Why I'm not hiring

Little-Acorn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
2,444
Location
San Diego, CA
Sometimes I wonder if the people screaming about the "greed" of companies, even know what a company has to pay out to hire someone and give them a job.

-------------------------------------------------------

http://online.wsj.com/article_email...09733776372738-lMyQjAxMTAwMDAwODEwNDgyWj.html

Why I'm Not Hiring

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.

by MICHAEL P. FLEISCHER
August 9, 2010

With unemployment just under 10% and companies sitting on their cash, you would think that sooner or later job growth would take off. I think it's going to be later—much later. Here's why.

Meet Sally (not her real name; details changed to preserve privacy). Sally is a terrific employee, and she happens to be the median person in terms of base pay among the 83 people at my little company in New Jersey, where we provide audio systems for use in educational, commercial and industrial settings. She's been with us for over 15 years. She's a high school graduate with some specialized training. She makes $59,000 a year—on paper. In reality, she makes only $44,000 a year because $15,000 is taken from her thanks to various deductions and taxes, all of which form the steep, sad slope between gross and net pay.

Daniel Henninger discusses how Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan agree that Americans should send more of their paychecks to Washington. Also, Fannie and Freddie ask for more cash within weeks of an Obama pledge to end taxpayer rescues.
.Before that money hits her bank, it is reduced by the $2,376 she pays as her share of the medical and dental insurance that my company provides. And then the government takes its due. She pays $126 for state unemployment insurance, $149 for disability insurance and $856 for Medicare. That's the small stuff. New Jersey takes $1,893 in income taxes. The federal government gets $3,661 for Social Security and another $6,250 for income tax withholding. The roughly $13,000 taken from her by various government entities means that some 22% of her gross pay goes to Washington or Trenton. She's lucky she doesn't live in New York City, where the toll would be even higher.

More
Some Firms Struggle to Hire Despite High Unemployment
Faces—and Fates—of the Jobless
.Employing Sally costs plenty too. My company has to write checks for $74,000 so Sally can receive her nominal $59,000 in base pay. Health insurance is a big, added cost: While Sally pays nearly $2,400 for coverage, my company pays the rest—$9,561 for employee/spouse medical and dental. We also provide company-paid life and other insurance premiums amounting to $153. Altogether, company-paid benefits add $9,714 to the cost of employing Sally.

Then the federal and state governments want a little something extra. They take $56 for federal unemployment coverage, $149 for disability insurance, $300 for workers' comp and $505 for state unemployment insurance. Finally, the feds make me pay $856 for Sally's Medicare and $3,661 for her Social Security.

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.

Because my company has been conscripted by the government and forced to serve as a tax collector, we have lost control of a big chunk of our cost structure. Tax increases, whether cloaked as changes in unemployment or disability insurance, Medicare increases or in any other form can dramatically alter our financial situation. With government spending and deficits growing as fast as they have been, you know that more tax increases are coming—for my company, and even for Sally too.

Companies have also been pressed into serving as providers of health insurance. In a saner world, health insurance would be something that individuals buy for themselves and their families, just as they do with auto insurance. Now, adding to the insanity, there is ObamaCare.

Every year, we negotiate a renewal to our health coverage. This year, our provider demanded a 28% increase in premiums—for a lesser plan. This is in part a tax increase that the federal government has co-opted insurance providers to collect. We had never faced an increase anywhere near this large; in each of the last two years, the increase was under 10%.

To offset tax increases and steepening rises in health-insurance premiums, my company needs sustainably higher profits and sales—something unlikely in this "summer of recovery." We can't pass the additional costs onto our customers, because the market is too tight and we'd lose sales. Only governments can raise prices repeatedly and pretend there will be no consequences.

And even if the economic outlook were more encouraging, increasing revenues is always uncertain and expensive. As much as I might want to hire new salespeople, engineers and marketing staff in an effort to grow, I would be increasing my company's vulnerability to government decisions to raise taxes, to policies that make health insurance more expensive, and to the difficulties of this economic environment.

A life in business is filled with uncertainties, but I can be quite sure that every time I hire someone my obligations to the government go up. From where I sit, the government's message is unmistakable: Creating a new job carries a punishing price.


Mr. Fleischer is president of Bogen Communications Inc. in Ramsey, N.J.
 
