Romneys tax rate; the 3.373% difference. Many wage earners incomes are above the qualifying maximum for Medicaid, cannot afford and have no medical insurance. Due to insufficient incomes, the working poor are not subject to income taxes but all employees are subject to the 7.65% FICA payroll taxes. Additionally employers pay matching FICA taxes. If U.S. payrolls are 1/2 of transactions subject to a sales tax, employers 7.65% FICA payroll taxes behave as a 3.977% federal sales tax. [0.0765 / (2 0,0765)] = 0.03977 In that case the working poor who pay no income taxes, directly and indirectly pay (0.0765 + 0.03977) =11.627% for FICA (0.15 0.11627) = 3.373% tax difference between Romney and the working poor. Respectfully Supposn
So you want those who don't pay income tax to not pay FICA taxes either. A free ride? What would cause them to be morally and logically eligible for government services, Medicare and Social Security?
FMW, I wrote that IF U.S. payrolls are 1/2 of transactions subject to a sales tax, employers 7.65% FICA payroll taxes behave as a 3.977% federal sales tax. [0.0765 / (2 0.0765)] = 0.03977 [I am not a statistician and do not KNOW IF that is the true case; I do feel comfortable with my opinion that U.S. payrolls as a tax base is much greater than 1/3 of transactions subject to general federal sales tax that the Congressional Budget Office could help congress to devise for replacing the entire FICA revenue]. The point of my message is that IF my guesstimate of ½ is correct, Romneys effective federal tax rate was less than 4% greater than what was paid by the working poor. If 1/3 is the correct proportion than Romneys tax rate exceeds the working poors by 2.61% or slightly more than 2.6%. How did you conclude that I want those who don't pay income tax to not pay FICA taxes either? Respectfully, Supposn
