vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
The benefits and taxes thing, in my opinion is the biggie. Most people don't realize that the cost to the company for a full-time employee with benefits can be 2x or even 3x the amount they see in their paycheck.  Health plans are extremely expensive. Even if you are having money taken from your check for health insurance, it is often just a fraction of the total cost, and the employer is subsidizing the rest.  More expensive benefits that contractors don't typically get are 401K matches and paid vacation days. When contractors call in sick or don't work because it is a national holiday, they don't get paid for that day. Also, see that line on your paycheck deducting for Social security and Medicare? That is only half of the tax. The employer pays an equal amount that is not shown on that statement. Also, they pay taxes that go towards unemployment benefits , and may be required to pay higher taxes if they churn through a lot of full-time employees. You can usually let contractors go with relative impunity . For the unemployment tax reasons, not paying for people's days off or benefits, a lot less paperwork, and less risk to the business associated with committing to full-time employees all provide value to the company. Thus companies are willing to pay more because they are getting more.  Think of it like a cell phone-contract. If you commit to a three year contract it can be a pain/expensive to get out of the deal early, but you will probably get a better rate in exchange for the risk being shifted to your end of the deal.
They are already indirectly paying these expenses.  They should be built into your rates. The amount per job or per hour needs to cover what would have been your salary, plus the what would have been sick, vacation, holidays, health insurance, life insurance, disability, education, overhead for office expenses, cost of accountants...and all taxes. In many companies the general rule of thumb is that they need to charge a customer 2x the employees salary to cover all this plus make a profit. If this is a side job some of these benefits will come from your main job. Some self employed get some of these benefits from their spouse.  The company has said we give you money for the work you perform, but you need to cover everything else including paying all taxes. Depending on where you live you might have to send money in more often then once a year. They are also telling you that they will be reporting the money they give you to the government so they can claim it as a business expense. So you better make sure you report it as income.
"The people who benefit are large engineering and construction companies, manufacturers of construction equipment, bankers and lawyers.  So in the world of realpolitik that we live in, the misery of millions of ""other people"" is spun as a net benefit, because ""we"" benefit from that misery."
Yes.  Basically, I see it as a huge giveaway to corporate interests when we have to do things like step in and pay for food for their workers (e.g. SNAP), enabling a business to keep their own wages low.  It's basically a wealth transfer to shareholders.  A full-time worker should be able to cover their nutritional needs from their salary.
We don't make enough to really consider it a salary, but I've heard   using a draw without a salary is a bad idea. As any other illegal action, not paying yourself a  reasonable salary when being a corporate officer is indeed a bad idea. I have no idea what I need to do to actually get some money in our   pockets. The answer is simple. You need to earn more money. Since it is S-Corp, it doesn't matter if you keep the profits on the corporate account or distribute - the profits will be taxed to you. You are also, as I said above, required by law to pay yourself a reasonable salary. Reasonable meaning corresponding to market rates. Paying a CPA or a Software Engineer a minimum wage will not be reasonable. That is, of course, if you're profitable, you're not required to pay yourself more money than the corporation actually has. Just to be clear, my answer refers to the question asked, and the confusing answer above that made a claim that has no substantiation in the law. I do not intend to write a thesis about pros and cons of using S-Corp every time a question about reasonable salary is asked.
And a large part of these kind of phenomenon that we see between the US and Europe just emerge from little initial differences which then carry out and compound themselves over time.   For example, in the US, most people get their health insurance from the company they work for, because during WWII, the government obviously instituted a draft. But what is not as obvious, is that to keep wages low to keep the price of goods low, they insituted a wage freeze. The only way companies could compete and incentivize workers was through ancillary benefits. Health insurance being the most appealing.
Right. We all get normal compensation, either salary or hourly depending on the nature of the job. The CEO salary is about 3.5 times that of the lowest paid worker. That is just salary and doesn't include benefits and the profit-sharing (which is completely even). If you included those things, it would be even flatter. There are no back-door golden parachutes or secret stock options.
Healthcare for the employee is more valuable to the employer than is providing healthcare for the rest of the family members.  Depending on the family situation, you're going to see significant differences in price between out of pocket costs for insurance of just the employee, vs cost for insuring the entire family.  This is because in the first instance the insurance is more subsidized by the company (as a percentage of the total cost).   The costs to the company for insuring just the individual (mid-career) are in the neighborhood of $5000 per year.  If this is all that's being negotiated (single person coverage) then I would use that amount as a baseline.
