A poll.. what percent does your employer contribute to SS/Medicare?

[kaz]

I am curious as to what amount people think employers pay into SS/Medicare

As an employer, I can tell you we pay zero. We calculate it into the salary we pay you. The idea we pay half and you pay half is government lying to you. If you don't provide enough value to cover all our costs of paying you ... we shit can you ... And that's on you, not us. You weren't worth the cost

That makes absolutely no sense. You are paying for the employee's total compensation, hence you are also paying the taxes.

You're making a distinction without a difference. We are agreeing that the payments are part of the employee's total compensation. The employee has to earn the money. Whether you want to look at that as I'm paying the government as part of their compensation or the way I did that I consider their compensation to be their total cost and this is just tax money I'm forwarding on their behalf, the fundamental concept is the same.

I'm curious why rather than starting with the OP and telling them the correct choice by your argument is not there (15.2%) and you fundamentally disagree with the OP's premise the employer pays half, you came to me who you don't have a philosophical difference with and said what I said doesn't make sense

The employer pays the entire amount as part of the employee's compensation. As I said, if the employee were not employed, he wouldn't pay anything.

Are you reading my full posts? It doesn't seem like it

 

[boedicca]

I am curious as to what amount people think employers pay into SS/Medicare

As an employer, I can tell you we pay zero. We calculate it into the salary we pay you. The idea we pay half and you pay half is government lying to you. If you don't provide enough value to cover all our costs of paying you ... we shit can you ... And that's on you, not us. You weren't worth the cost

That makes absolutely no sense. You are paying for the employee's total compensation, hence you are also paying the taxes.

You're making a distinction without a difference. We are agreeing that the payments are part of the employee's total compensation. The employee has to earn the money. Whether you want to look at that as I'm paying the government as part of their compensation or the way I did that I consider their compensation to be their total cost and this is just tax money I'm forwarding on their behalf, the fundamental concept is the same.

I'm curious why rather than starting with the OP and telling them the correct choice by your argument is not there (15.2%) and you fundamentally disagree with the OP's premise the employer pays half, you came to me who you don't have a philosophical difference with and said what I said doesn't make sense

The employer pays the entire amount as part of the employee's compensation. As I said, if the employee were not employed, he wouldn't pay anything.

Are you reading my full posts? It doesn't seem like it

I read your post. You get halfway there that SS/Medicare factor into total compensation. But then you fail to connect the dot that the employer pays for 100% of the taxes as a component of total compensation. The fact that you suppress salary to offset the taxes is irrelevant as it is no guarantee that you'd pay the same amount in total comp if there were no payroll taxes.

 

[kaz]

As an employer, I can tell you we pay zero. We calculate it into the salary we pay you. The idea we pay half and you pay half is government lying to you. If you don't provide enough value to cover all our costs of paying you ... we shit can you ... And that's on you, not us. You weren't worth the cost

That makes absolutely no sense. You are paying for the employee's total compensation, hence you are also paying the taxes.

You're making a distinction without a difference. We are agreeing that the payments are part of the employee's total compensation. The employee has to earn the money. Whether you want to look at that as I'm paying the government as part of their compensation or the way I did that I consider their compensation to be their total cost and this is just tax money I'm forwarding on their behalf, the fundamental concept is the same.

I'm curious why rather than starting with the OP and telling them the correct choice by your argument is not there (15.2%) and you fundamentally disagree with the OP's premise the employer pays half, you came to me who you don't have a philosophical difference with and said what I said doesn't make sense

The employer pays the entire amount as part of the employee's compensation. As I said, if the employee were not employed, he wouldn't pay anything.

Are you reading my full posts? It doesn't seem like it

I read your post. You get halfway there that SS/Medicare factor into total compensation. But then you fail to connect the dot that the employer pays for 100% of the taxes as a component of total compensation. The fact that you suppress salary to offset the taxes is irrelevant as it is no guarantee that you'd pay the same amount in total comp if there were no payroll taxes.

I haven't failed to make that connection. You haven't contradicted me. You're only making the nominal distinction as to whether I'm paying the taxes as part of their compensation or whether their compensation is their compensation and I'm submitting their payroll taxes for them.

