3 ms·
Extremely disingenuous to include employer taxes in personal income taxes to make whatever point you're making. Might as well toss in the costs of accounting in
by pb7 3y ago
Extremely disingenuous to include employer taxes in personal income taxes to make whatever point you're making. Might as well toss in the costs of accounting in there while you're at it.
Edit: I'm being throttled from posting but response below:
There are a lot of factors that go into deciding the gross pay that an employee receives. What you are doing is muddying the waters to make a point but it just makes it trickier to compare. If you are an employee that is deciding where to live and work, the specific employer taxes make no difference to you -- what matters is your net pay and the services you get for the taxes paid. The rest of the costs, including things like parental leave, time off, and healthcare have already played into deciding your wage.
I'm also not sure why you included health insurance costs for the US total but not the 12-14% regressive UK national insurance tax or the regressive 20% VAT for the UK total unless you're deliberately trying to argue in bad faith. I'm suggesting comparing apples to apples. There's enough to criticize as is.
- vkou 3y agoIt's disingenuous to not include it. It still comes out of your paycheck, just because it happens above the fold doesn't mean it's not a real tax burden, equivalent to the one that is listed below the fold. Splitting it into an 'employer and employee' portion was just an accounting trick to get political buy-in for it. At the end of the day, it's still a regressive 15.3% tax rate that gets slapped onto your wages.