There is also a very real cost to having people know each other's salaries. Bitterness, at people who have a higher salary, and at the company paying someone a higher salary (or even the same or lower salary) when you do so much more work with them. I'm guessing the average person overestimates their abilities like you said. This means that no matter how fair your salary scheme, if people know each other's salaries, the majority of people will be bitter and thus less productive.
If that's not a politically loaded title to your post I don't know what is.  Wal-Mart pays it's employees the wage that it is competitive, in line with similar types of work, and what it is able to afford and still offer the pricing they can on the products they offer (and still make money).  What they're doing is legal and ethical.  Additionally, if the people that work at Wal-Mart need more money than their jobs offer, what concern of their employer is that?  If the people don't like that they don't make enough money at their job and have to take welfare, then it's their responsibility to improve their situation, not their employer's to give them more money for the same work just because they don't earn enough.  Is Wal-Mart's (or any place of employment for that matter) mission to enrich their employees or to do business to make a profit?  I hope your answer is the latter.  If it's not I think you're less an advocate of business and more an advocate of socialism and wealth redistribution.
"Signing bonuses are probably the most variable of all, as there is a general understanding that more personal factors are taken into account. As a result, HR isn't under a huge obligation to explain away the differences. In comparison, for salary there's the wide expectation that same job = same pay. Since there's so variable, but also fairly rare, ""budget"" isn't a main concern for many HR departments. And they certainly won't have a finely grained budget breakdown. ""This year we'll pay $250.000 for headhunters, $50000 for relocation payments, $100,000 for pension transfers, $150.000 for stock option losses..."". It's generally tossed on one big heap, ""cost of hiring"". So, what can you ask for? That's really a market question. What's your value to the company? How much of that is already reflected in salary and other benefits? The main downside to signing bonuses is that a company won't know how long you'd stay. Your value to the company is probably your monthly work. Therefore they cannot amortize that bonus over a fixed amount of months. What if you leave after 3 months? For that reason, a ""conditional"" signing bonus is a reasonable offer from your side. E.g. ask for one month salary, conditional on you staying for 24 months, and otherwise you'll repay them from your last salary."
I'd still take the lower total pay with higher hourly pay, because I'm saving myself time. It ultimately represents an increase in efficiency for my time, or an increase in my ROI of time, which most business people would agree is a good thing. I can supplement my income with side jobs or a side business, with the extra time I have. What's really key is what happens to overall employment. If it gets low enough to where workers can find 2nd jobs, then it may truly leave some low wage workers worse off, and the entire demographic worse off as a whole.
Look for discounts from a health insurance provider, price club, professional memberships or credit cards. That goes for a lot of things besides health memberships.  My wife is in a professional woman's association for networking at work.  A side benefit is an affiliate network they offer for discounts of lots of things, including gym memberships.
Keep in mind that unless you have a contract that says you get a certain amount of raise every year, the employer is not required to give you any raise. The quality of a raise is too subjective for anyone to tell you how to judge it.  You either get a raise you can live with, it makes you content/happy, and you continue working there, or you get a raise that does not satisfy you, and you jump ship to get more money. Some (most?) employers know that raises can be the tipping point for employees deciding to leave.  If you consistently receive raises greater than inflation rate, the message is that the employer values you.  If the opposite, they value you enough to continue your employment, but are willing to replace you if you decide to leave. Key thing here is there are three ways of getting increased pay with your current employer.  Cost of living or annual raise is the one that we are discussing.  Merit based raises are a second way.  If you think you deserve a raise, due to loyal consistent contribution, or contributing above your duty, or for whatever reason, then ask for a raise.  The third way is to be promoted or transferred to a higher paying position.  Often times, you should also make your case to your supervisor why you should have the new position, similar to asking for a merit raise.
This is actually a very good point - any money that is spent on an employee in excess of the bare minimum required for them to perform their job should be viewed as a component of total rewards. You can directly extend OP's logic to any other form of compensation or benefits - Why let public employees take PTO except for when mandated by federal or state law? Why not target the 10th percentile of the market for all federal jobs? Why provide employees with retirement benefits? The answer to all of the above is that all elements of a total rewards package are necessary to attract, retain, and develop good employees.      I've done consulting in the sphere of organizational structure, design, and development. I've seen the type of employees that a bare-bones total rewards philosophy attracts, and I'm not sure that I want them working for the public.
