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.
Job hoppers may get some of the savings, but only professional occupations see rates change when supply is small. Typically that is 15% of professionals employed in a year, so if we assume they are half the employed, job hoppers here are just 7.5% of all workers. That will not change the equation much of who gets the savings.
Nothing made up-15% number is via many published studies.
By that logic, adding payroll taxes or taking them away wouldnt change wages. Every economist would say that employer payroll taxes and insurance reduce the wages and removing them increases them. Its pretty simple really and very little disagreement among experts on that.
Offering health insurance definitely reduces the wages drastically as it is simply part of the total compensation to the worker. Health insurance cost increases significantly reduces wage growth. Its the same as an employer payroll tax. If you eliminate the payroll taxes, would wages rise do you think?
Not by much, certainly not by the amount of the reduced payroll taxes. Salaries and total comp are based on market demand, not by simple subtraction of expenses from revenue.
By that logic, adding payroll taxes or taking them away wouldnt change wages. Every economist would say that employer payroll taxes and insurance reduce the wages and removing them increases them. Its pretty simple really and very little disagreement among experts on that.
Corporate tax rate just got slashed from 35% to 20%, did every see corresponding increase in salary?
There are many things the company might do with the savings if payroll taxes were reduced. Lower the cost of their products to become more competitive, for one.
Don't tell me what "experts" say. Show me data that bears it out.
You're pretty gullible to think Germans have a say in this matter. The US is an occupying force on their soil. It's not asking Germans for permission, and it's not there to protect Germany from Russia or China - how laughable is that. It's like talking geopolitics with a 6 year old.
This is true. While the U.S. has closed plenty of bases around the world, some will remain open indefinitely for strategic and deterrence purposes.
Not by much, certainly not by the amount of the reduced payroll taxes. Salaries and total comp are based on market demand, not by simple subtraction of expenses from revenue.
No, compensation is based on what they can get away with. If you add new payroll taxes, wages will be reduced and if you remove them they will increase. This is something economists overwhelmingly agree on.
Corporate tax rate just got slashed from 35% to 20%, did every see corresponding increase in salary?
There are many things the company might do with the savings if payroll taxes were reduced. Lower the cost of their products to become more competitive, for one.
Don't tell me what "experts" say. Show me data that bears it out.
If the employer wanted to lower the cost of their products, they would do that whether the payroll tax was there or not. If you simply add an employer payroll tax, the wages will be reduced. The product prices wont increase with the value of the payroll tax. The same is true of private insurance compensation of course. And the increase in the costs of insurance is a big factor in the stagnating wages.
Good point, why can't African countries be more like Germany? Why can't every 2nd and 3rd world country be more like Germany?
If only real life were just as easy as the minds of liberal simpleton thinking.
Actually they can. But economic reforms and change is a threat to any system of power. America is just as well off as Germany overall. Its just a matter of changing the power distribution within the economy. Labor is weak in America. Corporate power is tremendously powerful. That has changed in the past and can change again. When corporate power weakens and labor power increases, it leads to a better deal for ordinary workers.
No, compensation is based on what they can get away with. If you add new payroll taxes, wages will be reduced and if you remove them they will increase. This is something economists overwhelmingly agree on.
"what they can get away with" is essentially the same thing as market demand.
Then economists are wrong because that is not how it works in real life. This isn't a theoretical model. Still waiting on that hard data.
Corporations don't have fixed bucket costs for an employee's total comp. If expenses increase, there will be *pressure* to compensate for it somewhere. That could be in the form of salary reductions or stagnation but in actuality that is rare. How many here have been approached with the bad news of a salary cut because health insurance premiums went up? It is more likely to be in the form of product price increases or increases in production efficiency.
And if expenses decrease, you can bet the company is not committed to making sure the employee gets the full budgeted comp in the form of a pay raise or bonus check in the amount of the savings.
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.
