| |
Simply_Lovely
PeaFixture
PeaNut 463,295
April 2010
Posts: 3,309
Layouts: 3
Loc: New York City
 |  Posted: 1/3/2013 2:30:32 PM
I'm not sure that I know anyone who makes $100,000+ a year. It's just not that common around here. I know that WV has some of the lowest salaries in the country (though the prices don't seem to be any lower) but is $100,000+ pretty standard for everyone else?
Sometimes I think it's easy to forget that, in a lot of jobs or areas, $50,000+ is a high salary. Stretching a $100,000+ salary is probably a lot easier than stretching a salary that's quite a bit lower.
Around here it's not rare at all. But we have one of the highest costs of living in the country.
And stretching $100K is not that easy. When rents/mortgages are $2000+/month, when you have six figure school loans, obscene prices for gas, general bills, and expenses for kids, the money doesn't go that far. Like I said on another thread, making six figures in NYC does not mean you're wiping your butt with dollar bills, far from it. |
 
Meow! | |
|
|
Dancingfish
Ancient Ancestor of Pea
PeaNut 51,456
October 2002
Posts: 14,094
Layouts: 83
Loc: VA
 | Posted: 1/3/2013 2:31:05 PM
$100,000 is comfortable here on the East Coast.
The one thing you have to remember is that many small business owners while they do not LIVE on $200,000+ a year whatever profit their business makes on PAPER is rolled through to their personal taxes. Thus leaving them with huge tax bills to pay.. this is what slows small business growth. And ultimatley hurts those who work for or shop in a small business. |
|
|
shannoninkc
PeaAddict
PeaNut 304,038
March 2007
Posts: 1,357
Layouts: 0
Loc: Where you vacation.
 | Posted: 1/3/2013 2:43:08 PM
I like the people who complain about having to pay the most in increases. Like "hey, I can one up you, I have to pay more!"...Doesn't that mean you make more?
The country is in debt, we need to pay more, we are paying more. Just suck it up and learn to live on less. This includes my family too. It is what it is, so make the adjustments. We want the government to make changes, but we are going to bitch about 80 bucks? 100 bucks, whatever amount? | |
|
obliolait
BucketHead
PeaNut 550,788
April 2012
Posts: 858
Layouts: 0
 | Posted: 1/3/2013 2:51:45 PM
holy shit maybe you shouldn't have bought a bunch of useless crap for christmas.
blame your country's stupid ass wars for your slightly smaller take home pay. don't support war mongering and maybe you'll do a bit better financially.
morons. | |
|
peapermint
Ancient Ancestor of Pea
PeaNut 9,321
January 2001
Posts: 8,603
Layouts: 0
Loc: all up in your business
 | Posted: 1/3/2013 2:59:24 PM
I'm not sure that I know anyone who makes $100,000+ a year.
Where I live in California (Chico), the only people I can think of who make that much are high-level government workers like the superintendent of the school district and the president of the state university. The city manager does, I think. I don't even think the handful of company CEOs in our town make $100,000. Maybe they do. The median FAMILY (not individual) income here is about $52,000. Houses are cheaper than in the big cities, but even the mortgage on our 912-sf house is $1,300 a month.
So, once again, it's all relative 
I just got my pay stub and the SS increase was $36 for the two-week pay period. It's fine by me -- I knew in the back of my head that the cut was temporary, just like when the vehicle license fee was cut, or the renters' credit reinstated, or any of the other things like that that have happened over the years. | |
|
expoedu1
PeaNut
PeaNut 441,182
October 2009
Posts: 360
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 1/3/2013 3:36:45 PM
It's not just standard of living but cost of living that varies across cities, states, and even within an area. In my area, we have pockets where the average household salary is well over $100,000 per year, and others where it's probably less than $25,000 per year. These are within 10 miles of each other.
At one point my sister owned a home that cost $17,000, old Victorian with two bedrooms and three small but gorgeous living areas. (that isn't a mistype: $17,000!) I have a 2300 sq. ft. house that would market right now for $125,000-135,000. My house would cost well over $500,000 in a different city. But, my house is in a neighborhood that's considered "starter homes". There are many houses that are cheaper, but this is considered "average" in my part of town. Where you live makes a huge difference in what is considered a typical salary, an average cost of living, and the cost of housing.
What is considered an "essential" expense changes so much depending on what your paycheck is. As you increase in pay, you get used to a new standard of living. I once lived comfortably on $4,000 a year in college, but I didn't have the expenses that I have now.
