Isn't payroll tax a tax???

[rdubnpk]

rdubnpk
The Repubs are having a hard time with the idea of continuing the 2% payroll tax reduction. The payroll tax reduction adds money to the weekly paycheck of, well, everyone who draws a paycheck from which taxes are withheld. The same bunch that has signed pledges not to increase taxes for "The Situation" who makes millions off "the Real Housewives of New Jersey", professional atheletes, and the wall streeters we just bailed out who are continuing to pay themselves millions in bonuses can't find it in their hearts to give the average American a break. Is this because the average Joe doesn't pump millions of dollars into Republican reelection coffers? Hmmmmm. Is a tax only a tax if it affects the 1%???

[Ben & Lisa]

Both party's want to pass this payroll tax cut. Democrats want to pay for it by taxing "rich" people and Republicans want to pay for it by spending cuts. Seems like a no brainer to me given the bloated fed budget....

One thing is for certain. Everyone will be paying higher taxes sooner or latter, including the bottom 50%.

[Jamie]

You both realize that the "payroll tax" cut is reducing the amount going into the Social Security fund and NOT the general tax fund. So all it is doing is putting the already underfunded Social Security fund in worse shape.

While I appreciate the extra 2% in my paycheck today, I would rather have a Social Security check in 20 years.

Jamie

[Ben & Lisa]

Jamie, I am aware of that and I think the correct way to fund Social Security is through cutting government spending in other areas and doing a serious audit of the program. People get SS disability for being fat etc.
What that said I would rather not pay into or collect Social Security. Given the same money I could do much better funding my own retirement.

[Brewster]

Originally Posted by Ben & Lisa

Jamie, I am aware of that and I think the correct way to fund Social Security is through cutting government spending in other areas and doing a serious audit of the program. People get SS disability for being fat etc.
What that said I would rather not pay into or collect Social Security. Given the same money I could do much better funding my own retirement.

Hey Ben,

Quick reminder that lots and lots of people don't have the capacity to make sound decisions regarding financial planning. Even hiring an advisor leaves them vulnerable. Some incompetent. Others getting bonuses for recommending less than performing stocks. Or just out right crooks.

The alternative to Social Security is having millions of destitute sick and elderly.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by Ben & Lisa

Jamie, I am aware of that and I think the correct way to fund Social Security is through cutting government spending in other areas and doing a serious audit of the program. People get SS disability for being fat etc.

Originally Posted by Ben & Lisa

What that said I would rather not pay into or collect Social Security. Given the same money I could do much better funding my own retirement.

OK.. I agree that cutting waste in the program is good. I agree with cutting other government waste. But other than stopping the funding of other government spending from the funds collected for Social Security then cutting other government spending will not fund Social Security. It is its own separate account, that just gets treated like a big piggy bank by Congress.

Now if you want to be able to opt out of Social Security, not pay in or collect from it, I’m OK with that too.

However, I have been paying in so I would like to continue to be able to collect. I am also not a fan of changing the rules for collection in the 11th hour. If I worked my ass off and increase the amount I have at retirement I don’t think that at the last minute someone should come along and say, you make too much now so all that money you have paid in is now ours and you are screwed.

I have been investing in other instruments so I am not totally dependent on something that was originally intended to be a supplemental form of requirement income, not the sole source of retirement income some are planning on it being.

But hey, it seems to be in vogue now days for people to sign up to contacts and then when they don’t like them anymore just say I quit and let someone else pick up the pieces. Like buying a house you know you can’t afford and then when you fall behind blame the greedy banks and have the government pick up the tab. Run up your bills on your credit card and then demand your “right” to have then forgiven. Attend school for years taking out student loans and then when there are no more degrees you can earn at 35 and have to start paying them back, go “occupy” the local city park and say I won’t pay!

Sorry but I grew up where your word is your bond, and if you borrow money you pay it back, if you enter into a contract you abide by the terms and if you screwed yourself you deal with it and learn for the next time. Maybe I’m unique. But when I got myself in debt up to my eyeballs I worked two full time jobs for 4 years and dug myself out. Learned to function on 4 hours of sleep a day (something that prepared me well for my two weeks at Temptation ) and installing 10’ satellite dishes on Christmas and New Years day because I was only working one job that day. But I got myself out of debt and kept myself that way as job changes can along and Chris having to “retire” early.

