.

What would your gross income be

striperbwarestriperbware Member Posts: 1,044 ✭✭✭✭
edited November 2010 in General Discussion
..... if there were no fed. or state income taxes. This question is for people that work for an employer that issues W2's. I'll bet your gross income would decrease to nearly what your net income after income taxes is now. Think about it, if you go to work for a company, the management of that company knows what standard of living that your occupation in life should reward you with.

We as a society assign different value to different occupations, based on various factors such as how much education is needed to do the job, how dangerous or stressful or demanding it is of some facet of your personal make-up. That is why doctors and CEO's make more money thab fast food workers. Point is, a company is only going to pay you enough net income so that you won't leave for another job. Today's gross incomes are inflated by the company's need to make sure you end up with a reasonable net income fitting of your occupation.

I therefore contend that comapanies only strive to make sure that your net income is in line with your standard of living expectations for that occupation.

Comments

  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    Perhaps.

    But in THIS current economy, not so much. Too many people that have "run out" of UE and are forced to work for scraps.
    Employers know that there is alot more workforce than there is work. Many employers are taking advantage of that, fattening their own profit margins and tossing peanuts to the employees.
  • mark christianmark christian Forums Admins, Member, Moderator Posts: 22,988 ******
    edited November -1
    Two employees working at identical jobs and pay rates for the same employer can have totally different amounts of take home pay. The married man with a wife and four kids is going to be taking home a lot more net pay than the single guy with no deductions, so at what end of the pay scale is the formula set?
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by mark christian
    Two employees working at identical jobs and pay rates for the same employer can have totally different amounts of take home pay. The married man with a wife and four kids is going to be taking home a lot more net pay than the single guy with no deductions, so at what end of the pay scale is the formula set?


    And that depends on how many dependants the married man claims on his forms too.

    Most everyone I have ever talked to claims "0".
  • CaptFunCaptFun Member, Moderator Posts: 16,645 ******
    edited November -1
    I have worked for companies that could give a rats * about what my take home was. Could care less that I got married and had a family. One was self insured and went as far as denying a sonogram that my wifes Dr. submitted as not medically necessary. The Feds could have taken it all and they would not have cared. Best thing they ever did was lay me off so I could help build GunBroker! I still send the accountant who made that descision a Christmas card every year!!!
  • striperbwarestriperbware Member Posts: 1,044 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by mark christian
    Two employees working at identical jobs and pay rates for the same employer can have totally different amounts of take home pay. The married man with a wife and four kids is going to be taking home a lot more net pay than the single guy with no deductions, so at what end of the pay scale is the formula set?


    Good point that I neglected in my post, but I would counter with this if I were the company - you still will both get the same paycheck because your jobs are identical. Single dude go out and enjoy spending all your money on whatever, and married dude that is one great family you have there but we aren't gonna pay you more just because you decided you wanted kids. You do the same job as the single dude and therefore you will get paid the same, but you each decide to spend it differently.
  • striperbwarestriperbware Member Posts: 1,044 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by CaptFun
    I have worked for companies that could give a rats * about what my take home was. Could care less that I got married and had a family. One was self insured and went as far as denying a sonogram that my wifes Dr. submitted as not medically necessary. The Feds could have taken it all and they would not have cared. Best thing they ever did was lay me off so I could help build GunBroker! I still send the accountant who made that descision a Christmas card every year!!!


    My point is that you would have jumped ship as soon as you had a better offer. Low-balling employers should expect a high employee turnover rate, bad morale and possibly rampant stealing. Usually low-balling comes back to cost them more money in the long run than if they took care of good employees so that they would not want to leave.
  • William81William81 Member Posts: 20,820 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    My health insurance costs me almost as much as what I pay in federal taxes each month.
  • FrancFFrancF Member, Moderator Posts: 35,278 ******
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by CaptFun
    I have worked for companies that could give a rats * about what my take home was. Could care less that I got married and had a family. One was self insured and went as far as denying a sonogram that my wifes Dr. submitted as not medically necessary. The Feds could have taken it all and they would not have cared. Best thing they ever did was lay me off so I could help build GunBroker! I still send the accountant who made that descision a Christmas card every year!!!


    YEP! BTDT!

    +1 No matter how you measure Success, You did it for yourself and you build on it!!!![^][^][^]

    That folks, IS WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS ABOUT[^]
  • bigdaddyjuniorbigdaddyjunior Member Posts: 11,233
    edited November -1
    I pay people who work for me based on their ability to make money for the company. If all employers operated on that simple principal i.e. pay a person what they are worth, then our economy would thrive. I see an awful lot of total idiots making obscene paychecks because they have an uncle who is a golf buddy of some big shot etc..
  • cce1302cce1302 Member Posts: 9,880
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by bigdaddyjunior
    I pay people who work for me based on their ability to make money for the company. If all employers operated on that simple principal i.e. pay a person what they are worth, then our economy would thrive. I see an awful lot of total idiots making obscene paychecks because they have an uncle who is a golf buddy of some big shot etc..


    I've been on the other end of that. I get paid what I am worth to my employer.
  • dcon12dcon12 Member Posts: 30,832 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by bigdaddyjunior
    I pay people who work for me based on their ability to make money for the company. If all employers operated on that simple principal i.e. pay a person what they are worth, then our economy would thrive. I see an awful lot of total idiots making obscene paychecks because they have an uncle who is a golf buddy of some big shot etc..


    Stay off the golf course! Don
  • 11b6r11b6r Member Posts: 16,725
    edited November -1
    quote:I get paid what I am worth to my employer.

    Same here- amd I am willing to work my butt off to show that I am worth what I am getting. Folks I work for are in business to make a profit (bless their hearts) and the more I can do to further that, the more my contributions are valued.

    Could that change tommorow? Yep. Even mountains are not permanent. But I figure I have a better chance of having a good job that pays well doing it my way.
  • CaptFunCaptFun Member, Moderator Posts: 16,645 ******
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by striperbware

    My point is that you would have jumped ship as soon as you had a better offer. Low-balling employers should expect a high employee turnover rate, bad morale and possibly rampant stealing. Usually low-balling comes back to cost them more money in the long run than if they took care of good employees so that they would not want to leave.



    It was a dutch company, the CEO actually thought high employee turnover rate was good. Going "Dutch" isn't just a saying. they are some cheap buzzards. I had to spend significantly more time (that I could have been working harder and making the company more money) performing compensation research and kissing * to get raises. Closing the Atlanta office and moving the few that were left to Marshall, TX could not have come at a better time. I had been there ten yrs and was about tired of them and Admin needed me. All good!!!

    But, back to the OP's point, If you are referring to the FairTax scenario. Yes, there would be a period of unsettled salaries as both wages, taxes and the cost of goods reached a new equilibrium. Where it would end up is the subject of numerous quite lengthy debates.
  • CaptFunCaptFun Member, Moderator Posts: 16,645 ******
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by freemind
    And that depends on how many dependants the married man claims on his forms too.

    Most everyone I have ever talked to claims "0".


    Depends on how much of a check you want to write in April. I always aim for oweing them less than $100 to getting a few hundred back. Try to balance that with the state so I come out even. I'll bet it won't work that way next year....
Sign In or Register to comment.