The difference is that if the employee was made to pay the whole amount, the employee would be more conscious of the total amount he is being robbed of, rather than think of the feds as benevolent in making the employer match the employee's "contribution."
The whole scam with the feds is about raising more cash. Only they wish to "hit" the employer, not the employee, because there are less of them that vote.
It still comes out of the sweat of the population at large.
Same with the minimum wage. The feds are not looking out for the poor employee who is "living on crumbs." They want to increase the wages, because then they get more "contribution" from the employee and employer, as well as more votes.
The slower ones think they are getting taken care of by the feds, but the net to their pocket is but a fraction, while their withheld and employer matching increase at a steeper rate.
Regards whose money it is, what the employer pays (in the private sector) is what he can get the job done for. He then adjusts the wage as needed to keep those who are productive, and not give raises to those who are not, if not let go.
The employer's contribution is part of the cost of doing business, because the govt forces the employer to match the funds. If the government were to lift those requirements, some employees may get that amount added to their take home, some may not.
It is the employer's decision, not the employee, because it is the employer's money. Even though the employee was the one who may gave generated the money, he never gets back what he puts in, as an employee. The employee will usually generate two to three times the actual paycheck. The private sector employer makes a deal with the private sector employee. This much money for this much work.
He then must reach into his pocket (the employer) to match what the feds demand he withholds from the employee.
ummm dude- you are arguing MY point.