Werbung:
So if we give this small business owner his tax cut will he hire then? I mean why don't he just come out and say it instead of beating around the bush? I have more respect for someone if they come out and say "hey can you give me more of my money back please so I can hire people"? Even if he still got his tax cut that is no gurantee he would still hire? I would love to give tax cuts to small businesses in return of a gurantee in "writing" that they plan to hire people within the first 48 hours of getting their tax cut. I think it's only fair.
 
So if we give this small business owner his tax cut will he hire then? I mean why don't he just come out and say it instead of beating around the bush? I have more respect for someone if they come out and say "hey can you give me more of my money back please so I can hire people"? Even if he still got his tax cut that is no gurantee he would still hire? I would love to give tax cuts to small businesses in return of a gurantee in "writing" that they plan to hire people within the first 48 hours of getting their tax cut. I think it's only fair.

Since you're now demanding that businesses hire instantly, I take it that you're also going to tell them what those new-hires will do. The burdens government has put on most businesses, have caused them to contract, scale back their production lines, cut down their raw-materials orders, reduce the promises for deliveries they make to customers, etc.

What are you going to do, to make sure that the things government has destroyed, will be "instantly" re-created, so that the firms can "instantly" hire people as you demand?

If you have no such ideas, then if/when businesses get the tax cuts you propose to "give" them, orders will start spooling up, demand will gradually increase, customers will gradually start finding uses for greater amounts of product, etc. But it will take time, of course. The damage done by misguided govt policies won't vanish overnight.

So, please detail your plans for re-creating the market you crippled or destroyed, that will make the "instant" hiring you demand, practicable.

Or, maybe, stop with the stupid demands and get out of the way.
 
Since you're now demanding that businesses hire instantly, I take it that you're also going to tell them what those new-hires will do. The burdens government has put on most businesses, have caused them to contract, scale back their production lines, cut down their raw-materials orders, reduce the promises for deliveries they make to customers, etc.

What are you going to do, to make sure that the things government has destroyed, will be "instantly" re-created, so that the firms can "instantly" hire people as you demand?

If you have no such ideas, then if/when businesses get the tax cuts you propose to "give" them, orders will start spooling up, demand will gradually increase, customers will gradually start finding uses for greater amounts of product, etc. But it will take time, of course. The damage done by misguided govt policies won't vanish overnight.

So, please detail your plans for re-creating the market you crippled or destroyed, that will make the "instant" hiring you demand, practicable.

Or, maybe, stop with the stupid demands and get out of the way.

Funny how its "you destroyed the markets" though the markets fell under the Republican white house...The Bush Tax cuts ( unpaid for) and get rid of regulations.....while Enron, Worldcom, Tyco...and others go down...then the banks....then auto industry.....Houseing.....All failed under Republican White house..

so who again is "your"
 
So if we give this small business owner his tax cut will he hire then? I mean why don't he just come out and say it instead of beating around the bush? I have more respect for someone if they come out and say "hey can you give me more of my money back please so I can hire people"? Even if he still got his tax cut that is no gurantee he would still hire? I would love to give tax cuts to small businesses in return of a gurantee in "writing" that they plan to hire people within the first 48 hours of getting their tax cut. I think it's only fair.

they have talked about something like that, a tax breaks for payroll taxes for new hires...and the sooner in the year you hired them, the more the tax break was....If I recall correcly of curse, it failed to pass. And I am sure had little if any Republican support...

But if you ever find a issue Republicans can't find a way to say tax cut fixes it...let me know :) Or better yet if you can find one who supports them..and pushes for a way to pay for them...
 
Funny how its "you destroyed the markets" though the markets fell under the Republican white house...The Bush Tax cuts ( unpaid for) and get rid of regulations.....while Enron, Worldcom, Tyco...and others go down...then the banks....then auto industry.....Houseing.....All failed under Republican White house..

so who again is "your"

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6799

(yawn) Poor little POS just never gets tired of getting stomped into the ground, does he....?
 
Since you're now demanding that businesses hire instantly, I take it that you're also going to tell them what those new-hires will do. The burdens government has put on most businesses, have caused them to contract, scale back their production lines, cut down their raw-materials orders, reduce the promises for deliveries they make to customers, etc.

What are you going to do, to make sure that the things government has destroyed, will be "instantly" re-created, so that the firms can "instantly" hire people as you demand?

If you have no such ideas, then if/when businesses get the tax cuts you propose to "give" them, orders will start spooling up, demand will gradually increase, customers will gradually start finding uses for greater amounts of product, etc. But it will take time, of course. The damage done by misguided govt policies won't vanish overnight.

