[Nesster]

But John, you are calculating how much this FTE will cost you - including your portion of the SS tax, and your portions of whatever benefits costs there are, etc., less any tax deductions you can take. Then you take a look at your business and whether you need to hire - or have an opportunity from the hire.

After that, you know whether or not you are willing to pay the person $120K per year.

The cost of hire includes YOUR costs, and you'd be a poor businessman if you did not take these into account.

In the absence of these costs you - and your competition - would be willing to possibly offer more than $120K, and the employee - understanding the market - would be looking for more.

[GeneV]

My employee negotiates a salary of $120,000 per year. It's a number he agreed to. I also agreed to that number. He's going to have federal taxes and Medicare taxes taken out. Remember, he agreed to the salary. He's worked a job before where taxes where withheld. How is the 6.2% coming out of his check? How is he paying for my portion of the SS tax? I suppose he's also paying UC taxes also? (Unemployment Compensation for our union friends) Sorry, that's out of my pocket any way you want to look at it. I'm not docking his pay for the 6.2% nor for other taxes we pay. He's getting the salary he wants.

I won't repeat Nesster's astute post, but that really doesn't sound like someone who has set the salary of an employee.

[JohnInIndy]

But John, you are calculating how much this FTE will cost you - including your portion of the SS tax, and your portions of whatever benefits costs there are, etc., less any tax deductions you can take. Then you take a look at your business and whether you need to hire - or have an opportunity from the hire.

After that, you know whether or not you are willing to pay the person $120K per year.

The cost of hire includes YOUR costs, and you'd be a poor businessman if you did not take these into account.

In the absence of these costs you - and your competition - would be willing to possibly offer more than $120K, and the employee - understanding the market - would be looking for more.

Yes his salary is negotiated with my costs in mind. But I also know how much I can make from that 120,000 salary.

[GeneV]

McConnell's plan (or lack thereof) appears to have no support anywhere. Conservatives Torn Over McConnell's Debt-Ceiling Plan B - FoxNews.com

[mikemike]

Regardless of who pays which social security taxes and John's compensation policy, I think we can all agree that Obama's threat to SS recipients was a grossly inaccurate scare tactic and a low blow political sound bite. If anyone misses a check next month, the only one who has decided to cut them off is the president.

The debt ceiling will pass because if it doesn't Obama will be forced to do the thing he has avoided with every fiber of his being for the past 2.5 years, make specific cuts which balance expenses with revenue NOW. If he agrees to any deal the republicans the cuts will be less draconian and he will be able to blame someone else for them.

BTW, where has Harry Reid been? I haven't heard anything out of him in quite a while. Have the democrats in control of the senate effectively ceded their vote to supporting anything the senate agrees to?

[GeneV]

Regardless of who pays which social security taxes and John's compensation policy, I think we can all agree that Obama's threat to SS recipients was a grossly inaccurate scare tactic and a low blow political sound bite. If anyone misses a check next month, the only one who has decided to cut them off is the president.

No agreement here. See if someone else signs on to that grossly inaccurate low blow sound bite.

[mikemike]

No agreement here. See if someone else bites on that.

You legitimately think that, with a dedicated funding stream from FICA receipts which is almost sufficient to fully cover SS payments, the president would choose to divert those funds to other expenditures instead of paying struggling seniors such as Mag Kelly's parents?

If so you must think less of president Obama than I. I don't think he would do that on either grounds of compassion and the political expense.

[Nesster]

The checks will be printed, but will the mail be delivered? You know how these union thugs get...

[GeneV]

You legitimately think that, with a dedicated funding stream from FICA receipts which is almost sufficient to fully cover SS payments, the president would choose to divert those funds to other expenditures instead of paying struggling seniors such as Mag Kelly's parents?

If so you must think less of president Obama than I. I don't think he would do that on either grounds of compassion and the political expense.

Your statement was way over the top as have been the summaries of what he said.

He did not say he would not pay social security. He said those checks were among the 70 million checks for which difficult "Sophie's Choice" decisions would be made, and that he could not guarantee that they would be paid. Should he, instead, reassure all Americans that a national default will have no effect on them?

[Nesster]

Ya know, Obama should just cave in and propose cutting the marginal rates to 1% for anyone making more than $500K. This would result in an immediate increase in revenue - and put America to work like never before - and eliminate the need for any sort of spending cuts at all. Well, apart from the repeal of Obamacare.