I know I’m not the only one that feels this way and that’s why a lot of people have a problem with those claiming to represent the 99% because they don’t.

Chris is asking me if I’m writing a book over here so I guess it’s time to stop typing and hit enter.

Jamie

[twinimini]

Originally Posted by rdubnpk

rdubnpk
The Repubs are having a hard time with the idea of continuing the 2% payroll tax reduction. The payroll tax reduction adds money to the weekly paycheck of, well, everyone who draws a paycheck from which taxes are withheld. The same bunch that has signed pledges not to increase taxes for "The Situation" who makes millions off "the Real Housewives of New Jersey", professional atheletes, and the wall streeters we just bailed out who are continuing to pay themselves millions in bonuses can't find it in their hearts to give the average American a break. Is this because the average Joe doesn't pump millions of dollars into Republican reelection coffers? Hmmmmm. Is a tax only a tax if it affects the 1%???

Well, let's see how wonderful the proposal our Ivy League educated President is by looking at his overall proposal. First, he wants to cut the Social Security tax paid by both the employer and the employee. That effectively cuts the amounts going into Social Security in half. The most it will "save" any individual taxpayer is just over $2,000 per year or $40 per week. That assumed stimulus isn't going to make much of a dent in our unemployment while it would dramatically reduce the funding for a program that is going to be in dire straights because no one seems to be intent on trying to save the program.

If I look at my own business that payroll tax cut would save my business about $16,000 per year. How about we go ahead and eliminate some of the idiotic lawsuits so that my insurance costs could drop that much instead. Oh no, we can't do that because the trial lawyers dump millions into the Democratic party. Oh yes, and the idiotic notices and other personnel policies that I have to follow because the unions dump so much money into the Democratic party. By the way most of the bailouts that have occurred have been with Obama and his Pelosi led band of thieves, not the Republican Congress.

Now there is another facet of Obama's so called tax cut. He is willing to give those of us that are employers a tax credit of $4,000 for each person we hire. Sounds pretty good, right? Well, let's say I hire someone and it doesn't work out. Well our guy also wants to extend unemployment for two years. So I get my $4,000 credit, the person doesn't work out and I have to let them go. They will draw unemployment for up to two full years. That means that my $4,000 tax credit just cost me $40,000 in additional unemployment costs.

Bottom line is the guy in the White House has never had to really work for a living and has no idea of what it takes to run a business. He just doesn't have a clue of what this country needs and he never will.

[rdubnpk]

Originally Posted by twinimini

Well, let's see how wonderful the proposal our Ivy League educated President is by looking at his overall proposal. First, he wants to cut the Social Security tax paid by both the employer and the employee. That effectively cuts the amounts going into Social Security in half. The most it will "save" any individual taxpayer is just over $2,000 per year or $40 per week. That assumed stimulus isn't going to make much of a dent in our unemployment while it would dramatically reduce the funding for a program that is going to be in dire straights because no one seems to be intent on trying to save the program.

If I look at my own business that payroll tax cut would save my business about $16,000 per year. How about we go ahead and eliminate some of the idiotic lawsuits so that my insurance costs could drop that much instead. Oh no, we can't do that because the trial lawyers dump millions into the Democratic party. Oh yes, and the idiotic notices and other personnel policies that I have to follow because the unions dump so much money into the Democratic party. By the way most of the bailouts that have occurred have been with Obama and his Pelosi led band of thieves, not the Republican Congress.

Now there is another facet of Obama's so called tax cut. He is willing to give those of us that are employers a tax credit of $4,000 for each person we hire. Sounds pretty good, right? Well, let's say I hire someone and it doesn't work out. Well our guy also wants to extend unemployment for two years. So I get my $4,000 credit, the person doesn't work out and I have to let them go. They will draw unemployment for up to two full years. That means that my $4,000 tax credit just cost me $40,000 in additional unemployment costs.

Bottom line is the guy in the White House has never had to really work for a living and has no idea of what it takes to run a business. He just doesn't have a clue of what this country needs and he never will.

rdubnpk
You are all missing the point. The Repubs (not all, but 200+) have signed a pledge to allow no new taxes to be passed. If the payroll tax is in fact a tax, and that was the question put forth, why is it even being discussed as something that should be reimplemented. Since it is being bantered about, dare I say the hypocrite word leaps to the tongue. And again, are taxes that might effect the 1% the only taxes that are the ones being banned? It sure as heck looks that way.

