The employee’s share of social security taxes is 13.07% of the total gross compensation, with no cap.
From source (1), I assume.
It’s true that the other 27% is taken from your wages by your employer, before it reaches you. But what’s the difference? Is it not still your take home pay that gets reduced by 40% for the purposes of health insurance?
Congratulations. You must live somewhere with good public transport or good cycling infrastructure or really near your workplace.
But I think it’s hopelessly naive to think that if you reduced taxes on companies pay for ordinary workers would go up, or that they would get anywhere even slightly enough to pay for the sort of healthcare available for free in countries with socialised healthcare.
Like I said, Americans spend roughly twice as much on healthcare as other wealthy countries and their health outcomes are worse than most of them. Who knew that maximising shareholder income wasn’t the best motivator for good, well priced healthcare?
available for free in countries with socialised healthcare
That’s exactly the point I’m trying to communicate.
Americans grossly underestimate the costs of the system (“5% of your paycheque”, “free”, …).
I’m not saying it’s better. I’m not saying it’s worse. I’m saying that statements like that are factually incorrect. There seems to be a naievity or worse, propagandic force in statements like that.
Did I ever say 5%? In Belgium it turns out it’s 13% of your paycheck flat payment and then it’s free. Sounds like a massive, massive win. We should do like them for healthcare.
Sounds like a massive, massive win. We should do like them for healthcare.
Sure, do so!
I live in Belgium. A copy-paste of that system would also increase costs for employing people and lower wages. As I tried to explain.
Did I ever say 5%?
Well, let’s again look at how this conversation started. Look at the posted image. That was the statement I was referring to when saying 5% is unrealistic. A fabrication or lie.
If Johnny has 100 apples and the Belgian government gives 13 of them to some folk in hospital or care homes and Johnny doesn’t ever spend a penny on health care, how many apples does he have, and what does it matter to Johnny if his employer who has tens of thousands of apples has to give some of them to the folks in hospital instead of to the shareholders?
If Jimmy has 150 apples and the US government takes 20 of them and he gives 50 of them to his health insurer to pay down debt and then has to remortgage his house to pay for his Mum’s cancer treatment, how much better off do you think Jimmy really is?
“The United States has the world’s highest per capita health care costs—about double those of other wealthy nations”
Johnny made 400 apples for the company, who gave him 100, the government took 13 and he got 87. The government also took 27 of the 250 apples (left after rent, heating, lighting cleaning and maintenance costs) that the company had wanted to keep for the executive pay and shareholders. They complained bitterly about how expensive it was and lied to Johnny that they would definitely have given him all of those 27 apples, honestly, definitely, if only the nasty government hadn’t stolen them for a bunch of very undeserving sick people and elderly people who were just making Johnny poorer.
Last year, when Johnny made 30 more apples than usual, he got a one apple bonus, the chief executive got a 10 apple bonus and the shareholders got the other 19.
I’m not actually Johnny. I’m David, and I don’t speak French or Walloon or Frisian or Flemish well enough to live in Belgium. It’s just how most shareholder or private equity owned companies in the USA are run.
I actually think that the solution isn’t so much a change of career for me, but an increase in the taxes on the shareholders and chief executives to find better health care, better education, better social care, better care for veterans, better infrastructure etc etc etc, so that we all benefit from the profits rather than just the already wealthy folks.
So no, I don’t get cross with the government for taking the shareholders’ money, I get cross with the shareholders for taking my money. I think that’s far more rational.
You’re referring to
From source (1), I assume.
It’s true that the other 27% is taken from your wages by your employer, before it reaches you. But what’s the difference? Is it not still your take home pay that gets reduced by 40% for the purposes of health insurance?
It really sounds like you have no idea what the difference is between employee contributions and employer contributions.
Answer me this. If you get a company car for free, do you complain that your salary was reduced?
I have been in that situation. As I didn’t need a car, I asked for and indeed got a raise instead.
Congratulations. You must live somewhere with good public transport or good cycling infrastructure or really near your workplace.
