Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

dsc

(52,162 posts)
Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:42 PM Dec 2012

Most of the people earning between 250k and 400k would be better off with the Clinton rates and the

payroll tax cut. The pay roll tax cut is a 2% cut to the SS tax which covers wages up to 110k. Now a couple earning between 250k can earn that in a multitude of ways but here are the boundaries of the choices. There could be no earned income, then Obama's compromise is worse (cap gains rate goes up).

One person could earn all the income. Then only 110k would be subject to SS. The payroll tax saves that couple 2200 a year. That couple would have to earn more than 311,111.11 before they would save money under a system keeping a 36% rate until 400,000 but getting rid of the payroll tax cut.

The lowest income earner could earn 110k or more. Then the payroll tax cut saves 4400 a year. Thus that couple would have to make more than 372,222.22 before they would save money under the Obama compromise.

Now this ends up being a quadrilateral on any graph since those points only serve as boundaries. But many of the people in that quad would be better off with the payroll tax cut as would lower income people.

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Most of the people earning between 250k and 400k would be better off with the Clinton rates and the (Original Post) dsc Dec 2012 OP
Yes, except the payroll tax cut is robbing the SS fund. Indydem Dec 2012 #1
It actually transfers from the general fund dsc Dec 2012 #3
You can't do BOTH! Indydem Dec 2012 #4
actually unemployment dropped considerably dsc Dec 2012 #5
The payroll tax cut was never meant to be permanent BeyondGeography Dec 2012 #2
kick dsc Dec 2012 #6
 

Indydem

(2,642 posts)
1. Yes, except the payroll tax cut is robbing the SS fund.
Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:44 PM
Dec 2012

So yeah, if you want to keep doing that, then by all means...

dsc

(52,162 posts)
3. It actually transfers from the general fund
Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:50 PM
Dec 2012

to the SS fund which reverses the transfers that have already occurred. It seems a sensible way to pay back the ious. Undertax for SS while overtaxing for the general fund by raising rates on the wealthy, increasing the capital gains rate, and getting rid of the carried interest exemption.

 

Indydem

(2,642 posts)
4. You can't do BOTH!
Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:53 PM
Dec 2012

You can't raise those taxes and all the other crap they want to do under the guise of deficit reduction and then turn around and keep borrowing the money to keep a tax cut that hasn't really had any effect.

dsc

(52,162 posts)
5. actually unemployment dropped considerably
Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:56 PM
Dec 2012

during a period where that was the only stimulative policy on the books. That said, it might be wise to let the tax go but not if we aren't going to maximize collection from the wealthy.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Most of the people earnin...