Here come the tax hikes

You thought is that the company would not pay the employees that tax were it to be dropped but instead bank it. Originally Posted by WTF

No, most of the cost of payroll taxes, and in your example insurance, is passed onto the consumer in the form of higher prices. Some is absorbed by the employer, whose profits are reduced. Vox's argument that it should be added onto the tax burden of the employee, in order to show the tax system is less progressive, is ridiculous.

"disguised as pulling people up " The progressives only want to h "hold down the masses" think 1984 in action .

i'm going out on a limb here but...

MOST... though, in these times, it could just be MANY..

economists consider the payroll tax a cost that reduces employment

that position holds great sway with me based on long experience and observation

if the tax is one paid by someone other than the employer, why would it have any effect on employment?

employer payroll taxes reduce employment, raises in the minimum wage reduce employment, benefits reduce employment

but does the payroll tax assessed employees reduce employment?

I would think not

ergo, the tax is a cost to employ someone, and not a cost borne by those employed

and like all costs incurred by the employer, must be passed on to the customer in some manner, or there will be no employer

it then seems a rather simple matter that the employer portion is paid, incurred by, due from, charged to, and imposed upon the employer

now many employers, both large and pequeno, try to pass that cost on to the employee by treating them as self employed contractors

as I seem to recall, wtf is well versed in that ploy

.

I just took a quick glance at the earlier posts, but didn't see the Vox article stating that the employer's share of the payroll tax is actually borne by employees. However, if it did so, I believe it's absolutely correct. In fact, maybe ten years ago I read in a piece written by someone whose opinion I respect that this is one of the few issues on which there's near-consensus agreement by economists of all stripes.

Tax incidence is actually determined my markets, not legislative fiat. The apportionment of payroll tax incidence is determined by the huge disparity in employee/employer elasticities of supply and demand for labor.

A good brief summary:

https://taxfoundation.org/what-are-p...who-pays-them/

This sleight-of-hand was thought up by some unknown person(s) many decades ago to make the tax burden on employees appear lighter than it actually is.

(Nothing like transparency from government, eh?)

.

i'm going out on a limb here ...

now many employers, both large and pequeno, try to pass that cost on to the employee by treating them as self employed contractors

as I seem to recall, wtf is well versed in that ploy Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Once again, you swing and miss.

Just ask yourself, who pays for example the suspended FICA tax, was it the employee or employer? I'll give you a hint...the answer does not have a r in it.

Next, classifying contractors has a formula one has to follow. For instance say in a case where someone builds a few houses a year...what idiot would hire a full time plumber for basically 2 weeks work. I already know the idiots who think that is wtf one would do but nobody in their right mind would do that.

You might need a plumber full time to unclog all the bs you spew but everyone else just hires a plumber to fix their shitter, pays his fee and let's him sort out his taxes.

And you're not out on a limb, your out on a chopping block

Pudding an chief is the nefarious jobs ender , they want to erase big t but have nothing to replace that's workable just brilliance

Hey tiny, you're working too hard. Why don't you just dumb it all down for wtf the way I did a few years ago with this lunch metaphor.

Then you can sit back and watch his fucking head explode!

https://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p...4&postcount=16 Originally Posted by lustylad

How about CM dumb it down for your arrogant ass

.

I just took a quick glance at the earlier posts, but didn't see the Vox article stating that the employer's share of the payroll tax is actually borne by employees. However, if it did so, I believe it's absolutely correct. In fact, maybe ten years ago I read in a piece written by someone whose opinion I respect that this is one of the few issues on which there's near-consensus agreement by economists of all stripes.

Tax incidence is actually determined my markets, not legislative fiat. The apportionment of payroll tax incidence is determined by the huge disparity in employee/employer elasticities of supply and demand for labor.

A good brief summary:

https://taxfoundation.org/what-are-p...who-pays-them/

This sleight-of-hand was thought up by some unknown person(s) many decades ago to make the tax burden on employees appear lighter than it actually is.

(Nothing like transparency from government, eh?)

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

How about CM dumb it down for your arrogant ass Originally Posted by WTF

I'm not going to argue with CaptainMidnight because I know I'll lose. If the subject were something like the best hooker bar south of the border it would be different. But if we're talking about economics I'm toast.

I believe Midnight said something to the effect of we've got the most progressive tax system in the developed world. And I specifically remember him posting a graph showing how the tax system is very regressive in France, and very progressive in the USA.

In other words, I'd be very surprised if CaptainMidnight would have an argument with the WSJ parable.

I'm not going to argue with CaptainMidnight because I know I'll lose. If the subject were something like the best hooker bar south of the border it would be different. But if we're talking about economics I'm toast.

I believe Midnight said something to the effect of we've got the most progressive tax system in the developed world. And I specifically remember him posting a graph showing how the tax system is very regressive in France, and very progressive in the USA.

In other words, I'd be very surprised if CaptainMidnight would have an argument with the WSJ parable. Originally Posted by Tiny

Our Federal tax system is very progressive.

I do not want to speak for him but that would be my guess as to wtf he was talking about.

Were aspd still alive....you'd be able to pull up post about me arguing this same point a decade age if not longer. We have a very progressive Federal tax system and we have very regressive state and local taxes.

So you have to know exactly which tax you are talking about....our system is choked full of both. So him saying our Federal tax system is very progressive and FICA is very regressive are in fact true.

Our Federal tax system is very progressive.

I do not want to speak for him but that would be my guess as to wtf he was talking about.

Were aspd still alive....you'd be able to pull up post about me arguing this same point a decade age if not longer. We have a very progressive Federal tax system and we have very regressive state and local taxes.

So you have to know exactly which tax you are talking about....our system is choked full of both. So him saying our Federal tax system is very progressive and FICA is very regressive are in fact true. Originally Posted by WTF

I don't remember whether he was talking about federal or federal and state combined. Overall, state and federal, and including at least half of social security and FICA, we probably have the most progressive of the OECD countries. Or at least that's what an OECD economist came up with.

Pudding and chief cant answer live questions tech problems yeah okay ,,,,,, and Jen Jen circle jerking back around hasn't answered a question yet now the 1400 are in question , 9% of the bill is for COVID can anyone answer where the rest is going ??????????????

Pudding and chief cant answer live questions tech problems yeah okay ,,,,,, and Jen Jen circle jerking back around hasn't answered a question yet now the 1400 are in question , 9% of the bill is for COVID can anyone answer where the rest is going ?????????????? Originally Posted by rexdutchman

Who cares....we will just print more money.

higher taxes

Higher spending in teh $Trillions
Pork, pork , and more pork in teh DPST bills

DPST initiatives everywhere to stifle free speech, cancel any Conservative media outlets, and re-education in concentration camps for over 100 million conservatives, caucasians, and anyone outside the DPST political narrative.



'w' - when they come for You, ///// - you will also be cancelled!



Happy - 'w' - with your Trump hate?????

higher taxes

????? Originally Posted by oeb11

Where....please point to the higher taxes.

Where....please point to the higher taxes. Originally Posted by WTF

It's actually in the Dim platform.
But, yeah, lets find a politician that will introduce that.

Seriously, any govt program has a cost. Social programs become embedded resulting in a huge cost.

So, let's just print money.
Btw, inflation is easily noticeable in the manufacturing sectors.