IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Money, Financials, and Economics Forum / Interesting
Post #342,162
by S1mon_Jester
5/2/11 12:07:27 PM
Reply
New Interesting
I thought FICA was paid by the employee, not the company.

(If the employee didn't have FICA, he would/could be paid 15% more.)
Post #342,164
by Steve Lowe
5/2/11 12:14:12 PM
Reply
New 50/50
50% paid by employee, 50% paid by employer.
http://money.cnn.com...sson18/index4.htm
Post #342,167
by S1mon_Jester
5/2/11 1:06:03 PM
Reply
New Re: 50/50
That's why I said 15% more....

It's paid by the company...but in theory, the employee would be paid those fund if the company didn't pay them to the government. (According to those who wanted Social Security to disappear)
     exxonmobile 10.7 billion broken out - (boxley) - (38) - May 2, 2011, 11:11:22 AM EDT
         Um, so they count FICA, etc., as taxes paid??? -NT - (Another Scott) - (37) - May 2, 2011, 11:14:52 AM EDT
             They can because they do - (beepster) - (31) - May 2, 2011, 11:59:25 AM EDT
                 Interesting - (S1mon_Jester) - (2) - May 2, 2011, 12:07:27 PM EDT
                     50/50 - (Steve Lowe) - (1) - May 2, 2011, 12:14:12 PM EDT
                         Re: 50/50 - (S1mon_Jester) - May 2, 2011, 01:06:03 PM EDT
                 Is FICA a tax on their profits? No, it isn't. - (Another Scott) - (27) - May 2, 2011, 02:32:18 PM EDT
                     So are you - (beepster) - (13) - May 2, 2011, 02:48:37 PM EDT
                         The topic is Exxon's earnings and taxes on same. HTH. -NT - (Another Scott) - (12) - May 2, 2011, 03:07:26 PM EDT
                             Really? Cause I read in Box's post.... - (beepster) - (11) - May 2, 2011, 03:53:00 PM EDT
                                 It has nothing to do with how much tax they pay on earnings. - (Another Scott) - (10) - May 2, 2011, 04:18:58 PM EDT
                                     Why not? - (beepster) - (9) - May 2, 2011, 04:54:02 PM EDT
                                         You need to review the definition of "earnings", I think. -NT - (Another Scott) - (8) - May 2, 2011, 05:21:04 PM EDT
                                             I don't think so... - (beepster) - (7) - May 2, 2011, 05:24:54 PM EDT
                                                 Heh... - (Another Scott) - (6) - May 2, 2011, 05:45:04 PM EDT
                                                     Ah, I see.. - (beepster) - (5) - May 2, 2011, 05:53:59 PM EDT
                                                         Riddle me this, Batman. - (Another Scott) - (4) - May 2, 2011, 06:10:54 PM EDT
                                                             And my other point.... - (beepster) - (3) - May 2, 2011, 07:14:46 PM EDT
                                                                 The thread's not big enough to handle all of them... ;-) -NT - (Another Scott) - May 2, 2011, 08:03:46 PM EDT
                                                                 I'll vilify them just as much as the Oil Companies. - (folkert) - (1) - May 2, 2011, 09:34:57 PM EDT
                                                                     Beep's a big Bernie Sanders supporter, donchaknow. - (Another Scott) - May 2, 2011, 11:22:18 PM EDT
                     yes it is - (boxley) - (12) - May 2, 2011, 08:45:56 PM EDT
                         No it isn't. - (Another Scott) - (11) - May 2, 2011, 09:46:56 PM EDT
                             FICA - (beepster) - (4) - May 2, 2011, 10:23:41 PM EDT
                                 ;-) - (Another Scott) - (3) - May 2, 2011, 10:28:31 PM EDT
                                     Re: ;-) - (beepster) - (2) - May 2, 2011, 10:35:17 PM EDT
                                         ... -NT - (Another Scott) - (1) - May 2, 2011, 10:40:32 PM EDT
                                             Re: ... - (beepster) - May 2, 2011, 10:48:51 PM EDT
                             feds dont take out fica for their employeees they are exempt - (boxley) - (5) - May 3, 2011, 07:28:50 AM EDT
                                 You're wrong about that, too. - (Another Scott) - (4) - May 3, 2011, 07:36:32 AM EDT
                                     Only because he stated an absolute.. - (beepster) - (3) - May 3, 2011, 08:52:09 AM EDT
                                         No, he was wrong because he was wrong. HTH. -NT - (Another Scott) - (2) - May 3, 2011, 10:02:21 AM EDT
                                             Forgive us for being old... - (beepster) - (1) - May 3, 2011, 10:31:15 AM EDT
                                                 :-) I'm getting up there too. -NT - (Another Scott) - May 3, 2011, 11:19:10 AM EDT
             is it a tax? Yeah because you cant opt out as a company -NT - (boxley) - (4) - May 2, 2011, 12:31:26 PM EDT
                 Not sure that's true - (S1mon_Jester) - (3) - May 2, 2011, 01:14:54 PM EDT
                     rare corner case for a very few employers - (boxley) - (2) - May 2, 2011, 01:21:08 PM EDT
                         Ahem...didn't argue that it wasn't rare. - (S1mon_Jester) - (1) - May 2, 2011, 01:23:01 PM EDT
                             Dunno if they do now, but ... - (mmoffitt) - May 2, 2011, 02:05:01 PM EDT

It's like Parkay: You think it's LRPD, but it's not.
52 ms