[GeneV]

Ya know, Obama should just cave in and propose cutting the marginal rates to 1% for anyone making more than $500K. This would result in an immediate increase in revenue - and put America to work like never before - and eliminate the need for any sort of spending cuts at all. Well, apart from the repeal of Obamacare.

He would make the MMT folks proud.

[magkelly]

My point was there wouldn't BE a national default if we were not spending so much money elsewhere! As far as I am concerned Obama and the rest of the fat cat people who's wallets he seems so determined to protect can just take a huge pay cut and this country can stop paying out the war money NOW before they'll ever get to cheat my folks out of their livelihood. There are some things politically you just don't threaten to do. Cutting off the elderly, the vets, the people who depend upon SS most, that's just stupid and wrong, particularly when you have a war budget to maintain.

War can only be waged for so long before everyone involved goes bankrupt. When you can't afford to pay the soldiers you're keeping on duty or the vets your making it's time to call a halt to it all and bring them all home. Obama has been promising to do that since before he was elected, but for all the supposed troop cuts we still have a budget for war when we can't even pay our old folks? Our vets?

Excuse me for saying so but that's f- up! Broke or not it seems like the USA can still afford to pay for all kinds of things except for the things that really should be first. Congress can still make the mega bucks, they can still hold White House dinners and so forth, and Obama can collect what it is 400K, but my folks just might lose their checks?

Uh NO.

That's what's making me really mad. All of DC is getting paid, Obama is getting paid, the military bill is getting paid, but my folks and people like them won't?

Obama has no idea of what he's started with that threat. Locally several retirees associations, military and otherwise are already talking about busing people to DC if anything like this happens. If it goes down the way I think it will? All those pissed off seniors are going to make the Vietnam war protests look like a Sunday tea party by comparison and you know what? I'll be right there beside them calling for Obama's resignation, impeachment, whatever too! You BET I will because I am so sick of all this BS it's not even funny.

It's one thing to mess around with more taxes. I don't like it, but I get the need for it, sometimes. But you can't touch SS, vet benefits and/or pensions for people like my folks. No way, no how. I won't stand for that. They earned that. They paid into that system in one way or another and the bureaucrats cannot just dismiss that and bankrupt them. They made this d-ned deficit. They can just cut their own salaries and all that inexcusable spending first!

Your statement was way over the top as have been the summaries of what he said.

He did not say he would not pay social security. He said those checks were among the 70 million checks for which difficult "Sophie's Choice" decisions would be made, and that he could not guarantee that they would be paid. Should he, instead, reassure all Americans that a national default will have no effect on them?

[TomK]

To quote the OP magkelly and return to the original topic - - -

My folks basically live on SS checks and a modest military pension. They don't have much in terms of savings so if they lose those checks every month that's it they're done. They're too old and getting to infirm to go back to work - - -?

And - - -

I'm really scared for them reading this.

We can spend literally millions every day overseas, and we can pay salaries in the 6 figures to people in DC, but we can't pay our old folks, our vets, and our military people now?

If the checks cannot be mailed out because the country is going into a first-time default, then it is a FAILURE of BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE.
It means that Congress (House & Senate, Dems & Reps) are in some Ivory Tower so remote from the rest of the country that all they can see is their own next election and that compromise and rational actions FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY are not "what they do". All that matters then seems to be they have an attitude of "us" vs "them" and "we" must win at all costs - to the country.

As a former Republican President once said - -

A nation divided against itself cannot stand.

[GeneV]

To quote the OP magkelly and return to the original topic - - -


And - - -



If the checks cannot be mailed out because the country is going into a first-time default, then it is a FAILURE of BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE.
It means that Congress (House & Senate, Dems & Reps) are in some Ivory Tower so remote from the rest of the country that all they can see is their own next election and that compromise and rational actions FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY are not "what they do". All that matters then seems to be they have an attitude of "us" vs "them" and "we" must win at all costs - to the country.

As a former Republican President once said - -

It may or may not be a failure of both sides of the aisle. It only takes one side to cause this. It may be a systemic failure that allows the entire economy to be held hostage by one party in one house, but that is the way it is.

The voters need to assign more blame if more blame is due or we just keep sending the same people back. When the dems threaten to shut the government down and put it in default because they don't get the health care bill that the left most segment of their base wants, then I'll listen to it being both parties' fault.

[causey]

this country can stop paying out the war money NOW before they'll ever get to cheat my folks out of their livelihood.

War can only be waged for so long before everyone involved goes bankrupt.

You Tube

You Tube