If you noticed a huge increase in the amount of Social Security taxes you paid this pay period it is because the rate increased fro 4.2% to 6.2%.
Thanks to Obama! Still don't regret that I did not vote for him this time!!
- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
- Share on Pinterest
- Share on LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit
- Copy Link to Topic
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Originally Posted by alena06:
If you noticed a huge increase in the amount of Social Security taxes you paid this pay period it is because the rate increased fro 4.2% to 6.2%.
Thanks to Obama! Still don't regret that I did not vote for him this time!!
The 2% increase in payroll tax from the last two years is a restoration of social security contributions. See it as Obama offering relief when we needed it and now it is back to normal. It's like how he fought for and got unemployment insurance extended yet again. It is not normal to get unemployment insurance more than a year - that's Europe.
Originally Posted by Kari:
See it as Obama offering relief when we needed it and now it is back to normal.
Either way it nets to zero! If you decrease something and then later on increase it back to the same amount, you have made ZERO change...We need progress not stagnation!!
Just my two cents which I really work my butt off for..
Former Member
Originally Posted by alena06:
Originally Posted by Kari:
See it as Obama offering relief when we needed it and now it is back to normal.
Either way it nets to zero! If you decrease something and then later on increase it back to the same amount, you have made ZERO change...We need progress not stagnation!!
Just my two cents which I really work my butt off for..
I think you need to re do the math. On average you saved 2000 last year. It was a temporary reprieve on rates that was restored this year.
Originally Posted by alena06:
Originally Posted by Kari:
See it as Obama offering relief when we needed it and now it is back to normal.
Either way it nets to zero! If you decrease something and then later on increase it back to the same amount, you have made ZERO change...We need progress not stagnation!!
Just my two cents which I really work my butt off for..
A better understanding of Social Security - its history, workings, etc. - will show that the 6.5% FICA tax (Employes pay that amount) was reduced for the first time in history by President Obama in unprecedented economic times (there were no Social Security in the Great Depression era) for two years. That's a BONUS, not an entitlement that Obama took away. In fact he STOLE from Social Security so that it could help people out, and now me lawd de man get cuss down for it. It's unprecedented for a President to lower the 6.5% that employees pay! What's so difficult to understand about this? Obama should be praised for stealing this for two years fuh abee.
Former Member
SS rates had to go back to it's current levels. The deficit cannot be funded out of SS, we need a fairer tax regime and not at the expense of SS.
Originally Posted by baseman:
SS rates had to go back to it's current levels. The deficit cannot be funded out of SS, we need a fairer tax regime and not at the expense of SS.
The poster of this thread would know this by now.
Former Member
Originally Posted by Kari:
Originally Posted by baseman:
SS rates had to go back to it's current levels. The deficit cannot be funded out of SS, we need a fairer tax regime and not at the expense of SS.
The poster of this thread would know this by now.
So...what's the complain!
The poster sees FICA go up by 2% and Obama is Evil Satan
Former Member
Originally Posted by Kari:
The poster sees FICA go up by 2% and Obama is Evil Satan
FICA returning to norm is fair. Obama is correct in fixing the deficit thru pragmatic and fair Income tax reforms. The nation has a structural income issue, not only a tax rate issue. This is a big fight and long haul.
Former Member
How can you argue with the concept that everyone should pay their share of taxes?
Former Member
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by Kari:
The poster sees FICA go up by 2% and Obama is Evil Satan
FICA returning to norm is fair. Obama is correct in fixing the deficit thru pragmatic and fair Income tax reforms. The nation has a structural income issue, not only a tax rate issue. This is a big fight and long haul.
Of course, that's an entirely different topic than Social Security.
Misguided Social Security âReformâ
Published: January 12, 2013 New York Times
At the end of last year, just shy of the 11th hour in the fiscal cliff negotiations, President Obama made an offer that included a Republican-backed idea to cut spending by lowering the cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security benefits. The move shocked Congressional Democrats and dismayed Mr. Obamaâs liberal base.
The offer, however, was rejected by House Republicans who could not stomach the tax increases and other concessions that Mr. Obama demanded as part of the deal. The talks moved on, and when all was said and done, Republicans did not get the lower cost-of-living adjustments (known as COLAs) and Mr. Obama did not get the concessions he had sought.
But that is not the end of the story. As the next round of deficit reduction talks gets under way, the administration seems determined to include the COLA cut in any new package of spending reductions. Rather than using the issue as a bargaining ploy, the administration appears to have embraced it as a worthy end in itself.
Is it? In a word, no.
That is not to say that Social Security should be off the table. There are reforms that are eminently sensible, if only the political will could be found to enact them. But reducing the COLA is not a sound idea now and may never be.
At issue is the way inflation is calculated. The administrationâs offer in the fiscal cliff talks â and the approach long advocated by Republicans â calls for using a new measure of inflation, called the âchainedâ Consumer Price Index, to calculate the COLA.
