For some small business owners who operate on tiny profit margins, this tax increase will put them out of business. Consider the restaurant industry, where profit margins pivot around 3 percent. Labor makes up about one-third of their total expenses. To raise restaurants' labor costs by 1.2 percentage points is enough to put some of them out of business altogether.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE:
Joseph Semprevivo is the president and CEO of Joseph’s Lite Cookies in Florida and a member of the Job Creators Network. He is an adjunct professor of finance, real estate and insurance at Indian River State College
bookmark
My solution: Stop collecting “earned/taxable” income. And I’ll be 66 next year, at which point I’ll get full SS benefits, while supplementing my income with “gray market” income.
I’m almost done supporting this monstrosity.
We need a 20% import tariff and REDUCE marginal rates accordingly. As far a payroll taxes just lift the caps and screw over the high income types who are mostly libs anyway.
They would just steal the SS funds with IOU’s called US Government Bonds....................like they do now..................
Liberals don’t understand how businesses operate, or the financial impact of what they are proposing.
Many small businesses operate on narrow profit margins. And for many businesses of all sizes, the payroll expense, the costs of paying the hired help, is by far the biggest expense of operating the business.
Liberals just don’t understand, that you can’t just keep increasing taxes incrementally, without any consequences.
Another incentive for automation and the elimination of low wage jobs.
Thought it was those nasty pubbies always trying to mess with SocSec
one of the problems (beside congress stealing from the funds to use elsewhere) is Congress has allowed so many people to collect from SS that never should have been allowed...not to sound cold hearted......
A CT demoncrat wanting to raise taxes for everyone so CT taxpayers won’t be alone in their misery.
Democrats: driving jobs into the ground.
More BS about the employer vs. employee “split”. The employee earns the entire amount. An employe must be capable of earning his entire range of compensation plus earn a profit for the owner. If not the employer has no economic reason to hire them.
This myth is perpetrated in order to keep people from understand how much they are really paying. If tomorrow the employer paid the entire 14.8% wages would decrease by the additional amount being absorbed 7.4%.
Surprise surprise
We are on a slow boat to Venezuela. It’s just a matter of how soon we get there. Mustn’t spook the passengers, you know.
The Green New Deal would take it all. No worries after that. We'd become Venezuela.
If they got the tax increase, then within two years, they’d be reading the economic stats showing employee actual take home has gone down over two years, and claiming that a federal remedy needs to be done. Of course such a claim will be ignoring the fact that the payroll tax increase will be the reason the take home pay had not risen. but such facts are not the concerns of the Dims when they are trying to expand federal regulations, federal taxes and poorly designed federal “solutions”.
The current generations now actively working did not design the stuffing of the social security “trust funds” with IOUs - that allowed the money to be spent instead of truly invested - and they should not be the first to have money now taken from them, to try to account (pay off) those IOUs. BEFORE payroll taxes are increased on the young - the children and grandchildren of current social security benefits, social security benefit payments ought to be adjusted - down.
What the Dims are proposing is in affect generational economic warfare - the seniors being bailed out by their children and grandchildren for a problem the generations of the seniors created. It’s wrong.
I want a graduated and phased in cut off, over ten years, of any new participants in social security, whereby in the eleventh year all persons who become employed for the very first time do not join the present social security but instead enroll in two new plans - a defined contribution retirement plan with their and their employers contribution going to a private defined contribution plan of the individual’s choice, and a “social income” insurance plan, which would insure an as needed retirement income floor, not a proportionate “entitlement” that everyone gets something from.
It may mean that instead of any higher payroll tax, we have to change the formula for “taxing” social security, to effectively tax it more than is done at present considering TOTAL income a social security recipient gets. THAT might even result in someone whose TOTAL income is greater than X??? losing all their social security (some very rich retired former politicians come to mind). Why? (1) It is in keeping with the “progressive” attitude in the social security benefit formula already. Very high earners seldom get back the same % of what they actually put in than do very low earners. (2) I think the older generations need to pay for the mistake they allowed to happen “on their watch”. (3) The perverse and likely intended effect of the higher payroll tax will be (a) taking money that could go into employers and employees contributions to their own pension plans, that instead has to pay for the higher payroll taxes (b) and it will cause the calculation of benefits to produce higher benefits than now, and (c) - (a) and (b) together might be an intentional way of crowding out more of the private pensions. Repeated additional increases of the FICA taxes could gradually cause private pension to be less of retirement income than today, with more, and maybe someday all, dependent on social security alone. That would make the Dims happy.
All the Dims are doing is putting another patch on the Ponzi Scheme, and like all Ponzi Schemes, putting the price mostly on those coming into the scheme; to pay for debts that have to be paid off for the pay outs that the scheme already owes current benefit recipients (THEIR MONEY IS GONE - REPLACED WITH IOUs).
ASS is a generational transfer from the poor/young to the rich/old. True but it is the foundation we have created.
It hasn’t helped SS one iota that we are now beginning to feel the effects of the SECOND aborted generation.
Those aborted immediately after Roe v. Wade could have become a tax paying part of the workforce in 1991.
If THEY had started to have children shortly afterward, those children would have started entering the workforce around 2009.
It isn’t just the loss of 2 million children per year “thanks” to Roe v. Wade; we are now into the geometric progression of the loss of those children’s children.