When Big, Hairy Government Met Sally
There's a cost to all these elected numpties voting in all these things that go on the national tab, and it isn't paid in Monopoly money. New Jersey-based Bogen Communications president Michael P. Fleischer writes in the WSJ about an employee he's calling Sally (not her real name):
When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally's job each year.
That's absolutely ridiculous! I don't see any reason why it should possibly cost that kind of money to have an employee.
BunnyGirl at August 9, 2010 12:52 AM
What a shame that we can't read the entire story. refuse to pay $100 per year ($1.99) per week for the WSJ content. I personally think Mr. Murdock is shooting himself in the foot. I wonder if bloggers will link to the WSJ less and less?
Trish N. at August 9, 2010 5:06 AM
Let's start adding it up:
Sally nets $44,000, AFTER TAXES.
Add $12,000 in benefits = $56,000
Add approx $10,000 in taxes already deducted = $66,000
Add approx $5000 for employer paid social security matching and unemployment taxes = $71,000
Makes sense to me!
Liza K at August 9, 2010 7:01 AM
What a shame that we can't read the entire story. refuse to pay $100 per year ($1.99) per week for the WSJ content.
Do you work for free? If so, please come over and trim my trees and powerwash my house. Also, my toilet needs cleaning.
Murdoch is one of the few smart ones.
I pay for the WSJ because I value their content. You, apparently, at least find it interesting.
Well, you don't get what you don't pay for! (But, do you really get to snivel about that?)
Amy Alkon at August 9, 2010 7:27 AM
It's long been a rule of thumb in my industry that, for quick-n-dirty budgeting, you figure that the total cost of an employee's labor is double the average salary for that job skill and level.
Cousin Dave at August 9, 2010 7:38 AM
Offtopic
Are Tressider and Conan still out there? Per last week's comments, they ought to read this.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 9, 2010 9:54 AM
Charging for online content is only wise when content is exclusive and desirable.
When it comes to things like WSJ, I would think they might be better off with advertising revenue or in site sales of some kind.
Its a touchy issue though, people need to make money, and nothing annoys a capitalist more than consumers whining about wanting more stuff for free.
Robert at August 9, 2010 11:10 AM
FYI, the article is open to non subscribers now.
The comments there are amusing to say the least. Reading one about a guy who creates businesses but taxes are never a concern he worries about is hilarious.
Sio at August 10, 2010 12:51 AM
Leave a comment