Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
No. of Recommendations: 1
Let's see what happens when we apply that same logic to workers:

Workers put their tax burden into the price of their labor and corporations pay their taxes through increased prices for their labor. And when the workers can't be competitive in their market they look for different jobs. One way is to relocate to an area that has lower taxes.

I don't see it that way. I have to increase my skill set in order to receive more for my labor. The company just tacks on the tax liability to their product.

And when you decide that you are being underpaid at your job, you move on to another company, similar to what a company does when they feel they can have better profits in another location.

I don't have a good answer, just pointing out that corporations can pass on tax costs. You and I can't, or at least I can't.
You do. Just as much as corporations do.
The market for widgets from corporations is subject to supply and demand. And that's what largely sets the prices. And the market for labor is also subject to supply and demand.
If (for example) Kansas City, Missouri was taxing employees 10% more than Kansas City, Kansas, you know that people looking for jobs will be considering take-home pay as part of their decision making process - not just before-tax pay. A lot of people will add an extra 5 minutes to their commute for an effective 10% pay increase.

I used to have arguments with our CEO about labor and benefits. If company A pays $2 less and than company B, but company B is a terrible place to work, which company will have the better and stable workforce? So in your situation above what are they getting from the government on that extra 10% tax? Is it worth it? It's a personal decision.

Where I live it's not uncommon to commute 30 to 40 miles in order to have a higher wage. That's far better than living in the large city. Luckily out here, 1 mile is done in less than a minute. I would never make it in a large metropolitan area.

There are a LOT of variables to consider, and looking at just one does not give a person a clear picture. Another example is on P&L statements. I was dinged every quarter because my indirect labor ran .5% to .75% higher than what they wanted to see. I would always counter by pointing out my material costs ran 4% to 6% under every other plant. I also had the least amount of scrap in the corporation. I always felt if you pay a little more you can expect more and recover the costs in other categories. That would end the discussion until the next quarter.

Kind of off subject now. Thanks for the discussion.

Print the post  


In accordance with IRS Circular 230, you cannot use the contents of any post on The Motley Fool's message boards to avoid tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions.
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.