Silly woman.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Doesn't she know she's not as important as her bosses? She should be lucky they deign to pay her at all!

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Not that it doesn't count, but that it's different. Benefits are benefits, they're optional pieces in addition to a wage that change from year to year, if not more. Some years I've paid more for insurance, others I've seen no change with added benefits. To treat them as wages kind of misses the point of them, both in current practice and historically, since benefits like health insurance were put in place specifically to circumvent wage controls.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

It's all compensation.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

But it's not like docking pay, because benefits aren't a paycheck, it's more like an extra.

Now, if she had some sort of employment agreement that her benefits wouldn't ever change, maybe she'd have a place for complaint in this scenario.

[saint-monkey.livejournal.com]

She can still complain, it's a loss of a benefit that she used to have. It is only fair that she let her employer know that if they don't change it she will quit. But those are her options, attempt to negotiate, or bail. If she had a contract that stated that this was part of her employment package that couldn't be altered, then she can do more than complain, she can sue.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Of course.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

It certainly is docking her pay, because now instead of it being covered, she has to pay for it. She gets less pay.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's not docking her pay, as her pay is not impacted. How she chooses to spend her money isn't any concern of the employer in this scenario.

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

Now, if she had some sort of employment agreement that her pay wouldn't ever change, maybe she'd have a place for complaint in this scenario.

Think about the difference between benefits and pay as they apply to this sentence. Do employees typically have contracts that stipulate no pay cuts?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If they're in a position that actually had contracts, yes. The contract, the agreement, is for X wage.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

...damn, ya beat me to it

[mikepictor.livejournal.com]

Semantics. It's docking her compensation.

Benefits are part of what a person will use to decide to work for one place or another. People don't just look at the dollar figure, but the entire compensation that is gained from a given workspace. Losing some of that compensation is a loss of some of the aspects of that job (possibly hard fought and bargained) that drove them to choose that workplace.

A company turning around and tossing a benefit out the window is the same as tossing some of the cash portion of the compensation out the window. Same job, less compensation.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Semantics. It's docking her compensation.

It's changing her compensation, absolutely. No disagreement. You want to call it semantics, but there's a significant difference between wages and benefits that people want to ignore.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

"if she had some sort of employment agreement that her benefits wouldn't ever change, maybe she'd have a place for complaint in this scenario."

huh? what?

lets try

"if she had some sort of employment agreement that her benefits wages wouldn't ever change, maybe she'd have a place for complaint in this scenario."

cause usually wages are subject to change too?
how are benfits not like a wage?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

how are benfits not like a wage?

You always get a wage, you don't always get benefits.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

it's more like an extra.

Not according to my employment contract, it sure as shit ain't.
Maybe you had better check yours.

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

Odd how that's the entirely opposite argument that the Wall St.-ers make about their million dollar bonuses.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

In what way?

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

In that they have to get paid bonuses or else you're docking their pay.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You mean the contractually-obligated bonuses?

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

The notion that benefits are not part of your wage/pay agreement... that they're a luxury that your employer can alter or deny you on a whim. That's the opposite of the Wall St-ers who defended receiving insane bonuses as a) their companies failed and were bailed out, and b) they were laying off the bottom rung of their company's payroll... they insisted their bonuses weren't, well, bonuses, but rather a previously agreed-upon part of their wages that couldn't/shouldn't be altered just because of present circumstances.

[goumindong.livejournal.com]

Benefits are part of your pay. They are taxed like your pay, you can be paid in things that are not cash and it is still pay.

This is not just the opinion of the entire economics profession and every business everywhere but also the fact of the matter laid down by the IRS in determining your tax burden for income.

You are wrong.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Benefits are part of your pay. They are taxed like your pay, you can be paid in things that are not cash and it is still pay.

I'm not taxed on my health insurance. I'm not taxed on my 401k benefits right now - I'll be taxed later when they're actual income.

This is not just the opinion of the entire economics profession and every business everywhere but also the fact of the matter laid down by the IRS in determining your tax burden for income.

My tax bracket is based on my income. Not on my benefits. The cost of benefits is not factored into the taxes at all - in fact, this was a big issue in the 2008 election, as John McCain wanted to consider taxing benefits.

So if I'm wrong, I'm going to need to see some evidence.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

I'm not entirely sure why your entire metric for benefits being considered being part of your pay is "does the government acknowledge it?," but if it makes you feel better....

Section 9002 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf) requires the inclusion of the aggregate cost cost of healthcare as paid for by your employer added into your W2 as of last year. But, fear not, the government doesn't tax you on it.

[goumindong.livejournal.com]

The only reason you are not taxed is because the legislature has created tax exemptions for compensation coming in those manners. You literally aren't taxed because the government wants to incent those types of activities.

[goumindong.livejournal.com]

See "Employee Compensation" on page 3 [edit: corrected page]

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p525.pdf

Everything is income, you get exemptions for certain types of actions. Income tax deductions as with all marginal taxation will reduce your tax bracket (if it hits at that margin)

Welcome to "the real world of income taxation" circa 1000 BC

You don't get an exemption because you bartered, you don't get an exemption because it was not cash. There are non-cash income types which are exempted, but not because they're not income.