[Jamie]

No actually You're missing the point. Fixing the problem is a complicated issue.

The whole reason we're even discussing this 1% thing is the "Hopey Changey" thing didn't work. So everyone is disillusioned. And rather than accept responsibility for failure the Obama administration has done what it has done from the beginning and blame someone else for any problems that come up.

First it was W. After 2 years that began to wear thin so then it became the greedy bastards on Wall Street. After another 2 years that because thin so now it's those rich bastards taking all your money and making you poorer! He's hoping he can ride that for at least a year to get reelected and then we'll find someone new to blame. But it's never ever going to be Obama or the Dems. Nope, no way!

Everyone seem to forget the Dems running of Washington over the years, maybe it's because of the blame game they run. First Nancy was elected Speaker of the House and immediately took off for a round the world tour to met all the Heads of States telling them that they “didn't have to deal with Bush anymore because they were in charge” (Look it up – she did it and it made the news). Can you imagine the outcry that would have happen if Bodner had done that when he got elected and told them that Obama was useless and they could deal with him now?

Then Barney Frank called in all the large banks and told them that they were depriving thousands of Americans the American dream of homeownership and they needed to find a way to get those that didn’t currently qualify a way to get a loan. In other words get people into house that they can’t afford (Look it up – he did it and it made the news). Behold the birth of subprime loans. Banks were given a Congressional mandate and they implemented it. Yeah, it fell apart. That’s why the banks didn’t do it till Barney demanded it. But along come the Dems, demonized the Greedy Banks, and install all kind of new government regulations to control them… from doing what Congress demanded. In other words if Congress had left them alone then none of this would have happen and the new regulations would not have been required. And no they wouldn’t have done it anyway – being the greedy bastards they are – cause they have been lending money for mortgages for centuries and it had remained the same till Barney stepped in. Now Barney gets to retire a hero and will make a living for a lifetime off of defending the regulations he installed to keep people from doing what he demanded them to do. Oh what a wonderful life. Oh, and he’ll get to do it with his annual pension for life of 100% of his current salary. Talk about a 1%’er!

So they have beaten up the Banks for a while and told them who can be the CEO of a private business, isn’t that nice.. and yeah even though they had to borrow money from the government to straighten out the mess that the government forced them into, they were still private. No one seems to care about the big banks anymore.

So now we get this occupy movement. It’s all the 1%’s fault for being able to make money. God forbid that people actually work rather than attend school on student loans till they are 35. These people work and get good salaries! HOW DARE THEY! We must now tax them into poverty! Workers Unite! (Maybe we can ask Russia to lend us some old banners from the late 40’s that they aren’t using anymore. That revolution worked real well for them.)

Why hasn’t anyone complained when the government took over Chrysler, made the stock and debt bonds they had useless wiping out thousands of retired people’s savings and then turning over half of the company to the Unions for free? The same Unions that got it to the point where the only people that could afford to buy a car were the guys building it because of the salaries, benefits, and Union job protections places on the cost of building the cars? That won’t happen because them the Dems would have to take some sort of responsibility for the way things are and they are never to blame. It’s always someone else.

Never once in this entire 4 years has Obama ever said, “Sorry I made a mistake.” Bush did during his terms. I guess Obama’s perfect. Reminds me of the song “Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble when you are perfect in every way!”

Jamie

[Ben & Lisa]

Jamie, That about sums it up....

[twinimini]

Jamie, as always you have hit it right on! Much of what has gone wrong has been the fault of a Congress with no sense of responsibility and a total lack of integrity. They spend and spend and now when the money is running out they just want more money rather than less spending.

[BillS]

Thank you Jamie for your detailed analysis. Now I feel guilty thinking you were just another booze swilling, boobs ogling middle-aged guy from the Rockies (looking squarely in the mirror as I type)....Now for another thought: Why do we struggle with the concept of eliminating the FICA cap at $106,800?? I love it when I hit it but also realize Lebron James and Tiger don't pay soc-sec' tax either beyond $106,800. Is it because employers would have to match this also??? Twinimini, weigh in here pls...

[Brewster]

Well said Jamie.

I would like to add one thing.

So often, in political debates, 100% of the fault is laid the oppositions feet. What are the chances that all the screw ups and corruption rest in one party while the other is faultless?