I'm OK looking at it either way, but the only acceptable answer to both of us in the list provided would be 0% since the 15.2% you advocate isn't there.

On the other hand, you are fundamentally disagreeing with the OP and you aren't taking that up with them

 

[Picaro]

FICA rates in 2016 are 7.6% for both worker and employer. 6.2 for SS and 1.45 for Medicare. What's the point here?

Health Myths hates the idea that old people are getting a better deal from the government than from big corporations cheating them on an insurance policy and a 401K.

Pretty much it in a nutshell. Of course, none of the 'laissez faire' types have any issues with unearned income they prefer, like tax free munis, dividend income, all that, but just try and d away with their nice government legal protections from having to pay their full share of some corporation they own stocks in debts from bankruptcy. they'll tell you 'limited liability' for shareholders isn't a welfare program, and they shouldn't have to share in the risks of 'laissez faire' when it goes against their own pocketbooks, for instance. 'Somebody else' should be stuck with the bills for that.

 

[kaz]

The fact that you suppress salary to offset the taxes is irrelevant as it is no guarantee that you'd pay the same amount in total comp if there were no payroll taxes.

I'm shocked that someone I respect as much as you doesn't recognize the role of markets in setting wages. Markets set total wages. You actually think employers aren't smart enough to calculate the value of an employee to their bottom line and set total compensation to maximize that? Seriously?

So how do you set wages in your business, magic eight ball? Sorry, but I can't take this comment seriously

 

[boedicca]

The fact that you suppress salary to offset the taxes is irrelevant as it is no guarantee that you'd pay the same amount in total comp if there were no payroll taxes.

I'm shocked that someone I respect as much as you doesn't recognize the role of markets in setting wages. Markets set total wages. You actually think employers aren't smart enough to calculate the value of an employee to their bottom line and set total compensation to maximize that? Seriously?

So how do you set wages in your business, magic eight ball? Sorry, but I can't take this comment seriously

I'm shocked that you think the market for total compensation in a Free Market would result in an equivalent amount to what we see in a highly regulated and distorted one.

 

[boedicca]

That makes absolutely no sense. You are paying for the employee's total compensation, hence you are also paying the taxes.

You're making a distinction without a difference. We are agreeing that the payments are part of the employee's total compensation. The employee has to earn the money. Whether you want to look at that as I'm paying the government as part of their compensation or the way I did that I consider their compensation to be their total cost and this is just tax money I'm forwarding on their behalf, the fundamental concept is the same.

I'm curious why rather than starting with the OP and telling them the correct choice by your argument is not there (15.2%) and you fundamentally disagree with the OP's premise the employer pays half, you came to me who you don't have a philosophical difference with and said what I said doesn't make sense

The employer pays the entire amount as part of the employee's compensation. As I said, if the employee were not employed, he wouldn't pay anything.

Are you reading my full posts? It doesn't seem like it

I read your post. You get halfway there that SS/Medicare factor into total compensation. But then you fail to connect the dot that the employer pays for 100% of the taxes as a component of total compensation. The fact that you suppress salary to offset the taxes is irrelevant as it is no guarantee that you'd pay the same amount in total comp if there were no payroll taxes.

I haven't failed to make that connection. You haven't contradicted me. You're only making the nominal distinction as to whether I'm paying the taxes as part of their compensation or whether their compensation is their compensation and I'm submitting their payroll taxes for them.

I'm OK looking at it either way, but the only acceptable answer to both of us in the list provided would be 0% since the 15.2% you advocate isn't there.

On the other hand, you are fundamentally disagreeing with the OP and you aren't taking that up with them

Uh. I am completely disagreeing with the OP by pointing out that the employer pays 100% of the combined SS and Medicare tax burden.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Oh the poor companies ! When an employee gets hurt on the job , thy pay out a little work comp, then let the taxpayers take care of the employee forever thru SS disability payments . What a raw deal !

Alittle work comp!! Do you have any clue,comp is one of the biggest expense for a company.there is no such thing as alittle comp.

Workman's Comp is completely separate from Social Security. it is an insurance tax based on gross payroll

 

[kaz]

The fact that you suppress salary to offset the taxes is irrelevant as it is no guarantee that you'd pay the same amount in total comp if there were no payroll taxes.

