3 ms·
I 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 majorit
by drdeca 8y ago
I 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”?