It's been awhile since I checked, but I think 100k is a cutoff point for determining "highly compensated" employees. It's a federal thing. Like the "poverty level" on the bottom end of the totem pole. Could be totally wrong.
shit...I said "totem pole". sorry. guess i'm racist again.
Well, if we're going to do the math:
100k annual salary. EO that defers the payroll taxes (7.65%) from income 8/1/2020 to 12/31/2020 (assuming normal distribution, $33,333 earned in that period).
So, that is deferring $2,549.97 in taxes, for approximately 4 months, when you would file FY2020 in Jan 2021.
So, the difference between them on ~Feb 2021? 0.
Well, if you want to argue lost opportunity in interest/investments, assuming the S&P500 makes 10% annually throughout COVID (spoiler: it won't), those returns (something like 0.8% a month, 4 months, on monthly $637 deposits) ... about 30 bucks.
We going to keep complaining, on how Trump is for all intents and purposes, the only person who would have touched the payroll tax at all, for anybody?
Obligatory footnote: Trump says he wants to forgive the payroll taxes deferred when he wins Nov 3, which would be a fuck-yes moment.
Trump said permanent tax cuts to payroll, not full deferment permanently.
You do bring up a good point about the cutoff point, but my guess is the first 100K will be non deductible. If not, there would be a small mathematical window from about 93K a year to 99K a year where you would potentially make more than if you made 100K. This is only for 6 months, however. Employees who are at this cutoff point might want to ask for a tiny pay cut fir 6 months.
That's fair -- he did say he wanted to make permanent tax cuts to payroll, but really: I see that (emergency deferment of payroll vs abolishing payroll legislation) as two entirely separate concepts.
One is something he has put pen to paper already, and is kind of on the hook for to ensure it's followed up on. The other (abolishing the payroll tax) is honestly a campaign platform/issue, that is solely up to Congress and all Trump has on that is the bully pulpit.
-Trump had to make a political decision to positively impact 86% of US workers. You're arguing he should've made it for 100% ... which has this immediate consequence: the Democrats now claim Trump is only helping, and disproportionately helping his fatcat buddies (because rich people always benefit more, ya know).
-So: In reality, now we turn a political move that easily has at least 50%+ support, and make it something that probably has "less than 50% support". Is that going to hold up, or lead to any benefits to anybody? Really probably not.
-Nope. If that's the political game we have to play (and it's not our choice), then I would much rather have the overwhelmingly positive spin, get the rust off the payroll tax legislative gears, and work towards Trump's speeches goal: to get rid of the payroll tax. Sounds awesome.
It's been awhile since I checked, but I think 100k is a cutoff point for determining "highly compensated" employees. It's a federal thing. Like the "poverty level" on the bottom end of the totem pole. Could be totally wrong.
shit...I said "totem pole". sorry. guess i'm racist again.
shit...said "bottom". sexist again.
shit...said "poverty". classist again.
sorry.
2 bucks
Well, if we're going to do the math: 100k annual salary. EO that defers the payroll taxes (7.65%) from income 8/1/2020 to 12/31/2020 (assuming normal distribution, $33,333 earned in that period).
So, that is deferring $2,549.97 in taxes, for approximately 4 months, when you would file FY2020 in Jan 2021.
So, the difference between them on ~Feb 2021? 0.
Well, if you want to argue lost opportunity in interest/investments, assuming the S&P500 makes 10% annually throughout COVID (spoiler: it won't), those returns (something like 0.8% a month, 4 months, on monthly $637 deposits) ... about 30 bucks.
We going to keep complaining, on how Trump is for all intents and purposes, the only person who would have touched the payroll tax at all, for anybody?
Obligatory footnote: Trump says he wants to forgive the payroll taxes deferred when he wins Nov 3, which would be a fuck-yes moment.
Allow me to butt in.
Trump said permanent tax cuts to payroll, not full deferment permanently.
You do bring up a good point about the cutoff point, but my guess is the first 100K will be non deductible. If not, there would be a small mathematical window from about 93K a year to 99K a year where you would potentially make more than if you made 100K. This is only for 6 months, however. Employees who are at this cutoff point might want to ask for a tiny pay cut fir 6 months.
That's fair -- he did say he wanted to make permanent tax cuts to payroll, but really: I see that (emergency deferment of payroll vs abolishing payroll legislation) as two entirely separate concepts.
One is something he has put pen to paper already, and is kind of on the hook for to ensure it's followed up on. The other (abolishing the payroll tax) is honestly a campaign platform/issue, that is solely up to Congress and all Trump has on that is the bully pulpit.
Ok - is there a presumption that I / we don't?
-Trump had to make a political decision to positively impact 86% of US workers. You're arguing he should've made it for 100% ... which has this immediate consequence: the Democrats now claim Trump is only helping, and disproportionately helping his fatcat buddies (because rich people always benefit more, ya know).
-So: In reality, now we turn a political move that easily has at least 50%+ support, and make it something that probably has "less than 50% support". Is that going to hold up, or lead to any benefits to anybody? Really probably not.
-Nope. If that's the political game we have to play (and it's not our choice), then I would much rather have the overwhelmingly positive spin, get the rust off the payroll tax legislative gears, and work towards Trump's speeches goal: to get rid of the payroll tax. Sounds awesome.
Whelp, I'm still paying taxes. Woe is me for being a productive, highly educated member of society.
No...it's really not