Who recalls Kevin's comments about not having to file a tax return?

Customers and then the companies remit it to the wasteland of Govt.  

But according to your "logic" regarding employment taxes, the remitter of a tax is the one who pays it. See the contradiction?

No, I don't.  This is apples and oranges.  

Let me ask you a question.  Who pays for water and paper in the office?  (U/C taxes fall into the same category)  

That's a ridiculous comparison, because there is no third party in the transactions for office supplies; also, the government isn't involved.

Employers would pay higher wages if they didn't have to pay payroll taxes. Or to put it another way, the total cost of having employees is their wages plus the taxes that an employer must pay. No such taxes, the amount of wages would be higher.

Maybe you really don't understand what a "passed on" cost is? I tried to use the sales tax comparison to help you understand. Yes, the merchant writes the state/local government a check every month or whatever. Does that mean that the merchant is actually paying the tax? Or is he simply remitting the tax collected from the consumer? If the latter, who actually paid it?

I can't explain it any more simply, so I give up.

Oh, I get it now. 

So employees would get higher wages then if there was no water or coffee too, right?  

Now I know why your businesses crumbled......

Yes, in fact, amenities offered to employees DO cost them other forms of compensation, such as wages/salaries. Just like medical plans, paid lunches, day care, etc. etc. They're not free, and they factor into the total cost incurred by employers.

I don't know why or how you and stupid Tom keep gnawing at that bone of my supposed "failed businesses," but it's pretty stupid of the both of you. Him, I expect it. You, you just shame yourself.

Employers that don't offer amenities do in fact offer higher wages, because otherwise they wouldn't be competitive in the labor marketplace. Get it? Finally?

No. (sigh)