3 ms·
> Would you do it if it also meant you made 80% of your current comp? Why or why not? That would not be a fair discount because the number you see on your payc
by aianus 7y ago
> Would you do it if it also meant you made 80% of your current comp? Why or why not?
That would not be a fair discount because the number you see on your paycheck is not the full amount the company is paying to employ you. They also pay for benefits, payroll taxes, equipment, office space, management overhead, etc.
The all-in cost of an employee is closer to 150% of the number on your W2. So assuming your output goes down 20% you should be giving up 30% of your W2 salary to compensate your employer for that loss, not 20%.
- bwb 7y agoThat is not correct and I want to make sure you get the correct info. One of the larger companies I ran was 130+ people operating in about 12 states. The companies average tax rate on an employee's salary is ~20% depending on the state (~18% to ~22% depending). So 20% on the salary. *And, that amount goes down relative to salary changes. After that, if the company is paying for 100% of health care that can have a big impact of course but I wouldn't roll that into this. Equipment, office space, overhead is separate from salary. I do not suggest bundling those together as it creates a false view of the costs of these type of decisions. I understand what you are trying to say but I think it is not how I would look at it with my CFO hat on.
- Spooky23 7y agoNo way. 150% overhead is the cost of a fully funded pensioned employee. It’s usually close to 130% of pay at a good company, and 120% at a shitty one.