Why your paycheck just shrank

WASHINGTON — Many Americans just received their first paycheck of 2013. That sound you hear is the collective "What the . . . "they have emitted upon looking at their pay stub.

For all the self-congratulatory back-patting from the White House and Congress on the deal that averted the "fiscal cliff" of tax increases — the deal locked in the George W. Bush-era tax cuts for households making under $450,000 — they tended not to mention what the deal did, or rather didn't do, on the payroll tax. A 2 percentage point reduction in the Social Security tax, which hits all American workers, had been enacted at the end of 2010. In the fiscal cliff deal, Congress and President Barack Obama neither extended it further nor agreed on any other policies that might have the similar effect of leaving more money in workers' pockets.

The new rate of 6.2 percent has trimmed paychecks for about half of the 200,000 employees whose paychecks are processed by Advantage Payroll Services, a payroll firm based in Auburn.

The numbers, for anybody who hasn't checked their paycheck yet (or won't get paid in 2013 until later in the month): For someone who makes the U.S. average for private sector workers of $818.69 a week and is paid every other week, that adds up to a reduction of $32.75 in each paycheck. For higher earners, anyone making over $113,700 annually, each bi-weekly paycheck will decline by $87.46.

The increase in payroll taxes has now gone from being an abstraction in Washington policy debates that politicians prefer not to talk about to being something very real.

The big question for the economy as 2013 gets underway is how America will react to their smaller paychecks. It is uncharted waters in many way: For most of the last two decades, taxes have been steadily falling. There is not much evidence for just how much Americans will pare back in response to tighter times and a higher tax burden.

One place to look for evidence is what happened when the payroll tax cut was implemented at the start of 2011. In the first six months of the year, personal consumption spending rose 2.2 percent, though that coincided with a spike in fuel prices tied to unrest in the Middle East, so when adjusted for inflation consumption spending rose only 0.6 percent. (In a way, it turned out to be lucky timing; in effect, the payroll tax break offset the economic drag that came from what turned out to be a temporary bump in oil prices.)

But the open question for the economy in 2013 is whether Americans adjust differently when their paychecks have a tax-induced decline than they did when they received a bump.

In terms of consumer psychology, behavioral economists speak of "loss aversion," a tendency of people to be much more bummed out when they think they have lost something that belonged to them than if they gain it. A child might be much more upset to have a cookie taken away from them than they are happy to be given a cookie.

It is possible that as Americans learn of their lower take-home pay — either from reading news accounts around the fiscal cliff deal last week, or from opening their first paycheck of the year — they will adjust their entire spending plans for the year, which could make January a rough month for retailers and the economy as a whole.

In a new analysis, Goldman Sachs economists ran a number of different economic models to assess the impact of higher taxes from the fiscal cliff deal on the economy in 2013 (the payroll tax is the biggest, but they also included higher income tax rates on households making over $450,000 and some smaller tax provisions that reduce deductions for those making over $250,000). Those different models — Goldman's in-house macroeconomic model, one used by the Federal Reserve, and analysis drawn from work by economists Christina and David Romer examining how consumption patterns have adjusted in the past to changes in tax policy — all find a hit to growth of around one percentage point in the first half of the year. Given that growth has been bouncing around at about 2 percent since the recovery began in 2009, that is a big enough drag to make it feel like another sluggish year.

It was always clear that the payroll tax holiday would have to disappear eventually; keeping it on would endanger the finances of the Social Security system. But the fact that it is disappearing at a time unemployment is still very high, growth is slow, and no other policies such as new infrastructure investment were implemented to try to offset the effects could mean that payday isn't a fun day for American workers.

Information from Reuters was used in this report.

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.



PAUL ST JEAN's picture

"The new rate of 6.2 percent

"The new rate of 6.2 percent has trimmed paychecks".....
It is not a new rate, but the same rate that it was when oBAMa, in 2010, decided to give workers a "tax break" by picking their own FICA pockets to the tune of a 2 percent reduction of the 6.2 percent rate.

No one should be surprised that this "tax break" has ended, as it never should have been employed in the first place. Just more smoke and fairy dust from the oBAMa regime.
Just go back to what you were doing in 2010 and you'll be fine. What's that you say, cost of living in 2013 isn't the same as it was in 2010? Well, just whom do you suppose is responsible for that? No, it isn't Dick Cheney or Haliburton......two more guesses.

Steve  Dosh's picture

Why your paycheck just shrank

Neil 13.01.13 15:30 hst ?
Nice analysis ?
Steve , former http://www.brookings.org analyst

Bob Stone's picture

48% increase

I have been contributing to Social Security for 51 years as of this April. If only the contribution would have been invested, even at 1%, I could retire with 3 or 4 thousand dollars a month in social security. But no, the grubby politicians from both parties couldn't wait to get their hands on my, and everyone elses contributions for all sorts of welfare, foreign aid, B-2 bombers and the like.

This 48% tax increase just helps them continue to stoke their spending habits. Don't delude yourselves that this helps "Save Social Security."

Steve  Dosh's picture

Bob , Sunday 15:45 hst ? How

Bob , Sunday 15:45 hst ?
How old are you ? Be careful or you risk turning in to a cynical and sarcastic old coot like me
Personally , " i believe that children are our future , teach them well and let them lead the way . Show them all the beauty they possess inside . Give them a sense of pride , to make it easier . Let the children's laughter remind us of we used to be • " Whitney Houston , R I P , Feb 12, 2012 ... Singer Whitney Houston is dead at age 48 . h t h http://www.aarp.org/work/retirement-planning/retirement_calculator/ ? , /s, Steve

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

The children are already

The children are already leading the way; they call themselves liberals.


Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...