You are not making any sense. If tax rates remain the same and you feel that you do not pay enough then send a check to the treasury. Obviously this is a statement about voluntarily giving to the government money that you feel you SHOULD, but do not, owe. How you can possibly claim that is a statement about taxation or tax policy is beyond me.
:rolleyes: Because they are the ones who decide who gets paid what, of course.
Wow…you don’t even know which posts you are responding to anymore.
As I stated upthread I have no problem with taxes for the legitimate functioning of government. Decisions about taxing for the redistributive programs should be at the discretion of those whose money will be taken…not the recipients.
Harmful for who? Your assumption, like many here, is that if government doesn’t do it then it won’t be done.
They get to decide that because it’s so easy for them to find a laborer who can do the same work just as well. If the labor were more valuable, a guy with capital couldn’t get away with blithely deciding to pay less for it.
Translation: Let the poor starve to death.
Of course they could, they have the money so they have the power. They can and do take the lion’s share of the money for themselves and throw a few scraps to the peasants.
And they for some reason throw more money to people who make them more money. It’s an impenetrable mystery.
Not always.
I work for a big employer and am billable. For the year ending Dec. 31st 2010, my billables were approx. $300,000. I was paid roughly 20% of that. Now, according to conventional wisdom, you add 50% to salary to cover the intangibles like HC contributions and stuff. So my employer is taking 70% and I get 30%. I make them a lot of money and they don’t pay me even a third of the profit.
Taking my skills to another employer would do nothing as the market sets the rates which I have no control over.
Do you think that’s a fair partnership?
How much would they have paid you for $290,000 in billables? For $250,000 in billables? For $200,000 in billables?
You make them a lot of money with your labor and your employer’s resources. How much money would your labor have gotten you without your employer’s resources?
I’m not sure. How hard would it be for them to find someone else who could rack up $300,000 in billables?
No they don’t. They keep the extra money to themselves and threaten the people who make them money with unemployment if they don’t work harder. Or they gut the company for a short term profit and leave the employees to suffer while they go on to their next victims.
That’s quite a blanket statement. So there’s not even such a thing as commission-based salespeople in your world? And no employees who get bonuses for exceeding quotas? There are never any carrots, it’s only ever sticks? Remarkable.
If my billables were lower, that would mean a reduction in work and probably a corresponding reduction in staff. As of now, I’m one of 4 doing my job. If I were to slow to two thirds of my work, they’d probably lose at least one person and we would be expected to make up the difference in work. As it is, we have a mandate of 1400 billable hours, or approx. 280k. In my experience, we’ve never gone under the minimum.
Granted, it’s through my employer than I have an opportunity for work. But it’s through my work that the employer has an opportunity for profit. Just because they provide the opportunity, does that entitle them to 70% of the profit?
Additionally, If I were to work my ass off and generate $450k instead of $300k, I’d either get a pat on the back, or a nice additional 1% added to my raise (as well as a bleeding ulcer). Not exactly commensurate compensation.
I want to make sure I’m understanding this right – you’d then make 20%, maybe 21%, of the $450K instead of 20% of the $300K?
It’s hard to say without knowing more about the operation; I don’t even really know what line of work you and they are in. Is their money at risk? How much did they do to get in the position they’re in? How specialized is your skill set, that you can get them those results?
You realize of course that your labor is a commodity(you can negotiate your labor charge)? If it were worth more, you’d be charging more. I think that is THE definition of commensurate compensation.
This is ridiculous nonsense.
Unless your employer had no overhead whatsoever, they’re obviously not pocketing 70% of “your” billables. They need to pay the accounting department, the IT department, the rent they took out to pay for the building, the HR department, insurance, expenses, the guy who cleans the building, the gas bill, the electricity, marketing, and any number of other things.
That’s how the world works. The thing is, your employer has to live with the same market forces, or else they’d charge a million dollars an hour for your work and make even more money.
The shit is flying fast and furious! Today, at approx 2pm batshit savings time Boehner unveiled his “bipartisan” proposal, a landscape of smoke, mirrors and fog on the horizon. His bipartisanship best demonstrated by the number of Dems at the photo op, which is to say, zero.
By four pm,
Like two fucking hours!
Huffpo Warning!
But for decades a lot of it has been delegated to the government, as the one institution with coercive power. Any adjustment to “doing it” to the same extent may involve new power plays and coercions by to new doers.
I’m talking about Medicare and Social Security, btw, but it could apply to environmental law enforcement, the economic benefits of pork-barrel job creation, or anything else that would be cut if we actually followed the GOP fantasy platform.
Here’s a specific situation in my hometown:
My grandmother’s church could probably step in & take care of her expenses that were previously covered by Medicare, if it were just her. But a lot of them are on government benefits themselves. Actually, strike that, Grandma has several middle-class children; they could give up some of their own savings for their twilight years to care for her. Oh, wait, her three eldest are on publicly funded pensions themselves.
More broadly, our local economy relies heavily on agriculture and aerospace. The effect of the government on ag is probably a subsidy overall; and aerospace since 2001 has been heavily government-funded. So, are people in my district, while looking at fewer future orders for jet engines, spacecraft electrical cells, ball bearings, and avionics, going to be able to budget the money to care for the many, many elderly that have retired here for the low cost of living? Are the elderly going to migrate somewhere else, maybe move to be with family? OK, we could go through that displacement, & it still might not be enough.
Monies extracted from strangers who are our countrymen, those would be lost to us. Something would have to be done more cheaply or not done.
You are making the mistake of equating economic & moral value. What is is not necessarily what ought to be.
You’re both right! And wrong.
Waldo, don’t pretend that there only carrots, never sticks. “Unequal negotiating power” is the phrase to remember. Not total control by employers, not a bargain of equal powers. It’s a stick-carrot mix, as it were, with external sticks chasing both sides, but the indebted college grad more than the investor. And the low-skilled laborer has very little negotiating power, sometimes next to none.
Because history shows that to be true of a great many things, which is why government started doing them in the first place. The private sector has had literally thousands of years to do many things that modern government does, and shown no interest or ability in doing so. I see no reason to believe that after all these millennia of indifference only now will the private sector take up the slack.
Well, then, what ought to be?
Say I’m looking to hire someone to paint my house. What is, is that I know how much I’m willing to pay and what quality of work I want in exchange; anybody who wants to work for me can take it or leave it. In my opinion, that’s a fine case of both economic and moral value. What, in your opinion, ought to be?
Say I’m looking for someone to paint other people’s houses as my employee. What is, is that I’m willing to buy the paint and foot the bill for the advertising and otherwise start up a small business where I know how much I’m willing to pay and what quality of work I want in exchange; anybody who wants to work for me can take it or leave it. In my opinion, that’s a fine case of both economic and moral value. What, in your opinion, ought to be?
Oh, obviously. Sure as I’d pay more for good work, I’d pay less – or fire a guy – for poor work. Der Trihs is the guy saying “no they don’t” about carrots; I don’t rule out sticks; I just mention carrots, is all.
Low-skilled laborers sometimes have very little negotiating power – sometimes, next to none – precisely because they have so little of value to offer. It is the case that people have “unequal negotiating power” when one has much less to offer; ought not it be the case that people have “unequal negotiating power” when one has much less to offer?