Cutting a public servant's salary = taxing them?

[Lazy]

@Muffin

Politicians get elected by cutting expenses, not by raising taxes, so even if there were no other difference, public perception in and of itself is enough to differentiate the to approaches.

OK, I guess I should add
(3) From a politician’s point of view, they are night and day.

[Bookkeeper]

@t-bonham@scc.net

Cutting the salaries of all employees by 2% would be legal (assuming their employment contract gives the government the right to unilateraly cut salaries – an unlikely assumption). But a surtax on the salaries of public employees would probably be thrown out by the first court that ruled on it. General legal principles relating to equal treatment would make such a law very suspect.

In reality, the government usually can just pass legislation to override any inconvenient employment contract clauses. One of the many benefits of being a public employee.

[phxjcc]

@Muffin

A lot of stuff it pegged to income, so increasing tax can sometimes cause more difficulties than simply reducing income.

This, but I am thinking that the opposite is true. Ie, it would seem keeping the same GI but the GI being the subject of a surtax would be preferable.

SSI/Medicare taxes are based upon GI. (more tax: 6.65% of the 2%)
Tax-exempt Retirement contribution limits and matching contributions are based upon GI. (Higher contribution, less Taxable GI…6% of the 2%, plus matching of the contribution)
State taxes are based upon GI. (more tax, let’s say 5% OF THE 2%)

Usually local and some state taxes are the subject of 1070/Schedule A itemizations. So, essentially, the GI is reduced by the surtax when it is itemized on Sched. A. (a full 2% deduction)

Quick/back of the napkin type of figuring and I think the higher GI get you more money IFF the retirement funding benefits are fully considered.