Pitiful portrait

[Seaslug]

...and by the way everyone pays 15% into SS/Medicare; not just the self-employed...

Just to be clear, no, they don't. If you are a W-2 employee, then your employer pays half of your SS commitment on your behalf. Only 7.5% of your income is deducted for your own contribution. Self-employed folks are on the hook for the entire 15% themselves.

[RobertNashville]

Just to be clear, no, they don't. If you are a W-2 employee, then your employer pays half of your SS commitment on your behalf. Only 7.5% of your income is deducted for your own contribution. Self-employed folks are on the hook for the entire 15% themselves.

Sorry...you're wrong...the 7.5% my "employer" pays is also MY MONEY (it's your money your "employer pays" too if you work as an employee and receive a W-2).

Or do you think corporations pay taxes too?

Edited March 4, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Seaslug]

Sorry...you're wrong...the 7.5% my "employer" pays is also MY MONEY (it's your money your "employer pays" too if you work as an employee and receive a W-2).

Or do you think corporations pay taxes too?

How so? Methinks your logic is faulty. Look at your paystub. Is the money in the SS box equal to 15% or 7.5% of your gross income for that pay period? Your employer's 7.5% contribution is ON TOP OF your salary/hourly wage, which is part of the reason why your total compensation package (including benefits) is actually worth considerably more than your actual pay.

[Caster]

You have obviously never tangled with the IRS. I'm an expert at that. Before you refuse to pay, you can do something to prepare. Make sure you don't have any assets of any value. It's really that simple. They probably won't throw you in jail... they just take all your stuff. Oh yeah, the 1099 thing... they'll go after that money too. Had it happen to one of my vendors.

I don't have a problem with income tax. I'll pay the IRS their fare share. It's Social Security I'd like to see boycotted. I don't see the IRS lifting a finger against anyone who pays their income taxes but stiffs SS. BUT, I'm a poorly educated bumpkin, what do I KNOW.

[mikegideon]

How so? Methinks your logic is faulty. Look at your paystub. Is the money in the SS box equal to 15% or 7.5% of your gross income for that pay period? Your employer's 7.5% contribution is ON TOP OF your salary/hourly wage, which is part of the reason why your total compensation package (including benefits) is actually worth considerably more than your actual pay.

Employers calculate it as part of your compensation. The gov takes the 15% in your name. It's real money, and it gets accounted for.

[Caster]

Employers calculate it as part of your compensation. The gov takes the 15% in your name. It's real money, and it gets accounted for.

Your employer also takes that into consideration when deciding your next raise. He pays you more, he pays them more. If you make $15 an hour, it's costs your employer a heck of a lot more than $15 an hour to have you there.

[mikegideon]

I don't have a problem with income tax. I'll pay the IRS their fare share. It's Social Security I'd like to see boycotted. I don't see the IRS lifting a finger against anyone who pays their income taxes but stiffs SS. BUT, I'm a poorly educated bumpkin, what do I KNOW.

I'm pretty sure the IRS will come after you for SS too, since it's revenue. BTW... they seem to enjoy it :-)

[mikegideon]

Your employer also takes that into consideration when deciding your next raise. He pays you more, he pays them more. If you make $15 an hour, it's costs your employer a heck of a lot more than $15 an hour to have you there.

Sure, and they don't expect to get contract labor for the same rate as their hourly employees. My company sent out a "how much you really cost us" sheet one time, and the 7.5% match was listed.

[Caster]

I'm pretty sure the IRS will come after you for SS too, since it's revenue. BTW... they seem to enjoy it :-)

Well I'm not doing it, I just want to see it done.

Sure, and they don't expect to get contract labor for the same rate as their hourly employees. My company sent out a "how much you really cost us" sheet one time, and the 7.5% match was listed.

Taking your figure then it costs an employer what? 16.12/hour for a $15/hour employee. Then if he provides medical, dental, vision, 401k and all that other crap it goes up exponentially.

[Seaslug]

Employers calculate it as part of your compensation. The gov takes the 15% in your name. It's real money, and it gets accounted for.

