Who pays the most taxes as percent of income?

This is not the calculation.

Employers don't say "Well, let's pay this guy $70,000. Oh wait. We have to pay ~$5,000 in payroll taxes, so let's just pay him $65,000."

The state set the conditions that for every employee, there is a payroll tax based on the employee's salary. So that's just a part of the calculation of cost. They don't pay the employee less in order to compensate for the payment of the payroll taxes. The payroll taxes are a part of the cost burden for hiring somebody. Employers look at the overall cost burden, to include salary, taxes, health insurance, etc.

These aren't new. Employers aren't surprised by it during each new hire process. It's a cost that the state put on employers, driven by progressive policy from decades past.

And now the argument is that it's "regressive", and that the employer doesn't pay it at all?

Shenanigans.

It's a weak argument, unless you're willing to concede that all taxes on business are counter-productive in the long run.

Because really? I agree in a way. I'm fond of the idea that businesses don't really pay any taxes, and those costs are passed along to employees and consumers. It's not a perfect argument, but the sentiment isn't absurd. That's fine. But I don't think one can make that argument and also get upset, which many people left-of-center do, when a legislature cuts taxes on businesses.

The free market doesn't pass laws for businesses to pay taxes. The government does. The state sets the conditions on taxation that businesses must operate within or face legal liability. 

The progressives implemented the payroll taxes as part of the New Deal and the Great Society. They didn't want to put all of the tax on the employees, so they put half on the employers as well. So the conditions that employers operate within were set by the state, and new costs of employing people were added by progressive legislation. What should businesses do? Disregard that part of the cost of employing people and lose money? Because then they won't be paying anybody. They will go out of business. 

In the end, the payroll tax paid by the employer is a cost of doing business. It's a cost added on by the state for businesses to employ people. The employer pays it out of the proceeds that their business generates. Would they pay their employees more if they didn't have that cost? Probably. But that's true if you remove any cost associated with running a business. One can't expect everybody to just accept that this should be added on top of every employee's individual net tax burden.

Your argument was that health insurance was a part of salary.

It's objectively not. Health insurance is a part of total compensation.

I'm unsure why you're continuing down this road. I suppose you might be a masochist.

As is the employer contributing to the employee's retirement/disability social security and Medicare. Its all part of the employee's compensation package or income.

Too bad that you can't just admit it when you are wrong

Salary does not include health insurance.

Your salary is your salary.

I'm sorry, but the actual words of our language mean something, and I still can't believe I'm participating in this discussion with an obvious NPC.


www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk03VYOiw6UiNZZxIzp1CNPPnTPMocQ%3A1598982829386&ei=rYpOX4-bF_PE1QHlgK-QBg&q=difference+between+salary+and+total+compensation&oq=difference+between+salary+and+total+compensation&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzICCAA6CQgjECcQRhD5AToKCC4QxwEQrwEQJzoECCMQJzoECAAQQzoKCAAQsQMQgwEQQzoNCC4QxwEQrwEQJxCTAjoFCAAQkQI6BwgAELEDEEM6CAgAELEDEIMBOgcIABAUEIcCOgYIABAWEB5KBQgmEgFuSgUIJxIBMVCsdVjPpQFg4KYBaABwAHgAgAFsiAH0GpIBBDQ2LjKYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6wAEB&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjPpbCcw8jrAhVzYjUKHWXAC2IQ4dUDCA0&uact=5

Is the company car considered an income perk?

Yep, I understand why you won't answer. Keep running rabbit.

Um.

Salary and hourly wages are compensation.

Employer payroll taxes are compensation.

The employer has no choice about payroll tax percentages. It can, however, lower salaries and/or hourly wages to minimize the impact of its required payroll tax obligation on its bottom line.

It is argued that this is what many, if not most, employers do.

So why are some here so resistant to acknowledging that aspect?

Employers don't "lower salaries and/or hourly wages to minimize the impact of its required payroll tax obligation".

That would assume the salaries start higher and then GET "LOWERED". They don't. Because payroll taxes aren't fucking new. Employers don't "lower wages" in response to payroll taxes.

The state implemented a cost of hiring employees, and that's factored into the hiring decision and the initial salary.

FOR DECADES. THIS IS NOT NEWS TO EMPLOYERS. THEY DON'T SAY "Let's lower our employees wages, because, you know, we forgot about the payroll taxes that we have to pay."

The way you guys are discussing this is absurd. You're using "lower" as a verb. As if the employer is taking an action to reduce pay. They're not, because they all know that payroll tax is something they have to pay. It's not new. Nobody's pay is "lowered" in response to payroll taxes.

Fuck this is stupid.