Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you're digging a bit deep here. Using that logic - you can argue that your employer is actually charging you for the office you sit in, the "free" coffee you get in the AM, the parking spot your car is in, etc. Which they really are. For anyone who has to manage staff budgets, salary is just a component of the total employee cost.
But when I get an offer, I'm not going to demand a bit more because I don't drink coffee....
As one example, there are dozens of threads on this forum debating minimum wage. There are many who argue vehemently that ANY mandated increase in minwage is detrimental and a drag on employment.
Do you really think that eliminating SS would result in a 7.65% (employer portion) raise to minwage earners? Time and again we have seen businesses grab price reductions and add to their bottom line, rather than pass these savings along to consumers, shareholders or employees.
As some examples:
if world oil prices drop, we don't see relief at the pump, but if oil prices increase, the price at the pump goes up.
Microsoft, Google and Apple have a hundred billion or more in cash reserves, yet their dividends are not particularly large.
Manufacturing companies such as GM and Boing demand wage concessions from unions in tough times, yet do not give back in profitable times.
Why would you think that companies would pass on the SS savings rather than bank them?
Suppose Joe is working at McDonalds, and the employer is paying the 7.65% "employer's share" so that he can be kept on staff. This must be a profitable arrangement for the employer, or the employer will let him go. Suppose President Trump says "no more employer's share" and gets a judge to uphold it.
So now the guy is even more profitable for the employer, because the employer decides to keep the 7.65% for himself. So Burger King says, hey we'll give four percent to you, and only keep 3.65 for ourselves. Then Wendy's offers 5% for Joe, and 2.65% for Wendy's, and so on. Eventually the guy winds up with the 7.65%, because that was his original deal, which remember, was profitable for the employer.
But the best argument I can give you is that the CBO uses this assumption. The CBO is one of few gov't institutions that I have faith in. They got crossways with Democrats over Fannie/Freddie prior to the crash of 2008, and now they are crossways with Republicans over 'Trumpcare.'
The employer is required to pay into it, that's all it means. And if you are self-employed you have to pay all of it as a requirement yourself. So when people think they are getting a better deal going 1099 instead of W2, they most likely aren't factoring in that they have to pay all of this themselves, which makes the employer happy.
Vacation days are paid by the employee to if you want to look at it at that, they simply lower the employees salary to offset the vacation days and call it a benefit. This is why I find it laughable when people turn down working as a W2 contractor through a staffing firm because they don't get paid time off, when their hourly rate more than offsets the carrot at the end of the stick vacation.
You guys think the employees would actually see that 15.3% in their pay check if those earned benefits were eliminated?
Haha, really?
Well, the same mentality applies to the notion of cutting off the poor from tax supported relief. People actually believe that wages would now be all theirs-- unencumbered by taxes. WTF??
Well, the same mentality applies to the notion of cutting off the poor from tax supported relief. People actually believe that wages would now be all theirs-- unencumbered by taxes. WTF??
Fact of the matter is, the working people will never recoup the difference unless they can bargain for it. But the vast majority of employers aren't going to just give the difference away.
The employer is required to pay into it, that's all it means. And if you are self-employed you have to pay all of it as a requirement yourself. So when people think they are getting a better deal going 1099 instead of W2, they most likely aren't factoring in that they have to pay all of this themselves, which makes the employer happy.
Vacation days are paid by the employee to if you want to look at it at that, they simply lower the employees salary to offset the vacation days and call it a benefit. This is why I find it laughable when people turn down working as a W2 contractor through a staffing firm because they don't get paid time off, when their hourly rate more than offsets the carrot at the end of the stick vacation.
The only reason they might do this is if they believe that they wont get the time off they want as a contractor due to work loads, senority, etc etc. If they could take off when ever they wanted without fear of retribution or job loss most people would take the contract roll.
But contractors are WAY more exposed to lay off and unfavorable consequences when they start taking random time off.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
