Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-23-2011, 9:08 AM Reply   
I already said that if employees worked for free there would be no unemployment. Are you saying that wages aren't a barrier to employment? My argument is that the company contribution to FICA is part of the employee's wage. The barrier argument is moot for obvious reasons.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-23-2011, 9:36 AM Reply   
Not sure what the employee worked for free there would be no unemployment thing is about. There would still be a crap load of unemployment considering many will not work regardless.

The part the employee pays is part of his or her wage and has to be factored in when looking to attract skilled workers. A worker does not want a job that they can not live on so employee paid FICA has to be factored in. That of course makes employees more expensive. Then on the other side, the employer has to pay it as well and that makes it more expensive to hire employees. They are both barriers to employment.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-23-2011, 9:44 AM Reply   
In an international marketplace taxing employment creates additional costs that makes the USA less competitive. How is this concept that difficult to understand? All the "jobs" packages proposed seek to lower or eliminate payroll taxes as this will lower the overall cost of employment therefor allowing businesses on the cusp of hiring or not hiring based on demand for their product to more easily make the decision to hire. In many cases it also allows the employer to seek a higher wage employee for those roles as the cost is less because there are not additional taxes on the company and employee for employment. This is a pretty simple concept.

Free or not employment is based on supply and demand. If you have no demand you won't be hiring even the cheapest employee.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-23-2011, 9:47 AM Reply   
There is a 100% correspondence between the employee working and the payment of the FICA tax. That is the rationale for the tax being a tax on the worker, not the business.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-23-2011, 9:50 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
In an international marketplace taxing employment creates additional costs that makes the USA less competitive. How is this concept that difficult to understand?
Why would you think that's difficult to understand? International competition has zero to do with the argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
All the "jobs" packages proposed seek to lower or eliminate payroll taxes as this will lower the overall cost of employment therefor allowing businesses on the cusp of hiring or not hiring based on demand for their product to more easily make the decision to hire. In many cases it also allows the employer to seek a higher wage employee for those roles as the cost is less because there are not additional taxes on the company and employee for employment. This is a pretty simple concept.
Very simple to understand. Makes no difference whether the wage is 7.5% higher or the FICA tax is 7.5% lower. All the same (minus the small math details).

Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
Free or not employment is based on supply and demand. If you have no demand you won't be hiring even the cheapest employee.
Way to miss the point.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-23-2011, 10:02 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Its still a retirement plan with an annual statement of projected benefits.
You're not paying into an account with your SSN on it. That money is not yours it is a tax. You are paying for current recipients of SSI. The statement is based on self-interested AARP laws passed in 1977. I thought you were against bailouts and handouts and special interest but you seem to be sold on this subject that this tax is owed back to you when it clearly is a tax that has been manipulated to fool the public and take advantage of a block of vulnerable voters.

Social Security Administration publication number 05-10024 states:

The money you pay in taxes is not held in a personal account for you to use when you get benefits. Your taxes are being used right now to pay people who now are getting benefits. Any unused money goes to the Social Security trust funds, not a personal account with your name on it.

Last edited by norcalrider; 11-23-2011 at 10:11 AM.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-23-2011, 10:10 AM Reply   
International competition has EVERYTHING to do with it. You made a big statement earlier about exporting our dollars. And cost of employment along with currency manipulation are two of the biggest reasons this country is exporting dollars and jobs for cheaper foreign services and product. Hell California even imported sections for the new bay bridge from China.

If you want to foster AMERICAN jobs you need to make AMERICA competitive and you do that through lowering the cost of employment by removing the negative externalities on employment, the barriers on employment which are the taxes on employment. Regardless of if the tax is on the employee or employer the cost is added to the cost of production for that good or service therefor making that good or service less competitive with foreign competitors who do not impose these barriers.

I have not advocated for elimination of the programs but would advocate for realigning where those taxes are raised in order to garner the most economic benefits.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-23-2011, 10:15 AM Reply   
Mik, you are mixing up a lot of different arguments. International competition has zero to do with recognizing that business FICA contributions are really a tax on the worker's compensation.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-23-2011, 10:21 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
You're not paying into an account with your SSN on it. That money is not yours it is a tax. You are paying for current recipients of SSI. The statement is based on self-interested AARP laws passed in 1977. I thought you were against bailouts and handouts and special interest but you seem to be sold on this subject that this tax is owed back to you when it clearly is a tax that has been manipulated to fool the public and take advantage of a block of vulnerable voters.

