For the self-employed it is 12.4% (the so-called "self-employment tax"), and a great many economists give credence to the idea that how it's broken down for payroll employees. The general idea is that if the employer's half were shifted to the employee, then wages/salaries would increase to compensate and about all that would change would be the bookkeeping since the employeers would have the same total outlay and the employee would take home the same amount.

This is similar to the myth that business pay any sort of taxes assesd upon them. With rare exceptions, the taxes merely increase prices charged to customers (who are the primary revenue stream for businesses) or force cost-cutting measures in other parts of the operation (skimpimg on materials, cutting corners in quality, reducing wages paid). One way or another, we all eventually end up paying "corporate" taxes either in the form of higher prices, lower quality of goods, or some comination of both.

All you have said is that taxes are a cost, such as gas, among many others that businesses have to assess in setting their prices. You mentioned cost-cutting and price increases but didn't include lower profit which is another way to deal with rising costs in a competitive environment.

Considering how businesses havie been bailing out of their pension and employee health care obligations, it is not all that certain that wages/salaries would increase to compensate for the entire social security burden being shifted to the employee.

It the same with all these government mandated employer paid expenses on behalf of the employee. They are a hidden tax on the wages of the employee. SS, unemployment insurance, workman's comp, it all adds up to real money.

Problem is, if you were to ask the average employee whether he'd rather pay for all these benefits or just get the cash, the vast majority would rather have the money.

Again it is illegitimate to call the business paid portion of these social programs a "hidden tax on wages" since there is no guarantee that wages woud rise to compensate employees if the burden were shifted to the workers.

Many businesses would be inclined to say: that's your taxes and your problem. That is already the case with the millions of workers who are employed as so-called "independent contractors." When taxes are due, these independent contractors are suprised to find out that they owe thousands in self employment and income tax. Some get so far behind that they never pay what they owe or file at all.

Workman's compensation is an insurance program that is a pretty good deal for employers. It is better for them to have workman's comp pay for their injured workers than to have it litigated.

Bush's plan to privatize social security proved to be very unpopular so I doubt that the "average employee" is as short sighted as you seem to think he is.

ClaimsAdjuster:

Again it is illegitimate to call the business paid portion of these social programs a "hidden tax on wages" since there is no guarantee that wages woud rise to compensate employees if the burden were shifted to the workers.

If the burden were suddenly shifted off the employers and onto the workers, it'd probably be a mixed bag as to how employers responded in the short term. In terms of total cost, there'd be no increase in the cost to the employer to shift what they used to pay in payroll tax into the paychecks to cover the new tax withholding (and it'd pay off in terms of employee morale to do so). In the long run, employers who didn't shift the money into payroll to cover the "new" taxes on the employees would be offering uncompetitive wages and would have a hard time replacing the likely wave of deserting employees who would go to jobs where the extra money was shifted into paycheks to cover the taxes. Ultimately, wages paid (pre-tax) would increase, but take-home pay and cost of labor wouldn't change measurably, and all that would change is the accounting.

ClaimsAdjuster:

Many businesses would be inclined to say: that's your taxes and your problem. That is already the case with the millions of workers who are employed as so-called "independent contractors." When taxes are due, these independent contractors are suprised to find out that they owe thousands in self employment and income tax. Some get so far behind that they never pay what they owe or file at all.

Independent contractors (those whose pay is reported through 10-99 rather than W-2 forms) who start their own business in ignorance of the tax laws under which they are operating that business reap what they sow. Part of being self employed is the responsibility of knowing things like what taxes you are responsible for and bidding your jobs accordingly.

ClaimsAdjuster:

Workman's compensation is an insurance program that is a pretty good deal for employers. It is better for them to have workman's comp pay for their injured workers than to have it litigated.

Bush's plan to privatize social security proved to be very unpopular so I doubt that the "average employee" is as short sighted as you seem to think he is.

The cost/benefit breakdown on workers comp, as with most programs which are administered by the states, can vary from state to state, and can also provide different results for different sizes of employers.

Short-sightedness goes well beyond the "average employee", if the average american were able to take the longer view or make the responsible choice more often that not, this country wouldn't have a negative savings rate, a subprime mortgage crisis, people who actually believe there ever was a real $10Billion budget surplus, or a failing domestic auto industry. As for the social security plan, I doubt the Bush plan is the answer, but faith in the current structure of the system to function long-term is a surer sign of myopia than any attempt to adress its structural flaws. Bush's attempt failed largely because the opponents of any change won the PR battle before any sort of real dialogue could be opened up (not that I'm implying the Bush/Rove team would have engaged in a productive dialogue from their end either, as that prospect seems doubtful), and far too few people understand that the primary difference between Social Security and an illegal Pyramid/Ponzi scheme is that the Gov't runs Social Security.

[Again it is illegitimate to call the business paid portion of these social programs a "hidden tax on wages" since there is no guarantee that wages woud rise to compensate employees if the burden were shifted to the workers.]

Of course there are no guarantees. But the cost of SS is an undeniable drag on the ability of workers to negotiate higher take-home salaries.

[Many businesses would be inclined to say: that's your taxes and your problem. That is already the case with the millions of workers who are employed as so-called "independent contractors." When taxes are due, these independent contractors are suprised to find out that they owe thousands in self employment and income tax. Some get so far behind that they never pay what they owe or file at all.]

Duh

[Bush's plan to privatize social security proved to be very unpopular so I doubt that the "average employee" is as short sighted as you seem to think he is.]

My $15/hr guys cost me $24/hr to employ. Do you really think that these government mandated expenses really are the highest and best use of the income they earn? More to the point, is it really your responsibility to make those choices?

the true conservative:

Of course there are no guarantees. But the cost of SS is an undeniable drag on the ability of workers to negotiate higher take-home salaries.

Mere assertion. Quite deniable.

As for the rest of your responses, they did not address the points raised by the passages you quoted.

"The highest and best use" is of course unknowable. But most Americans support the very succesful social security program as a wise use of their dollars.

How could it possibly be deniable that the cost of ss is a drag on the ability of employees to get raises?

As for "highest and best use" I truly believe that if the average american worker knew what SS really cost, they would change their minds in a hurry. The only reason that they don't is because the gov't goes to such pains to hide the true cost from them.