![]() |
Social Security Gotcha
Just got the email from the company about the little gem Congress buried in the 2% payroll tax cut extension. Seems those of us with a little senority who are doing well will have to pay a 2% income surtax in 2013 on any money above the threshold that was earned in January and February of this year. So, bottom line, better tuck that 2% "pay raise" away because they are coming after it next year. Did anybody know about this?
|
here's another question....
Say assuming the rate goes back to 6.2% in March thatyou still end up max'ing out Social Security so you paid $6826.2 for the year (I believe they changed the with-holding RATE from 6.2 to 4.2% in Jan-Feb but never altered the maximum with-holding AMOUNT for 2012), do you still have to pay EVEN MORE and give them the 2% you earned in Jan-Feb? |
Originally Posted by hook
(Post 1132751)
here's another question....
Say assuming the rate goes back to 6.2% in March thatyou still end up max'ing out Social Security so you paid $6826.2 for the year (I believe they changed the with-holding RATE from 6.2 to 4.2% in Jan-Feb but never altered the maximum with-holding AMOUNT for 2012), do you still have to pay EVEN MORE and give them the 2% you earned in Jan-Feb? |
87% of 2008 ALPAPAC money supported politicians who support this. Wait till they go after the $110K cap.
|
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
(Post 1132769)
87% of 2008 ALPAPAC money supported politicians who support this. Wait till they go after the $110K cap.
|
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
(Post 1132769)
87% of 2008 ALPAPAC money supported politicians who support this. Wait till they go after the $110K cap.
If you make $200,000 a year (the magical number for being "rich" according to the Marxist in Chief) then you will pay 4.2% on everything under $110,000 and 2% on everything over.....so the extra $90,000 above the "cap" is taxed at 2% for an increase of .....wait on it....wait on it....$1800. So if you make exactly $200.000 you will pay 6.2%......which is an increase of 2% over the "Holiday".....Anything over that is a huge increase as that income not previously available to tax is now taxed at 2%. Which is probably why the psuedo limit (more a dividing line) is now at $110,000. It has been going up every year. This is just a device so Obama can keep his promise of not raising taxes on those making under $200,000. Like I said, it is no longer a limit, just a dividing line. If this becomes permanent, If you make $500,000 a year, you will pay $4620 on the first $110,000 and $7800 on the next $390,000 for a grand total of $12420 in social security tax which is almost a whopping 87% net increase in social security taxes paid from before the holiday when you were "Maxed out at $6820". They went after the limit with this....they did it for two months to confuse the issue because the cowards in the Senate and the House did not want to admit what they did. They went for a temporary fix.....now the easiest thing to do is extend it indefinitely. As a side note, the dividing line for the 99th percentile of earned income for a single earner in the US is right at about the $200,000 mark. This is exactly why you are seeing all this emphasis about the 99% these days. This does nothing except fuel class warfare as if someone making over $200,000 is the top 1%, then there is no way the additional taxes will help pay for any "Shortfall" :( |
Mod Note:
My husband went to the doctor several years ago and was told he is "borderline pre-diabetic." So he's not a full blown diabetic, only pre-diabetic, and only borderline. Relevance, counsel? Well, this thread is borderline, pre-TOS violation of political discussions. It's so close my eyes are just starting to water. |
Originally Posted by vagabond
(Post 1132857)
Mod Note:
My husband went to the doctor several years ago and was told he is "borderline pre-diabetic." So he's not a full blown diabetic, only pre-diabetic, and only borderline. Relevance, counsel? Well, this thread is borderline, pre-TOS violation of political discussions. It's so close my eyes are just starting to water. I'm just talking about how it affects my paycheck issued from my company the next two months. That's not politics, that's mathematics. :D I will refrain from anymore editorial comments about the constitution of the congresspeople's constituents. Regards, Jakal |
Originally Posted by Laughing_Jakal
(Post 1132869)
I'm just talking about how it affects my paycheck issued from my company the next two months. That's not politics, that's mathematics. Regards, Jakal That's not politics? Huh? |
Originally Posted by Walter White
(Post 1132879)
"...according to the Marxist in Chief..."
That's not politics? Huh? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:07 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands