From: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman)
Subject: Re: taxes. (Was: Re: A Simple Thought Experiment)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:47:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.113945.3228@clpd.kodak.com> fischer@li.serum.kodak.com (Chris Fischer (x39613)) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.213137.12672@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug31.180037.28472@clpd.kodak.com> fischer@li.serum.kodak.com (Chris Fischer (x39613)) writes:
>>>>Finally, it would be useful to re-iterate the fact that Social Security
>>>>is currently not only paying its way with no deficit, but also *making*
>>>>money for the government.  Indeed, this is seen in the current deficit
>>>
>>>This doesn't effect that fact that I will probably not see a penny
>>>of SS.  Therefore it goes into the great government spending machine as
>>>far as I am concerned.
>>
>>Hmm?  In case you hadn't heard, Social Security is making about 80-100
>>Billion / yr.  That's a *profit* of about 25%.  If the government
>>treated it like the insurance premiums or trust funds they are they
>>would be socked away into a bank account - long term - and earn some
>>interest.  Further, Social Security probably won't go into a deficit for
>>at least a quarter century.  Not according to data I've seen.
>>
>
>You really believe that SS will be around in 50 years?  Yes it has a 
>surplus now, but it wasn't so long ago that Wang Computers was making
>a profit.  Things change.  The demographics work heavily against SS starting
>in 2007.

2007 according to some studies, 2015 according to certain others I've
seen.  Some reform will be necessary, but I'm pretty certain some
modified form of Social Security will be around.  One of the things I
suspect we're going to see in the next 15-20 years is that 65 will no
longer be a mandatory retirement age at many companies; certainly
demographics suggest that the working lifetime is longer now.

>>>>rates, which are about $80B/yr lower than actual because of the fact
>>>>that FICA tax collected is counted in with *general revenues* instead of
>>>>being counted as the trust fund and insurance policy that it is in fact.
>>>>
>>>>>Sum .687/1.075= 64% (to normalize for FICA you never see, paid directly)
>>>
>>>Nothing needs normalizing.  If the govt. did not take 7.65% from my
>>>employer, I could be getting that money.  It is a stealth pay cut.
>>
>>No, it's not.  It's an insurance premium.  Employers *can* opt not to
>>participate in FICA (I've been employed by one of those).
>>
>
>The only employer that I am aware of that can opt out is the government,
>could you explain this?  I would love to talk my employer into opting
>me out.

The employer in question was Occidental College in Los Angeles, and I
was an undergrad at the time.  The first few thousand - I don't have the
exact amount - of what an undergrad makes are tax exempt but not FICA
exempt.  I don't know that an employer can (or *if*, for that matter)
exempt an employee but not the rest of his/her work force.


-- 
"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
     Eric S. Perlman 				 <perlman@qso.colorado.edu> 
  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43426 alt.politics.clinton:3892 alt.politics.bush:3919