Obama '08?

This issue actually points out and emphasizes the hypocrisy and deceitfulness of government. They want you to think the employer is paying the taxes and not costing you a dime, when in reality the employee is paying it in a round about way. After all, self employed have to pay the whole amount, so why not all employees? The answer is because politicians are crooked, they are dishonest about what they do and want you to think you are getting a free ride, when in effect it nothing close to a free ride. I think it is criminal what the government has foisted off onto the people in the name of supposedly helping us.

Not wrong. If the employer was not required to pay half of the taxes on the employee's behalf, the employer could have paid that amount directly to the employee. This issue actually points out and emphasizes the hypocrisy and deceitfulness of government. They want you to think the employer is paying the taxes and not costing you a dime, when in reality the employee is paying it in a round about way. After all, self employed have to pay the whole amount, so why not all employees? The answer is because politicians are crooked, they are dishonest about what they do and want you to think you are getting a free ride, when in effect it nothing close to a free ride. I think it is criminal what the government has foisted off onto the people in the name of supposedly helping us.

How dumb can one person be? The self-employed pays 100% of the FICA taxes in addition to income taxes.

That's what he just said.

But he's saying something entirely different when he talks about the employer's share vs employee's share. You don't get it.

Not paying payroll taxes is a crime whether it's paid by the employer or employee. It's not a choice.

okie wrote,

Quote:

If the Democrats had been honest, when the SS and Medicare programs were put into place, they would have had the entire Social Security and Medicare contributions taken out of the employees' paychecks. Actually, it would have saved a mountain of money in administrative costs that it is costing us to collect half of it from employers. But no, as is typical of government, they wanted us to think we were getting something for nothing, and there are still people dumb enough to believe it.

Can you prove that the democratic congress was "dishonest" when they wrote the FICA tax laws? Show me?

Why the hell are you asking me?

I'll repeat it again; most of us get more back than we paid into the program. okie claims he would have been able to gain more retirement savings if he had the money he paid into FICA - primarily social security.

If you want to defend that idiocy, you're welcome.

Have you heard of the old adage that "corporations don't pay taxes, people do?" The principle of that truism is that taxes are merely added into the cost and price of products, so that the consumer ends up paying the taxes in higher prices for the products.

After all, self employed have to pay the whole amount, so why not all employees?

This issue actually points out and emphasizes the hypocrisy and deceitfulness of government.

If the Democrats had been honest, when the SS and Medicare programs were put into place, they would have had the entire Social Security and Medicare contributions taken out of the employees' paychecks. Actually, it would have saved a mountain of money in administrative costs that it is costing us to collect half of it from employers.

Quote:

If the Democrats had been honest, when the SS and Medicare programs were put into place, they would have had the entire Social Security and Medicare contributions taken out of the employees' paychecks. Actually, it would have saved a mountain of money in administrative costs that it is costing us to collect half of it from employers.

Wow.. what a crock of idiot from you okie.
Companies have to calculate how much FICA each employee should pay.
Companies collect FICA from employees and pay it to the government.
Companies MATCH what they collect and pay it to the government.

There is NO savings on administrative costs for the companies by changing where the money comes from. The companies still have to calculate it, collect it and pay it to the government.

There most definitely would have been savings in administrative costs if Social Security and Medicare would hve been totally deducted from payroll amounts, rather than half of it being deducted and then matched by employers. This is an obvious truth to anyone with an ounce of common business sense, and totally obvious to anyone that has ever run a business.

okie "never" understands much of anything. As you have described how employers are required to calculate (all) payroll taxes, and deposit those to the US Treasury (through local banks), they are all required by laws established by congress and the IRS.

huh? So.. where is the savings smart guy?
I would love to see your numbers since it's so totally obvious.

You don't even have to go through all that! Computerized systems figure out gross pay, all the taxes and other deductions, and net pay automatically.

What exactly are you trying to tell me?

okie, What are you talking about? "The government could have simplified the process?" Are you that ignorant?

Quote:

Yes they could have simplified it. That might be hard for you to fathom, but yes, it could have if reasonable people were in charge.

But, I repeat myself.

The tax code is over 4,000 page long. No two expert tax accountants are able to arrive at the same tax liability of a somewhat complicated tax return.

Where have you been all these years?

Some people must go to tax return services to complete the simple form.

What the government could, should, must, or have done is history. It belongs to both democratic and republican administrations and congress.
These are facts.

What you deem as "should" belongs on the laffer curve. You don't live in the real world of politics or the US.

We are all required to follow the laws now in existence; not how you think it simplifies taxation to make it more efficient. Your thinking is worthless bull ****.