Social Security Gotcha
02-10-2012 | 06:29 PM
#31
"blue collar thug"!
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,614
Likes: 0
From: A proponent of...
02-10-2012 | 06:38 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,184
Likes: 0
From: leaning to the left
Read the last sentence of the first paragraph
Payroll tax cut extension passed in Congress - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Payroll tax cut extension passed in Congress - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
02-10-2012 | 06:43 PM
#33
With The Resistance
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,191
Likes: 0
From: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Playing sides in this matter has proven over time to be a complete waste.
02-10-2012 | 07:13 PM
#34
"blue collar thug"!
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,614
Likes: 0
From: A proponent of...
But it is part of the divide/conquer dialectic. And it works so well!
02-10-2012 | 08:28 PM
#35
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,369
Likes: 7
I can't leave it at that...
The basic reason for the recapture is that the 2% break is only for money earned the first two months of the year. Soc. Sec withholdings are still stopped when the taxpayer reaches the $110,000 limit. Without the recapture, high income earners would possibly gain a tax advantage over those that do not earn over $110,000/yr.
Most easily explained by:
Taxpayer #1 earns $9167/mo. Jan - Feb he pays 4.2% = $770. Mar -Dec he pays 6.2% = $5684, for a yearly total of $6454.
Taxpayer #2 earns $55000/mo. Jan and Feb he pays 4.2% = $4620. Mar - Dec he pays nothing, for a yearly total of $4620.
So, the guy making $660,000/yr would be paying $1834 less than the guy making $110,000/yr. That of course, is a worst case scenario. But, I thought it would be easiest for the dittoheads to follow.
That's the reason. If they agree to a complete year of 4.2%. The recapture will be unnecessary.
The basic reason for the recapture is that the 2% break is only for money earned the first two months of the year. Soc. Sec withholdings are still stopped when the taxpayer reaches the $110,000 limit. Without the recapture, high income earners would possibly gain a tax advantage over those that do not earn over $110,000/yr.
Most easily explained by:
Taxpayer #1 earns $9167/mo. Jan - Feb he pays 4.2% = $770. Mar -Dec he pays 6.2% = $5684, for a yearly total of $6454.
Taxpayer #2 earns $55000/mo. Jan and Feb he pays 4.2% = $4620. Mar - Dec he pays nothing, for a yearly total of $4620.
So, the guy making $660,000/yr would be paying $1834 less than the guy making $110,000/yr. That of course, is a worst case scenario. But, I thought it would be easiest for the dittoheads to follow.
That's the reason. If they agree to a complete year of 4.2%. The recapture will be unnecessary.
Jakal
02-10-2012 | 08:47 PM
#36
With The Resistance
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,191
Likes: 0
From: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Executive summary: Noise and smoke were emitted, but there has been no material change in the Ponzi. The Kabuki will continue, with different players, dances and songs. Enjoy your entertainment, you paid for it.
02-11-2012 | 05:51 AM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
From: 767 FO
Of course that only leaves the repeal of the Bush Tax cuts, the 3.8% investment surcharge and the extra 1% medicaire tax for those of us alpapac contributors that make over $250K. All kicking in next year.
02-11-2012 | 12:53 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
I'm not completely ignorant of what Marxism is and this discussion and actions of "the Marxist-in Chief" tend to be more in line with what "Marxism" is than what it isn't.
This leads me to believe someone is ignorant about their assumed understanding of socioeconomic theory.
This leads me to believe someone is ignorant about their assumed understanding of socioeconomic theory.
02-11-2012 | 09:03 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
From: seated beer curl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
