Your benefits and Social Security (both sides) are subtracted from your pay

[kaz]

As an employer, I can tell you we don't pay your insurance or your taxes for you. It's subtracted from your pay, all of it, both sides. Not only do I know that from my career in management, management consulting and entrepreneurship having bought and run five businesses, but I see that today directly having sold my business and returning to management consulting.

I have three choices as a consultant:

1) W2 employee of the company I'm working for with benefits
2) W2 employee of a contracting company who pays employer payroll taxes and no other benefits
3) Corp to Corp. I sold my business assets, but I still have a corporation. I can have the company pay me like any other vendor where they withhold no taxes, my own corporation has to do that.

Interestingly enough, guess how the pay for each one varies. 3 is a higher rate than 2 which is a higher rate than 1. And if you do the math, 3 to 2 is higher by exactly the taxes they don't have to pay, and 2 is higher than one exactly by the benefits they don't have to pay.

Those of you who think you're getting a free lunch are just wrong. It's all part of the cost of employment. Couple other examples:

1) In management, you look at your "salary." We look at what we call your "loaded salary." Your loaded salary is your salary + employer side payroll taxes + benefits. We always discuss salary as loaded salary. No one cares what you take home, we care what it costs to employ you

2) If you don't justify your loaded salary in terms of company profitability, we fire you. We aren't fooled by burying costs as "employer contributions" or "unemployment insurance." We count it all and hold you accountable for it.

Stop being deceived by politicians. They know we know this. They think you don't ...

 

[Pogo]

W-2s? Ah that takes me back..... WAY back.....

Prolly most of my working life though has been through the formidable 1099 -- which means I pony up those deductions myself.

So I don't think anyone's under any illusions that it comes from some kind of pixie dust, no. On the contrary I'm pissed at being forced to pay for something I've already been deducted/self-deducted for since the Johnson Administration.

Not even sure what the point of this thread is. Seems to be countering a point that nobody made.

 

[kaz]

W-2s? Ah that takes me back..... WAY back.....

Prolly most of my working life though has been through the formidable 1099 -- which means I pony up those deductions myself.

So I don't think anyone's under any illusions that it comes from some kind of pixie dust, no. On the contrary I'm pissed at being forced to pay for something I've already been deducted/self-deducted for since the Johnson Administration.

Not even sure what the point of this thread is. Seems to be countering a point that nobody made.

You get 1099s for selling moonshine in hillbilly country? Rednecks are really going mainstream.

As I said, I do both. I'm not sure your point. Is this some source of pride for you?

 

[Pogo]

W-2s? Ah that takes me back..... WAY back.....

Prolly most of my working life though has been through the formidable 1099 -- which means I pony up those deductions myself.

So I don't think anyone's under any illusions that it comes from some kind of pixie dust, no. On the contrary I'm pissed at being forced to pay for something I've already been deducted/self-deducted for since the Johnson Administration.

Not even sure what the point of this thread is. Seems to be countering a point that nobody made.

You get 1099s for selling moonshine in hillbilly country? Rednecks are really going mainstream.

As I said, I do both. I'm not sure your point. Is this some source of pride for you?

Moonshine's legal in this hyar county Gomer. Though there's I think one still left -- Graham, long way from me.

That's separation of church 'n' state for ya.

I'm just at a loss to decipher what argument you're countering or "clarifying" here. It would seem to be one that tends not to exist.

 

[kaz]

W-2s? Ah that takes me back..... WAY back.....

Prolly most of my working life though has been through the formidable 1099 -- which means I pony up those deductions myself.

So I don't think anyone's under any illusions that it comes from some kind of pixie dust, no. On the contrary I'm pissed at being forced to pay for something I've already been deducted/self-deducted for since the Johnson Administration.

Not even sure what the point of this thread is. Seems to be countering a point that nobody made.

You get 1099s for selling moonshine in hillbilly country? Rednecks are really going mainstream.

As I said, I do both. I'm not sure your point. Is this some source of pride for you?

Moonshine's legal in this hyar county Gomer. Though there's I think one still left -- Graham, long way from me.

That's separation of church 'n' state for ya.

I'm just at a loss to decipher what argument you're countering or "clarifying" here. It would seem to be one that tends not to exist.

I asked you what your point was on W2 versus 1099. It's just the financial arrangement, it doesn't effect the job I'm doing. And it doesn't effect the net pay, they only subtract whatever else they are paying.