I'm shocked that someone I respect as much as you doesn't recognize the role of markets in setting wages. Markets set total wages. You actually think employers aren't smart enough to calculate the value of an employee to their bottom line and set total compensation to maximize that? Seriously?

So how do you set wages in your business, magic eight ball? Sorry, but I can't take this comment seriously

I'm shocked that you think the market for total compensation in a Free Market would result in an equivalent amount to what we see in a highly regulated and distorted one.

Strawman, you changed parameters of the discussion. We were discussing an individual in the system we have now

 

[kaz]

You're making a distinction without a difference. We are agreeing that the payments are part of the employee's total compensation. The employee has to earn the money. Whether you want to look at that as I'm paying the government as part of their compensation or the way I did that I consider their compensation to be their total cost and this is just tax money I'm forwarding on their behalf, the fundamental concept is the same.

I'm curious why rather than starting with the OP and telling them the correct choice by your argument is not there (15.2%) and you fundamentally disagree with the OP's premise the employer pays half, you came to me who you don't have a philosophical difference with and said what I said doesn't make sense

The employer pays the entire amount as part of the employee's compensation. As I said, if the employee were not employed, he wouldn't pay anything.

Are you reading my full posts? It doesn't seem like it

I read your post. You get halfway there that SS/Medicare factor into total compensation. But then you fail to connect the dot that the employer pays for 100% of the taxes as a component of total compensation. The fact that you suppress salary to offset the taxes is irrelevant as it is no guarantee that you'd pay the same amount in total comp if there were no payroll taxes.

I haven't failed to make that connection. You haven't contradicted me. You're only making the nominal distinction as to whether I'm paying the taxes as part of their compensation or whether their compensation is their compensation and I'm submitting their payroll taxes for them.

I'm OK looking at it either way, but the only acceptable answer to both of us in the list provided would be 0% since the 15.2% you advocate isn't there.

On the other hand, you are fundamentally disagreeing with the OP and you aren't taking that up with them

Uh. I am completely disagreeing with the OP by pointing out that the employer pays 100% of the combined SS and Medicare tax burden.

I agree, what you don't get is that 15.2% = 0% in terms of the OP.

Say total compensation for an employee is $50K and their payroll taxes are $5K (making math simpler).

Are you paying the employee $45K and the government $5K as their total compensation?

Or are you paying the employee $50K and just writing $5K of that as a check to the government on their behalf?

The distinction is irrelevant. Substance wise, they are identical. I got this point when I wrote my argument in the first place. If 15.2% had been an option, I would have pointed it out. However, since 0% was an option and 15.2% wasn't, rather than getting into this theoretical nuance, I just made the argument based on the actual choices presented

 

[JoeB131]

They aren't getting a better deal, bub. The employer pays the entire amount as part of the employee's compensation. The higher the SS and Medicare taxes, the lower the wage for the employee. SS is not invested in anything. There is no lock box trust fund. It's just a tax on future generations ponzi scheme. When it started, there were dozens of tax payers per recipient; we are now below 3 to 1. It's crashing into insolvency.

So I guess we might have to make the rich pay their fair share... that would be a tragedy.

Now, yes, there are demographics stresses on SS. Americans are having less kids, living longer, etc. But they are manageable.

 

[boedicca]

The fact that you suppress salary to offset the taxes is irrelevant as it is no guarantee that you'd pay the same amount in total comp if there were no payroll taxes.

I'm shocked that someone I respect as much as you doesn't recognize the role of markets in setting wages. Markets set total wages. You actually think employers aren't smart enough to calculate the value of an employee to their bottom line and set total compensation to maximize that? Seriously?

So how do you set wages in your business, magic eight ball? Sorry, but I can't take this comment seriously

I'm shocked that you think the market for total compensation in a Free Market would result in an equivalent amount to what we see in a highly regulated and distorted one.

Strawman, you changed parameters of the discussion. We were discussing an individual in the system we have now

B'loney. If you didn't have to pay SS & Medicare for your employees, we'd have a vastly different system than we do now.

Personally, I'd rather see the U.S. adopt the Chilean style system of personal savings accounts.

 

[boedicca]

The employer pays the entire amount as part of the employee's compensation. As I said, if the employee were not employed, he wouldn't pay anything.

