Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (212802)	12/6/2004 6:26:26 PM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 1573921

TP, re: Low income wage earners pay little or no taxes and would get no break. What they could use are services, health, education, and transportation. First, I didn't say "It also has the added benefit of giving low income wage earners a tax break", Ten did. Second, I don't think FICA tax % is dependent on income, I don't think it's progressive (anyone feel welcome to correct me if I'm wrong). Yes low income wage earners could use help with "services, health, education, and transportation", but i think that's a separate issue from SS. John

To: TigerPaw who wrote (212802)	12/6/2004 8:09:15 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 1573921

TP, Low income wage earners pay little or no taxes and would get no break. Their paycheck still gets deducted for SS. I believe it's a flat 7% all the way up to the $87K cap (matched with another 7% from their employer). For someone earning $20,000 a year that amounts to $1,400. Reduce the SS payroll deduction by a third (for example), and the taxpayer winds up with an extra $466 in his or her pocket per year. That's a tax break any way you slice it. What they could use are services, health, education, and transportation. What we were talking about was Social Security and how to save it. What you're talking about is something else. Tenchusatsu

To: TigerPaw who wrote (212802)	12/7/2004 6:59:07 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573921

Hi TigerPaw, fica tax applies at any income level. Poor or rich, everyone. Fica is a special type of tax that penetrates everyone, so it's different from your other taxes. [ Most people aren't advocating this, but to be factual, a reduction in the payroll tax would decrease poor people's tax. I don't think anyone concurs with decreasing the payroll tax due to the deficit, though Ten floated the idea. I think once the transition cost is paid for through the repeal of a fica tax cap, then it would be okay to consider Ten's idea of reducing fica tax, but not until all debt is paid off. ] I think the thread (both Dems & Reps) are in general agreement on the privatization proposal submitted by Sen. Lindsey Graham Message 20832045 , which is actually quite surprising because this is the only issue we all seemed to find reasonably good agreement on. Graham's proposal is very similar to Bush's, but Graham is more fiscally responsible. My only stickler is with Bush's proposal where he caps the savings to 1k (not Graham's proposal where the cap on savings is 4% of 90k I believe). Bush needs to change the savings cap from 1k to 3.6k then I'm completely bought in, otherwise it stinks for my generation. (The 1k is the maximum amount you can save and is your annual input into the privatization, and it's suppose to replace my generation's 11k/year payout because we don't believe for a second in social security, which means our privatized 1k has to grow 10X - a ridiculous assumption. But 3.6k of your own input/year would work and could reach 11k/year payout through growth.) Graham's proposal is better than Bush's because Graham removes the cap on fica tax so that it pays for the transition costs. Graham is more fiscally responsible. I have to say, quite surprisingly everyone here on both sides seem to like Graham's proposal (which is pretty close to Bush's but with more fiscal responsibility). I think the thread should confirm Graham's proposal has a cap savings at $3.6k, rather than $1k, otherwise Gen X, Y, etc will get totally screwed since 1k/yr input cannot replace 11k/year payout. But 3.6k of your own savings can. Regards, Amy J