Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: lewislynn

Your reading of thie is exactl right, the wage income was $47,129. And the employer is paying $3,605 employer half of FICA on top of that, for a total wage cost to the employer of $50,734.

The takehome pay would be the 47,129 less $3,605 employee half FICA less $6,433 withheld income tax for a total annual "take-home paycheck" of $37,091 just like you posted.

You are right that if gross salaries were raised to include the Employer half of FICA as part of the "100% paycheck" promise as the author states, then there would be almost no cost savings to business due to the enactment of the FairTax, so prices would go up by almost the full amount of the 30% tax.

Pigdog, as usual, is incorrect.


14 posted on 06/15/2006 5:10:45 AM PDT by RobFromGa (The GOP will retain the Senate and House in 2006- Let's Do Something With It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: RobFromGa
You are right that if gross salaries were raised to include the Employer half of FICA as part of the "100% paycheck" promise as the author states, then there would be almost no cost savings to business due to the enactment of the FairTax, so prices would go up by almost the full amount of the 30% tax.
And the author of the link I posted stating that the employee would get the employer half after "all payroll taxes" were removed, is also the author of the Fairtax, as pigdog was so proud to point out.
16 posted on 06/15/2006 7:35:28 AM PDT by lewislynn (Fairtax = lies, hope, wishful thinking, conjecture and lack of logic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: RobFromGa
"Your reading of thie is exactl right, the wage income was $47,129. "

Sort of like kissing your sister (yuk! in this case!).

Wage income here means the amount they have taken home. That's clear since the example clearly says that the family's $47,129 income they "would have paid $3,605 on those wages" (i.e, on the $47K) in payroll taxes. The past tense means that it had already been paid.

The notation about the ER portion merely means that they would theoretically have $47,129 + the $3.605 ER portion which is still argued by economists (but the $3,605 EE portion would still have been paid based upon their gross of $50,734).

It is merely YOUR misinterpretation.

Also I don't whine via Private Mail to you and complain about what I'm called - especially since your aversion to being called a salesman or peddler is something that you yourself told us on these threads (and none of my "FairTax friends" as you state in that FReepmail). Since you exposed this information yourself it seems to be reasonable to comment on it.

It's like Harry Truman once said - "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". And stop trying to determine what others post by trying to use the Administrative Moderator as a benefactor on your side of the debate to try to win the debate.

18 posted on 06/15/2006 10:33:11 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson