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.
But your idea that companies pay people more when they pay less taxes is hopelessly naive. If you cut employer contributions in Belgium, the people who would get the spare money would be the shareholders and the ceos.
Famously McDonald’s and the pile pay their employees far, far less in America than in Scandinavia, but the burgers are very very similar in price.
If you reduce costs for employers, wages do not go up. There is zero wage inflationary pressure from increased profits. How can you not know this?
You foolishly seem to believe that wages are held down by taxes! No! Wages are held down by ceos and shareholders!
But your idea that companies pay people more when they pay less taxes is hopelessly naive.
I understand you feel this way.
Yet I experienced this first hand. In this comment section there was the example of a company car. As in: I was offered a company car (employer pays). I’d rather have the cash. I refused the car, got the cash. This really happens. Not every employer is evil corp.
They look at the budget: we want to spend X on this employee. If we have to spend 27% on employees RSZ, then (1-.27) remains for gross wages.
We have different employment experiences. I changed my situation by switching employers to a place I like. You’re trying to change your situation by loudly shouting on social media in the hopes of political change?
I didn’t think I was shouting loudly at all. I’m no more shouting about socialised healthcare than you’re shouting about low taxes.
They look at the budget: we want to spend X on this employee.
Lol. That is not how budget meetings work. That isn’t even how salary negotiations work.
You persist in believing that if costs reduce, wages rise, but this is not how businesses operate. When costs decrease, profits rise, executive bonuses rise, but it’s really rare that employee pay rises as a result, and as I keep telling you, it’s hopelessly naive to think that a massive tax cut for businesses would result in a massive pay rise for employees.
On the other hand, socialised healthcare is about half the cost as privatised healthcare is in the USA. You save on your taxes, but then you pay twice as much to health insurance companies who then refuse to treat you anyway. It’s really, really, really bad value for money and horrendously expensive.
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.
But your idea that companies pay people more when they pay less taxes is hopelessly naive. If you cut employer contributions in Belgium, the people who would get the spare money would be the shareholders and the ceos.
Famously McDonald’s and the pile pay their employees far, far less in America than in Scandinavia, but the burgers are very very similar in price.
If you reduce costs for employers, wages do not go up. There is zero wage inflationary pressure from increased profits. How can you not know this?
You foolishly seem to believe that wages are held down by taxes! No! Wages are held down by ceos and shareholders!
I understand you feel this way.
Yet I experienced this first hand. In this comment section there was the example of a company car. As in: I was offered a company car (employer pays). I’d rather have the cash. I refused the car, got the cash. This really happens. Not every employer is evil corp.
They look at the budget: we want to spend X on this employee. If we have to spend 27% on employees RSZ, then (1-.27) remains for gross wages.
We have different employment experiences. I changed my situation by switching employers to a place I like. You’re trying to change your situation by loudly shouting on social media in the hopes of political change?
I didn’t think I was shouting loudly at all. I’m no more shouting about socialised healthcare than you’re shouting about low taxes.
Lol. That is not how budget meetings work. That isn’t even how salary negotiations work.
You persist in believing that if costs reduce, wages rise, but this is not how businesses operate. When costs decrease, profits rise, executive bonuses rise, but it’s really rare that employee pay rises as a result, and as I keep telling you, it’s hopelessly naive to think that a massive tax cut for businesses would result in a massive pay rise for employees.
On the other hand, socialised healthcare is about half the cost as privatised healthcare is in the USA. You save on your taxes, but then you pay twice as much to health insurance companies who then refuse to treat you anyway. It’s really, really, really bad value for money and horrendously expensive.