Are you reading my full posts? It doesn't seem like it

I read your post. You get halfway there that SS/Medicare factor into total compensation. But then you fail to connect the dot that the employer pays for 100% of the taxes as a component of total compensation. The fact that you suppress salary to offset the taxes is irrelevant as it is no guarantee that you'd pay the same amount in total comp if there were no payroll taxes.

I haven't failed to make that connection. You haven't contradicted me. You're only making the nominal distinction as to whether I'm paying the taxes as part of their compensation or whether their compensation is their compensation and I'm submitting their payroll taxes for them.

I'm OK looking at it either way, but the only acceptable answer to both of us in the list provided would be 0% since the 15.2% you advocate isn't there.

On the other hand, you are fundamentally disagreeing with the OP and you aren't taking that up with them

Uh. I am completely disagreeing with the OP by pointing out that the employer pays 100% of the combined SS and Medicare tax burden.

I agree, what you don't get is that 15.2% = 0% in terms of the OP.

Say total compensation for an employee is $50K and their payroll taxes are $5K (making math simpler).

Are you paying the employee $45K and the government $5K as their total compensation?

Or are you paying the employee $50K and just writing $5K of that as a check to the government on their behalf?

The distinction is irrelevant. Substance wise, they are identical. I got this point when I wrote my argument in the first place. If 15.2% had been an option, I would have pointed it out. However, since 0% was an option and 15.2% wasn't, rather than getting into this theoretical nuance, I just made the argument based on the actual choices presented

I understand your reasoning, but if the poll choices are inadequate, it is perfectly valid to present the correct option.

 

[kaz]

The fact that you suppress salary to offset the taxes is irrelevant as it is no guarantee that you'd pay the same amount in total comp if there were no payroll taxes.

I'm shocked that someone I respect as much as you doesn't recognize the role of markets in setting wages. Markets set total wages. You actually think employers aren't smart enough to calculate the value of an employee to their bottom line and set total compensation to maximize that? Seriously?

So how do you set wages in your business, magic eight ball? Sorry, but I can't take this comment seriously

I'm shocked that you think the market for total compensation in a Free Market would result in an equivalent amount to what we see in a highly regulated and distorted one.

Strawman, you changed parameters of the discussion. We were discussing an individual in the system we have now

B'loney. If you didn't have to pay SS & Medicare for your employees, we'd have a vastly different system than we do now.

Personally, I'd rather see the U.S. adopt the Chilean style system of personal savings accounts.

I agree, but we were discussing a more narrow point. We both know the other doesn't favor the system we have now and we both know we're headed to disaster. That isn't in contention and it wasn't the point being discussed

 

[kaz]

Are you reading my full posts? It doesn't seem like it

I read your post. You get halfway there that SS/Medicare factor into total compensation. But then you fail to connect the dot that the employer pays for 100% of the taxes as a component of total compensation. The fact that you suppress salary to offset the taxes is irrelevant as it is no guarantee that you'd pay the same amount in total comp if there were no payroll taxes.

I haven't failed to make that connection. You haven't contradicted me. You're only making the nominal distinction as to whether I'm paying the taxes as part of their compensation or whether their compensation is their compensation and I'm submitting their payroll taxes for them.

I'm OK looking at it either way, but the only acceptable answer to both of us in the list provided would be 0% since the 15.2% you advocate isn't there.

On the other hand, you are fundamentally disagreeing with the OP and you aren't taking that up with them

Uh. I am completely disagreeing with the OP by pointing out that the employer pays 100% of the combined SS and Medicare tax burden.

I agree, what you don't get is that 15.2% = 0% in terms of the OP.

Say total compensation for an employee is $50K and their payroll taxes are $5K (making math simpler).

Are you paying the employee $45K and the government $5K as their total compensation?

Or are you paying the employee $50K and just writing $5K of that as a check to the government on their behalf?

The distinction is irrelevant. Substance wise, they are identical. I got this point when I wrote my argument in the first place. If 15.2% had been an option, I would have pointed it out. However, since 0% was an option and 15.2% wasn't, rather than getting into this theoretical nuance, I just made the argument based on the actual choices presented

I understand your reasoning, but if the poll choices are inadequate, it is perfectly valid to present the correct option.