Unlike the gauge of inflation currently in use, the chained index captures the ability of consumers to adjust their spending across categories as relative prices change â for instance, spending less on fuel as gas prices go up and more on groceries as food prices go down. Such substitution causes the chained C.P.I. to rise more slowly than the current measure, which would result in a lower annual COLA and huge budget savings. The move to a chained C.P.I. would reduce benefits by some $135 billion over 10 years, and far more in later decades because of compounding.
The administration and other proponents of switching to a chained C.P.I. contend that it is a technical fix in the interest of greater accuracy, not a benefit cut per se.
But that claim does not stand up to scrutiny. The chained index is in many ways a better method of tracking price changes for the broad working population, but there is no compelling evidence that it is better for computing the Social Security COLA.
What is known is that elderly households tend to have lower incomes and lower expenditures than younger households, and that more of their purchases are for needs that cannot be met by switching to products and services in unrelated categories. That indicates that they do not have the same flexibility as younger households to respond to price changes while still maintaining their standards of living. And because of the way it is calculated, the chained C.P.I. would also result in delayed upward adjustments in the COLA in times of accelerating inflation. Such delays would translate into real benefit cuts, leaving retirees worse off.
If, as the administration says, the aim is to set the COLA in the most accurate way possible, then the obvious approach is to have the Bureau of Labor Statistics develop a statistically rigorous index to track inflation as experienced by retirees. A more informal index from the bureau that looks at the effects of inflation on the elderly shows that the COLA is too low, not too high, in part because of medical costs. But the number of households sampled is too small to be sure.
A rigorous index would settle the issue of whether the current COLA adjustments are high, low or about right. The fact that some policy makers are willing, even eager, to move ahead with changing the COLA without having developed a more reliable gauge only feeds the impression that they are trying to get away with an unjustified benefit cut.
In the meantime, there are other, well-researched reforms to Social Security that the administration and other policy makers could pursue. For instance, it is well understood that upper-income people live longer than the less affluent. The formula for determining Social Security benefits could be gradually and modestly adjusted to reflect those longer lives, while making the system more progressive and cutting spending. Another sensible reform would be to raise the level of wages currently subject to the Social Security payroll tax, so that it better reflects the income gains of top earners over the past several decades.
But prematurely forcing through a COLA cut would be unnecessary and unwise.
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
I think you need to re do the math. On average you saved 2000 last year. It was a temporary reprieve on rates that was restored this year.
If you saved last year and you are paying back this year, personally that gets you no where...another politician trick.
Originally Posted by baseman:
FICA returning to norm is fair. Obama is correct in fixing the deficit thru pragmatic and fair Income tax reforms. The nation has a structural income issue, not only a tax rate issue. This is a big fight and long haul.
Well ge gave us a break on FICA, increased it again, while our property taxes continue to sky rocket...As a voter, it is not working in my favor...
Obama is the BEST but I agree with Alena on FICA, why raise it back up. Now I dont have enough Milk, Bread and Butter.
Originally Posted by Nehru:
Obama is the BEST but I agree with Alena on FICA, why raise it back up. Now I dont have enough Milk, Bread and Butter.
Just cut back on the daroo - henna and poke cuttas 
Originally Posted by Kari:
Originally Posted by Nehru:
Obama is the BEST but I agree with Alena on FICA, why raise it back up. Now I dont have enough Milk, Bread and Butter.
Just cut back on the daroo - henna and poke cuttas
Bhai, Ask Joker Henny and Poke ah FREE, compliments of meh Padna Dem.
Former Member
Former Member
Originally Posted by Nehru:
Originally Posted by Kari:
Originally Posted by Nehru:
Obama is the BEST but I agree with Alena on FICA, why raise it back up. Now I dont have enough Milk, Bread and Butter.
Just cut back on the daroo - henna and poke cuttas
Bhai, Ask Joker Henny and Poke ah FREE, compliments of meh Padna Dem.
Kari, your comment is totally haram, it goes against the codes of Islam.
Former Member
Originally Posted by Nehru:
Obama is the BEST but I agree with Alena on FICA, why raise it back up. Now I dont have enough Milk, Bread and Butter.
Raise your PPP propaganda blogging fee.
Originally Posted by Bruddaman:
Originally Posted by Nehru:
Obama is the BEST but I agree with Alena on FICA, why raise it back up. Now I dont have enough Milk, Bread and Butter.
Raise your PPP propaganda blogging fee.
Dem Bhias say only Henny and Poke.
Former Member
Originally Posted by alena06:
Originally Posted by baseman:
FICA returning to norm is fair. Obama is correct in fixing the deficit thru pragmatic and fair Income tax reforms. The nation has a structural income issue, not only a tax rate issue. This is a big fight and long haul.
Well ge gave us a break on FICA, increased it again, while our property taxes continue to sky rocket...As a voter, it is not working in my favor...
your property taxes has nothing to do with Obama...but I sure you know that
Originally Posted by raymond:
your property taxes has nothing to do with Obama...but I sure you know that
Well the extra money paid to social security could have gone to property taxes.
Originally Posted by Kari:
The poster sees FICA go up by 2% and Obama is Evil Satan
Where do I say he is evil satan?? You're an a$$hole...stop showing off here and pretending that the increase in social security taxes has no effect on you...