But I think it’s hopelessly naive to think that if you reduced taxes on companies pay for ordinary workers would go up, or that they would get anywhere even slightly enough to pay for the sort of healthcare available for free in countries with socialised healthcare.
Like I said, Americans spend roughly twice as much on healthcare as other wealthy countries and their health outcomes are worse than most of them. Who knew that maximising shareholder income wasn’t the best motivator for good, well priced healthcare?
That’s exactly the point I’m trying to communicate.
Americans grossly underestimate the costs of the system (“5% of your paycheque”, “free”, …).
I’m not saying it’s better. I’m not saying it’s worse. I’m saying that statements like that are factually incorrect. There seems to be a naievity or worse, propagandic force in statements like that.
Really?! Weird.
Whilst paying roughly twice as much as people in other wealthy nations.
Yes. Please revisit the original comment that started the whole train.
Take a look at all the comments inbetween.
Talking about apples wasn’t my idea. I never even argued against state ran healthcare.
I simply, from experience, and with sources, stated that “free healthcare” or “5% of your paycheque” is grossly incorrect.
Did I ever say 5%? In Belgium it turns out it’s 13% of your paycheck flat payment and then it’s free. Sounds like a massive, massive win. We should do like them for healthcare.
Sure, do so!
I live in Belgium. A copy-paste of that system would also increase costs for employing people and lower wages. As I tried to explain.
Well, let’s again look at how this conversation started. Look at the posted image. That was the statement I was referring to when saying 5% is unrealistic. A fabrication or lie.
Tell me you don’t understand taxation without telling me you don’t understand taxation.
Please, explain
If Johnny has 100 apples and the Belgian government gives 13 of them to some folk in hospital or care homes and Johnny doesn’t ever spend a penny on health care, how many apples does he have, and what does it matter to Johnny if his employer who has tens of thousands of apples has to give some of them to the folks in hospital instead of to the shareholders?
If Jimmy has 150 apples and the US government takes 20 of them and he gives 50 of them to his health insurer to pay down debt and then has to remortgage his house to pay for his Mum’s cancer treatment, how much better off do you think Jimmy really is?
“The United States has the world’s highest per capita health care costs—about double those of other wealthy nations”
Let’s do Johhny’s accounting in the first example:
Johnny works for a month and made 100 apples (Dt.), and 40 apples debt (Cr.) to RSZ.
His employer takes 27 and gives it to RSZ. Johnny receives 73 apples. His ledger reads 73 Dt, 13 Cr.
Johny then has to give 13 apples to RSZ. Johnny now has 60 apples (Dt.), and has no more debt (0Cr.) to RSZ.
Johnny cares because of his 100 apples worth of work, he gets to keep 60.
i gotta say, hats off, this is some expert trolling
Lol.
Johnny made 400 apples for the company, who gave him 100, the government took 13 and he got 87. The government also took 27 of the 250 apples (left after rent, heating, lighting cleaning and maintenance costs) that the company had wanted to keep for the executive pay and shareholders. They complained bitterly about how expensive it was and lied to Johnny that they would definitely have given him all of those 27 apples, honestly, definitely, if only the nasty government hadn’t stolen them for a bunch of very undeserving sick people and elderly people who were just making Johnny poorer.
Last year, when Johnny made 30 more apples than usual, he got a one apple bonus, the chief executive got a 10 apple bonus and the shareholders got the other 19.
If that’s the case for you, it might be good for you to change jobs or become self-employed? That way you’re free from what you perceive as evil corp?
I’m not actually Johnny. I’m David, and I don’t speak French or Walloon or Frisian or Flemish well enough to live in Belgium. It’s just how most shareholder or private equity owned companies in the USA are run.
I actually think that the solution isn’t so much a change of career for me, but an increase in the taxes on the shareholders and chief executives to find better health care, better education, better social care, better care for veterans, better infrastructure etc etc etc, so that we all benefit from the profits rather than just the already wealthy folks.
So no, I don’t get cross with the government for taking the shareholders’ money, I get cross with the shareholders for taking my money. I think that’s far more rational.
Why rather be cross, than change your situation?
deleted by creator