Social Security Number

[Chex]

Can we get down to brass tacks what FICA is? It is an excise tax, plain and simple.

Where is that written from shikamaru ?

FICA is nothing more than the tax provisions of the Social Security Act, as they appear in the Internal Revenue Code.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answ...eaning-of-fica

Excise taxes are taxes paid when purchases are made on a specific good, such as gasoline. Excise taxes are often included in the price of the product. There are also excise taxes on activities, such as on wagering or on highway usage by trucks. Excise Tax has several general excise tax programs. One of the major components of the excise program is motor fuel. http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-...yed/Excise-Tax

[Brian]

Can we get down to brass tacks what FICA is? It is an excise tax, plain and simple.

Where is that written from shikamaru ?

FICA is nothing more than the tax provisions of the Social Security Act, as they appear in the Internal Revenue Code.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answ...eaning-of-fica

Excise taxes are taxes paid when purchases are made on a specific good, such as gasoline. Excise taxes are often included in the price of the product. There are also excise taxes on activities, such as on wagering or on highway usage by trucks. Excise Tax has several general excise tax programs. One of the major components of the excise program is motor fuel. http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-...yed/Excise-Tax

The Social Security "contribution" from wages received by an employee was really not a savings plan, but rather, in the Supreme Court's words, "a special income tax . . . measured by wages:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davis

The words "measured by" are a tip-off that a government privilege is being extended because those were the same words used to describe the corporate income tax in Flint v. Stone Tracy (1911), where the extent of the government-bestowed corporate privilege is "measured by" the corporation's net income: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_v._Stone_Tracy_Co.

The Social Security tax is two part. 1. A tax on employers for having employees (employer/employee relationship) 2. A "Special income tax" on employees as measured by wages. Half the tax is on the employer and the other half on the employee.

So what makes it so "special"? The court did not say...but the "measured by" part gives a clue.

Also in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. U.S., 295 U.S. 495 (1935) Justice Roberts statements essentially lay out the path to government intrusion. "We have held in . . . Schechter Poultry . . . that Congress has no power to regulate wages and hours of labor in a local business. If the [government] is right [in Butler], this very end may be accomplished by appropriating money to be paid to employers from the federal treasury under contracts whereby they agree to comply with certain standards fixed by federal law or by contract."

Using money substitutes other then those emitted directly by the Treasury under their exclusive money powers could certainly in my view be a taxable excised activity.

[David Merrill]

The Social Security "contribution" from wages received by an employee was really not a savings plan, but rather, in the Supreme Court's words, "a special income tax . . . measured by wages:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davis

The words "measured by" are a tip-off that a government privilege is being extended because those were the same words used to describe the corporate income tax in Flint v. Stone Tracy (1911), where the extent of the government-bestowed corporate privilege is "measured by" the corporation's net income: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_v._Stone_Tracy_Co.

The Social Security tax is two part. 1. A tax on employers for having employees (employer/employee relationship) 2. A "Special income tax" on employees as measured by wages. Half the tax is on the employer and the other half on the employee.

So what makes it so "special"? The court did not say...but the "measured by" part gives a clue.

Also in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. U.S., 295 U.S. 495 (1935) Justice Roberts statements essentially lay out the path to government intrusion. "We have held in . . . Schechter Poultry . . . that Congress has no power to regulate wages and hours of labor in a local business. If the [government] is right [in Butler], this very end may be accomplished by appropriating money to be paid to employers from the federal treasury under contracts whereby they agree to comply with certain standards fixed by federal law or by contract."

Using money substitutes other then those emitted directly by the Treasury under their exclusive money powers could certainly in my view be a taxable excised activity.

Great post Brian!

[shikamaru]

Where is that written from shikamaru ?

Here.

Also, how about this?

Helvering v. Davis (1937)

In Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, decided this day, ante, p. 548, we have upheld the validity of Title IX of the act, imposing an excise upon employers of eight or more. In this case, Titles VIII and II are the subject of attack. Title VIII lays another excise upon employers in addition to the one imposed by Title IX (though with different exemptions). It lays a special income tax upon employees to be deducted from their wages and paid by the employers. Title II provides for the payment of Old Age Benefits, and supplies the motive and occasion, in the view of the assailants of the statute, for [p*635] the levy of the taxes imposed by Title VIII. The plan of the two titles will now be summarized more fully.

Title VIII, as we have said, lays two different types of tax, an "income tax on employees" and "an excise tax on employers." The income tax on employees is measured by wages paid during the calendar year. ' 801. The excise tax on the employer is to be paid "with respect to having individuals in his employ," and, like the tax on employees, is measured by wages. ' 804. Neither tax is applicable to certain types of employment, such as agricultural labor, domestic service, service for the national or state governments, and service performed by persons who have attained the age of 65 years. ' 811(b). The two taxes are at the same rate. '' 801, 804. For the years 1937 to 1939, inclusive, the rate for each tax is fixed at one percent. Thereafter the rate increases 1/2 of 1 percent every three years, until, after December 31, 1948, the rate for each tax reaches 3 percent. Ibid. In the computation of wages, all remuneration is to be included except so much as is in excess of $3,000 during the calendar year affected. ' 811(a). The income tax on employees is to be collected by the employer, who is to deduct the amount from the wages "as and when paid." ' 80a(a). He is indemnified against claims and demands of any person by reason of such payment. Ibid. The proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way. ' 807(a). There are penalties for nonpayment. ' 807(c).

If you continue to read that Supreme Court case, you'll see the term excise pop up over and over again.
This is the Supreme Court case that upheld Social Security as constitutional.