I think voters should freely critize the shortcomings of the parties they support as all as the opposition. Governments should be held accountable by their supporters as well as their opponents. In fact, negative responses from their supporters will carry more weight. Neither party wants to alienate their base.

One last thing. So many people identify themselves as "Republican" or "Democrat". Presumably, because they agree with the core values attached to the parties. But those values shift over time. And many times the actions of political parties don't not reflect the values they claim to hold.

Political parties would be more accountable if more people were "swing voters" insisting that politicians identify issues and their proposed solutions before they get their vote.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by BillS

Thank you Jamie for your detailed analysis. Now I feel guilty thinking you were just another booze swilling, boobs ogling middle-aged guy from the Rockies (looking squarely in the mirror as I type)....Now for another thought: Why do we struggle with the concept of eliminating the FICA cap at $106,800?? I love it when I hit it but also realize Lebron James and Tiger don't pay soc-sec' tax either beyond $106,800. Is it because employers would have to match this also??? Twinimini, weigh in here pls...

While I do resemble being just another booze swilling, boobs ogling middle-aged guy from the Rockies, that's just mostly two weeks a year in Cancun, execpt for the boobs ogling, I do that year round... anyway... I was surprise that cut off existed when I hit it the first time. Now I sort of count on it for my christmas shopping money. But it' not that much that I wouldn't think twice about saying that it away. I mean I don't hit it until December but wonder about the folks that hit it in June/July or earlier.

Jamie

[BillS]

Originally Posted by Brewster

Well said Jamie.

I would like to add one thing.

So often, in political debates, 100% of the fault is laid the oppositions feet. What are the chances that all the screw ups and corruption rest in one party while the other is faultless?

I think voters should freely critize the shortcomings of the parties they support as all as the opposition. Governments should be held accountable by their supporters as well as their opponents. In fact, negative responses from their supporters will carry more weight. Neither party wants to alienate their base.

One last thing. So many people identify themselves as "Republican" or "Democrat". Presumably, because they agree with the core values attached to the parties. But those values shift over time. And many times the actions of political parties don't not reflect the values they claim to hold.

Political parties would be more accountable if more people were "swing voters" insisting that politicians identify issues and their proposed solutions before they get their vote.

Amen brother (and I say that with no intent of a religious affiliation ). Most of the people I know have or are greatly questioning the presidents they've voted for. It is quite refreshing to hear but disconcerting because we just don't see a great candidate anywhere. I've found liberals and conservatives in my workplace to be surprisingly close together on items like spending,wars, social security, when items like religion and abortion are removed...I suspect when , at the polls, folks just revert to their old standby party when they cannot love any candidate...Hearing some Obama supporters now criticize him DOES carry weight. I hope it had the same effect when I had to concede in 2006, "Bush is not a fiscal conservative like I thought. Dammit."

[twinimini]

Originally Posted by BillS

Thank you Jamie for your detailed analysis. Now I feel guilty thinking you were just another booze swilling, boobs ogling middle-aged guy from the Rockies (looking squarely in the mirror as I type)....Now for another thought: Why do we struggle with the concept of eliminating the FICA cap at $106,800?? I love it when I hit it but also realize Lebron James and Tiger don't pay soc-sec' tax either beyond $106,800. Is it because employers would have to match this also??? Twinimini, weigh in here pls...

In theory the wage cap is in place because that is all the funding that is needed. Notice I said in theory. The cap rises to $110,000 in 2012 and I'm sure it will go up from there. When the program started there were 15 workers for everyone drawing from the program. Now there are three workers for everyone drawing on the program. One of the proposals out there is that the cap be eliminated altogether. The problem with that is that if I'm self employed and make over $250,000 a year I'm effectively in a 50% tax bracket with a 35% income tax and a 15.3% FICA tax (both sides, employer and employee) which starts to get to the point of being a confiscatory tax. Once I pay the government more than I keep it becomes confiscatory. I'm not even sure if that's a word, but I'll just rephrase it that the government is confiscating income.

The biggest problem with Social Security is the way the program has changed over the years. It was meant to be a safety net for those who could not provide for themselves. It has evolved into an entitlement program where everyone is entitled to get a piece of the pie. Too lazy to work, then claim disability and you'll draw until you die. Too fat, then jump on the disability wagon and get your free ride. Having kids into your 60's? That's okay because you and the kiddies can both draw off the Social Security cow. Still working and making $500,000 a year? No problem you can still draw your maximum Social Security as long as you are 66 years old.

