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.
True, but the employer should be charged SS & Medicare on a pre deduction , not post deduction basis. Otherwise, for every $100k extra they charge employers for Health Care, they reduce their payroll taxes another $7,650.
I hear ya. The same goes for income taxes. The employee doesn't have to pay income taxes on their benefits. That's a lot if missed taxes as well. The employees should have to pay income taxes on the benefits of healthcare, etc.
I agree, I'd like all benes to be taxed, with rates reduced to make total collected revenue neutral. That way, folks with Caddy benes pay more, and those with lousy medical plans pay less. But each is getting fairly taxed proportinate to the total value received. Corp jets should be taxed at equivalent jet size seat revenue added to the executives taxable salary. (So if its the size of a 48 seater, tax him at 48 * whatever commercial 1st class full rate would be per seat)
I agree, I'd like all benes to be taxed, with rates reduced to make total collected revenue neutral. That way, folks with Caddy benes pay more, and those with lousy medical plans pay less. But each is getting fairly taxed proportinate to the total value received. Corp jets should be taxed at equivalent jet size seat revenue added to the executives taxable salary. (So if its the size of a 48 seater, tax him at 48 * whatever commercial 1st class full rate would be per seat)
That calculation makes no sense. Why not just tax at actual cost? And it would have to be only for personal use.
That when your employer asks you to do something, the only answer is "Yes". If you happen to give any answer besides yes, there is a 20 year wait period until it won't be held against you anymore
Not sure how you would have a problem with someone borrowing money from a bank to start a business. .
Let me see if I can rephrase your above post back into the OP.
Since employees work at the employers home field, so to speak, employers have the home court avantage. This thread was intended to even the playing field
The OP stated: An employer doesn't want their employee(s) to know that the only way the company was able to be funded is through inheritence or a bank loan. This also means there was never enough money in the first place to start the business. If the bank decides to discontinue or reduce the employer's funding, employees may lose their jobs. These employees will do anything to keep their jobs, while at the same time, their employer will do anything to keep the bank happy to keep their business going. I beleive most employees are not aware of this dynamic.
This post was intended for the employed (and unemployed) to educate each other about the trouble, dangers and pitfalls we know and have experienced firsthand and by word of mouth, about employers. For those fair and just employers reading this post, please ignore, it does not apply to you. We employees in the trenches know the real story. Please feel free to start an employer post about employees!
I beleive that most employees do not kknow that the only way the business is in operation is because the employer had to hold their hand out to get money from a bank, the same way that employees hold their hand out to get money from the employer.
Receiving money from granpa's inheritance and then starting a company requires no special talent. One poster once said it's easier to start a business than it is to get a job!
Either way, the employer did not work for those funds, but rather, came about them rather easily, which anyone who so chose, could do. The company did not come about from the owner(s) own hard work, ability or acheivement, but rather, they took a shortcut and yet still demand the accolades of one who took the hard road and earned it though talent, energy and perserverence.
that they're subtly threatenng you with your job when you won't take out the garbage because you were really hired to handle accounts.
that you can yell back.
that they feel like they own you.
that there are relatives wthin the company.
that there's a keylogger on your computer which means you can type (but not save) things into your computer such as, "Burton Ernie, you're a few clowns short of a circus".
Let me see if I can rephrase your above post back into the OP.
Since employees work at the employers home field, so to speak, employers have the home court avantage. This thread was intended to even the playing field
The OP stated: An employer doesn't want their employee(s) to know that the only way the company was able to be funded is through inheritence or a bank loan. This also means there was never enough money in the first place to start the business. If the bank decides to discontinue or reduce the employer's funding, employees may lose their jobs. These employees will do anything to keep their jobs, while at the same time, their employer will do anything to keep the bank happy to keep their business going. I beleive most employees are not aware of this dynamic.
This post was intended for the employed (and unemployed) to educate each other about the trouble, dangers and pitfalls we know and have experienced firsthand and by word of mouth, about employers. For those fair and just employers reading this post, please ignore, it does not apply to you. We employees in the trenches know the real story. Please feel free to start an employer post about employees!
I beleive that most employees do not kknow that the only way the business is in operation is because the employer had to hold their hand out to get money from a bank, the same way that employees hold their hand out to get money from the employer.
Receiving money from granpa's inheritance and then starting a company requires no special talent. One poster once said it's easier to start a business than it is to get a job!
Either way, the employer did not work for those funds, but rather, came about them rather easily, which anyone who so chose, could do. The company did not come about from the owner(s) own hard work, ability or acheivement, but rather, they took a shortcut and yet still demand the accolades of one who took the hard road and earned it though talent, energy and perserverence.
Literally nothing that you said here was true or made sense. Most people don't start businesses with inherited money.
And I still have no idea why you would be mad at someone who borrows money to start a business. Especially if you think anyone could do it. Because if that's the case, why don't you do it?
Quite frankly, all of you just sound like people who aren't happy with where you are in life, and are looking for excuses to make you feel better.
Actually the reason drug testing is done is the employer is a supplier to the government or a regulated firm that requires anyone doing business with them to do it.
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.