Note the OP you don't seem to have read was about the last point.

And I asked you why you seem to be taking immense pride in the 1099, what difference does it make? I like corp to corp because they pay me all my payroll taxes instead of the government and I can reduce them by how I treat the revenue. I have to pay income tax on it all, but I can lower my payroll taxes and pocket the difference.

On a 1099, you still have to pay all income tax and you have to pay double social security tax. I can't do 1099 because as a management consultant, I'm working on site and I'm working in a leadership capacity. To be a 1099 I'd have to be an external hired gun who has no organizational responsibilities.

Before I sold my business, I paid the cleaning service on a 1099. They did a great job on the toilets. What about you? Do you get them nice and shiny?

 

[Pogo]

I take no "pride" in getting 1099s. They're a royal pain in the ass but a reality, and you cannot possibly deal with them and not know you're taxing yourself for the same deductions brought up in your OP that nobody took issue with in the first place.

But nor can you work under W2s and not know that somebody else is taking out the same thing, unless one were to never look at one's stub to ensure one got paid properly for one's work.

Yanno if you ever think of a basis for this thread retroactively yer gonna need somebody to lift it up while you slip it underneath.

Won't be me.

 

[kaz]

I take no "pride" in getting 1099s. They're a royal pain in the ass but a reality, and you cannot possibly deal with them and not know you're taxing yourself for the same deductions brought up in your OP that nobody took issue with in the first place.

But nor can you work under W2s and not know that somebody else is taking out the same thing, unless one were to never look at one's stub to ensure one got paid properly for one's work.

Yanno if you ever think of a basis for this thread retroactively yer gonna need somebody to lift it up while you slip it underneath.

Won't be me.

Well, with 1099s, you can take other deductions that W-2 employees can't take. While my option of having a corporation is the ultimate in terms of control, with a 1099 you get many of the benefits I have over a W-2 without having to maintain a corporation. It's easy for me I've done it so long, but there's a lot to learn for someone who hasn't owned one before.

Also, I already had a corporation. In June, I sold the business assets of the last business I owned, but I didn't sell the corporation itself so it was already set up. I need to keep it alive for at least four more years since the asset sale was to my corporation and checks will come in that long. So I may as well use it for other things that I can. I don't know that I'd set up a full corporation for your case where you'd just be using it for your own work, I'd probably do 1099 as well in your case

As for my point, read the OP, it's clear. You just like to run around banging into walls and other people and say "excuse you" as if we'd run into you

 

[Pogo]

I take no "pride" in getting 1099s. They're a royal pain in the ass but a reality, and you cannot possibly deal with them and not know you're taxing yourself for the same deductions brought up in your OP that nobody took issue with in the first place.

But nor can you work under W2s and not know that somebody else is taking out the same thing, unless one were to never look at one's stub to ensure one got paid properly for one's work.

Yanno if you ever think of a basis for this thread retroactively yer gonna need somebody to lift it up while you slip it underneath.

Won't be me.

Well, with 1099s, you can take other deductions that W-2 employees can't take. While my option of having a corporation is the ultimate in terms of control, with a 1099 you get many of the benefits I have over a W-2 without having to maintain a corporation. It's easy for me I've done it so long, but there's a lot to learn for someone who hasn't owned one before.

Also, I already had a corporation. In June, I sold the business assets of the last business I owned, but I didn't sell the corporation itself so it was already set up. I need to keep it alive for at least four more years since the asset sale was to my corporation and checks will come in that long. So I may as well use it for other things that I can. I don't know that I'd set up a full corporation for your case where you'd just be using it for your own work, I'd probably do 1099 as well in your case

As for my point, read the OP, it's clear. You just like to run around banging into walls and other people and say "excuse you" as if we'd run into you

That's pretty funny but DOOD ---- or Doodette --- you've been invited to explain what your point is here from the beginning. You seem to be contradicting a claim that nobody made. Get it yet?

Maybe I'm just the only one with the patience to ask the obvious question.

That ends here. Unsubscribed.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

As an employer, I can tell you we don't pay your insurance or your taxes for you. It's subtracted from your pay, all of it, both sides. Not only do I know that from my career in management, management consulting and entrepreneurship having bought and run five businesses, but I see that today directly having sold my business and returning to management consulting.

