re: I'm taking legal action against the Office of Motor Vehicles

tell that to to st george people, they are raising taxes on themselves but dont even know it

quote:

---

tell that to to st george people, they are raising taxes on themselves but dont even know it

---

The majority of people who voted in the recent election voted, in part, to raise taxes on themselves. Tariffs, which I for one fully support, are nothing if not a form of taxation that will cause prices to increase. The offsetting stability in the job market and creation of jobs that pay a wage that allows people to support themselves is more than enough for me to pay more for shite but to suggest it will not increase direct costs is just wrong. It will decrease indirect costs....fewer people relying on the dole to make their nut...but there is no free lunch that I am aware of....

quote:

---

quote:
It ALL comes from the salary of the employee...


You sure about that?

---

Absolutely. When you are considering a new employee all costs associated with said employee has to be accounted for and weighed against what revenue the new employee will add. An employer who fails to do this is going to be in for quite a shock. Every penny it costs to employee someone comes from the same place....the revenue of the employer. Every penny of that cost has to be accounted for in the revenue of the employer.

quote:

---

You are mixing up two different things.

I have employees. I pay them a salary from which their portion of SS and Medicare is deducted. I also have to match that amount. That match is not deducted from their salary.

In the end, is it all a part of the cost of the employee to the employer? Yes. But only half is deducted from "the salary of the employee."

---

So if suddenly a magic wand was waved and you had no responsibility to "contribute" the matching portion you would pay them that much more or would you reduce your prices to your customers? Mayhap change nothing but your own bottom line?


I too have owned a business and had employees. I shudder at the thought today but I wasn't as wise then as I am now. I never took a penny of MY money and paid them or someone else on their behalf with it. Every penny it cost me to employee them came out of what I budgeted for an employee and they either earned it and some for me or they were laid off. I didn't fire them, to easy to lay them off, never impacted my UEI rate which was also paid for out of their labor

By any definition in any English language dictionary "gross wages" is defined as something along the lines of "the total amount an employee earns as compensation for services performed for an employer prior to any payroll deductions". The key word is "earned". They must earn the employer's "contribution" amount or the employer is losing money on the employee. If, however, the employer is mismanaging their business and actually paying the employee in any form more than the employee is earning the employer then yes, the employer is contributing to the salary of the employee out of their pocket. This is unwise and unsustainable and any business who plans to do it as a regular way to do business is being mismanaged.

The confusion arises via the IRS who defines gross wages as "All wages, salaries and tips you received for performing services as an employee of an employer" then, in an ironic and typically bureaucratic twist does not include the "employer contribution" in gross wages despite the fact that it is, indeed and without question, money the employee received for performing services as an employee of an employer....if the employee performs NO services the employee is not responsible for any "contribution". No matter who sends the money to SS it is, at the end of the day, money. It is, at the end of the day the employee earned performing services as an employee to an employer. We can call it Aunt Sandy but it is and always will be the entire wages paid to an employee by an employee for services performed as a an employee of an employer. With the services there is NO wages, or shouldn't be....unless of course the employer is mismanaging their business.

quote:

---

for an employee to make economic sense their production needs to match or exceed the cost of their wages, ss and medicare match, unemployment insurance, benefits, supplies, utilities, etc, etc, etc. According to your logic then utilities would be considered deducted from the employee's wages.

---

All of the costs directly attributable to an individual employee is part of "the amount an employee earns as compensation for services performed for an employer", or the definition of gross wages. All benefits, all statutory requirements related to paying someone who is an employee by definition are wages. We do not call them wages because it allows employers to pretend it is some sort of different "benefit". Some employers claim workers comp is a benefit - attend a Chamber breakfast and casually mention it not being, you will find a sizeable number of employers consider such statutory expenses a benefit that they are "providing" their employees. Given that an employee MUST produce more revenue than their entire cost of employment, it does not matter if they see the amount of their paycheck or not, they are, by definition, "the amount an employee earns as compensation for services performed for an employer". If there is no service performed there are NO expenses, if there is a service performed there are expenses and by definition ALL of those are gross wages.

quote:

---

Oh my dear Lord, you are just as stubborn and devoted to being “right” as the OP.

And that devotion has led you down a rabbit hole of wrongness that’s almost as funny as the OP’s journey into delusion.

---

I'm just waiting on him to come triple down on this... it's entertaining to say the least.

quote:

---

Jesus Christ man, it’s payroll taxes. Yes that gets factored into overall expenses, but it’s not the wage of the employee. It’s coming out of my pocket. I would gladly bump all of my employees pay if payroll taxes were eliminated.

---

This is EXACTLY why the employer "portion" of payroll taxes has always been called the employer "portion". It can and is seen as an expense related to having an employee completely detached from the costs of having an employee....it can and has been used for years by employers to pretend as if they are doing something out of the goodness of their heart, that the money is coming out of "their pocket". This is the answer....where does the money the employer considers wages come from? The same pocket....there is only one pocket....it is filled by revenue and the employer pays expenses out of it and if there is any left over its the employers. A smart employee will have some of that revenue in a money clip, earmarked for certain expenses, but all of those clips are in the only pocket that exists, that of the employer.

quote:

---

I would gladly bump all of my employees pay if payroll taxes were eliminated.

---

This is EXACTLY why the employer "portion" are wages. An employer would be forced by market forces to pay the employee the "employer's portion" because their competition would most likely do so driving the market rate for a comparable employee to the total amount. This is not the case of a decrease across the market in utility costs, for example. That savings would be passed onto the consumer by the industry having lower production costs. Or an employer may pocket that money, but most likely competitors would lower their prices to gain market share and everyone in the market would follow their lead. You certainly would not put that utility cost savings on the employees pay check, you likely would do so if the employers "portion" of payroll taxes were eliminated because it is already wages, by definition.

quote:

---

As bad as these Tik Tok libs crying on social media about Trump winning. Just fishing for attention.

---

Aren’t you a white dude for Harris though?

quote:

---

I'm just waiting on him to come triple down on this... it's entertaining to say the least.

---

Rare to have a second thread emerge within an original thread with just as much idiocy on a completely different topic.