It's a big deal to have any cut to pay if you're already living paycheck to paycheck. I've been there, and it's tough. There are a lot of people who may not have noticed the increase in their paychecks when the SSI and Medicare decrease took effect. But losing the money is easy to notice, especially at the beginning of the year when so many other changes to paychecks happen at the same time. The cumulative effect can be surprising, but everyone should really look closely at all of the things that have changed on the pay check. And, make sure you're comparing checks that cover the same # of days. There are so many different ways that pay is done that it can be easy to not compare equal # of days. (e.g., in Dec., my first check was for 10 work days, but the 2nd was for 11 work days)
I thought it was a dumb idea to cut the SSI and Medicare % to stimulate the economy. I thought it was dumb to send checks to everyone to stimulate the economy, like was done twice in the Bush administration.
Cutting the federal budget is, on the one hand, necessary, but it also means cutting jobs...which hurts the economy. A part of the reason that the economy has not completely recovered (but is much better than it was) is the cuts that happened in what are normally stable jobs: teachers, police officers, firemen & women, etc...jobs paid by the state budgets. If the governments (fed and state) were capable of making cuts that didn't impact jobs, that would be awesome. But in a time where they can't even come to an agreement about funding for the damage from Hurricane Sandy, that isn't very likely. | |
|
CTLover1
PeaAddict
PeaNut 5,797
August 2000
Posts: 1,077
Layouts: 0
Loc: WV
| Posted: 1/3/2013 3:46:32 PM
I read an article that said that WV coal miners make $70K straight out of high school. So I would assume someone on the job 30 years is making more?
DH worked in mining but he retired four years ago. Then, even though he was on a higher pay scale than many others, he didn't make anything close to $70,000 and he worked six days a week, ten hours a day, every week. However, DH worked at a union mine and at the time (I'm not sure how it is now) union mines usually paid less because of better insurance and benefits. Of course, that will all be immaterial soon, I think.
The miners who make $70,000 plus usually work at mines that have fewer benefits (sometimes none at all) and no insurance. Also, most work a lot of overtime. Sadly, usually the more dangerous the mine or the nastier the conditions (such as working in 26 inch coal), the higher the pay. It's a horrible job.
Naturally, the cost of gas, groceries, clothes, etc. is basically the same here as anywhere else. An 1800 sq. foot home in a housing development will usually run between $160,000 and $250,000. Here in southern WV, you can buy a super nice house for $500,000 but incomes that are generally in the $50,000 range won't cover those payments. I can't comment on the northern or eastern parts of the state. I believe home prices are higher there.
My sons are engineers and have very well paying jobs for this area but they don't make $100,000, though one is close to that. DIL is a teacher and this is her first year--starting pay was $32,000. Another dil manages a store and probably makes in the $60-75,000 range. My third dil is director of human resources for a state agency and she started out at $42,000.
Hardly anyone in this general area makes over $100,000 a year. | |
|
gma08
PeaNut
PeaNut 547,920
March 2012
Posts: 232
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 1/3/2013 3:58:47 PM
| |
|
*KAS*
Ancient Ancestor of Pea
PeaNut 408,684
January 2009
Posts: 6,746
Layouts: 0
Loc: Georgia girl
 | Posted: 1/3/2013 4:16:04 PM
I know a person who makes a bit less than $50,000, but has had a pay freeze for the last four years. The cost of living has gone up and now another 2 percent? The way he is looking at it, that over the last four years, he now has effectively the buying power of like 8 (now maybe even 10) percent lower than when he started.
That's similar to my position. I didn't get a pay raise for 4 years (auto industry - fun times), and then finally got 3% last year. But with the rise in health insurance (it's gone up every year), food costs, and gas prices, I'm basically 'making less' now than I was a few years ago, which is bizarre. Cost of living has gone up more than 3%, so it was more of a cost of living adjustment than a raise, as far as I see it. I elected to put more in my HSA as well, which reduced my take home pay even further, but obviously that was to my tax / healthcare benefit.
I'm not angry that the SS rate is increasing - I would have preferred it not decrease 4 years ago for a temporary benefit. The $100 or so a month won't leave me hungry or homeless. BUT, it's really annoying to see them raise the rate for a program that's supposed to 'help me,' yet I have no hope that I'll ever see that $$ when I'm of age to get it back. And it's harder to save more NOW when I'm not getting steady pay increases, and my costs are going up.