I have three choices as a consultant:

1) W2 employee of the company I'm working for with benefits
2) W2 employee of a contracting company who pays employer payroll taxes and no other benefits
3) Corp to Corp. I sold my business assets, but I still have a corporation. I can have the company pay me like any other vendor where they withhold no taxes, my own corporation has to do that.

Interestingly enough, guess how the pay for each one varies. 3 is a higher rate than 2 which is a higher rate than 1. And if you do the math, 3 to 2 is higher by exactly the taxes they don't have to pay, and 2 is higher than one exactly by the benefits they don't have to pay.

Those of you who think you're getting a free lunch are just wrong. It's all part of the cost of employment. Couple other examples:

1) In management, you look at your "salary." We look at what we call your "loaded salary." Your loaded salary is your salary + employer side payroll taxes + benefits. We always discuss salary as loaded salary. No one cares what you take home, we care what it costs to employ you

2) If you don't justify your loaded salary in terms of company profitability, we fire you. We aren't fooled by burying costs as "employer contributions" or "unemployment insurance." We count it all and hold you accountable for it.

Stop being deceived by politicians. They know we know this. They think you don't ...

You statement is basically accepted economic theory by economists of both the left and right. This is a major factor in the rising income inequality. It really can't surprise people that wages which are taxed at 12.4% grow more slowly than those which are not taxed at all.

 

[kaz]

As an employer, I can tell you we don't pay your insurance or your taxes for you. It's subtracted from your pay, all of it, both sides. Not only do I know that from my career in management, management consulting and entrepreneurship having bought and run five businesses, but I see that today directly having sold my business and returning to management consulting.

I have three choices as a consultant:

1) W2 employee of the company I'm working for with benefits
2) W2 employee of a contracting company who pays employer payroll taxes and no other benefits
3) Corp to Corp. I sold my business assets, but I still have a corporation. I can have the company pay me like any other vendor where they withhold no taxes, my own corporation has to do that.

Interestingly enough, guess how the pay for each one varies. 3 is a higher rate than 2 which is a higher rate than 1. And if you do the math, 3 to 2 is higher by exactly the taxes they don't have to pay, and 2 is higher than one exactly by the benefits they don't have to pay.

Those of you who think you're getting a free lunch are just wrong. It's all part of the cost of employment. Couple other examples:

1) In management, you look at your "salary." We look at what we call your "loaded salary." Your loaded salary is your salary + employer side payroll taxes + benefits. We always discuss salary as loaded salary. No one cares what you take home, we care what it costs to employ you

2) If you don't justify your loaded salary in terms of company profitability, we fire you. We aren't fooled by burying costs as "employer contributions" or "unemployment insurance." We count it all and hold you accountable for it.

Stop being deceived by politicians. They know we know this. They think you don't ...

You statement is basically accepted economic theory by economists of both the left and right. This is a major factor in the rising income inequality. It really can't surprise people that wages which are taxed at 12.4% grow more slowly than those which are not taxed at all.

The bottom half of taxpayers, which means a majority of Americans, pay zero percent. What are you babbling about?

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

As an employer, I can tell you we don't pay your insurance or your taxes for you. It's subtracted from your pay, all of it, both sides. Not only do I know that from my career in management, management consulting and entrepreneurship having bought and run five businesses, but I see that today directly having sold my business and returning to management consulting.

I have three choices as a consultant:

1) W2 employee of the company I'm working for with benefits
2) W2 employee of a contracting company who pays employer payroll taxes and no other benefits
3) Corp to Corp. I sold my business assets, but I still have a corporation. I can have the company pay me like any other vendor where they withhold no taxes, my own corporation has to do that.

Interestingly enough, guess how the pay for each one varies. 3 is a higher rate than 2 which is a higher rate than 1. And if you do the math, 3 to 2 is higher by exactly the taxes they don't have to pay, and 2 is higher than one exactly by the benefits they don't have to pay.

Those of you who think you're getting a free lunch are just wrong. It's all part of the cost of employment. Couple other examples:

1) In management, you look at your "salary." We look at what we call your "loaded salary." Your loaded salary is your salary + employer side payroll taxes + benefits. We always discuss salary as loaded salary. No one cares what you take home, we care what it costs to employ you

2) If you don't justify your loaded salary in terms of company profitability, we fire you. We aren't fooled by burying costs as "employer contributions" or "unemployment insurance." We count it all and hold you accountable for it.

