Again, you're right, and you made a great point that individual tax rates don't affect the labor market dynamics, because it only marginally affects how much money employees are making. On the other hand, it does affect businesses' profitability which also has little effect on the labor market.
So tax cuts have little to no influence on employees while having possibly drastic influence on local public services, increasing the reliance on either volunteering or private companies who will make a profit out of filling public service positions.
And this is what I meant to initially say in my 280 characters original post.
You're right in both cases, but that it is a rationalization by employers doesn't make it less likely to happen, does it?
What I am saying is that if the tax rate is 0%, the company will not pay you $50K gross. It will offer you $25K gross. If the tax rate is 50%, it will offer you $50K gross knowing that you will only get $25K net.
The corollary is that if the tax rate fell from 50% to 0%, the company would try to get their $50K gross employees to accept, say, $30K gross. It would still be an income increase for the employees but an even greater cost decrease for the company. New hires would definitely get $25K offered.
Enter the raises which are arbitrary. That’s where the company can adjust the cost of existing employees year on year. For new hires it’s even simpler to slash the offered gross salary compared to before the tax cut.
Got it but they can transfer more or less money to the payroll processor depending the company’s salary policy. What income tax cuts enable them is to rescale gross amounts so that employees come home with similar net amounts while they get to spend less overall. If not easily for existing employees (outside the lower raise example I gave before), definitely for new hires.
I don't believe they are "just" doing the banking math for the government, because it directly impacts their bottom line. And I fully believe that employees would be salty about the no-raise year, but the political benefit of the tax cut would already have been spent by then, and they still wouldn't have any leverage against their employer. So any tax cut would be a temporary benefit for employees, while being a permanent benefit for employers.
I don't see how the fact that the initial negotiation is on the gross salary or that employees see how much the company paid would change the fact that companies have control over the employment cost year on year? Even during the initial salary negotiation, I expect companies are targeting a certain employment cost, not an absolute gross salary that will never change.
For example when you're offered a 1% raise instead of a 4% raise, you still have more money numbers in your pocket each month, but in reality you have slightly less spending power (because of inflation) but you sure cost less than expected to your employer.
Put it in other term, your work doesn't have an absolute value that companies have to pay you in full before tax deduction. This is the only case where a tax reduction would directly benefit employees, but it isn't the case.
In the US companies receive directly all tax reductions since even federal income tax is withdrawn from your paycheck every month. The adjustment I'm talking about would likely be a lower than usual raise on your gross salary the next year since your net salary would have raised by itself thanks to the tax reduction.
Me neither, but I wouldn't try since the credentials are sent to the web.archive.org domain first as the form target URL has been altered to be part of the Wayback Machine as well.
I believe "only" is inaccurate in your comment. You can also count at least the legislative bodies, the justice system, the correction system, the home owner associations, the bounty hunters, etc...
♲ @nick_kapur@twitter.com: In Japan's Edo Period (1603-1868), when impoverished peasants finally couldn't take it anymore and decided to revolt, they would sign their list of demands with all their names in a big circle.
♲ @RMac18@twitter.com: Facebook sent reporters covering their glasses launch a list of supposed "third-party" privacy and consumer groups that it consulted for the product. So I did some digging.
FB funds at least 4 of the 5 groups. Future of Privacy Forum is one.