Just an all around screwed up circle jerk, as far as I can tell. |
***********************
KELLI
Had to delete my old account, but I've been here since July 2006! | |
|
|
~SuburbanMom~
Wannabe FNPea!
PeaNut 82,318
April 2003
Posts: 9,026
Layouts: 35
Loc: In my garden
| Posted: 1/3/2013 4:28:24 PM
I'm not angry that the SS rate is increasing - I would have preferred it not decrease 4 years ago for a temporary benefit. The $100 or so a month won't leave me hungry or homeless.
If you are talking about an extra $100 a month just from the payroll tax increase that means you make $125k per year. Or maybe you mean something else.
If a person makes $25k per year, they will see an increase of $20 per month. | |
|
CreativeEngineer
Ancient Ancestor of Pea
PeaNut 134,808
March 2004
Posts: 6,141
Layouts: 4
Loc: East Coast
 | Posted: 1/3/2013 4:53:02 PM
SuburbanMom, your stats are off somewhere. The max that it is going up from last year is $2425.20 including the 2% rise from last year on $110,100 and the 6.2% on the $3600 that they raised the cap.
Divided by 12 months, that a max possible rise of $202.10 per month. But that assumes that you earn $113,700 equally paid out over 12 months. If you make more, you could see a rise of more than that in the early months before you gap out.
|
|
|
wendy.merrill
PeaNut
PeaNut 450,148
January 2010
Posts: 454
Layouts: 34
Loc: UT
| Posted: 1/3/2013 5:10:54 PM
$60-$80/month isn't a Starbucks coffee (I haven't had a daily pricey coffee habit ever and bristle at the idea that we all have ways we "waste" our money and should be glad the govt is putting it to better use for us.)
That amount is gas, groceries and other necessity for many.
How about the govt does what many have to - cut back in other areas to prioritize expenses?
We don't get to tell our employers we need more income so we will enact a raise. The govt shouldn't either.
Whether we knew it was coming or not I'm not going to mock people with financial concerns.
Thank you! Man, it would be nice to not have to worry about bringing home $80 less a month. For those of us living paycheck to paycheck, it can make a big difference.
However, I agree with this as well:
I'm not angry that the SS rate is increasing - I would have preferred it not decrease 4 years ago for a temporary benefit. The $100 or so a month won't leave me hungry or homeless. BUT, it's really annoying to see them raise the rate for a program that's supposed to 'help me,' yet I have no hope that I'll ever see that $$ when I'm of age to get it back. And it's harder to save more NOW when I'm not getting steady pay increases, and my costs are going up.
Just an all around screwed up circle jerk, as far as I can tell.
It probably wasn't the best idea to cut this program, even temporarily. But like the person above and Mrs. Tyler, I feel like there's not much chance I'll see SS.
Screwed up circle jerk, indeed. | |
|
~SuburbanMom~
Wannabe FNPea!
PeaNut 82,318
April 2003
Posts: 9,026
Layouts: 35
Loc: In my garden
| Posted: 1/3/2013 5:21:35 PM
Creative engineer - well that goes back to my original comment where I said all the articles I'd read said the total increase in paycheck should be $40 per month for every $50k salary and was wondering if people were seeing something different -- and then someone else said well duh that shouldnt be too hard to figure out that it is $40 for every $50k etc etc -- now this is a circular conversation. |
|
|
CreativeEngineer
Ancient Ancestor of Pea
PeaNut 134,808
March 2004
Posts: 6,141
Layouts: 4
Loc: East Coast
| Posted: 1/3/2013 5:34:20 PM
I think it's ~$40 per check for every $50k of salary, assuming most people get paid twice a month or every two weeks.
$50k time 2% is $1000. So that divided by 12 months is $83.33 monthly or $41.67 if you are paid twice a month. And $1000 divided by 26 pay checks (every two weeks) is $38.46.
|
|
|
*KAS*
Ancient Ancestor of Pea
PeaNut 408,684
January 2009
Posts: 6,746
Layouts: 0
Loc: Georgia girl
| Posted: 1/4/2013 10:12:35 AM
If you are talking about an extra $100 a month just from the payroll tax increase that means you make $125k per year. Or maybe you mean something else.
If a person makes $25k per year, they will see an increase of $20 per month.
