@Joyce Senior We are not considering those Social Security taxes levied against employers, which must be paid for each employee individually, based on their salary or pay scale. This is an out and out tax violation which works against the premise that businesses are separate entities from the government, and therefore deserve impartial consideration. Frank
So do I, Marie. I can hardly imagine myself living in the climate they're going to be inheriting if things continue the way they are!
Yes, these are taxes that employers pay; but in the long run they actually come out of salaries. If employers didn't have to pay those, it would be possible for them to pass that money on in the way of wages. But that, too, is a socialistic policy as are schools and roads. I use roads, but I don't have children and so haven't used schools (property and state taxes) for them (although my parents did use schools for me; and, for full disclosure, I used state tax money to attend undergraduate school as I went to a state university). What do you mean by a "tax violation?" A violation of what? I'm confused.
@Joyce Senior First, I personally doubt any employer would increase wages to salaries if levies like S/S taxes, and Unemployment Compensation Taxes, were reduced or non-existent. An employer's most important consideration is PROFIT and revenue, not employees' welfare (namely, levelof pay) Second, I guess I meant the morality of such taxation. Frank
Speaking of Ayn Rand, did you ever see the movie made from her book "The Fountainhead"? Gary Cooper plays a heroic part in that flick. Hal
It's supply and demand, Frank; if a few employers in a given industry started it, the others would have to follow. Why haven't employers in many industries been paying no more than they have had to by law to both low skilled and skilled labor so as to maximize profits? The answer is that people would find other options. But the point isn't if they were to stop paying benefits now; the point is that if they never had to pay them, the pay scales probably would have grown up differently. When I was in business, I did what just about all other businesses were doing. I looked at my costs; I looked at my revenue; and I looked at the amount of profit I wanted the business to make. Then, I looked around at the pay scales of workers doing the same types of jobs in the area. Taking all of that into consideration, I made my decision on salaries. If my costs had been less, and if everyone else's costs had been less, we'd all probably have been paying more because otherwise we'd have lost workers to any company that did. I'm not talking about a few cents; I'm talking the amount in taxes and insurance that are mandated. Morality is in the eye of the beholder
@Joyce Senior Mostly true in and of generalities. However, consider this statement of fact: "U.S. Census information from 2008 identified a total of 27,281,452 businesses in the United States. The number of businesses operated by proprietors with no employees numbered 21,351,320. Add to this the number of businesses having fewer than 500 employees and the number of small businesses comes to 27,262,983. Subtract this number from the total number of businesses identified by the census and reach the total number of businesses with more than 500 employees: 18,586. It turns out that calculating all businesses up to 1,500 employees makes no substantial difference in the percentage calculations. Small business amounts to 99 percent of businesses in the United States." Here we are using data based on government prerequisites; their definition of small business is one having up to 500 employees. We are lacking totally individuals self-employed: "According to the latest figures released by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), as of August 2021, the number of self-employed people in the US is 10.253 million." Boiling this down, I see businesses with many employees as being concerned more vitally about payroll increases than the very small businesses. "The average pay per employee for very small business with 20 employees or less was $36,912, according to the research. For small firms with 20 to 99 employees, it was $40,417. At medium-sized firms it was $44,916. And at large companies it was $52,554. Pay for senior level employees would likely be significantly higher. Let’s say you get the average raise projected by Mercer, the global talent consultancy, for each of those years: 3%. If you start out at a very small firm at the average pay of $36,912, you will be making $49,606.64 in a decade. Take a job at a small business at a base pay of $40,417, and you will be making $54,317.07 in 10 years. Accept the average pay at a midsize firm and you’ll move from $44,916 to $60,363.35. Start at a big company and you’ll see your pay jump from $52,554 to $70,628.18. See: https://www.ivyexec.com/career-advice/2015/do-big-companies-pay-more-than-small/ The argument over small employer vs large raged in conversations I heard as a kid growing up. My own father disdained labor unions to the extent he went out of his way to secure non-union work; he was a skilled Tool & Die Maker. Frank
My husband worked in a factory for decades. The most he ever earned was $13 hr plus healthcare. Today the company is paying incoming employees starting pay of $20!. I was dismayed. Our pension is never going up and is being payed proportionately to his hourly wage. the company has also sold the pension product to an insurance company which may or may not survive. I had dealings with an insurance company that went under that the pension buyer bought. Anyway, Social Security is in question and our pension will not increase with inflation. I still feel comfortable with my skills and what I have. But wth? But then I was told, the new people are getting that big starting hourly wage with no idea that they are responsible for getting their act together and taking care of themselves. Now, that doesn't seem fair.
No. I read the book and I never both read a book and see the movie. Well, not never... I did it twice. I saw "Exodus" after reading the book and was very disappointed. I also saw "The Da Vinci Code" because I'd been to the Louvre and wanted to see the pyramids they'd put into the courtyard years later. They didn't show the pyramids. Also, in the book the most important, very strong person was the woman; in the movie they made her into a "nothing." There were a lot of other serious changes to the book regarding the plot. No, I don't do both. (sigh)
Okay, but I'm missing something. I don't see how this relates to what we were discussing. Can you please clarify?
I agree that the system is really broken. But this would require a complete revamping, not just a nick and a tuck. The parts all have to fit together; pulling one part out or changing one part or adding one thing will only make the whole thing worse.
@Mary Stetler Your husband was a victim of circumstance, as we all are. He was born too early to enjoy today's higher wages, as we all were. But, the erosion of the dollar's value is also important. Frank
@Joyce Senior Sure. We were considering supply and demand (which you mentioned) as governing wage scales. I maintain that other factors in play influence wages much more succinctly. Maybe I'm wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. Frank
That's what ALL changes do -- no matter who is doing it. But there's really no help for it. There's absolutely no way that the whole system can be overhauled at one time.