Sure it was valid to do that. But our disagreement is over six of one versus half a dozen of the other. Am I (the employer) paying base plus taxes or taxes is part of the base and I'm forwarding for the employee to the government? Either way is functionally the same. So why say, you could also look at it like this to an idiotic liberal who thinks that government pays half and the employee pays half? It's already above their head. We agree, correctly, that is the one thing that doesn't happen ...

 

[JoeB131]

B'loney. If you didn't have to pay SS & Medicare for your employees, we'd have a vastly different system than we do now.

Personally, I'd rather see the U.S. adopt the Chilean style system of personal savings accounts.

You think a country that was a military dictatorship is a good model for these sorts of htings?

 

[kaz]

I read your post. You get halfway there that SS/Medicare factor into total compensation. But then you fail to connect the dot that the employer pays for 100% of the taxes as a component of total compensation. The fact that you suppress salary to offset the taxes is irrelevant as it is no guarantee that you'd pay the same amount in total comp if there were no payroll taxes.

I haven't failed to make that connection. You haven't contradicted me. You're only making the nominal distinction as to whether I'm paying the taxes as part of their compensation or whether their compensation is their compensation and I'm submitting their payroll taxes for them.

I'm OK looking at it either way, but the only acceptable answer to both of us in the list provided would be 0% since the 15.2% you advocate isn't there.

On the other hand, you are fundamentally disagreeing with the OP and you aren't taking that up with them

Uh. I am completely disagreeing with the OP by pointing out that the employer pays 100% of the combined SS and Medicare tax burden.

I agree, what you don't get is that 15.2% = 0% in terms of the OP.

Say total compensation for an employee is $50K and their payroll taxes are $5K (making math simpler).

Are you paying the employee $45K and the government $5K as their total compensation?

Or are you paying the employee $50K and just writing $5K of that as a check to the government on their behalf?

The distinction is irrelevant. Substance wise, they are identical. I got this point when I wrote my argument in the first place. If 15.2% had been an option, I would have pointed it out. However, since 0% was an option and 15.2% wasn't, rather than getting into this theoretical nuance, I just made the argument based on the actual choices presented

I understand your reasoning, but if the poll choices are inadequate, it is perfectly valid to present the correct option.

Sure it was valid to do that. But our disagreement is over six of one versus half a dozen of the other. Am I (the employer) paying base plus taxes or taxes is part of the base and I'm forwarding for the employee to the government? Either way is functionally the same. So why say, you could also look at it like this to an idiotic liberal who thinks that government pays half and the employee pays half? It's already above their head. We agree, correctly, that is the one thing that doesn't happen ...

Anyway, boedicca, so far you're arguing with someone you have no disagreement with and not responding to a single point I made. If at some point you want to have a discussion, let me know

 

[boedicca]

I haven't failed to make that connection. You haven't contradicted me. You're only making the nominal distinction as to whether I'm paying the taxes as part of their compensation or whether their compensation is their compensation and I'm submitting their payroll taxes for them.

I'm OK looking at it either way, but the only acceptable answer to both of us in the list provided would be 0% since the 15.2% you advocate isn't there.

On the other hand, you are fundamentally disagreeing with the OP and you aren't taking that up with them

Uh. I am completely disagreeing with the OP by pointing out that the employer pays 100% of the combined SS and Medicare tax burden.

I agree, what you don't get is that 15.2% = 0% in terms of the OP.

Say total compensation for an employee is $50K and their payroll taxes are $5K (making math simpler).

Are you paying the employee $45K and the government $5K as their total compensation?

Or are you paying the employee $50K and just writing $5K of that as a check to the government on their behalf?

The distinction is irrelevant. Substance wise, they are identical. I got this point when I wrote my argument in the first place. If 15.2% had been an option, I would have pointed it out. However, since 0% was an option and 15.2% wasn't, rather than getting into this theoretical nuance, I just made the argument based on the actual choices presented

I understand your reasoning, but if the poll choices are inadequate, it is perfectly valid to present the correct option.

Sure it was valid to do that. But our disagreement is over six of one versus half a dozen of the other. Am I (the employer) paying base plus taxes or taxes is part of the base and I'm forwarding for the employee to the government? Either way is functionally the same. So why say, you could also look at it like this to an idiotic liberal who thinks that government pays half and the employee pays half? It's already above their head. We agree, correctly, that is the one thing that doesn't happen ...