I think you are overcomplicating the scenario by assuming a benefit that doesn't exist. Assume an employee earns 50k, before considering the MSP. The corporation wants to cover the MSP. They have two options: increase the salary to $50,900, or keep the salary the same and pay for the MSP directly. Both options increase the employee's taxable income by $900. Both options decrease the corporation's income by $900. Net tax for each is unchanged. *Note - I couldn't find any specific reference to the MSP in income tax documentation on either BC Finance's or CRA's website. I am assuming that it is treated as a regular cash benefit, though I am not 100% convinced this is the case. If I am wrong in this please provide a comment below.
It depends. It sounds like they already have the product idea and supply, so it's not a blank slate. When you mention that they are supplying capital, is that capital also going towards your salary? If so, the 15-20% they are offering on top of that could be generous. Compare what you are asking for to them spending money hiring someone to build out an additional product line, which does not involve giving that hire a huge share of the business.
While it is often true that loyalty is not rewarded with a pay increase, jumping jobs too often can prematurely inflate your pay. I have seen people fresh out of school have 3 different jobs in 5 years, each one with a nice pay increase. Then suddenly, the company needs to trim some fat, hey look at this person with average output but slightly higher than average pay who has only been here a year. Looks like the best choice to cut.
Basically a company who provides health insurance for their employees provides it as part of the employee's salary package. This is an expense by the company in its pursuit of making income. In general, tax deductions are available on any expense incurred in deriving income (the exception is when social policy allows deductions for other types of expenses). If you pay for your own health insurance individually, then this expense is not an expense for you to derive your income, and as such is not tax deductible.
There are some nuances with HCE definition. To answer your questions. It's compensation as defined by the plan. Usually it's gross comp, but it can exclude things like fringe benefits, overtime pay, commissions, bonuses, etc. The compensation test is also a look-back test, meaning that an EE is determined to be an HCE in the current year if their compensation in the previous year was over the limit. I'm not sure how stock options affect this, but I expect they would be counted. Probably have an ESOP plan at that point too which is a whole other can-o-woms. The 5% owner test applies to the current year and also has a one-year look-back period. If at ANY point, even for a day, an employee was more than 5% owner, they are HCE for that year and next. Yes there is a limit. A company may limit the amount of HCE's to the top 20% of employees by pay like Aganju said. They can also disregard employees that may otherwise have been excluded under the plan using statutory exclusions. Example, they can disregard employees under 21 years and with less than 1 year of service. Hahaha, the IRS does not like to concisely define things. You can look here, that's probably as concise as you'll get. Hope this helps!
If your new employer has a Final Salary or defined benefit type pension scheme, join it. DB plans are attractive because they are often less a risk for the employee. If your employer has a defined contribution scheme and contributes to it, join it and contribute at least up to the maximum amount that they will match – otherwise you are leaving free money on the table. You also probably need to sit down with an independent adviser for what to do with your existing pension (is it a DC or DB) and if you want to have a pension outside of your employer.
1.5 However, sometimes individuals receive a voluntary payment or other valuable transfer or benefit by virtue of an office or employment from an employer, or from some other person. In such cases, the amount of the payment or the value of the transfer or benefit is generally included in employment income pursuant to subsection 5(1) or paragraph 6(1)(a). (See also Guide T4130, Employers’ Guide - Taxable Benefits and Allowances.) Similarly, voluntary payments (or other transfers or benefits) received by virtue of a profession or in the course of carrying on a business are taxable receipts. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/tchncl/ncmtx/fls/s3/f9/s3-f9-c1-eng.html#N10244 If the people in question are adults who are not related to each other and don't have a business or employment relationship, then you should find that regardless of the amount of the gift, neither giver nor recipient will have a tax consequence."
During World War II, the United States (US) instituted wage and price controls.  To attract better employees, companies would offer benefits to get around salary limits.  Health insurance was one of the more successful benefits.   At that time, income taxes were newer and there were many ways to evade them.  Companies could generally deduct expenses.  So at that time, health care was deductible because everything was.  And at that time, only wages were taxable compensation from employer to employee.   Since that time, many other benefits have become non-deductible for employers, e.g. housing or the reduced deduction for meals and entertainment.  But health care is generally regarded as different, as a necessity.  While everyone needs to eat, not everyone needs to eat at a $100 a meal restaurant.  People who need expensive health care really need it.  People who eat expensive food just prefer it.   And of course, health care is more intermittent where food is relatively consistent.  You don't need ten thousand calories one day and zero the next.  But some families have no health care expenses in a year while another might have cancer or a pregnancy.  Note that medical care expenses can be deducted for individuals if they are large enough in aggregate and you itemize.   And of course both businesses and workers have incentives to maintain the current system with deductibility.  Health insurance is a common benefit.  Housing is not (although it's worth noting that travel housing and meals are deductible).  So there have been few people impacted by making housing taxable while many people would be impacted by taxable health insurance.   You can deduct health insurance costs if self-employed.  It's also not true that health insurance is the only benefit with preferential tax treatment.  Retirement and child care are also deductible.  Even meals and housing can be deducted in certain circumstances.  The complex rules about what and how much is deductible.   There have been rumbles about normalizing the tax treatment of health insurance and medical care, but there is a lot of opposition.  Insurance companies oppose making all healthcare expenses deductible, as that reduces their effective benefit.  They would prefer only insurance premiums be deductible.  Traditionally employed individuals oppose making health insurance taxable, as that would increase their taxes.  So the situation persists.  There isn't quite enough support to move in either direction, although the current compromise is economically silly.
