|
Post by supposn1 on Feb 15, 2014 15:40:26 GMT -6
Supposn, Welcome back. I disagree with the idea of replacing part of FICA with a sales tax. Sales taxes are the most regressive of all taxes. Since they're at a constant rate on goods purchased, they disproportionately affect those with the least spending power. unlawflcombatnt, A sales tax is not progressive or regressive; it’s a flat rated tax that can be drafted to be more progressive to a very limited extent. It can never function in the manner of progressive income taxes; but due to so many exceptions, exclusions, differentiating between sources and/or manner of acquiring incomes, our progressive income taxes ain’t that much progressive. I repeat: Except for work related injury) there’s no logical relationship between prior employment and medical need. I advocate that FICA's portion of revenue earmarked for Medicare be entirely and half of the social security retirement’s portions of FICA be replaced with a general sales tax. FICA does not at present fully sustain these social programs, it is our most regressive federal tax and this shift of revenue sources is preferable to the reduction of Medicare or Social Security’s retirement benefits. President Obama has in the past and continues to indicate future willingness to acquiesce and surrender populist goals rather than permitting his people to negotiate the “best deals they can get”. President Obama accepted reduced food stamps to obtain an agricultural bill that includes commodity price supports. I would have preferred that he’d have “sandbagged”; any cuts in food stamps must be proportionally applied to all other spending authorized within that bill. President Obama indicates his willingness to accept increasing the eligibility ages or other reductions of benefits to acquire greater funding for Medicare and Social Security retirement programs. I prefer he veto such reduction, continue to accept greater budget deficits and that Democrats’ continue arguing this issue in 2015, 2016 and beyond or until the voters determine the outcome of these issues. My lesser but acceptable preference, (considering the significance of Medicare and SS retirement programs) is to accept shifting a portion of revenue source from FICA to a sales tax. Although sales taxes are more regressive than progressive income taxes, they are less regressive than FICA which is “capped” and only levied upon employees and employers. Because the Employers FICA rate’s equally applied to all employers, their FICA payments are equally passed on to the prices of all USA products and behave exactly as a federal sales tax paid by everyone. Formally recognizing this we would in effect reduce wage earners portion of these taxes and spread a greater and uncapped portion of those taxes among all purchasers, investors, corporations, off the books laborers … ect would be the populist and the best interest of our nation. . Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Feb 15, 2014 15:27:15 GMT -6
Supposn, Welcome back. I disagree with the idea of replacing part of FICA with a sales tax. Sales taxes are the most regressive of all taxes. Since they're at a constant rate on goods purchased, they disproportionately affect those with the least spending power. A 10% sales tax on all items purchased taxes those at the top end of the income / wealth scale is at the same dollar amount as those at the low end. But it's a much higher % of total income. As such, it takes a larger percentage bite out of those making less money. 10% tax on $1,000-worth of purchases for a worker making $20K per year is 5% of that workers total income. In contrast, 10% tax on $1,000-worth of purchases for an employee making $200K/year is only ½% of that person's income. Sales tax on a constant amount of goods purchased hurts that $20K/year worker far more than that of one making $200K
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Feb 15, 2014 13:19:37 GMT -6
Supposn, Welcome back. I disagree with the idea of replacing part of FICA with a sales tax. Sales taxes are the most regressive of all taxes. Since they're at a constant rate on goods purchased, they disproportionately affect those with the least spending power. A 10% sales tax on all items purchased taxes those at the top end of the income / wealth scale is at the same dollar amount as those at the low end. But it's a much higher % of total income. As such, it takes a larger percentage bite out of those making less money. 10% tax on $1,000-worth of purchases for a worker making $20K per year is 5% of that workers total income. In contrast, 10% tax on $1,000-worth of purchases for an employee making $200K/year is only ½% of that person's income. Sales tax on a constant amount of goods purchased hurts that $20K/year worker far more than that of one making $200K
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Feb 15, 2014 13:17:57 GMT -6
Supposn, Welcome back. I disagree with the idea of replacing part of FICA with a sales tax. Sales taxes are the most regressive of all taxes. Since they're at a constant rate on goods purchased, they disproportionately affect those with the least spending power. A 10% sales tax on all items purchased taxes those at the top end of the income / wealth scale is at the same dollar amount as those at the low end. But it's a much higher % of total income. As such, it takes a larger percentage bite out of those making less money. 10% tax on $1,000-worth of purchases for a worker making $20K per year is 5% of that workers total income. In contrast, 10% tax on $1,000-worth of purchases for an employee making $200K/year is only ½% of that person's income. Sales tax on a constant amount of goods purchased hurts that $20K/year worker far more than that of one making $200K
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Feb 12, 2014 16:04:41 GMT -6
FICA payroll tax; our most regressive tax. Shifting a portion of FICA payroll tax to a federal sales tax.
Medicare is available to almost all of USA’s elderly and Social security retirement is available to almost all of USA’s elderly that were employed in the USA. No one can foretell their financial future condition with certainty. It’s not unusual for even wealthy persons have found themselves in need of Social Security and Medicare in their old age. Poverty is directly detrimental to those families lacking minimal incomes but additionally it is detrimental to our entire economy. FICA is the most regressive of all federal taxes. It is proportionally greatest harm upon our working poor.
