Sir/Madam, you properly mention that by bookkeeping methods, benefits
are part of compensation for workers--but you then dismiss this
patent fact.  I suggest a limited study for you of the dismal science.
wcm
>
> In a message dated 5/19/00 1:20:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> > My theory is entirely practical. If you do not pay tax, you cannot be said
> >  to be paying tax. Tax paid by your employer directly to the government
> >  cannot be said to be money paid by *you* to the government. It also cannot
> >  be said to be part of your wages, since it is not actually paid to you.
> >  Book-keeping entries notwithstanding.
> >
> >  You exchange your labour for the wages the employer pays you.
>
>    Oh my.  You are basically saying that taxes withheld from a paycheck and
> paid by an employer is really not money being taken from the employee.  It is
> in fact the employer's money and it is the employer alone who is paying this
> tax. Lets see how this 'theory' holds up in the real world. After having
> ordered my employer to deduct from my paycheck state and federal taxes for a
> year, the government informs me that I still owe $1040 dollars (yeah, I
> realize the irony of the amount.  The tax form we file is a form 1040).
> Notice that they did not say to my employer, "Ms. Employer, you must pay us
> an additional $1040 dollars of your money," but, instead, they said
> "Issodhos, mah man, you still owe us $1040 big ones!  Pay up!".  Apparently
> they see it as money that comes from my labor.  Now, lets say the federal or
> state legislature, in its infinite wisdom, decides to increase my taxes --
> does the employer pay the additional tax, leaving my paycheck at its prior
> amount?  No. My paycheck is reduced.  And if they actually reduce my tax
> rate, does the employer get to pocket the savings or does it show up as an
> additional amount in my paycheck.  Yes, it does.
> Yours,
> Issodhos
>