"There are many variables to this answer. One is, how close are you to the average salary range in the industry you are working in. If you are making more than average it would make sense that you are not getting a big raise from the employer's perspective. You have to be a top performer if you are looking for the top salary range. Big raises come from promotions or new jobs, generally speaking.  The short and personal answer is, I worked at a big company (bank) and now know that companies do not give large raises to people as a rule.  Honestly the only way to make good $ is to leave, all employers have all kinds of excuses as to why they are not giving you significant raises. Large raises and bonuses are reserved for ""management"". The bigger the company, the less likely it is that they will give you raises just because, esp. above 3-5%. At the same time, the market sets the rate, and if you are not getting passively recruited, it may mean that you need to work on getting a broader skill set if you are looking to make more $ somewhere else. The bottom line is, you have to think of yourself as a free agent at all times. You also need to make yourself more attractive as a potential hire elsewhere."
I don't understand how this gets propped up on reddit all the time. Before a candidate works at a job, he and his employer reach an agreement on what the pay will be. If the candidate doesn't agree, he doesn't work there.   If the minimum wage was $0, and an employer advertised a wage of a penny an hour, no one would take that job which forces the employer to go without an employee, or the employer increases the compensation to entice candidates to apply.  If a candidate agrees to work for whatever pay is mutually agreed upon, where is the harm?
I recently was offered $1/hr raise. I turned it down because 1.)I had been looking for other jobs and the extra $150 per month wasn't enough money to keep me from exploring other options so it would look bad to take a raise and leave a month later. You never want to burn bridges. 2.) Raises aren't given out everyday. The business I work for is having financial troubles and the $1/hr was probably the best they could do at the time. If business picks up and they can afford to give me more money they won't do it because the record will show that I just got a raise.  One good extra is that your boss will be flabergasted that you just turned down a raise and you may gain a lot of respect from your superiors. Don't confuse strategically turning down a raise and letting others sway your opinion because they don't wanna cough up the cash.
I guess that means I should be making about $250k a year right now.  I've been at my company for 16 years.  The wage and profit sharing program beat the market wages in my area by a wide margin.  Not all companies are interested in screwing their employees.
"This is what my payroll department had to say: ""It’s a percentage of employer tax the company is accruing for.  It does not affect your net."" Definition of ""Accrue"": (of sums of money or benefits) be received by someone in regular or increasing amounts over time. So it is just the employer tax my company is paying based on my salary."
"One ""economic reason"" to turn down a raise is if your company gives bonuses based on performance reviews. When you get a raise in salary, your boss usually expects a better performance from you. That being said, if you get the raise, and your performance review is worse, you might get a smaller annual income."
"The truly fun part is that it's actually illegal for me to work more than I bill - it raises issues of liability, workman's comp, employment taxes, etc.   I've gone back and forth over fifteen years, but I am *done* with salaried work. Unless you're an executive with piles of stock options or in sales, ""salary"" just means ""please do lots of work for us for free."""
"Well, they probably don't offer health insurance at all.  That means they will have to pay for administrative costs, which are likely negligible for a company that already has HR infrastructure.  But the kicker is this:  ""employees may not be forced to pay more than 9.5 percent of their family income ""  So...if you are paying a someone $2.13 an hour plus tips out of a tip pool (let's say that ends up at $10 an hour -- probably a little high but it will suffice)  at 40 hours a week:  $1700/mo - SS and taxes...lets say $1500 and they get a $450/month PPO plan (employee only), the company is looking at paying $300/mo per employee.  More for those with families.  Since they are only paying employees $362/mo out of their own coffers since the remainder are tips, their labor costs increase by about 70-80%.  Of course, this only happens to employers that treat their employees like garbage.  Personally, I'd wonder if what they are doing with their tip based wage is even legal.  Sure doesn't seem like it should be."