- No tax on overtime: so now making them work 60 hours a week is cheaper for the employer
- No tax on tips: so the tip based payment model is cheaper
- No tax on overtime: so now making them work 60 hours a week is cheaper for the employer
- No tax on tips: so the tip based payment model is cheaper
Taxes do not feature into salary negotiation. Employers pay as little as they can get away with, while employees want to get as much money as they can.
If you need theoretical worlds with no correspondence to anything ever in actual history to justify your claim, then maybe there is not that much to it.
The point is valid based on the context here, but taxes certainly feature in compensation.
Notably if you’re considering moving from a no/low tax locale to a higher one.
Two spectacular examples are the MLB contracts of Shohei Ohtani and Vladimir Guerrero.
Ohtani is getting paid very little ($2M/year) for his 10 years with the Dodgers, the vast majority is deferred to when after he leaves the team (and, notably, probably) California (likely back to Japan).
Vlad’s large contract is padded with a very large (like $175M I think) “signing bonus” to be paid over 10 years. The key point is that money will be earned “where he lives “, which is Florida, not where he plays (Toronto).
Both of these are structured to avoid local (high) tax jurisdictions.
But not just superstar athletes need to consider this. Anyone moving for work to a higher tax locale needs to consider that during salary negotiations.
(The workforce at the plant was unionized and the higher rate may have been part of the labor contract. This was in Montreal Canada about 25 years ago. )
And because the implication of your argument is we should never tax anything because that's a benefit to both the consumer and the business
To me, the bad part is the tax reductions only appear in behavior I don't agree with: high overtime and tipping (when it's semi mandatory).
I'm not American, but this is also showing up in my country.