this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2024
1128 points (98.5% liked)
AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND
822 readers
928 users here now
This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
① Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.
② Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
③ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.
④ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.
⑤ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
♦ ♦ ♦
Can't get enough? Visit my blog.
♦ ♦ ♦
Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.
$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
What can I tell you, other than it does work like that for me?
It seems you're very unhappy at your place of employment. What efforts have you made to improve that?
I'm not unhappy at my place of employment, I'm mildly unhappy that ceos and shareholders extract the vast majority of the profits from the efforts of workers and want governments to increase taxes and share wealth more equitably.
You seem unhappy with your country. What steps have you taken to emigrate to the USA?
I'm merely unhappy with falsehoods, and this is one I have first hand experience in.
We still have communist parties, that experience the same angst you have, here, too, you know.
The way I lessened my issues is by becoming self employed. I've made no effort to move to us, and never planned to. Things became much easier once I did so.
OK.
It is not, by the way, false to say that employee deductions are subtracted from wages and that employer deductions are subtracted from profits, that is true both de facto and de jure.
It is false to say that reducing employer taxes increases employee wages, that isn't how the world works. It just increases profits and reduces the amount the government spends on things such as public transport, cycling infrastructure, roads, railways, hospitals, schools, social care, those sorts of things.
If you're self employed, you may well look at the entirety of the money coming in and consider it potential wages, want to pay all of that to yourself, but deduct any costs you are obliged to and in that sense there's no real difference between a cost and a salary reduction, but that's because you're self employed, it's really not how most employers work.
Usually, employers have zero desire to give all the money to the employees or to maximise wages, in fact, probably a majority of large employers prefer to minimise wages.
Ok.
(Just to let you know, I realised I wanted to say more and have substantially edited my post. You may want to re-read it.)