Stop being deceived by politicians. They know we know this. They think you don't ...

You statement is basically accepted economic theory by economists of both the left and right. This is a major factor in the rising income inequality. It really can't surprise people that wages which are taxed at 12.4% grow more slowly than those which are not taxed at all.

The bottom half of taxpayers, which means a majority of Americans, pay zero percent. What are you babbling about?

Clearly they don't pay zero if they are paying payroll taxes... So you need to stop reading memes as though they are sound thought. The figure you are struggling for is about 40% of the public is PROJECTED to pay zero INCOME tax. Of that figure, about half are poor seniors. Of the remaining half, something close to half pay other taxes, like payroll taxes.

 

[Norman]

As an employer, I can tell you we don't pay your insurance or your taxes for you. It's subtracted from your pay, all of it, both sides. Not only do I know that from my career in management, management consulting and entrepreneurship having bought and run five businesses, but I see that today directly having sold my business and returning to management consulting.

I have three choices as a consultant:

1) W2 employee of the company I'm working for with benefits
2) W2 employee of a contracting company who pays employer payroll taxes and no other benefits
3) Corp to Corp. I sold my business assets, but I still have a corporation. I can have the company pay me like any other vendor where they withhold no taxes, my own corporation has to do that.

Interestingly enough, guess how the pay for each one varies. 3 is a higher rate than 2 which is a higher rate than 1. And if you do the math, 3 to 2 is higher by exactly the taxes they don't have to pay, and 2 is higher than one exactly by the benefits they don't have to pay.

Those of you who think you're getting a free lunch are just wrong. It's all part of the cost of employment. Couple other examples:

1) In management, you look at your "salary." We look at what we call your "loaded salary." Your loaded salary is your salary + employer side payroll taxes + benefits. We always discuss salary as loaded salary. No one cares what you take home, we care what it costs to employ you

2) If you don't justify your loaded salary in terms of company profitability, we fire you. We aren't fooled by burying costs as "employer contributions" or "unemployment insurance." We count it all and hold you accountable for it.

Stop being deceived by politicians. They know we know this. They think you don't ...

Not your pay, from your children's pay! Isn't it nice to know that your children are enslaved to you! Yes... yes it is.

 

[kaz]

As an employer, I can tell you we don't pay your insurance or your taxes for you. It's subtracted from your pay, all of it, both sides. Not only do I know that from my career in management, management consulting and entrepreneurship having bought and run five businesses, but I see that today directly having sold my business and returning to management consulting.

I have three choices as a consultant:

1) W2 employee of the company I'm working for with benefits
2) W2 employee of a contracting company who pays employer payroll taxes and no other benefits
3) Corp to Corp. I sold my business assets, but I still have a corporation. I can have the company pay me like any other vendor where they withhold no taxes, my own corporation has to do that.

Interestingly enough, guess how the pay for each one varies. 3 is a higher rate than 2 which is a higher rate than 1. And if you do the math, 3 to 2 is higher by exactly the taxes they don't have to pay, and 2 is higher than one exactly by the benefits they don't have to pay.

Those of you who think you're getting a free lunch are just wrong. It's all part of the cost of employment. Couple other examples:

1) In management, you look at your "salary." We look at what we call your "loaded salary." Your loaded salary is your salary + employer side payroll taxes + benefits. We always discuss salary as loaded salary. No one cares what you take home, we care what it costs to employ you

2) If you don't justify your loaded salary in terms of company profitability, we fire you. We aren't fooled by burying costs as "employer contributions" or "unemployment insurance." We count it all and hold you accountable for it.

Stop being deceived by politicians. They know we know this. They think you don't ...

You statement is basically accepted economic theory by economists of both the left and right. This is a major factor in the rising income inequality. It really can't surprise people that wages which are taxed at 12.4% grow more slowly than those which are not taxed at all.

The bottom half of taxpayers, which means a majority of Americans, pay zero percent. What are you babbling about?

Clearly they don't pay zero if they are paying payroll taxes... So you need to stop reading memes as though they are sound thought. The figure you are struggling for is about 40% of the public is PROJECTED to pay zero INCOME tax. Of that figure, about half are poor seniors. Of the remaining half, something close to half pay other taxes, like payroll taxes.

So just to be clear, you're admitting the payroll tax isn't as you keep claiming a prudent retirement plan, it's a tax and there is no trust fund