I unfortunately do not make $125k, but that's not what I read. But this is what MSN says:
Payroll tax cut scheduled to expire. Workers will pay 6.2% of their income into the Social Security system in 2013, up from 4.2% in 2012. The temporary payroll tax cut expires at the end of December under current law.
|
***********************
KELLI
Had to delete my old account, but I've been here since July 2006! | |
|
|
*KAS*
Ancient Ancestor of Pea
PeaNut 408,684
January 2009
Posts: 6,746
Layouts: 0
Loc: Georgia girl
| Posted: 1/4/2013 10:22:26 AM
If you are talking about an extra $100 a month just from the payroll tax increase that means you make $125k per year. Or maybe you mean something else.
If a person makes $25k per year, they will see an increase of $20 per month.
I don't make $125k, but I don't think my figures are far off. That doesn't factor in my additional health insurance costs either. Fun times.
According to MSN:
Payroll tax cut scheduled to expire. Workers will pay 6.2% of their income into the Social Security system in 2013, up from 4.2% in 2012. The temporary payroll tax cut expires at the end of December under current law.
4.2% x salary = X
6.2% x salary = y
y-x = z
z / 12 months = $$ amount less take home pay per month |
***********************
KELLI
Had to delete my old account, but I've been here since July 2006! | |
|
|
Seanna.
PeaFixture
PeaNut 142,904
April 2004
Posts: 3,486
Layouts: 20
Loc: TN
| Posted: 1/4/2013 10:25:07 AM
My husband's paycheck hit today and it was quite a bit lower than usual. First I was like OMG THE FISCAL CLIFF. Then I remembered that we moved our health insurance from my employer to his and did a few other things starting in 2013 that will affect his net pay. For a minute there I was like WHAT?? OMG, though. |
| When I went to edit my signature, the "Edit Signature" title was spelled wrong. So that was distracting and I forgot what I wanted my new signature to be. | |
|
|
melanell
Ancient Ancestor of Pea
PeaNut 26,836
January 2002
Posts: 14,523
Layouts: 86
 | Posted: 1/4/2013 10:56:49 AM
Heard from DH today. Turns out some of his coworkers are annoyed to have the larger SS amount coming out of their checks again. Which is fine.
But DH says that at least 2 of them were extremely vocal when the break first went through about how stupid and pointless it was and how it was too small an amount to even bother with because it certainly wasn't enough to stimulate the economy. (They are paid weekly, so they don't see the change in a chunk as large as others making the same amount, but paid by-weekly or monthly would see.)
So back then it was too small of an amount to even bother giving us, but now it's too much to have withheld from our pay. Go figure, huh? |
|
|
CreativeEngineer
Ancient Ancestor of Pea
PeaNut 134,808
March 2004
Posts: 6,141
Layouts: 4
Loc: East Coast
| Posted: 1/4/2013 10:59:33 AM
My check is $130 less today. I don't have my statement yet to see why but I haven't really changed much of anything.
Unless you're Bill Gates or Warren Buffett that smarts no matter how much you plan for it or expect it.  |
|
|
melanell
Ancient Ancestor of Pea
PeaNut 26,836
January 2002
Posts: 14,523
Layouts: 86
| Posted: 1/4/2013 11:03:15 AM
Thank you! Man, it would be nice to not have to worry about bringing home $80 less a month. For those of us living paycheck to paycheck, it can make a big difference.
I can totally see how it makes a difference, but I am still stuck on the fact that people who are "losing" the $80 now also managed to do without it prior to the cut in the first place.
So they aren't "losing" something now, but instead had something "extra" for all of those paychecks when the cut was in place. If $80 a month does make a big difference to a household, then it seems that having that extra amount for so long should have been a blessing to be grateful for for as long as it lasted. |
|
|
CreativeEngineer
Ancient Ancestor of Pea
PeaNut 134,808
March 2004
Posts: 6,141
Layouts: 4
Loc: East Coast
| Posted: 1/4/2013 11:08:28 AM
Because circumstances change. Two years ago, I wasn't carrying DD's mortgage. Now I am. It was nice to have an "extra" $260 a month to offset some of her mortgage.
We'll be fine without it, but it means spending less on other things. I'll be looking to cut groceries, utilities, gas, hobby spending, eating out, etc because I will NOT cut savings or retirement. So less money in the economy. <shrug> |
|
|
melanell
Ancient Ancestor of Pea
PeaNut 26,836
January 2002
Posts: 14,523
Layouts: 86
| Posted: 1/4/2013 11:08:51 AM
My check is $130 less today. I don't have my statement yet to see why but I haven't really changed much of anything.
