3 ms·

no, employees do not pay payroll tax, employers do.

Spivak 1y ago
And stores pay sales tax. > By law, some payroll taxes are the responsibility of the employee and others fall on the employer, but almost all economists agree that the true economic incidence of a payroll tax is unaffected by this distinction, and falls largely or entirely on workers in the form of lower wages. Who is charged the tax and who pays it are different things.
- gamblor956 1y ago
  In some states, the stores are the ones that owe the "sales" tax (which in these states are actually excise taxes that the business can pass through to the customer). The "tax" the customer pays in those states is the "pass thru" charge. To make things fun, Hawaii imposes the excise tax (on the business) recursively on any tax charges passed thru to the customer.
ceejayoz 1y ago
I assure you we do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contribution... > The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA /ˈfaɪkə/) is a United States federal payroll (or employment) tax payable by both employees and employers to fund Social Security and Medicare—federal programs that provide benefits for retirees, people with disabilities, and children of deceased workers. 7.65% of your check until you hit the cap. Employer pays a similar amount.
- quickthrowman 1y ago
  Additionally, removing the cap on FICA contributions would likely push Social Security back into long-term solvency, but that would be far too much of a burden on the top 1% of wage earners so it’ll never happen.
  - scarface_74 1y ago
    To be precise, social security maxes out at around the income of the 93 percentile of income https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/ https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/ But that would also mean uncapping the maximum amount you are eligible for for social security.
    - kgermino 1y ago
      It wouldn’t _have_ to, that’s a political decision not a mathematical requirement. But, even if you did it would still help tremendously and possibly still be sufficient. There’s diminishing returns where lower income people get a higher percentage of their income as a social security benefit. As long as that policy is maintained the ultra high wage earners would be contributing far in excess of the benefit they get paid back out
      - scarface_74 1y ago
        In that case it’s no longer about social security it’s just a 12.4% marginal tax increase (employer + employee).
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      > But that would also mean uncapping the maximum amount you are eligible for for social security. No? Why would it mean that?
      - scarface_74 1y ago
        Currently, the amount you put in social security over the years determines how much you get when you retire. Why would anyone support a system that is suppose to be to help you in retirement where you are paying an unlimited amount into a fund and then capping how much you get out?
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        > Currently, the amount you put in social security over the years determines how much you get when you retire. Currently, there's also a maximum amount of benefits. That could easily stay. > Why would anyone support a system that is suppose to be to help you in retirement where you are paying an unlimited amount into a fund and then capping how much you get out? Same reason people pay school taxes if they don't have kids. Because we live in a society, and we tax people to fund things like this.
Groxx 1y ago
this is roughly equivalent to saying "we don't pay import tariffs, importers do". it may be technically correct, but it still impacts individual costs/income at pretty much exactly the same amount, because the costs are just passed down the chain.

And stores pay sales tax. > By law, some payroll taxes are the responsibility of the employee and others fall on the employer, but almost all economists agree that the true economic incidence of a payroll tax is unaffected by this distinction, and falls largely or entirely on workers in the form of lower wages. Who is charged the tax and who pays it are different things.

gamblor956 1y ago
In some states, the stores are the ones that owe the "sales" tax (which in these states are actually excise taxes that the business can pass through to the customer). The "tax" the customer pays in those states is the "pass thru" charge. To make things fun, Hawaii imposes the excise tax (on the business) recursively on any tax charges passed thru to the customer.

ceejayoz 1y ago

I assure you we do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contribution... > The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA /ˈfaɪkə/) is a United States federal payroll (or employment) tax payable by both employees and employers to fund Social Security and Medicare—federal programs that provide benefits for retirees, people with disabilities, and children of deceased workers. 7.65% of your check until you hit the cap. Employer pays a similar amount.

quickthrowman 1y ago
Additionally, removing the cap on FICA contributions would likely push Social Security back into long-term solvency, but that would be far too much of a burden on the top 1% of wage earners so it’ll never happen.
- scarface_74 1y ago
  To be precise, social security maxes out at around the income of the 93 percentile of income https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/ https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/ But that would also mean uncapping the maximum amount you are eligible for for social security.
  - kgermino 1y ago
    It wouldn’t _have_ to, that’s a political decision not a mathematical requirement. But, even if you did it would still help tremendously and possibly still be sufficient. There’s diminishing returns where lower income people get a higher percentage of their income as a social security benefit. As long as that policy is maintained the ultra high wage earners would be contributing far in excess of the benefit they get paid back out
    - scarface_74 1y ago
      In that case it’s no longer about social security it’s just a 12.4% marginal tax increase (employer + employee).
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    > But that would also mean uncapping the maximum amount you are eligible for for social security. No? Why would it mean that?
    - scarface_74 1y ago
      Currently, the amount you put in social security over the years determines how much you get when you retire. Why would anyone support a system that is suppose to be to help you in retirement where you are paying an unlimited amount into a fund and then capping how much you get out?
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        > Currently, the amount you put in social security over the years determines how much you get when you retire. Currently, there's also a maximum amount of benefits. That could easily stay. > Why would anyone support a system that is suppose to be to help you in retirement where you are paying an unlimited amount into a fund and then capping how much you get out? Same reason people pay school taxes if they don't have kids. Because we live in a society, and we tax people to fund things like this.

Groxx 1y ago

this is roughly equivalent to saying "we don't pay import tariffs, importers do". it may be technically correct, but it still impacts individual costs/income at pretty much exactly the same amount, because the costs are just passed down the chain.