Former Member
Originally Posted by alena06:
Originally Posted by raymond:
your property taxes has nothing to do with Obama...but I sure you know that
Well the extra money paid to social security could have gone to property taxes.
No, it could not. Social Security is entirely separate from any other tax. Obama has had the intention for a long time to begin dismantling the SSI system. When he reduced the SSI withholding, that posed a threat to the system, since the system works by having enough SSI monies coming in to meet the government's obligation to older people who receive SSI funds. Obama would like to be able say "Ah shucks, we can't afford to give the old folks their checks, so let's shut the system down."
Originally Posted by Henry:
Originally Posted by alena06:
No, it could not. Social Security is entirely separate from any other tax. Obama has had the intention for a long time to begin dismantling the SSI system. When he reduced the SSI withholding, that posed a threat to the system, since the system works by having enough SSI monies coming in to meet the government's obligation to older people who receive SSI funds. Obama would like to be able say "Ah shucks, we can't afford to give the old folks their checks, so let's shut the system down."
Gee, I am losing it now...the extra money I PAID TOWARDS SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES, had it not increased; I could have used some of that to pay my property taxes when I write a check to pay my tax bill..comprende??
Former Member
Si.
Former Member
Originally Posted by alena06:
Originally Posted by Henry:
Originally Posted by alena06:
No, it could not. Social Security is entirely separate from any other tax. Obama has had the intention for a long time to begin dismantling the SSI system. When he reduced the SSI withholding, that posed a threat to the system, since the system works by having enough SSI monies coming in to meet the government's obligation to older people who receive SSI funds. Obama would like to be able say "Ah shucks, we can't afford to give the old folks their checks, so let's shut the system down."
Gee, I am losing it now...the extra money I PAID TOWARDS SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES, had it not increased; I could have used some of that to pay my property taxes when I write a check to pay my tax bill..comprende??
Alena, cut back on some of that fine wine instead.
Former Member
Originally Posted by alena06:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
I think you need to re do the math. On average you saved 2000 last year. It was a temporary reprieve on rates that was restored this year.
If you saved last year and you are paying back this year, personally that gets you no where...another politician trick.
Well give back the money for the past year so you avoid the trick! The rate was stated at the time of its enactment as a temporary reprieve. I do not know why you are quarreling with it. SS needs to be there when you need it.
How the Payroll-Tax Hike Can Destroy Your Savings Plan
If you have a job, by now you almost certainly have felt a tax hike that didnât get a lot of attention during the fiscal-cliff debate: the two-percentage-point increase in the payroll tax.
This tax applies to everyone, not just the wealthy, and it promises to make saving for retirement â or any big ticket â especially challenging. The payroll tax, which funds Social Security and Medicare, is now 6.2% on wages up to $113,700. The tax rate had been at that level until two years ago, when it was cut to 4.2% in an effort to revive the economy.
About 160 million workers pay this tax, and this yearâs increase will cost the average worker about $700, according to the Tax Policy Center in Washington. A family with household income of $50,000 will pay about $1,000 in additional tax. This is real money for millions of families.
(MORE: Are Todayâs Business Leaders Too Afraid of Risk?)
Doubtless, many workers will cut their savings in order to maintain their lifestyle. Hereâs what that looks like, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal:
A 30-year-old making $50,000 will see his take-home pay shrink $1,000 this year. If instead of cutting spending this worker puts $1,000 less into his 401(k) this year, he could have nearly $12,000 less by retirement at age 66. If he doesnât increase his savings rate over the next 36 years, the loss to his retirement account could approach $236,000. (And this isnât even considering any employer matching contributions.)
Looking at it another way, consider two 25-year-olds who start saving 10 years apart â one immediately and the other at age 35. Mutual-fund firm Vanguard calculates that if the early saver stashes away $2,000 a year until age 35 and then saves nothing more, she will accumulate $314,870 by age 65 (based on 8% average annual returns). If the late saver stashes away $2,000 a year for the rest of her working life, she will have just $242,692 at age 65 despite having invested three times as much money.
Thatâs the power of compounding, and it points up what may be the biggest cause for concern if young people choose to offset this yearâs payroll-tax increase with reduced saving as opposed to reduced spending.
The payroll-tax hike will touch Americans in other ways too. Economists say it will shave 0.5% or more off the nationâs growth rate this year, slowing any jobs recovery. Indeed, nearly a third of store managers say shoppers are cutting back on spending because of the payroll-tax increase, according to a survey of shop owners by Merchant Forecast.
(MORE: Cash Leaking out of 401(k) Plans at an Alarming Rate)
The good news is that those cutting back at the mall may be doing so in part to keep their 401(k) contributions at the same level or higher. Thatâs not an easy decision, but, particularly for young people, itâs probably the right one.
Cutting your expenses doesnât have to be difficult, especially if you make savings contributions automatic and resolve to live on whatâs left. Better to have the payroll-tax increase smart a bit now than to have it damage your finances for the rest of your life.
Read more: http://business.time.com/2013/...-plan/#ixzz2J28Gs2tA
Add Reply
Sign In To Reply
677 online (0 members
/
677 guests)