How about this- no income taxes withheld on first $30,000...

[Beaker]

Just like people making over $84,000 get a boost in their paychecks when they stop taking out FICA, why not give the working -class guy a lift by exempting the first $30,000(or more for those w/kids) from income tax, and not taking taxes out until their wages reach that threshhold.
The one drawback i see to it would be some people experiencing a "cut" in their take-home pay, just as their kids need back-to-school stuff, or the xmas shopping season starts- But people also might be more inclined to use credit, realizing that they'll be gatting a "raise" come Jan. 1.

[SoCalDem]

1. Or just withhold as usual, and let people take a $30,000 deduction

on their taxes.. That would make for a nice "April Bonus"..:)

I like the idea, but you can bet your last dollar that it will not happen..

What I hate is that every dollar we make is subject to FICA, and yet the people who earn over $87,500 get to stop havinig it withheld.. The money in the FICA "un-lock" box is used freely by our government, so OUR money is being liberally used for programs that upper dollar earners are NOT paying for...

[blondeatlast]

3. I like both, but SoCalDem's is more manageable.

Most teachers, librarians, etc. start out at less than 30K. Seems quite fair to me.

[Beaker]

4. take from the poor, and give to the rich...

stupid bitch.(to quote monty python, not directed at you.

It worked like a charm under Reagan- give the rich a huge tax break, and then double FICA. it's so transparent and so simple that it's infuriating tht the lunkhead "people" can't see the forest for the trees, and keep voting for these robber-barons repuglicans.

But if it worked better than they ever dreamed the first damn, you can be damn sure that they'll try it again.

BTW- the FICA wage-cap definitely needs to be removed...and if that's not enough money, then capital gains should be subject to FICA as well.

[girl gone mad]

6. Don't forget..

Reagan raised FICA to keep Social Security viable as the Boomers retire. It might have worked had he and his successor not decided to borrow from the SS surpluses to fund their spending.

It still might have been okay, except Bush decided to give the surplus that should have gone to repay the SS IOUs away to rich people through one-sided tax cuts.

[Beaker]

7. "Reagan raised FICA to keep Social Security viable as the Boomers retire"

that was the reason they gave, but that wasn't the reality of the situation.
If that's what they had really wanted to accomplish, removing the cap would have probably been part of the equation...but since that could amount to "taking from the rich" it wasn't even on the table.

[SoCalDem]

10. Yes.. it was a shell game

They just wanted more money.. Republican specialize in spending other people's money.. That's why they have so much of their own..

[Beaker]

5. Actually, it would be a "January Bonus"-

If I could take a $30,000 deduction, my taxes would be filed electronically at 12:01am on January 1st.

[DBoon]

11. Increase the standard deduction?

Would that work? I'm not a tax accountant...

[sweetheart]

18. No don't withhold as usual, i want interest on what the IRS borrows...

from me. The free interest scam of a 1 years borrowing from all americans is an old joke and... it should end.

It is legallized theft.

[Robb]

23. I'm sorry, I don't understand:

People who make $87,500 don't have any FICA withholding? Or is it that people who make $87,501 and up pay the same as the $87,500 people? :shrug:

[SoCalDem]

30. It stops at 87,500 or whatever the ceiling is

so a person making 50,000 has EVERY PENNY earned, subject to FICA, and a guy who makes say.. 35 MILLION only has FICA withheld from 87,500 ...

Years ago, it was a very modest amount.. I can remember that around October every year, we had "met the minimum", and my husband's checks would get larger.. just in time for Xmas ... but no more:(

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Since I made less than $12,000 last year

and together my husband and I made a little over 30K, I wouldn't mind a bit.

[liberalcapitalist]

8. withold it, then refund it

That way it's not a "pay cut." You pay into the government, the government can use the money until April 15, and then you get refunded on the taxes on the first $30,000.

[Mudcat]

9. Isn't this almost like Clark's idea?

His website says no federal income taxes on a family of four making $50,000 a year or less: http://clark04.com/issues/

[Beaker]

19. that's what I was basing it on-

I think that $50K might be a little high to expect, but whatever numbers work. I also don't know if his proposal calls for collecting it and refunding it, or not collecting it in the first place, like i'm saying.

