252
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023
252 points (94.7% liked)
World News
32349 readers
604 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
That's not how tax incidence works. A tax is applied to the transaction, and its burden depends on who has more bargaining power, not on who writes the check.
It's called FUTA. Look it up. Also, there's likely a state equivalent wherever you reside.
I think that the argument is that if an employer can afford to pay a worker $30,000 per year and the unemployment tax is $3,000 per year then the employee gets $27,000 per year. So the employee effectively paid that tax, not the employer, even though the employer is the one who sent the money and the employer is the one who is liable for the money.
They just pass the burden onto the employee. They have to because that’s just how it works. Just like the customers pay for a restaurant’s rent in the form of an increase in prices to cover the cost.
There is no act that changes how tax incidence works.