To fix the damned thing we have to change it from an entitlement for everyone into a program for those who need it only. The argument is "I paid into it, so I should draw!" Well, Cupcake you paid into the income taxes too, but you're not drawing anything out of there. Also Disability has to be that you ABSOLUTELY CAN'T work, not that you have some trumped up pain in your toe nail that keeps you from working. I'm sure there is something you can do that would keep you off the system. I have people who are blind and who are in wheelchairs who don't draw SSI, so I see no reason why those that can walk and think can't work somewhere doing something. If you make a certain amount of income even though you are 66, you can't draw. That would make the system work. I'm sure AARP would have a hairy over these suggestions, but they're pretty much a rip off organization in their own right.

[Brewster]

Originally Posted by BillS

Amen brother (and I say that with no intent of a religious affiliation ).

LOL.... I got a good chuckle out of that..

[Brewster]

We had a politician here in Calgary who got mixed responses for saying, "If you can say, 'Do you have any spare change?' you can say, 'Would you like fries with that?'".

[rdubnpk]

Originally Posted by Jamie

No actually You're missing the point. Fixing the problem is a complicated issue.

The whole reason we're even discussing this 1% thing is the "Hopey Changey" thing didn't work. So everyone is disillusioned. And rather than accept responsibility for failure the Obama administration has done what it has done from the beginning and blame someone else for any problems that come up.

First it was W. After 2 years that began to wear thin so then it became the greedy bastards on Wall Street. After another 2 years that because thin so now it's those rich bastards taking all your money and making you poorer! He's hoping he can ride that for at least a year to get reelected and then we'll find someone new to blame. But it's never ever going to be Obama or the Dems. Nope, no way!

Everyone seem to forget the Dems running of Washington over the years, maybe it's because of the blame game they run. First Nancy was elected Speaker of the House and immediately took off for a round the world tour to met all the Heads of States telling them that they “didn't have to deal with Bush anymore because they were in charge” (Look it up – she did it and it made the news). Can you imagine the outcry that would have happen if Bodner had done that when he got elected and told them that Obama was useless and they could deal with him now?

Then Barney Frank called in all the large banks and told them that they were depriving thousands of Americans the American dream of homeownership and they needed to find a way to get those that didn’t currently qualify a way to get a loan. In other words get people into house that they can’t afford (Look it up – he did it and it made the news). Behold the birth of subprime loans. Banks were given a Congressional mandate and they implemented it. Yeah, it fell apart. That’s why the banks didn’t do it till Barney demanded it. But along come the Dems, demonized the Greedy Banks, and install all kind of new government regulations to control them… from doing what Congress demanded. In other words if Congress had left them alone then none of this would have happen and the new regulations would not have been required. And no they wouldn’t have done it anyway – being the greedy bastards they are – cause they have been lending money for mortgages for centuries and it had remained the same till Barney stepped in. Now Barney gets to retire a hero and will make a living for a lifetime off of defending the regulations he installed to keep people from doing what he demanded them to do. Oh what a wonderful life. Oh, and he’ll get to do it with his annual pension for life of 100% of his current salary. Talk about a 1%’er!

So they have beaten up the Banks for a while and told them who can be the CEO of a private business, isn’t that nice.. and yeah even though they had to borrow money from the government to straighten out the mess that the government forced them into, they were still private. No one seems to care about the big banks anymore.

So now we get this occupy movement. It’s all the 1%’s fault for being able to make money. God forbid that people actually work rather than attend school on student loans till they are 35. These people work and get good salaries! HOW DARE THEY! We must now tax them into poverty! Workers Unite! (Maybe we can ask Russia to lend us some old banners from the late 40’s that they aren’t using anymore. That revolution worked real well for them.)

Why hasn’t anyone complained when the government took over Chrysler, made the stock and debt bonds they had useless wiping out thousands of retired people’s savings and then turning over half of the company to the Unions for free? The same Unions that got it to the point where the only people that could afford to buy a car were the guys building it because of the salaries, benefits, and Union job protections places on the cost of building the cars? That won’t happen because them the Dems would have to take some sort of responsibility for the way things are and they are never to blame. It’s always someone else.

