

The over all compensation available by companies for all positions would go up, the over all price at which returns are economically feasible would go up, the over all employment demand would go up and therefor the overall price that employer's are willing to pay for workers would go up.

If you are desirable at a compensation package of 150k then you are still desirable at that compensation package even if some of that package is not going to the government now.

 

[Engineer]

as per the OP you are right.

That's all I'm arguing and have been and the last I have to say about it, period. If anyone wants to lie and make their rate seem higher, I don't give a shit. Add the employer part in. Knock yourselves out.

It's your poll...run it any damn well you want to. I don't care anymore. I posted the numbers exactly as they appear on my check/statements. No more....I'm done.

 

[spidey07]

Shut up. Doesn't change the argument one bit and you know it. I'm tired of arguing with your stupid ass. As a matter of fact, I'm so tired of you, I'm putting you (and a few others) on ignore.

Fine by me. My stupid ass knows how business works. Money in, money out.

It's your stupidity that I take advantage of.

Learn the game slave. You said you almost killed yourself from work. I make money on my labor and time. Learn how to play the game or be destined to live and think like you do in your own self made hole.

That's the game peasant, you are trapped and see no way out. Excellent.

 

[shortylickens]

YEAH FUCK ALL YOU MOTHER FUCKS!

😡