Re-read what I said. I acknowledged that fact, but the simple truth remains, the employer's 7.5% is NOT part of your agreed-upon salary/hourly wage. It is the employer's money, and not yours, because you agreed to a salary/wage that did not include that number when you decided to work there. The employer's contribution to things like group health insurance, life insurance, and various retirement plans on your behalf is also accounted for, but that doesn't make it YOUR money, even though an employer's compensation summary will show that your total package is worth thousands of dollars more than you are actually paid.

[RobertNashville]

How so? Methinks your logic is faulty. Look at your paystub. Is the money in the SS box equal to 15% or 7.5% of your gross income for that pay period? Your employer's 7.5% contribution is ON TOP OF your salary/hourly wage, which is part of the reason why your total compensation package (including benefits) is actually worth considerably more than your actual pay.

I think you don't understand the concept of compensation or think compensation is limited to the $$$ in a paycheck...it is not. Your compenstaion as an employee; ALL your compensation is based on your worth to the employer.

Your employer, unless he's an idiot, doesn't "give" you anything - whatever an employer pays you or pays someone on your behalf (pension, health care insurance, life insurance, company cars, whatever) is YOURS...it's compensation YOU'VE EARNED and are entitled to because of the skills and knowledge and abilities YOU bring to the table.

If you have a salary of $100K/year and a benefits package that adds another 35% then YOUR compensation that you've earned is $135,000/year...that's YOUR money whether you see it in a paycheck or or it gets sent to the federal government or Blue Cross/Blue Shield including the 15% of your income your employer has to send to SS/Medicare. That 15% for SS/Medicare is NOT different than any other tax your employer has to collect and send to Uncle Sam...it's ALL your money; your employer just isn't allowed to give it to you.

ALL of that money would go to you because YOU are still offering the same skill-set and still worth the same amount of money to your employer whether he is giving that 15% directly to you or sending it, on your behalf, to the federal government.

This lie that the employer "pays" 7.5% is just that, a lie used to convince the uninformed that they are getting something for nothing...just like the lie that businesses/corporations actually pay taxes...trust me...they don't pay a penny that they haven't first collected from YOU and anyone else who buys their products/services.

[mikegideon]

Taking your figure then it costs an employer what? 16.12/hour for a $15/hour employee. Then if he provides medical, dental, vision, 401k and all that other crap it goes up exponentially.

Oh no. Just saying it is accounted for in the package. Benefit packages vary widely between companies, and even within companies. Then, they vary from year to year because of skyrocketing health care costs. The 7.5% is a small part of my package.

[JayC]

Just to be clear, no, they don't. If you are a W-2 employee, then your employer pays half of your SS commitment on your behalf. Only 7.5% of your income is deducted for your own contribution. Self-employed folks are on the hook for the entire 15% themselves.

And you don't think if they didn't have to cintribute that to your SS your pay might not go up a little bit?

For all practical purposes, 15% of your earnings go to FICA, the government just has a cute way of hiding 7.5% of it so the number doesn't look at bad on each pay check.

[mikegideon]

And you don't think if they didn't have to cintribute that to your SS your pay might not go up a little bit?

For all practical purposes, 15% of your earnings go to FICA, the government just has a cute way of hiding 7.5% of it so the number doesn't look at bad on each pay check.

Yep, shell game

[Seaslug]

I think you don't understand the concept of compensation or think compensation is limited to the $$$ in a paycheck...it is not. Your compenstaion as an employee; ALL your compensation is based on your worth to the employer.

Your employer, unless he's an idiot, doesn't "give" you anything - whatever an employer pays you or pays someone on your behalf (pension, health care insurance, life insurance, company cars, whatever) is YOURS...it's compensation YOU'VE EARNED and are entitled to because of the skills and knowledge and abilities YOU bring to the table.