Unless you're Bill Gates or Warren Buffett that smarts no matter how much you plan for it or expect it.
I agree that any time your paycheck is lower it stinks.
I know our insurance premiums changed as of the 1st of the year, too. So the change we see in our checks will be the combination of the 2 things, not just the return to old SS percentage.
I don't have the numbers yet, but I remember when our checks went up, and the amount wasn't that much for us on a weekly basis, which is how we budget. So losing the amount isn't going to really hurt. It will mean a bit less to spend, of course, but it won't make us worry.
|
|
|
writermom1
Thrift Whisperer
PeaNut 114,407
November 2003
Posts: 22,327
Layouts: 66
Loc: At the intersection of Hooterville and Stars Hollow
| Posted: 1/4/2013 11:11:03 AM
Mellanel re: the $80 lost then found and how people afforded it prior to the cuts.
Things cost more now. I know my grocery budget is higher as are some utilities.
I think people absorbed it into household budgets.
Regardless the cut was intended to boost spending. I don't see why we admit our economy counts on spending and debt - then hand slap (not you but in a general sense) when they actually do so.
I think the time to curb govt spending is long past but it's difficult to figure out what to cut. Everything hurts someone and none of us want that.
|
|
|
melanell
Ancient Ancestor of Pea
PeaNut 26,836
January 2002
Posts: 14,523
Layouts: 86
| Posted: 1/4/2013 11:12:07 AM
So less money in the economy.
I think that's how it will be for many people, including us. And that makes sense since the whole point of the cut (as ridiculous as I think it was in the first place)was to put extra money into the economy. So it makes sense that if I wasn't putting X dollars into spending then, that I likely won't be doing it now, either. 
Like you said, I'm certainly not going to adjust the savings portion of our budget. It will be the spending. |
|
|
melanell
Ancient Ancestor of Pea
PeaNut 26,836
January 2002
Posts: 14,523
Layouts: 86
| Posted: 1/4/2013 11:17:14 AM
Things cost more now. I know my grocery budget is higher as are some utilities.
I know. I see it here as well. I just figure that if the cut had never happened, I still would have found a way to deal with the increases, and now it's time for me to do just that.
It's not fun, but ultimately, I really think they never should have cut it at all, so I don't feel like I can complain about the return to the previous rate. So temporarily (you know, until I reach the age to benefit from social security and there's not a dime left to give me) they gave me a way to deal with the higher cost of living and have a bit more wiggle room than we have now.
I can still deal with it, but I have to wiggle in a tighter spot. |
|
|
melanell
Ancient Ancestor of Pea
PeaNut 26,836
January 2002
Posts: 14,523
Layouts: 86
| Posted: 1/4/2013 11:18:59 AM
it's really annoying to see them raise the rate for a program that's supposed to 'help me,' yet I have no hope that I'll ever see that $$ when I'm of age to get it back.
I hear you.  |
|
|
CreativeEngineer
Ancient Ancestor of Pea
PeaNut 134,808
March 2004
Posts: 6,141
Layouts: 4
Loc: East Coast
| Posted: 1/4/2013 11:30:52 AM
I console myself by pretending that what I pay to SS is going to my parents.
I know SS will be there when I retire. No politician is brave enough to eliminate it totally. But I think it will be much less than promised. DH and I call it "movie and popcorn money" because it's likely that that's all it will be good for. |
|
|
Pea-T-A-Mom
Scrapmaven is stalkin my Kitteh!
PeaNut 159,334
July 2004
Posts: 13,471
Layouts: 0
Loc: Left Coast
 | Posted: 1/4/2013 11:26:48 PM
In California, the Vehical licensing fees were lowered by the legislature, unless the tax receipts became too low, in that event, they were triggered by law to increase to their former level.
That happened during Governor Gray Davis' term, and the anti tax people vilified Gray Davis as a tax and spend politition. Even though it was an automatic return to the previous tax level.
Gray Davis was put out of office by a recall election, where Arnold Swarzennegar, the most known name on the ballot, won by the tiniest margin ever, due to the fact Tha there were over 100 names on the ballot. He promptly lowered the licensing fees.
As it turns out, if the licensing fees had been restored to their previous level as dictated by the legislature ... Oh, sorry, they were ..
As it turns out, if the restored fees were to be allowed, rather than be redacted under the Governator, many of the school cuts in California could have been avoided.