Except for work related injury) there’s no logical relationship between prior employment and medical need. I advocate that FICA's portion of revenue earmarked for Medicare be entirely, and half of the social security retirement’s portions of FICA be replaced with a general sales tax. FICA does not at present fully sustain these social programs, it is our most regressive federal tax and this shift of revenue sources is preferable to the reduction of Medicare or Social Security’s retirement benefits.
Employees generally cannot themselves entirely fund their own lifetime annuity program and employers FICA contributions based upon their payrolls are punishing employers for providing payrolls. I’m opposed to entirely disconnecting the relationship between payroll taxes and social security retirement benefits and I’m opposed to increasing the retirement age. Although people are living longer, most people’ are physically unable to sustain the production rates they achieved in their prime working years. Some compromises are called for. Respectfully Supposn ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
FICA payroll tax; our most regressive tax. Addendum: At present, employers’ portions of FICA payroll taxes are imbedded within the prices of all goods and services and passed on their customers. We all pay those employer costs.
Shifting a portion of FICA payroll tax to a federal sales tax.
Each employees’ and employers’ FICA tax would be reduced by 4.65%. [Medicare’s 0.0145) + (Social Security’s 0.0325) = 4.65% The 9.1% of payroll that’s reduced from total FICA revenues would be replaced by a 4.65% general sales tax. The increase of prices due to eliminating 9.1% of USA’s payrolls from FICA’s revenues and enacting a 4.65% sales tax is dependent upon the proportional relationship of payroll subject to FICA and the sales transactions subject to a sales tax. /////////////
If USA’s sales revenues subject to the sales tax are twice our total payrolls subject to FICA, the gross price increases would actually be: (0.0465)(1/2)[1/1.0465)] > (0.02325)(0.9555) > .0222 the approximate gross price increases would be 2% and for the working poor a net tax decrease of over 2.5 % .
If USA’s sales revenues subject to the sales tax are triple our total payrolls subject to FICA, the net price increases would actually be: (0.0465)(1 - 1/3)[1/1.0465)] > (0.031) (0.9555) > .0296 the approximate gross price increases would be less than 3% and for the working poor a net tax decrease of over 1.5 % .
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Feb 12, 2014 15:58:13 GMT -6
FICA payroll tax; our most regressive tax. Shifting a portion of FICA payroll tax to a federal sales tax.
Medicare is available to almost all of USA’s elderly and Social security retirement is available to almost all of USA’s elderly that were employed in the USA. No one can foretell their financial future condition with certainty. It’s not unusual for even wealthy persons have found themselves in need of Social Security and Medicare in their old age. Poverty is directly detrimental to those families lacking minimal incomes but additionally it is detrimental to our entire economy. FICA is the most regressive of all federal taxes. It is proportionally greatest harm upon our working poor.
Except for work related injury) there’s no logical relationship between prior employment and medical need. I advocate that FICA's portion of revenue earmarked for Medicare be entirely, and half of the social security retirement’s portions of FICA be replaced with a general sales tax.
FICA does not at present fully sustain these social programs, it is our most regressive federal tax and this shift of some portion of FICA to a sales tax is preferable to the reduction of Medicare or Social Security’s retirement benefits.
Employees generally cannot themselves entirely fund their own lifetime annuity program and employers FICA contributions based upon their payrolls are punishing employers for providing payrolls. I’m opposed to entirely disconnecting the relationship between payroll taxes and social security retirement benefits and I’m opposed to increasing the retirement age. Although people are living longer, most people’ are physically unable to sustain the production rates they achieved in their prime working years. Some compromises are called for. Respectfully Supposn ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Addendum:
At present, employers’ portions of FICA payroll taxes are imbedded within the prices of all goods and services and passed on their customers. We all pay those employer costs.
Shifting a portion of FICA payroll tax to a federal sales tax.
Each employees’ and employers’ FICA tax would be reduced by 4.65%. [Medicare’s 0.0145) + (Social Security’s 0.0325) = 4.65% The 9.1% of payroll that’s reduced from total FICA revenues would be more than simply replaced by a 4.65% general sales tax.
The increase of prices due to the shift of 4.65% of payrolls from FICA and enacting a 4.65% sales tax is dependent upon the proportional relationship of payroll subject to FICA and the sales transactions subject to a sales tax. /////////////
If USA’s sales revenues subject to the sales tax are twice our total payrolls subject to FICA, the gross price increases would actually be: (0.0465)(1/2)[1/1.0465)] > (0.02325)(0.9555) > .0222 the approximate gross price increases would be 2% and for the working poor a net tax decrease of over 2.5 % .
If USA’s sales revenues subject to the sales tax are triple our total payrolls subject to FICA, the net price increases would actually be: (0.0465)(1 - 1/3)[1/1.0465)] > (0.031) (0.9555) > .0296 the approximate gross price increases would be less than 3% and for the working poor a net tax decrease of over 1.5 % .
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|