Talk:Federal Insurance Contributions Act

message: I'm not a tax expert, so I can't expand this article very much.  But I changed it from a cozy second person to a much more formal (and encyclopediatic) third person.  And I added a bunch of WikiLinks.  Now somebody else can come through and expand it however you see fit.  Joe 01:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second person to third person 

message: This article could benefit from some references to the history of the tax rates.  Also, it might benefit from a clear statement that when people are talking about "Federal income taxes", they are almost always excluding this tax, although both are Federal and both affect after-tax income.  I'll dig up the rate history.  Boris B 23:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True - I agree Morphh 00:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm getting cold feet about those external links I added.  Neither mentions "FICA".  I am starting to wonder if I am confusing different taxes.  If the links I added do not refer to FICA, by all means delete them.  Boris B 00:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rate change in the 1980s 

message: Dear readers: An anonymous editor has removed this verbiage:
::Strangely, they do not seem to be explained anywhere in the IRS's online help
The deletion was made with the statement that one would need to support the claim.
I agree that the text should be deleted, but not for the reason given. Now, for a little hair splitting.
The above statement is a negative statement. In certain cases, I would argue that you do not need a citation to support a negative statement.
For example, suppose I say: "There is no report on page 1 of the May 1, 2007 New York Times stating that little green men from the Planet Mongo landed at second base at Yankee Stadium in New York City and began dancing the Twist to the music of Chubby Checker."
That's a silly example, but I would argue that I do not need "sourcing" or a citation for that statement. All anyone needs to do to refute the statement is to obtain the relevant copy of the New York Times and check page 1. If there is such a report on page 1 of the Times, then my statement is incorrect. If there isn't such a report, then my statement is correct.
There is probably no way to "source" or obtain a citation for the statement that "Strangely, they do not seem to be explained anywhere in the IRS's online help". Either "they" are explained in the online help, or "they" are not.
I would argue that the reason the statement should be deleted is that it seems POVish and (in my opinion) detracts from the article more than it adds to the article. Yours, Famspear 21:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fact, it is explained on the IRS website, and I just added a reference to it. (By coincidence, I had added the IRS reference to Social Security (United States) last week.) — Malik Shabazz | Talk 22:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a minute -- that means the statement really should have been deleted because it was just plain incorrect! How boring! Seriously, thanks to editor Malik Shabazz. Famspear 22:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do you need sourcing for a negative statement?

message: I normally stick to science/fact articles precisely because politics on Wikipedia is a fruitless endeavour. But this article does have that 'neo-con'/'supply-side'/'reaganite' feel to it. Namely no hard fact that supports the FICA tax/Social Security is left uncountered, even when the counter is a unencyclopedic, weasly worded, mealy mouthed, conservative talking point.
One that that stuck out is that the tax is most definitely regressive. A person with an income over the maximum amount pays the same amount (not percent) if they make 100k, 500k, or 10 billion. One can argue weather the Social Security payouts are progressive, but the tax itself is absolutely regressive.
A few of the conservative talking points are actually correct, namely that if one were free to invest one's own money privately then on average one would receive more interest.
*But even that statement is misleading, England (and Brazil or Argentina, can't remember which) both had mandatory savings accounts, but because neither was well regulated millions of people lost vast amounts of their retirement savings to unscrupulous private companies.
*Despite the comparisons to mandated insurance / retirement savings, it is really just a welfare program. This artificial linking of working and paying in, to benefits received was just one of the selling points at it's inception because Americans have such a aversion to 'welfare'.
*Because it is 'wellfare' and no true insurance / retirement savings plan, it moderately redistributes from the higher income brackets to the lower brackets, but because it is so regressive it is barely bourne (percent wise) by the very rich, and instead is almost totally funded (percent wise) by the lower and middle classes.
::::Tiki God 17:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Tiki God's points about the tone of the article, but...
**Social Security is an income redistribution program, not a welfare program. The difference is that benefits aren't distributed on the basis of need.
**Social Security is also a social insurance program. Ask a worker collecting disability benefits, or the family of a deceased worker who are collecting survivors benefits.
**The concept of "interest" applied to Social Security is a red herring because one cannot calculate the "interest" on a social insurance program.
**You may be thinking of Chile, which has had an individual account system for many years. It has been (and still is) touted as the be-all and end-all by free-marketeers for the past two decades, but as Chileans have begun to retire under the new system they are learning that their accounts have been eroded by high fees and "misplaced" deposits. In the last presidential election, Michelle Bachelet beat Sebastián Piñera, the brother of José Piñera — the architect of the Chilean social security system. I can't help but wonder if Piñera's brother was a factor in the election.
**Overall, considering both the payroll tax and the benefit structure — which replaces 90% of the lowest earners' pre-retirement income — Social Security has been shown to be a progressive program. 'll try to dig up some links that make that argument for the article. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Good points Morphh  (talk) 19:49, 08 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The tax itself is not progressive.  Only the benefits.  Therefore, the program as a whole can be progressive, but still not the tax.  This is an article on the tax, and information on the Social Security program as a whole should probably go in the article on Social Security.  Jbo5112 (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I don't understand what "payroll taxes plus interest" has to do with the progressiveness of the Social Security system. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that the article makes the same assertion. The Economist, citing work by the NBER, says "low earners earn a 5.19% internal rate of return on their contributions to Social Security, while high earners get just 0.54%". I guess that's a different way of saying the system is progressive. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: I made some corrections to the article. The Self-Employment tax consists of Social Security tax and Medicare tax. The FICA tax also consists of Social Security and Medicare tax.
However, the Self-Employment tax is NOT an FICA tax.
The Self-Employment tax is imposed under the Self-Employment Contributions Act of 1954, which is codified as Chapter 2 of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code. The FICA tax is imposed under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, which is codified as Chapter 21 of Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code. It can be confusing, because BOTH Acts impose the Social Security tax and BOTH Acts impose the Medicare tax. The "SE" Act imposes those taxes on self-employed individuals (independent contractor individuals) while the "FICA" imposes those same taxes on employees.
The SE tax is NOT an FICA tax. But the SE tax and the FICA tax both have both Social Security tax and Medicare tax components. Yours, Famspear 19:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Self Employment tax and FICA