Never once in this entire 4 years has Obama ever said, “Sorry I made a mistake.” Bush did during his terms. I guess Obama’s perfect. Reminds me of the song “Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble when you are perfect in every way!”

Jamie

Bush said sorry? I must have missed that. And you still missed the entire point.
Yes or no- is a payroll tax a tax?
If yes, why is its reinstatement not being vehemently fought against by those who have pledged that no more taxation shall be allowed?

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by rdubnpk

Bush said sorry? I must have missed that. And you still missed the entire point.

Originally Posted by rdubnpk

Yes or no- is a payroll tax a tax?
If yes, why is its reinstatement not being vehemently fought against by those who have pledged that no more taxation shall be allowed?

In this case, it is not a payroll tax or any other kind of tax. It is a deduction to fund Social Security which is several social welfare and social insurance programs, the largest being a retirement program. So funding Social Security is like funding a 401K program. So it is NOT a TAX. It's one of those government mandated programs that everyone participates in if they want to or not. Much like ObamaCare. So I ask you where was this indignation on increasing taxes when they passed THAT bill?

That is the reason a lot of us are against extending the cut, because it continues to underfund an already underfunded program.

So now that we've answered your question... the horse is dead. Stop beating it.

Jamie

[rdubnpk]

Originally Posted by Jamie

In this case, it is not a payroll tax or any other kind of tax. It is a deduction to fund Social Security which is several social welfare and social insurance programs, the largest being a retirement program. So funding Social Security is like funding a 401K program. So it is NOT a TAX. It's one of those government mandated programs that everyone participates in if they want to or not. Much like ObamaCare. So I ask you where was this indignation on increasing taxes when they passed THAT bill?

That is the reason a lot of us are against extending the cut, because it continues to underfund an already underfunded program.

So now that we've answered your question... the horse is dead. Stop beating it.

Jamie

rdubnpk
All I see is the usual beating around the BUSH!!

[twinimini]

Well, we've really got into the semantics on this one. Jamie is correct in his comment that Social Security is a program that almost all are required to participate in and it is similar to a 401k that becomes mandatory. However, Social Security tax is collected with other payroll taxes and it is reported on form 941 as a payroll tax. It is a tax directly on payroll which makes it a payroll tax.

[Brewster]

Originally Posted by twinimini

Well, we've really got into the semantics on this one. Jamie is correct in his comment that Social Security is a program that almost all are required to participate in and it is similar to a 401k that becomes mandatory. However, Social Security tax is collected with other payroll taxes and it is reported on form 941 as a payroll tax. It is a tax directly on payroll which makes it a payroll tax.

In Canada we have a separate deduction of income for the Canada Pension Plan (Quebec has a separate plan for it's residents). You pay into that through payroll deductions till the max is reached. For 2011 that is $2,217.60. Low income people are exempt. Do you not have similar personal deductions in the U.S. or is it all paid by the employer?

[Donald]

Originally Posted by Brewster

In Canada we have a separate deduction of income for the Canada Pension Plan (Quebec has a separate plan for it's residents). You pay into that through payroll deductions till the max is reached. For 2011 that is $2,217.60. Low income people are exempt. Do you not have similar personal deductions in the U.S. or is it all paid by the employer?

The 2217.60 is the employees contribution, the employer has to mach it, just to clarify,,,being self employed I have to pay both, so much for encouraging entrepreneurs.

[twinimini]

Originally Posted by Brewster

In Canada we have a separate deduction of income for the Canada Pension Plan (Quebec has a separate plan for it's residents). You pay into that through payroll deductions till the max is reached. For 2011 that is $2,217.60. Low income people are exempt. Do you not have similar personal deductions in the U.S. or is it all paid by the employer?

Ours is substantially higher. Our total Social Security and Medicare tax rate is 15.3% which is split evenly between the employer and the employee with the self employed paying the whole shot. The cap on wages is $106,800 this year and goes up to $110,000 next year. If someone reaches the cap on wages there will be $16,830 paid into the fund. If they go over $110,000 there is still a Medicare tax of 2.9% levied on those wages. Again it is split evenly between the employer and employee.

Part of the problem is that the Fund is in trouble and the idiots in Washington are proposing that the amount paid into the fund be cut in half over the next year. Pretty dumb suggestion on the part of the politicians.