3 ms·
Not at all. The incentives behind an income tax don't change based on whether they're paid on the employee's side or the employer's side. If you're an employe
by SamReidHughes 10y ago
Not at all. The incentives behind an income tax don't change based on whether they're paid on the employee's side or the employer's side. If you're an employee that costs 5% more to hire, you're going to get paid less.
(Unless the idea is that taxes should be based on whether or not a job posting requires a degree. But that would be silly, because employers could omit the education requirement from the job posting but still hire the best candidates, or have the need for a credential be taken for granted via codewords like "engineer.")
- maxerickson 10y agoThe incentives for roles where the credential is reasonable don't change. The incentives for the roles where the credential is meaningless change because the employer can choose not to pay the tax (by removing the requirement for the credential). Under your proposal the employee can't.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago> The incentives for the roles where the credential is meaningless change because the employer can choose not to pay the tax. Which would be illegal, and carry a penalty. Unless they choose not to hire someone with an education, in which case, they didn't need the person to have that costly skill.
- maxerickson 10y agoI meant by removing the requirement for the credential from the position. I edited in a note about it. More: But I see that I've misunderstood what you initially proposed. It doesn't make any sense to me to tax the education, I'm not sure taxing the (credentialed) position makes sense, but at least it provides cromulent incentives.