3 ms·
Any tax on the employer-employee relationship is essentially a tax on the employee. It’s like how payroll taxes are economically equivalent to income taxes, eve
by esoterica 8y ago
Any tax on the employer-employee relationship is essentially a tax on the employee. It’s like how payroll taxes are economically equivalent to income taxes, even though one is (partly) administratively levied on the employer, not the employee.
- drdeca 8y agoI didn’t mean to distinguish between the tax being on the employer vs on the employee. I am aware that they are equivalent. Do you mean to say that the majority of the burden of the tax falls on the employee? In that case, I don’t understand why that would be.
- esoterica 8y agoIf it's a tax proportional to the number of employees then it's a headcount tax, and headcount taxes are essentially a form of income taxes.
- drdeca 8y agoThis tax would only be applied per instance of a non-compete clause, not per employee. That way the non-compete clause isn’t included unless the company gets sufficient benefit from it to outweigh the tax. I would think that if the size of this tax was large enough, it would be equivalent to banning non-compete clauses, and if it was 0 it would be like doing nothing. Doesn’t this therefore allow for interpolating between “non-compete clauses are allowed” and “non-compete clauses are forbidden”?