If you have a salary of $100K/year and a benefits package that adds another 35% then YOUR compensation that you've earned is $135,000/year...that's YOUR money whether you see it in a paycheck or or it gets sent to the federal government or Blue Cross/Blue Shield including the 15% of your income your employer has to send to SS/Medicare. That 15% for SS/Medicare is NOT different than any other tax your employer has to collect and send to Uncle Sam...it's ALL your money; your employer just isn't allowed to give it to you.

ALL of that money would go to you because YOU are still offering the same skill-set and still worth the same amount of money to your employer whether he is giving that 15% directly to you or sending it, on your behalf, to the federal government.

This lie that the employer "pays" 7.5% is just that, a lie used to convince the uninformed that they are getting something for nothing...just like the lie that businesses/corporations actually pay taxes...trust me...they don't pay a penny that they haven't first collected from YOU and anyone else who buys their products/services.

And *I* think your reading comprehension skills need some honing. I'm not sure what inspired that bizarre tangent, but the actual topic at hand was the SS obligation for a self-employed person vs. a wage earner--not an employee's "worth" to his/her employer. To put it as simply as possible, a wage earner agrees to a salary/hourly wage when he/she agrees to go to work for a particular employer. This number DOES NOT include the employer's 7.5% SS contribution on the employee's behalf, the undivided share of the employer's total contribution to any group insurance plans, or any potential company-matching funds contributed to the various retirement plans. The salary/wage is the salary/wage, and only 7.5% is deducted from the gross amount in the name of SS before the employee receives it. Many folks are not even privy to their total compensation packages, and the salary/wage is the only number that matters to them.

A self-employed person, on the other hand, must contribute the entire 15% on his/her own behalf (not to mention provide for his/her own insurance, retirement, etc.). The end result is that a self-employed person who makes $50k before taxes and SS (and this is without even taking into consideration business expenditures) brings home significantly less than a W-2 earner with a $50k salary. Does anyone really even want to argue this point?

[Seaslug]

And you don't think if they didn't have to cintribute that to your SS your pay might not go up a little bit?

For all practical purposes, 15% of your earnings go to FICA, the government just has a cute way of hiding 7.5% of it so the number doesn't look at bad on each pay check.

Do you really believe that? I mean, I'm not trying to be argumentative, because I agree with you in principle. However, I also believe that most of the proletariat are not sophisticated enough to understand that their earnings SHOULD go up if SS were abolished, so I see wages remaining stable and employers pocketing more money for themselves if it were to happen.

[JayC]

As an employer, it would give me more money to spend on good labor... and my good employees would get a raise of 5%-7% over time... OR I'd be forced to drop my prices to stay competitive... In a free market a mixture of those 2 things would happen...

Either way you'd end up with more money in your pocket long term.

Do you really believe that? I mean, I'm not trying to be argumentative, because I agree with you in principle. However, I also believe that most of the proletariat are not sophisticated enough to understand that their earnings SHOULD go up if SS were abolished, so I see wages remaining stable and employers pocketing more money for themselves if it were to happen.

[Caster]

You'd be better off dropping your prices or putting away for your company than just passing it out to employees. Sure everyone loves a raise but job security beats a raise any time in this economy.

[Seaslug]

As an employer, it would give me more money to spend on good labor... and my good employees would get a raise of 5%-7% over time... OR I'd be forced to drop my prices to stay competitive... In a free market a mixture of those 2 things would happen...

Either way you'd end up with more money in your pocket long term.

In a vacuum (or an economy in which 10% of the workforce was not unemployed), sure. In our current state, however, I believe you are giving too much credit in assuming that most employers would have the scruples that you apparently do.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'll argue with you. That's the way it works. Anyone self employed only sees the whole picture as a payment

when actually it is the same for all. A salary and benefit package will show the true cost of the employee and

he won't even notice it, or at worst, deny it. Shell game, courtesy of your government.

Depends on the tax system replacing the old one as to whether or not your income would rise.

You are paying your taxes. Your employer is providing you income to do that. He is forced to be a collection

agent for the Treasury.

[Seaslug]

I'll argue with you. That's the way it works. Anyone self employed only sees the whole picture as a payment

when actually it is the same for all. A salary and benefit package will show the true cost of the employee and

he won't even notice it, or at worst, deny it. Shell game, courtesy of your government.