message: This article could be improved by some discussion of Section 218 Agreements.  Thanks  Morphh  (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Section 218 Agreement

message: Need to determine whether the statement near the beginning of the article is technically correct. Is the benefit tied to the TAX paid by the worker, or is it tied to the compensation on which the tax is imposed???? The net effect is roughly the same either way, as the amount of tax in any given year is simply a percentage of the Social Security wages for that year. But if the statute provides that the benefit is based on the covered compensation, then the "tie" between benefits and the tax itself is technically an indirect one, not a direct one. I'll try to check on this.... Famspear (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the Social Security benefit "directly tied" to the tax paid?

message: The following material has been moved from the article to here:
::However, since the Social Security Act of 1935 gives the United States Congress the power to change or eliminate Social Security benefits and the United States Supreme Court decided in Flemming v. Nestor (1960) that no one has any legal right to benefits from Social Security, the payroll tax is indeed a tax.
Stay tuned.... Famspear (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Language needs work

message: There's been a lot of talk about NPOV or lack of sources or whatever else about this section but almost none about what seems to me to be the very obvious and significant problem with it: it's just not relevant. Lots of people have lots of criticisms of Social Security and/or Medicare, but information about those criticisms is only relevant to this article *in so far as it pertains to FICA*. For example, the regressivity discussion is relevant because FICA taxes are more regressive than the federal income tax. Discussions of the proper role of government and the importance of individual choice have nothing to do with the particular revenue streams these programs are funded by. If no one either convinces me otherwise or edits the content to relate it in some reasonably convincing way to the article topic, I'll go ahead and delete this material. Anyone who so desires (not me) should feel free to incorporate it into the articles where it would actually be on topic, namely those for the programs, rather than the tax which supports them. Nicolas Bray (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Role of Government" 

message: or "Why America needs socialism".  The above discussion notes the content is unreferenced but also presents it it all in terms of "difficulties" for which the remedy is "federal-government-mandated" programs as its non-neutral point of view contrary to WP:NPOV.  This section needs to be replaced with the Act's actual history attributed to a source in a neutral way. patsw (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: History of Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax

message: There's quite a bit of overlap between this article and Social Security (United States).  Suggestions? Oldtaxguy (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The social security article should have a summary style structure pointing to this article for the aspect of taxation.  Since FICA covers more than SS, I can't see merging this into that article.  Since SS covers more than FICA, I can't see merging that one into this article.  The content on taxes should be merged into this article though, then a summary of the SS portion placed on the SS article with a main tag pointing here. Morphh  (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlap of articles 

message: I have deleted opinions from political advocacy websites and the NY Post as not meeting the reliable sources criteria.  I have also deleted a misinterpretation of a Supreme Court case denying Social Security benefits to a nonresident alien who had been deported. Oldtaxguy (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you made the right call. I deleted it yesterday as original research, but I hadn't paid attention to the sources. Not reliable sources at all. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of material not from reliable sources 

message: This entire thing is based on the idea that FICA is a tax. It is not, the I stands for insurance not tax. It is too often treated as a tax but officially it is insurance and has never been a tax. Show me the where it is a tax!
71.105.163.166 (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but it's a tax. Read the article. Famspear (talk) 02:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's not a TAX....... 

message: The PPACA includes a provision for an Additional Medicare Tax on incomes above certain thresholds.  The IRShas more detailed info.  I could only find that provision on this site here.  The law refers to FICA so I presume it should also be included on this page as well? Unmasked (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Medicare Tax 

message: Substituted at 15:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080423215302/http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/0308miller.html to http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/0308miller.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A student enrolled and regularly attending classes at a school, college, or university who performs work as a cook, waiter, butler, maid, janitor, laundress, furnaceman, handyman, gardener, housekeeper, housemother, or similar duties in or around the club rooms or house of a local college club, or in or about the club rooms or house of a local chapter of a college fraternity or sorority, are exempt from FICA tax. If the location's primary purpose is to provide room or board, however, then the work is subject to FICA tax. Performing these services for an alumni club or alumni chapter also does not qualify for the exemption from FICA tax.
[19] "26 CFR 31.3121(b)(2)-1". via Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School. Retrieved December 23, 2018
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/31.3121%28b%29%282%29-1
The link above which is used in reference #19 doesn’t work. 
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2001-title26-vol14/CFR-2001-title26-vol14-sec31-3121b2-1/context
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2001-title26-vol14/pdf/CFR-2001-title26-vol14-sec31-3121b2-1.pdf
Would one of these links work? 2600:1700:F4D1:D70:404E:8568:60F:90D8 (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  404 page to Cornell law site