Social Security Administration publication number 05-10024 states:

The money you pay in taxes is not held in a personal account for you to use when you get benefits. Your taxes are being used right now to pay people who now are getting benefits. Any unused money goes to the Social Security trust funds, not a personal account with your name on it.
Why don't you tell me something new. I'm paying into a retirement insurance program with defined benefits. What problem you have with an insurance program with defined benefits being part of a rerirement plan? That's the way it is.

It is true that Congress can redefine the benefits. But Congress can do lot's of things includng borrow more, raise taxes, tax more things, create more welfare, declare more wars, take away more rights, destroy wall street by eliminating tax deductions for pensions, destroy healthcare insurance companies byt eliminating the tax deduction for HI benefits, etc.... Get the picture?

It's all a matter of the people to ensure that Congress does not renege on it's commitments. That means you don't allow people to use semantics to make you believe that it's OK to steal from you.

If you pay into an insurance account with defined benefits for a number of years then you aren't going to be receptive to the claims that it's ok to take away the benefits no matter how the argument is framed. Insurance or pension it makes no difference. You are expected to meet the eligibility requirements if you live to be old enough and no longer decide to work. Anyone who thinks that's the time to renege on the conditions of the insurance is making an immoral argument.

It's a matter of the US making good on it's commmitments. When it no longer can, you can probably kiss your wall street investments goodbye because that will be the end of the economy.

SS is part of a retirement investment plan. And for some people it's their whole investment plan. They are the one's that pay the price for not saving more. But SS is quite explicit about what you will receive based on your continued employment to retirement age.

BTW, there are tons of defined benefit pension plans that don't hold money in individual accounts.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-23-2011, 10:36 AM Reply   
John, if that's your view on SSI then you have no concern for future generations and your self interest will be born on the backs of your grandchildren who will suffer the economic collapse because your Congress and generation expanded and exploited a social assistance program into a retirement plan. I never argued about taking away YOUR benefits, I argued to take away MY benefits in order to end the cycle and prevent MY children from having to suffer YOUR sins. In order to do this action needs to happen NOW so that MY generation can plan appropriately. I cannot wait for the boomers to be out of power, so that real change can be effectuated.

I never argued that business FICA contributions was not a tax on a worker's compensation. The crux of my argument is that taxes on employment suffered by the employer or employee are detrimental to American jobs and employment.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-23-2011, 10:39 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
BTW, there are tons of defined benefit pension plans that don't hold money in individual accounts.
You have property rights to defined pension plans you do NOT have property rights to SSI. That is a fundamental difference.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-23-2011, 11:05 AM Reply   
The rights to your SS is defined by the people you elect.

My view on the exporting of the economy is far more important than the SS issue. Future generations will suffer significantly more if we don't return to a society that produces wealth. Focusing on SS is nothing more than a red herring. Shuffling FICA taxes does not address the issue with the competitive nature of American industry. If we establish a standard for society which encompasses many factors not just retirement, and then allow the importation of products not burdened by those same standards, we are creating a unsustainable situation fueled by greed and ignorance.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-23-2011, 11:41 AM Reply   
John, they are inter-related issues as SSI is paid for by FICA which increases the cost of domestic products and services. And this has to be put in context that there are state and local taxes on employment. I believe that one of the the primary ways to encourage employment is to realign these taxes away from payroll or employment as it harms the economic base that it is taxing. I agree about product standards and even stated that previously in this thread. I even suggested product standards as a means to increase the cost of imported goods. That being said there is a need to examine the inflation that might occur under that scenario.

I do believe that currency manipulation by China is a concurrent reason their products and services have an economic advantage. So beyond doing what we can to lower the cost of producing products in the USA there is the need to take action. The US Senate passed the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act which may help. Here's a decent read to further describe this position: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-...b_1099753.html
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-23-2011, 12:19 PM Reply   
That's a good article. This is why I say that the govt should have an official statement that the goal is a zero trade deficit. People don't grasp the damage to the country they are doing. You can't find a solution until you recognize the problem.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:22 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us