Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I know, dumbest question ever, right?

 

But is it:

1. E[mploye]R & E[mploye]E

or

2. [employ]ER & [employ]EE

 

For 20 years, I had always thought of it as one of the above, but someone else's usage just made realize that the other potential source exists.

Posted

Either one works, but my experience has been (2).

I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice.

Posted
2 hours ago, RatherBeGolfing said:

I have always heard #2, and honestly didnt even consider #1 😄

 

Exact opposite here. I had always assumed #1, and honestly hadn't even considered the alternative, which I think makes more sense, until seeing this. 

Posted

#2 - as those are the letters that differentiate between the two words.   But then again, for efficiency sake (and for the same reason), we could just go with "R" and "E"...

😁

  • 10 months later...
Posted

I vote for 2, since often when spoken aloud, they are the stressed syllables.  "Those salary deferrals are technically employ-ER contributions rather than employ-EE contributions."

Posted
On 2/1/2021 at 8:46 AM, RatherBeGolfing said:

I have always heard #2, and honestly didnt even consider #1 😄

 

I was always in between the two:

EmployeR and employEE

QKA, QPA, CPC, ERPA

Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use