Gov Brown won some tax increases with prop 30, but so much has been cut, that this is just a bandaid |
~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~
Bethcatlin on Draw Something | |
|
|
*KAS*
Ancient Ancestor of Pea
PeaNut 408,684
January 2009
Posts: 6,746
Layouts: 0
Loc: Georgia girl
| Posted: 1/4/2013 11:30:31 PM
I can totally see how it makes a difference, but I am still stuck on the fact that people who are "losing" the $80 now also managed to do without it prior to the cut in the first place.
For the same reason that they always say 'more money, more problems.' When you make more, you spend more. So you've adjusted for the past several years to what your paycheck, now they are 'taking it away again.' It's a lot easier to adjust to spending more money than less.
If you want a real life example, I took on a grad school student loan since then. So my expenses are higher than they were before the previous break. So I 'lose' the $100/month now, but gained a payment about triple the amount, that I never paid at the 6.2% rate before...it's always been when 4.2% was taken out of my paycheck.
(and again, this won't make me homeeless, hungry or default on my student loan...I'm just saying that there are a variety of reasons that this increase affects people in big ways. |
***********************
KELLI
Had to delete my old account, but I've been here since July 2006! | |
|
|
twinsmom-fla99
PeaFixture
PeaNut 203,642
May 2005
Posts: 3,358
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 1/5/2013 12:49:29 PM
I'm not sure that I know anyone who makes $100,000+ a year. It's just not that common around here. I know that WV has some of the lowest salaries in the country (though the prices don't seem to be any lower) but is $100,000+ pretty standard for everyone else?
I live in Morgantown, and there are MANY people who make that much and more. But I grew up in a small town in the OH Valley, and you would be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of plant managers who make 6 figures. Even doctors and dentists don't fare all that well in those towns.
There isn't a huge difference in housing prices in Morgantown compared to central VA where we lived before moving. Yes, it is a little less expensive, and you can find some great bargains, but overall, the main difference in prices is attributable to a lack of neighborhoods that have amenities such as pools and parks that end up costing more.
Where we do see a big difference is in lower property taxes, but that is offset somewhat by the higher gasoline taxes. Give with one hand, take with the other, KWIM?
Charleston and Huntington are probably similar to Morgantown, and I would guess the highest salaries would be found in Charleston. But outside of the "big cities" (big for WV, that is LOL), if you want a "good" job, you have to look at mining or manufacturing, and in recent years, natural gas production.
I read an article that said that WV coal miners make $70K straight out of high school. So I would assume someone on the job 30 years is making more?
If it a union job, you get paid the same as a beginner as you would with 30 years experience. (At least that's how it was when my friends from high school were entering the mines.) To get the $70K salary usually requires a lot of overtime, so the potential is there, but it isn't guaranteed.
Also bear in mind that mine operators have been notorious for temporary closings that leave everyone without a paycheck for months at a time. I remember friends who were getting the high hourly wages when they worked, but the number of hours they worked were so low that their annual wages were half of what they could have earned. I do think they qualified for unemployment for the weeks they weren't working, but that wasn't much compared to what they were used to bringing in. Those families just learned to budget for the lean times and save while the overtime was available. You couldn't alwasy predict when the mines would be operating and when they wouldn't. I think it mostly depended on the customer demand for the coal--if they didn't have a buyer for it, they didn't mine it and store it. They would wait until there was demand again. | |
|
paulaj3266
PeaNut
PeaNut 356,581
January 2008
Posts: 214
Layouts: 1
 | Posted: 1/5/2013 5:39:53 PM
I am surprised that so many people are getting hit with this deduction so early. I would think if companies pay weekly, that today you would be getting paid for the last week in 2012. Then, even though the money is paid to you in 2013, the company would do an accrual and the payment would still be reported on the 2012 taxes. So why would they already start taking out the 2% SS money on 2012 earnings?
Maybe some of the increases in your deductions are for prepaid expenses, such as medical. | |
|
anmore
AncestralPea
PeaNut 56,372
November 2002
Posts: 4,890
Layouts: 0
Loc: Buffalo, NY
| Posted: 1/5/2013 6:17:23 PM
Payroll is cash basis to the employees - the day you are paid, you check reflects the tax rates on the PAY DATE, not for the PAY PERIOD.
|
NSBR: Not for sissies.
If you don't like gay marriage blame straight people. They're the ones who keep having gay babies! | |
|
|
