User talk:Hoppyturn

Suggestions or comments are welcomed below. Thanks. Hoppyturn (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Avg Wage Article
Hi, the data you tried to put in the avg wage page are not using the same definitions, and thus are not correct. The source of the wage data you had was from a document called "Taxing Wages" which are NOT meant to compare wages but rather tax burdens. As you can see, the gross wage data is way off what your data showed, mainly because there, many countries are using different definitions. Read the paragraph in the avg wage article talking about why these data are different from the national accounts data. The US data for example excludes govt workers, supervisors, extra pay, many professional wage earners who own their business, etc. The German data on the other hand excludes many low paid workers by excluding apprentices. The data I use ensures that the same definition is used and thus is more comparable.

lneal001 (talk)
 * Hi, thanks for the info. Seems like I did a lot of work for no good. Could you give me a link to that paragraph on the average wage article? I would like to read more about it. Thanks. Hoppyturn (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for being understanding, and I am sorry for the time and effort you put in. Here is the link below. I think it would be good to have a "net" figure too, just that the link you provided "assumed" too many things, i.e. that a person had two children, etc. Perhaps it would be best to use a tax calculator.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/50/43948033.pdf

lneal001 (talk)


 * Just to make sure I understand what you wrote in my wall, basically you are saying you want to apply the OECD tax ratios to the wage data currently in the "average wage" page? I just wanted to confirm this is what you proposed. Thanks! By the way, the data I use is not GDP per capita, but actual wages and salaries.

lneal001 (talk)

Good job! I guess the deduction % are not perfect, but it is better than nothing. Just for your own information, at least half of workers have dependents, and this greatly increases changes amoung countries. So basically the current figures are not indicative for even most workers. But like I said, it's better than nothing. Maybe in the future you will want to include another column to include people with children. Again, great work, and it's good to know you hard work has paid off. lneal001 (talk)

I am just reviewing some of the tax calculators, to see how correct the OECD is. For the UK, the % is actually 31%. Just plug in 29,000 pounds to the calculator below. For Germany (using 33,000 euros) it's 37%. For Spain it's 30% (using 26,000 euros). USA is at 22%.

http://listentotaxman.com/

http://www.parmentier.de/steuer/steuer.htm?wagetax.htm

http://www.calcularsueldoneto.com/

Do you mind, if I provide a link, that I change the tax % where it's proven with these calculators? Thanks. lneal001 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC).


 * If by tax you mean taxes and mandatory social security contributions, then yes, these calculators do just that. The OECD rates also include mandatory social contributions. My question to you is if we can show in the calculators that taxes and mandatory contributions are taken, can we use it as a subtitute, given that this is probably more reliable than what OECD did [remember how wrong they were on the wage data]!lneal001 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC).

I see what you mean. No, these costs are definitely not included in the salary calculators. These are costs that are paid on behalf of employees, and thus would make no sense to include it in a paycheck calculator since it seems that employers pay the cost. A prime example of this would be private health insurance. Lneal001 (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand the argument about consistency, but the fact is (as we have seen) the OECD is not a perfect source. The figures using tax calculators I included, only show mandatory taxes and payroll taxes (i.e. social security contributions). It does not include non tax deductions, like union dues or contributions to charities, health insurance, life insurance, etc. These are the costs you were worried about. I am pretty sure that I can find a calculator for the MAJORITY of countries. For countries where there is a LARGE difference (like 20% vs 30%) as we see with Spain and UK, I feel that we should adjust it accordingly. If not, then we are misguiding readers. All the calculators show what exactly they are deducting and allow one to show that the person is single with zero children. Do you still see a problem with this? Lneal001 (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason your number did not reach 31% is because you did not include "national insurance" which are payroll taxes. They fund the public health and pension systems, and hence are considered a "tax" for our purposes because it's mandatory and paid to govt. Does that clear it up?Lneal001 (talk) 05:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I am a little confused then. I insert the 31,000 in the calculator, and the net result is 23,700 giving us a 30% decrease. Is this not what you get?Lneal001 (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

When you insert 31,000 pounds into the calculator, what is the net amount that you get? Thanks. Lneal001 (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You are right, I am sorry. In the meantime, I will verify other countries also using tax calculators. BTW, how did you do the disposable per hour calculation? Use a country as an example so I can see how you did it. Thanks. Lneal001 (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Germany is completely off!

http://www.parmentier.de/steuer/steuer.htm?wagetax.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lneal001 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The East/West Germany situaton hardly makes a difference. Category 1 means single, with no children. Leave the health insurance at 15% since this is the norm. Click "without pension" since this is the case with our situation. Plug in 33,000 euros and you will see that it's nowhere near 39%. It's closer to 25%. Lneal001 (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I called the official again, and apparently there was a miscommunication. You have to include "within pension/UI" because this is a form of a payroll tax. Thus, the 39% seems right afterall. Lneal001 (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14
Hi. When you recently edited Developed country, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gross (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)