The changes Obama proposes for Payroll regs
November 20, 2008 by Kerry IsbergPosted in: Employment law, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Money, Pay and benefits, policies
Many of the changes President-elect Obama wants will make a direct hit on your company’s operations. Here’s what he’s proposed during the campaign — and what’s likely and unlikely.
1. Repeal of some Bush tax cuts. Obama favors:
- reinstating the pre-2001 top individual tax rates of 39.6% and 36% for families making more than $250,000 ($200,000 for singles)
- making permanent the 10%, 15%, 25% and 28% individual tax rates, and
- restoring the personal exemption phaseout and itemized deduction limitation phaseouts at an increased threshold of $250,000 for joint filers ($200,000 for singles).
2. Higher FUTA wage base. Employers would have to contribute more into the federal unemployment tax system – especially those located in states that still have a $7,000 wage base.
3. Changes in healthcare financing. Although you probably won’t see a universal healthcare push, employers that don’t offer or make a “meaningful contribution” to the cost of employee health care will probably have to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of a national plan. That could affect employee payroll deductions.
4. Increased payroll taxes. Maybe you’ve been hearing reports of additional Social Security taxes, but they likely wouldn’t take effect for years and they’d be phased in over a long period. Any such tax would be at a rate of between 2% and 4% (split between employer and employee). It would apply to income above $250,000 and:
- eliminate the $102,000 ceiling for the Social Security tax, and
- create a “donut hole” exemption for earnings between $102,000 and $250,000.
Tags: FUTA, Health care, Payroll, social security, tax, taxes
November 24th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
RE: #3, most insurance companies require that the employer contribute a minimum of 50% for the cost of the employee’s health insurance premium on a group policy, but is not usually required to contribute anything toward dependents, so unless he means dependents, employers should already be contributing toward their employee’s health care premium costs.
This is similar to the statement on loans against 401ks – people can already do that. To me, this is seemingly like another empty proposal, unbeknowingly for the not-so-savvy listener.
I guess people who haven’t been able to afford employer-sponsored health insurance (or are uninformed about their investment in a 401k) think that really will be getting something now…
November 24th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
In case anyone missed it….the whole campaign was geared toward people learning little if anything of substance about any of these issues and nothing has changed …
The high profile appointments to the cabinet and economic advisory staff all seem to be the same players….it is the little noted sub-appointments that should cause the most concern for administrators as they are the ones who will be quietly drafting policy and procedures that will profoundly change how we do things.
So, as Susan so aptly put it – another empty proposal to blow distracting smoke in our face while the real changes are being conducted by the minions of the committed radicals.
November 24th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
I am sure that Barack Obama will lead our country in the right direction. We need to offer Unviersal Health coverage and he intends to phase it in slowly. Obviously, what conservatives have been doing has not worked. People in Europe pay highter taxes and live better, their children are better educated and they have better health care.The republicans confused people by making them think that if their business grossed $250,000 that they would pay more in taxes. There are very few small businesses netting $250,000 in this country and the owners of those businesses are wealthy.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
There are many places such as Hong Kong (SAR of China) or Singapore or Taiwan which has a simple tax system. In HK, there is a flat tax on individual and corporate, no capital gains or interest earns, no sales tax and no death tax. The education is amongst the tops in the world. Their health care is no less than US from both the public and private health care. I recently traveled to Hong Kong and was able to get a prescription on my monthly maintenance drug from a private doctor without insurance for the same co-pay with insurance in US.
I have several friends who started their business from 6 to 9 years ago. They took great personal risk and leverage their own financial risk and finally they have come to a point about to draw a bigger salary to offset or replenish their savings. They were hoping able to provide more options for their children rather than just with the in-state university. Guess what, they are right in the $250K and I would not consider they are wealthy. These people work hard, took financial risk and all they want is able to provide more options for their family. But now, they are supposed to spread the “wealth”. Two friends were both planning to expand their practice and had actually got the business loan lined up already. Both were planning to hire a few more helpers, now both said why should he carries on to take on additional risk under this kind of situation. Fact or not, many small business owners are scared.
Of course, at the end of the day, people live on for better or worst. And most importantly, USA is not or soon will not be the most “powerful” nation specially if we keep up in a backward trend.
November 24th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
I sincerely hope Barack Obama ls able to lead this country in the right direction. I am concerned that many of us will pay higher taxes to a government that has proven that it can not run programs efficiently. There are many small ” mom & pop” business that net more than $250,000. They will all have to take another look at whether than can still operate when their tax bill goes up with no appreciable benefit to them. If they can’t stay in business, then unemployment will go up, tax revenue to the government will go down and the need for more government spending will rise.
Depending upon your definition, most Europeans don’t live better than we do even though they pay higher taxes. Their children are better educated because their children can go to any school. In the US, where we spend much more per student than in Europe, our students must go to the local public school or we must pay for private school out of our pocket. Barack Obama is sending his girls to a private school in DC , but is not a fan of school vouchers, because he needs the support of teachers unions.
The American dream of a home with a 2-car garage is not available to most Europeans who do not own their own home, nor do many of them own a car. Because many of them live in apartments in cities where mass transit is avaliable, they don’t need a car on a daily basis. This is similar to people who live in Manhattan, NY.
Access to health care in many European countries better, but if you need expensive, and often life saving care, it may be denied by the government beacuse of your age or other conditions. As a result many people die earlier and, by doing so save the government the cost of heroic measures. One way or another, health care is a finite commodity and it will be rationed one way or another.
I guess after living overseas, and having seen the good, the bad and the ugly; I still prefer the US and our system of democratic capitalism, which has given us a standard of living that has made us the envy of the world. The 21st century has already provided us several new challenges that will necessitate that we all support our elected officials and if they don’t produce results, we have the ability to “throw the bums out” just like we did during this past election.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
For several years my husband & I remained unmarried because there was a pretty stiff tax penalty for married filing jointly vs. two singles. Now they are recommending that the itemized deductions be phased out at $250,000 for married filing jointly vs. $200,000 for singles? Surely the phaseout for couples could more closely approximate 2x a single filer!??