Re: Watching Barrett-Jackson

me@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I thought Buffet's somewhat recent comments comparing his tax load and his secretary's tax load had to do with the tax "bracket" each was in......not how many dollars each paid.


She also pays into Soc Sec/Medicare, 7.65% her and 7.65% her employer on her wages for an

those are benefits not taxes per say.

Buffett included this in his 40% figure I think, and if the money is being taken out of your gross pay and sent to the government, I would call it a tax, rather than a benefit, although I think they call it a "contribution". I am not sure when the idea that social security contributions went to anyone but the current beneficiaries came up. About the first day there was more than enough for the then-recipients, and the pols decided to use it elsewhere. It all looks like finagling to me. There is no "lock box" with magic growing money in it. Just numbers on a ledger, kept by finaglers.

additional 15.3% of the dollars she costs her employer going directly onto the coffers,

no one has said a word about employers, the employers benefit from the
profit they make on the employee, it;s only fair they pay a part of SS
Benefits

As an alleged employer, I would offer two points on this:

a: show me an employee that I am guaranteed to come out ahead on and I'll hire them on the spot. All of them. I'm not even guaranteed to make a profit on me, and I'm one of my better employees. That there is a bit of an assumption on your part.

b: The "Employee share/Employer share" is just finagling the numbers. 15.3% of the wage cost of the employee goes to FICA/MM. They give half of that to the employee first then take it back. The effect on the business that is the source of the value in the first place is the same either way.

Fer instance, if it were all paid by the employer, the wage would be 7.65% less, and if it were all paid by the employee, the wage would be 7.65% more, and nothing else would change. Not the cost, not the profit, not the take home pay. Finagling. (my wife calls it collaculating, and she thinks I spend too much time doing it)

he does not pay this since dividends are not subject to these taxes, nor are wages above some

but wait are you saying "he" as in the owner of the company? or "he"
as in the company as the employer? ,
you are confusing these two in this case, the company she works for
pays those added expenses (S.S/Medicare ect ect) not Warren Buffet he
is not profiting personally.

Sorry if I was unclear. He as in Mr Buffett, or anyone else who gets their spendable income in the form of dividends and capital gains. I believe Mr Buffet was comparing the small percentage that the govt takes on dividends and capital gains from money he gets to the larger percentage that the govt takes of her wages. I have not fact checked all this but I recall that the "contribution" to Soc Sec was part of his argument, and when added to 25% gets to the 40% number cited. Approximately.


number that is irrelevent to me. There are also unemployment taxes that are only paid based on wages.

and there well should be, but the company is paying those that is
making the profit, not her, and not Warren Buffet.


Payroll taxes get paid whether there is profit or not. They reduce profit. They are a cost of doing business. They increase the cost to a business for hiring a person, and the higher the taxes, the fewer people get hired, the more are unemployed, etc.

I think Mr Buffett's point was that the proportion of the fat cat's take that goes into the gov't coffers is presently out of line with the proportion of the worker's take that goes into the coffers. Can we agree that he is a fat cat and knows of which he speaks?

The irrelevent-to-me number I reefered to that was a big part of Mr Buffett's argument is $97,400, which is the point at which wage earners (in 2007) stop contributing to Soc Sec, so that as you earn more (in wages) above that number, you actually pay a smaller proportion of said wages to Soc Sec. It is irrelevent to me since I don't make that much.

And...

Isn't it just about your turn to get a round? I'm thirsty.

--
Rand McNally BS#263
would that be a tax or a benefit?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dinner at the Plaza in the Magic Kingdom, "my experience."
    ... >> The employee tax is approx 15.2% of which the employer pays ... > because the restaurant wages are so low) skip FICA and Social Security ... > much bigger burden on other workers who are taxed AND pay Soc. ... and the tipping system circumvents that. ...
    (rec.arts.disney.parks)
  • Data comparison
    ... formula but it only worked on some cells!! ... >the salary vs wages in column C. ... >>1 Employee number Total Hours ... >>C will be where the type of pay is inserted from ...
    (microsoft.public.excel.programming)
  • Re: Unstaffed stations and tickets: the Virgin approach (long, sorry)
    ... > the people who pay his wages. ... be suspicious of an employee who attracted lots of complaints. ... would also be suspicious of an employee who *never* attracted complaints ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: Am I Self Employed
    ... myself wages on W-2. ... is it because I'm an employee of my corporation? ... If my corporation chooses to pay me on 1099 instead of W-2, ...
    (misc.taxes)
  • Re: The stock market responsible for the decline in British industry?
    ... than capitalists. ... to enhance the productivity of paid labour to make profit. ... had to pay sufficient wages and provide the requisite conditions to ... wages down to starvation level and living conditions likewise and fed ...
    (uk.politics.misc)