Anyway, boedicca, so far you're arguing with someone you have no disagreement with and not responding to a single point I made. If at some point you want to have a discussion, let me know

The OP has taken the Captain Obvious stance that many Americans are ignorant regarding payroll taxes and are brainwashed to think that the government provides any benefits of value that aren't just redistribution of other people's productivity. Not much controversy there, in my mind. It's more interesting to me to evaluate the impact of taxes on compensation practices and economic growth.

(And I'm sorry if you felt I was arguing with you. I thought we were having a civilized discussion. I can see your points, but think you aren't fully connecting the dots to motivators of economic behavior. Absent these taxes, and a lot of burdensome regulation, your business could see higher growth which would make your employees' labor more valuable. Then, the compensation could be very different due to that.)

 

[healthmyths]

Uh. I am completely disagreeing with the OP by pointing out that the employer pays 100% of the combined SS and Medicare tax burden.

I agree, what you don't get is that 15.2% = 0% in terms of the OP.

Say total compensation for an employee is $50K and their payroll taxes are $5K (making math simpler).

Are you paying the employee $45K and the government $5K as their total compensation?

Or are you paying the employee $50K and just writing $5K of that as a check to the government on their behalf?

The distinction is irrelevant. Substance wise, they are identical. I got this point when I wrote my argument in the first place. If 15.2% had been an option, I would have pointed it out. However, since 0% was an option and 15.2% wasn't, rather than getting into this theoretical nuance, I just made the argument based on the actual choices presented

I understand your reasoning, but if the poll choices are inadequate, it is perfectly valid to present the correct option.

Sure it was valid to do that. But our disagreement is over six of one versus half a dozen of the other. Am I (the employer) paying base plus taxes or taxes is part of the base and I'm forwarding for the employee to the government? Either way is functionally the same. So why say, you could also look at it like this to an idiotic liberal who thinks that government pays half and the employee pays half? It's already above their head. We agree, correctly, that is the one thing that doesn't happen ...

Anyway, boedicca, so far you're arguing with someone you have no disagreement with and not responding to a single point I made. If at some point you want to have a discussion, let me know

The OP has taken the Captain Obvious stance that many Americans are ignorant regarding payroll taxes and are brainwashed to think that the government provides any benefits of value that aren't just redistribution of other people's productivity. Not much controversy there, in my mind. It's more interesting to me to evaluate the impact of taxes on compensation practices and economic growth.

(And I'm sorry if you felt I was arguing with you. I thought we were having a civilized discussion. I can see your points, but think you aren't fully connecting the dots to motivators of economic behavior. Absent these taxes, and a lot of burdensome regulation, your business could see higher growth which made your employees' labor more valuable. Then, the compensation could be very different due to that.)

I know to you and me and business savvy people it is OBVIOUS but those others....!
They have NO idea that their employer matches and I've not seen any polls that reflect that ignorance hence I wanted to see if forum readers were different.
So far the problem is a simple question what is the combined rate goes without any answer why... I guess people make it more complicated!

My purpose though was to counter the gross misperception of them versus us mentality our country seems to be in!
Employers are like employees. Human beings!
Most employers are honest and want to do the best for the people that work for them....but do we get that impression from the MSM? Nope... greedy evil,bastards!

 

[jwoodie]

OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK- Enough of the sophistry about WHO pays. The more salient point is Social Security is not only a Ponzi Scheme based on an ever increasing number of workers to support an ever increasing number of retirees, it is also a Shell Game wherein most workers do not get back what they paid into the system. Here's how it works (simplified):

If you average about $8000/mo. in earnings, you get back about $2400/mo. (before taxes)
If you average about $4000/mo. in earnings, you get back about $1800/mo.
If you average about $2000/mo. in earnings, you get back about $1200/mo.
If you have no earnings, you get about $1000/mo. (SSI- tax free)

As a result, the marginal return of your (pretax) Social Security contributions ranges from 60% down to 15% in order to give a tax free windfall to those who paid little or nothing into the system. In essence, Social Security is a welfare program for the elderly disguised as a legitimate retirement program.