Depends on the tax system replacing the old one as to whether or not your income would rise.

You are paying your taxes. Your employer is providing you income to do that. He is forced to be a collection

agent for the Treasury.

I respect your pluck. Even so, how many interviews have you had where the total compensation package (expressed as a number) was discussed, rather than simply salary/wage? From my experience, you have to be pretty far up the corporate ladder before this becomes a point of negotiation. For the most part, this information is not even available, and even when it is, we'd be naive to think the numbers hadn't been massaged at least a little in the employer's favor. An employee goes to work for a company because his/her salary is $50k/year, not because the total compensation package may be in the ballpark of $70k. It's as simple as that.

[RobertNashville]

And *I* think your reading comprehension skills need some honing. I'm not sure what inspired that bizarre tangent, but the actual topic at hand was the SS obligation for a self-employed person vs. a wage earner--not an employee's "worth" to his/her employer. To put it as simply as possible, a wage earner agrees to a salary/hourly wage when he/she agrees to go to work for a particular employer. This number DOES NOT include the employer's 7.5% SS contribution on the employee's behalf, the undivided share of the employer's total contribution to any group insurance plans, or any potential company-matching funds contributed to the various retirement plans. The salary/wage is the salary/wage, and only 7.5% is deducted from the gross amount in the name of SS before the employee receives it. Many folks are not even privy to their total compensation packages, and the salary/wage is the only number that matters to them.

A self-employed person, on the other hand, must contribute the entire 15% on his/her own behalf (not to mention provide for his/her own insurance, retirement, etc.). The end result is that a self-employed person who makes $50k before taxes and SS (and this is without even taking into consideration business expenditures) brings home significantly less than a W-2 earner with a $50k salary. Does anyone really even want to argue this point?

It's your money...it's all your money and if you truly don't understand that your money is more than $X/hour so be it.

If you truly think an employee is "paying" 7.5% of an employee's SS/Medicare then you must also assume that that the 10/15/20/25% they send to the IRS is not your money either and that companies pay taxes.

[RobertNashville]

Do you really believe that? I mean, I'm not trying to be argumentative, because I agree with you in principle. However, I also believe that most of the proletariat are not sophisticated enough to understand that their earnings SHOULD go up if SS were abolished, so I see wages remaining stable and employers pocketing more money for themselves if it were to happen.

An ill-informed or uneducated worker not understanding the concept doesn't invalidate the concept.

If your skill-set and knowledge was worth $150K/year to an employer while SS/Medicare is being deducted and then, SS/Medicare is no longer being deducted, your skill-set and knowledge is STILL worth $150K/year and if your employer tries to screw you out of it then you either demand and get it or you don't get and go somewhere else or you simply bend over and take it.

Edited March 4, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Seaslug]

It's your money...it's all your money and if you truly don't understand that your money is more than $X/hour so be it.

If you truly think an employee is "paying" 7.5% of an employee's SS/Medicare then you must also assume that that the 10/15/20/25% they send to the IRS is not your money either and that companies pay taxes.

No, because the taxes that are paid actually come out of my gross pay and are a percentage of the salary to which I agreed. The additional 7.5% does not. I'm trying to be fair to you, but you've done nothing to refute the very specific examples I've provided.

An ill-informed or uneducated worker not understanding the concept doesn't invalidate the concept.

And a Utopian concept has absolutely no bearing on reality. Just sayin'...

[RobertNashville]

No, because the taxes that are paid actually come out of my gross pay and are a percentage of the salary to which I agreed. The additional 7.5% does not. I'm trying to be fair to you, but you've done nothing to refute the very specific examples I've provided.

And a Utopian concept has absolutely no bearing on reality. Just sayin'...

Your "real world examples" are predicated on an erroneous belief and your refusal to understand the concept of compensation and that compensation is not $X/hour doesn't make it "Utopian".

You are free to believe what you want and to be screwed by employers.

Have a nice day.

Edited March 4, 2011 by RobertNashville