Maybe you can tell me why you say repealing payroll will only add 6% to the rate when the legislation adds over 8% for social insurance.
Also, I sure would like to see your numbers on how the FCA is only going to add 3.5%.
While your at it, show me the numbers on how repealing payroll taxes is going to drop prices. Esp. since most economist believe it is the employee who pays the full amount through lower wages (which one can assume would go up with their repeal).
Maybe you can tell me why you say repealing payroll will only add 6% to the rate when the legislation adds over 8% for social insurance.
We are modifying Jorgenson's no FCA, no payroll 15.7% NRST, relative to time 0, '95 , when the SS wage base had lower caps & less collected.
The 8% in the Linder NRST legislation includes the proportionate amount of FCA attributable to SS/Medicare,. same as the 14.91% general revenue rate contains FCA proportionately applicable to it.
The convention used in the Linder bill allows separability of SS/Medicare provisions vs General Revenue provision per House Ways & Means requests.
Also, I sure would like to see your numbers on how the FCA is only going to add 3.5%.
The 3.5% additional I compute covers the FCA as a separate lump sum.
But you know all that seeing as you claim
Your Nightmare: "The rest of your calculations are so off I don't have time tonight to correct them."
You have surely done the basic calculations necessary to make such a statement, have you not?
Or is it that we have caught you blowing hot air once again.
While your at it, show me the numbers on how repealing payroll taxes is going to drop prices. Esp.
Producers no longer pay the employers excise, because its repealed and is indistiguishable from the effect of repeal of corporate income taxes.
since most economist believe it is the employee who pays the full amount through lower wages .
Regardless of any convention economist might like to say about the employer excise in other contexts, the reality is 26 USC 3111, with the employers excise is sent straight into Treasury 26 USC 3111 as aggregate internal revenue collections right along with corporate income taxes due.
Reality, is that SS/Medicare payments are an appropriation indistinguishable from any other, are financed out of general revenues, and always have been.
HELVERING v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)
- Title VIII(Social Security Act), as we have said, lays two different types of tax, an 'income tax on employees,' and 'an excise tax on employers.' The income tax on employees is measured by wages paid during the calendar year. Section 801 [26 USC 3101]. The excise tax on the employer [26 USC 3111] is to be paid 'with respect to having individuals in his employ,' and, like the tax on employees, is measured by wages.
- . The proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally, and are not ear-marked in any way. Section 807(a)[26 USC 3501]. There are penalties for nonpayment. Section 807(c), [26 USC 7203].
No lockbox,
CRS Report for Congress (98-422 EPW)
Social Security: and the Federal Budget:"Its taxes like all other federal funds flow into the U.S. Treasury and its benefit payments flow out of the U.S. Treasury. The Treasury Department issues federal securities to the Social Security trust funds to reflect receipt of these taxes, and redeems securities from the trust funds to reflect Social Security expenditures, but the money itself flows to and from the Treasury."
"Taking the Social Security trust funds "off budget" has not changed how Social Security funds are handled. They are treated the same way today as they were in 1937 when Social Security taxes were first levied -- the tax receipts flow into the U.S. Treasury and benefit payments flow out of the U.S. Treasury. The Treasury Department issues federal securities to the Social Security trust funds to reflect the receipt of these taxes, and redeems securities from the trust funds to reflect Social Security expenditures, but the money itself flows to and from the Treasury. "
and no ownership or guarantee of continued SS benefit even leaving the above taxes in place:
What Social Security Trust Fund
"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Fleming v. Nestor (1960), 363 US 603; that there is no Constitutional right to Social Security benefits. Social Security benefits can legally be cut or eliminated at any time, and beneficiaries have no recourse. The Court held that, "To engraft upon the Social Security System a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustments to ever changing conditions which it demands."