- quote -


It will also likely cause changes to business plans to move more of that
money into non-employment income, as the high tax payers most likely feel
they are already carrying too much of the burden.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Thu, 1 May 2008 15:46:33 EDT, "Elle"
<honda.lioness[at]spamnocox.net> wrote:

- quote -

No, but I did send a Letter to the Editor to Newsweek. I
assumed they will send a copy on to him, but now that I have
his e-mail address, I may take the direct approach.

--
Vic Roberts
Replace xxx with vdr in e-mail address.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Dick Adams wrote:
- quote -


Mr Will is a self described baseball "expert". His
fellow scribes -- many of whom don't know the
difference between a ball and a strike -- take him
at his word and publicize his blather. The same can
be said of much of his political bloviation.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Victor Roberts wrote:

- quote -

It should be noted that George Will is a life-long
fan of the Chicago Cubs. While that allow should
not discredit him, he has written and stated that
he thinks Bud Selig (better known as Bud Light
and Commissioner Kevorkian) has been an excellent
Commissioner of Baseball - an opinion not shared
by any knowledgeable Baseball Researcher with
whom I am acquainted.

The numerical accuracy of his comments is fairly
meaningless. The Tax Code accuracy is somewhat
startling since a two wage earner family making
$100,000 in W-2 income will not pay more taxes if
the FICA limit of $97,500 were to be eliminated.

Removing the FICA will result in an individual
taxpayer who earns $200,000 per annum paying an
additional $3,100 pre year and may have a positive
impact on the longevity of the Social Security
system.

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Victor Roberts" <xxx[at]lighting-research.com> wrote
- quote -

I read the article at http://www.newsweek.com/id/134316 and
see Mr. Will may be reached via webeditors[at]newsweek.com .
For the sake of public tax education, have you emailed Mr.
Will?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <6c1e5d40-0303-4741-bfc0-43c2847eb0a6[at]n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com> ,
removeps-groups[at]yahoo.com <removeps-groups[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

Of course not; that's the point of removing the limit.

If they do remove the limit, will they base benefits on the amount
subject to the tax?

Seth

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

removeps-groups[at]yahoo.com wrote:

- quote -

There's such a gap in projected Social Security liability vs receipts,
there is no way they'd lower the rate. Raising or eliminating the wage
cap is a step to closing the gap.
Joe
www.blog.joetaxpayer.com

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Apr 29, 1:24 pm, Victor Roberts <x...[at]lighting-research.com> wrote:

- quote -

One question I have, is that if they make all wage income subject to
social security, would they then lower the tax rate from 6.2% (or 6.2%
times two)?


- quote -

For most households, that is true.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Katie wrote:
....
- quote -

Of the three, I'd suggest the first is _not_ the likely place...

It's the same argument that businesses pay taxes -- sure, sorta', but
that money isn't money they printed for the purpose.

--

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Victor Roberts wrote:
- quote -

Mr. Will's assumptions are that the husband and wife are a
Chicago police officer and a Chicago public school teacher, both
with 20 years of service. As such, neither would be impacted by
removing the $102,000 cap. The analysis and conclusion are of no
value.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Apr 29, 6:21*pm, Victor Roberts <x...[at]lighting-research.com> wrote:
- quote -


Well, whose pocket it really comes out of is subject to debate. If
the employer didn't have to pay its half of the FICA taxes, would it
increase the employee's compensation by that amount? Maybe so, maybe
not. Maybe the cost comes out of the employer's profit or is
recovered by a higher price to the employer's customers -- or, most
likely, some combination of the three.

Katie in San Diego

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:54:24 EDT, dpb <none[at]non.net> wrote:

- quote -

But it does NOT come out of the pocket of the W-2 employee,
as Will states.


--
Vic Roberts
Replace xxx with vdr in e-mail address.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Apr 29, 1:24*pm, Victor Roberts <x...[at]lighting-research.com> wrote:
- quote -


I haven't seen the article, Victor, but from what you say it does
appear that George has no clue.

Katie in San Diego

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Victor Roberts wrote:
....
- quote -

That part, at least, is _not_ a miscalculation. It's why they did what
they did to hide the magnitude of the tax from the taxpayer, but it's a
tax nonetheless.

--

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

George Will's column in the current (May 5) issue of
Newsweek contains a rather strange assertion.

In a series of hypothetical questions to Barack Obama, Will
claims the following:

A couple who were both W-2 employees and have a household
income of $147,501 would pay an additional $5,642 in Social
Security taxes if the $102,000 cap on earnings was
eliminated.

This is wrong on so many levels, it is hard to know where to
start.

First, he must be assuming that the $102K cap is applied
jointly to taxpayers who file a joint return. As far as I
know, this is not correct. Lacking any further information
about this factious couple, it is reasonable to assume that
with a joint income of $147,501, neither person is making
more than the $102K cap.

Second, Will assumes that the "household income" comes all
from wages.

Third, even if there was only one wage earner, he has
conveniently over-calculated the additional tax by a factor
of 2. He has used the total rate of 12.4% instead of the
employee rate of 6.2%..

--
Vic Roberts
Replace xxx with vdr in e-mail address.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >