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

Skip to comments.

Keep this quiet: Year 2002 Social Security Tax Hike (my title)
Company Payroll Dept. | 01/03/02 | Corporate

Posted on 01/03/2002 10:59:21 AM PST by lds23

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has announced that the 2002 social security wage base will be $84,900, an increase of $4,500 from the 2001 wage base of $80,400. As in prior years, there is no limit to the wages subject to the Medicare tax; therefore, all covered wages are still subject to the 1.45% tax. The FICA tax rate, which is the combined social security tax rate of 6.2% and Medicare tax rate of 1.45%, remains at 7.65% for 2002.

The maximum social security tax employees and employers will each pay in 2002 is $5,263.80. This is an increase of $279 from the 2001 maximum of $4,984.80.


TOPICS: Announcements; Business/Economy; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: socialsecurity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 last
To: SteamshipTime
In this regard, is he any different from the Democrats?

Vice President Gore took a practical approach to the potential SS problem, even advocating that the federal government budget hundreds of billions of dollars for a modest reform of the system. How many hundreds of billions did GWB say he is willing to budget for this purpose? If your answer is zero, you are correct.

You would agree with me that both parties are co-conspirators in this confidence game?

No U.S. president has ever taken a more cynical, self-serving approach to SS than GWB.

61 posted on 01/04/2002 5:08:16 AM PST by MurryMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: willyone
In a few years that will change as the only way to continue paying benefits will either involve taking almost all the pay of younger workers, using general revenues or drastic reduction of benefits.

Your post is operating on false assumptions fed to you by Republican Party politicians. Note, for example, that the year in which the SS surplus allegedly will disappear has been postponed several times already. If the surplus ever disappears, some possible remedies include modest reductions in the rate of benefit increases, and use of general revenues to make up any difference.

62 posted on 01/04/2002 5:12:45 AM PST by MurryMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
The employer does not pay one cent of the payroll tax.

and now we all know that you're not an employeer.


63 posted on 01/04/2002 5:25:34 AM PST by defeat_the_dem_igods
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
, then distribute the remaining $60,000 to yourself in the form of dividends.

I am incorporated and The part your missing is that the $60,000.00 is profit to the corporation and the Corp. pays corporate tax on ANY profits, divedends are AFTER TAX....i'm not exactly sure what the applicable rate is for 60,000 but let's say it is 25%. After taxes the corporation only has $45,000.oo left for divedends. Then I pay INCOME TAX on the 45,000.00. I would be better off to take the $60,000.00 in payroll and pay 7.65% SS and let the corp. pay the matching for a total of 15% SS, thus saving approx. 10% in tax. Plus the Corp shows 0 income and pays no tax.

64 posted on 01/04/2002 6:57:30 AM PST by is_is
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Tuscaloosa Goldfinch
I understand "those ways"....
65 posted on 01/04/2002 7:00:20 AM PST by is_is
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: is_is
But there are other ways to reduce that profit and yet still enjoy the benefit of the money.

A friend of mine moved from a small condo to a larger house when he got married, but he couldn't sell the condo. So now he rents it out, and according to the IRS he is now a "property owner." This allows him to write off depreciation on the property in addition to the standard tax deductions on interest and property taxes.

The excess revenue generated by the rent now serves as his "play money" fund. The last time he and his wife went on vacation he made appointments to visit several realtors in Honolulu to see about purchasing a new condo. He had no interest in purchasing anything unless it met his miniscule budget (not likely in Hawaii), but because he was a legitimate rental property owner he was able to write off almost the entire cost of his trip (not his wife's costs, though).

I'd say that's not too bad.

Anyone who isn't in the same type of situation can do similar things. Check out the scheduled conferences or seminars for any professional groups in your field of work. Find one in a place where you always wanted to take a vacation, and schedule your trip around it. Better yet, take a few strangers from the conference out for an afternoon and play a round of golf on Uncle Sam.

66 posted on 01/04/2002 7:13:14 AM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: MurryMom
Vice President Gore took a practical approach to the potential SS problem, even advocating that the federal government budget hundreds of billions of dollars for a modest reform of the system.

The federal government already "budgets" hundreds of billions of dollars for Social Security, then immediately turns around and "borrows" that money for other things. In case you didn't know this, there isn't a single penny left anywhere from all those excess Social Security taxes collected over the years.

Lockbox, my @ss.

67 posted on 01/04/2002 7:16:12 AM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: MurryMom
Alas, MurryMom, it seems you are one of those who believe the hoax known as Social Security can be "reformed." Where would Al Gore's "hundreds of billions" come from? Eliminating half the federal government? (Not a bad idea actually). More taxes on people who already give 50% of their income to government?

Let's assume Al Gore eliminates the Departments of Commerce, Energy, and Education, raises the top tax rate to 50%, and comes up with $500B to dump into Social Security: one-half a trillion of non-marketable IOU's down, another two-and-one-half trillion to go. In the meantime, capital flees the country and the dollar plunges, along with the present-day payroll contributions which are the only thing keeping the scam afloat.

Social Security cannot be saved or even reformed. It is an inflationary time bomb about to explode.

I agree with you that Bush is being disingenuous. However, so is any politician who tells you that this Ponzi scheme can be salvaged.

68 posted on 01/04/2002 7:28:24 AM PST by SteamshipTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I understand what you are saying although i'm not sure what the discussion about rental/property owner has to do with personal/corporate income taxes. ANY individual can do what you propose. I was talking about what to do with the left over profits after taking advantage of ALL the pluses of being incorporated.

By the way I own the propereties that my corporation operates in. The corporation rents from me....perfectly legal and moves money from the Corporation to my personal asset base over a period of time plus the types of benefits you spoke of.

69 posted on 01/04/2002 7:58:18 AM PST by is_is
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: defeat_the_dem_igods
Huh?

Self-employed pay the full freight on their Social Security payments. What is that, about 12.4%? An employer has a certain amount set aside, if you have been reading some of the other posts, not only the "share" for the Social Security payroll tax, but for Medicare, health insurance (if through the employer) and other group insurances, which is his expense for having you on the payroll. Your paycheck stub may say you get $18.l7 per hour, and your annual wages (or salary) are based on this figure. But you are getting "non-taxable" benefits above and beyond this purely fictitious number, which in some cases may be as much as 25% more than the posted wages. Plus the employer is maintaining a workplace for you, i.e., desk, workbench, computer terminal, etc. This is free, perhaps. The fact remains, your employer may be spending the equivalent of maybe $30/hour so you collect a paycheck that lists your wages as $18.17/hour. On that $18.17, if you are taking home $13/hour, you are doing exceptionally well.

70 posted on 01/04/2002 8:11:53 AM PST by alloysteel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: MurryMom
"Republican Party sponsored bad mouthing of SS just doesn't have any basis in fact. None!"

What are these "facts" the liberals speak of? Probably just as flimsy as their version of truth. SS is a disaster that will put future generations (including mine) under serious financial pressure. SS, like every other socialistic creation of the left, should be abolished.

71 posted on 01/04/2002 8:24:00 AM PST by Constitutional Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SteamshipTime
Social Security cannot be saved or even reformed. It is an inflationary time bomb about to explode.

O.K., so when is SS going to explode? In the 1980's Reagan told us it would explode in a few years. In the 1990's the Repukes told us it would explode by 2010. Now, GWB's Repuke-dominated SS commission claims expenses will exceed income by 2017 and the trust fund will run out by 2035. You get the pattern.

The SS system can survive indefinitely, so long as future recipients are willing to settle for smaller increases in payments than they have enjoyed over the past 40 years, and the federal government retains sufficient liquidity to smooth over any short term crises. Don't be fooled by pessimistic predicitons of shortsighted Repuke politicians, GWB included.

72 posted on 01/04/2002 9:01:39 AM PST by MurryMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: TN Republican
Of course, there won't be anything done with the SS reform plans until after the election.

Last year Repuke pols were saying the same thing before the election. A pattern seems to be emerging, i.e., that nothing will ever be done so long as the Repukes are in power.

73 posted on 01/04/2002 9:15:23 AM PST by MurryMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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