[rocktivity]

27. The current U.S. household median income is $42,409

according the the census bureau. In case you didn't know, that means half of America's households make up to that much, and half make more. I think that's a more realistic cutoff point. (And I remember Al Gore discussing this--he wanted to make the cutoff $34,000. Even he realized $30k wasn't enough.)

rocknation

[alcuno]

12. I actually think that everyone should have to pay something...

even if it's a very nominal amount. I remember when I was a kid, we all got a small allowance. A little portion of that was expected to go into the basket at church on Sunday. The idea was that we were all contributing; I think it's good for people and good for the country.

[SoCalDem]

13. Lower income families are paying

They are paying with sales taxes and property taxes and they are still having FICA and medicare withheld..

If you have a family of 3 and a 30,000 income, that's pretty close to the poverty line anyway..

even with 2, it's only $15,000 a year..:(

[alcuno]

17. I am totally aware of that and I think the burden on the

middle and lower classes is a disgrace. That said, I truly believe that there is an issue of national cohesion. I'm simply arguing against the zero income tax model. I don't care if you tax a 30,000/year income a total of $100, just tax it something.

[Beaker]

22. it IS taxed.

as long as FICA revenues go into the general fund, it's a tax- plus the aforementioned sales, property, state, local, etc... are also taxes that the poor pay, and usually in a much higher proportion of their income than the wealthy.

[alcuno]

25. Are people just being deliberately obtuse?

I don't care if you cut it to $1.00 as long as it isn't zero. Make them all $1.00.

[Adapter44]

26. Everyone IS paying something

In case you didn't notice, people making under 30,000 a year have to pay taxes on property, sales taxes, etc. PLUS some people have to pay STATE income tax in ADDITION to federal income tax.

[underpants]

14. Did W let his tax plan see the light of day?

Did he know what the plan was?

No he just kept saying I WILL LOWER YOUR TAXES no details available for your consideration.

[Cleita]

15. I brought that up on another board once.

I also suggested that FICA not be capped to bolster SS and Medicare for the upcoming baby boomers. I attracted every freeper troll in the country who posted every sort of table and all the equations as to why it wouldn't work. It does make sense though, doesn't it, but it will be a hard sell.

[SoCalDem]

16. the poorer a person is, the less likely they will live long enough

to even collect..:(.. I have known so many people who died at 64 or even in their late 50's.. A friend is dying , at 59, as I write this.. His wife said it's just a matter of days..

[Beaker]

21. Exactly.

which is why the repuke stand that high-income earners will never get back what they put in is so...infuriating.
It's called "Social" Security, not "Individual" Security- it's meant to help keep our society in one piece.

[classics]

20. This is a great idea.

It should be extended to people who try to earn income from micro businesses too, as long as total income is under $30k.

People should be encouraged to try and make thier own living if at all possible, even if its just enough to get by on, not hit with 50% taxes if they try.

[LeahMira]

24. Sounds great, but...

... when the majority of people have more money in their pockets, won't prices go up? That would erase the benefit, wouldn't it?

I would also tend to think that people who make more than $84,000 a year would be in a position where they really wouldn't need to get any Social Security at all when they retire because they wouldn't need it. People who are millionaires several times over and can live off the return from their investments certainly don't need that extra money each month. They squeal because they insist that they paid in and so they "deserve" to get it back, but I paid in to my health insurance and I'll be extremely grateful if I'm healthy enough in my old age that I never need to use it at all. IMO, millionaires should be grateful for their blessings too.

[Cleita]

28. Prices of what?

Usually volume drives prices down because it's cheaper to produce stuff in volume than a little at a time. Scarcity of a commodity in demand is the only thing that would drive a price up.

Most people will need help with their retirement and medical expenses no matter how carefully they saved, so if we give back some money to a billionaire in order for the people who need retirement income to have it, why would you care?

If rich people think they don't need it then they don't have to collect it. No one forces social security on you. You have to apply for it or you don't get it. Nobody comes knocking at your door with a check.

[LostInTheMaise]

29. I am all for it

In fact I'd set the cap at 60k+ since all workers pay enormous taxes with property, sales, vehicle, etc and the feds can get plenty from those making more than 200k.

Any candidate proposing this will get my vote.