Almost all private sector workers pay TWO mandatory payroll taxes: Social Security and Medicare. Both of these taxes are targeted to paying benefits to retirees and other designated beneficiaries for living expenses (Social Security) and medical expenses (Medicare).
The Social Security Tax is 6.2% and the Medicare Tax is 1.45% of your gross pay. So, for example, if you earn $10 per hour and you work 10 hours a week your gross pay is $100. On this amount you would pay $6.20 in Social Security taxes and $1.45 in Medicare taxes. Bottom line: you pay $6.20 (Social Security) and $1.45 (Medicare) , or a total of $7.65, for every $100 you earn.
This is not the whole story on these two taxes:
Both the Social Security tax and the Medicare tax must be matched by the employer. This means the employer must remit to the federal government 12.4% of each employee’s first $106,800 of taxable earnings plus 2.9% of each employee’s earnings regardless of amount. (Source)
That is right---your employer matches the amounts that are sent to their respective trust funds in Washington, DC. The Social Security portion has a cap on the amount that is subject to the tax--$106,800. The maximum amount someone would pay into Social Security in any given year is $6,621.06. However, there is NO cap on the earned income that is subjected to the Medicare tax. Keep in mind, the portion your employer pays for these two taxes does not come out of your paycheck BUT is a cost to them to employ you. While you are paid a set wage ($10 per hour) it actually costs more than that to employ you--at this point that would be $10.76 ($10 times 7.65%, the employers portion of the taxes).
Congress and/or the President had two choices: reduce the Social Security tax on workers, a Demand-Side stimulus OR on employers, a Supply-Side stimulus.
The current tax bill will reduce the Social Security tax from 6.20% to 4.20% for 2011. This is on YOUR portion of the Social Security tax, NOT the employers. The Medicare tax will stay the same. What this means for you, using our example above, is you are going to have an additional $2.00 per $100 you earn in your paycheck. So, for a worker who earns $500 per week, they will have $10 extra dollars in each paycheck.
Congress and the President opted for a Demand-Side stimulus for the economy.
Here is the reasoning: workers have more money in their paychecks; they will buy more goods and/or services; businesses will sell/produce more goods/services to meet this increased demand; businesses will hire more workers to sell/produce these additional goods/services; newly employed people are now income earners; they will, in turn, buy more goods/services from other businesses that are responding in kind; the economic "pump" has been "primed"...DEMAND CREATES SUPPLY!
Here is the alternative, Supply-Side argument they could have chosen instead: reduce the Social Security portion employers pay for each worker; this reduces the cost of employing labor (which is the largest cost for most businesses); employers "at the margin" of deciding to hire workers will employ more labor; these workers produce goods/services at a lower marginal cost than before; businesses produce more goods/services; the newly employed people are now income earners; they will, in turn, buy more goods/services from other businesses that are responding in kind; the economic "pump" has been "primed"... SUPPLY CREATES DEMAND!
What BOTH ultimately come down to in the current economic climate is this: WHICH path would encourage the hiring of workers by businesses. The lynch-pin is business behavior: Will the Demand-Side policy increase demand enough that businesses collectively hire more workers, or will they see this bump in demand as temporary and make do with existing workers. Would the Supply-Side policy produce the same result--employers collectively not hiring regardless of the reduction in the cost of hiring workers, because they know the tax relief is temporary and they don't want to take on new employees if they are uncertain about future economic conditions.
Yikes!! What would you do? Given the current economic conditions, GDP is increasing but hiring is not at a significant level ("a jobless recovery"), which policy option would you choose? Extra credit on the final is at hand!!
I think that I would go with what they are doing now and use the policy where demand creates supply. If you do the supply side then that does not necessarily make businesses want to employ more people, because if they can get by with what they have now, then the reduction just means more profit for the business which is what the businesses want in the first place. I think you have a better chance of the demand side working because it directly effects the people in the recession. Many people have had to cut back and are not able to do as much as they use to. The thought is that the people will now be able to start doing more and spending the money that they are saving in taxes. This money is helping out the people and at the same time goes to the businesses that are also feeling the economic struggles. People are demanding more so businesses have to meet that demand with more supply. Now if the cut does what they hope, the demand will be so high that the businesses can not get buy with the employees they have and have to hire more employees to create the supply needed to meet the growing the demand. Now this bill may not do as much as wanted or needed, but to have a chance at meeting the economic level desired I think that you have to go about addressing the demand side.
ReplyDeleteI find myself to be partial to the supply-side argument. By implementing a policy that directly affects businesses, you are bypassing the factor of uncertainty that is associated with consumer behavior. When consumers are given a tax break, it is impossible to accurately determine what percentage of their new income will be saved and what percentage will be used to purchase goods or make investments. While the tax reduction will give businesses more funds/profit, the smartest thing for businesses to do is to invest that additional money in either human or physical capital. This investment will directly increase production, increasing employment, and ultimately benefit the economy as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI will say this...I'm glad I'm not the one required to make this decision!