So, please detail your plans for re-creating the market you crippled or destroyed, that will make the "instant" hiring you demand, practicable.

Or, maybe, stop with the stupid demands and get out of the way.

And what are your plans AC??? Let's hear your plans to stimulate our economy? Do you have one? You sound like an intelligent person. You know I think if we give tax cuts to the top 2% then damn it as an American I have a right to demand from them!!!! I have a right to ask them to invest back into our economy. I have a right to ask them to do the right thing. You want to know why...it's my tax money too. I pay taxes. It's not just the top 2% that does. So please quit pretending that the top 2% in this country are the only ones that pay taxes. If that's the case then why do they control over 90% of our economy? I tell you what why don't you stop thinking like a Con and for once think for yourself. It's not that hard. Quit seeing the world through rose colored glasses and pretending that only the top 2% in this country are the only ones deserving of a tax cut. Your not even in that top 2% because if you was you wouldn't be on these political boards talking the way you do. Instead you would be helping to stimulate our economy. So why don't help out instead of complaining about it. :cool:
 
I'm sorry, folks, but you cannot "stimulate" what cannot be "stimulated", regardless of how many different ways you might think there are. It's this simple: either increase the EROEI of a major percentage of our energy production or be prepared to accept decline back to the Stone Age for The Masses (it's already begun) in relatively short order.

Oh, by the way... the Democratic party is currently doing more to support the Fattest Cats in the Big Banks than the Repubs ever did and screw all you Po' Folks six ways from Sunday besides... They're just TELLING you that "they're on your side".

"There's a sucker born every minute... "
 
Between Medicare and health insurance, the employer and employee are laying out nearly 15 grand for health care, and the premium is going jup another 28%.

I can tell you from personal experience that the 28% increase is nothing new. Our Blue Cross/Blue Shield has increased that much and more many times, and is now a major cost. There is no end in sight.

"Obamacare" is not going to bring the price down, either. There is nothing in the bill to do so.

Meanwhile, we continue to pay out significantly more than the rest of the world for health care due to our inefficient system. The government can't do anything about it, can't even try without the opposition ranting about "death panels" and scaring people to death with misinformation.

Meanwhile, the government has spent the Social Security funds that have already been collected, and so can't pay its obligations to people who have been paying in to the system for years.

The government is broken, the health care system is broken, and the public is paying the price. So, what do we do? Argue over whether it is the fault of the Republicans or the Democrats. I can settle that one: It's the fault of both.
 
"Death panels" as a term is simply a way of saying "rationing". There WILL be rationing, there's just no way around it, I don't care what system you're under.

But back to the actual topic, hiring (actually a net monetary distribution increase is the important part that's being assumed there) cannot go up in a decaying energy environment. Especially with the derivative on energy consumption in "developing" countries rising like it is. That is to say that if the bulk of the world net energy production increase is being consumed by other countries, it's virtually impossible to organically grow our economy here, unless you want to lead the world in learning how to "conserve", which is another way of saying "return inexorably to an aboriginal existence".
 
Between Medicare and health insurance, the employer and employee are laying out nearly 15 grand for health care, and the premium is going jup another 28%.

I can tell you from personal experience that the 28% increase is nothing new. Our Blue Cross/Blue Shield has increased that much and more many times, and is now a major cost. There is no end in sight.

"Obamacare" is not going to bring the price down, either. There is nothing in the bill to do so.

Meanwhile, we continue to pay out significantly more than the rest of the world for health care due to our inefficient system. The government can't do anything about it, can't even try without the opposition ranting about "death panels" and scaring people to death with misinformation.

Meanwhile, the government has spent the Social Security funds that have already been collected, and so can't pay its obligations to people who have been paying in to the system for years.

The government is broken, the health care system is broken, and the public is paying the price. So, what do we do? Argue over whether it is the fault of the Republicans or the Democrats. I can settle that one: It's the fault of both.


Health care costs started skyrocketing when government became a buyer and then forced everyone into insurance. I cost my dad $250 to be born. My daughter cost ME $250 but cost my insurance company 30-35 times that. Mom and I were in the hospital for a week and daughter and spouse 1.5 days. But as it wasn't costing me, I had n incentive to comparison shop. Government is he best friwend of the medical industrial complex.
 
Has anyone ever stopped to wonder WHY so many of us get our medical insurance through our employer?

If I were shopping for medical care, in a practical world Joe's Lawnmower Repair and Gardening Shoppe would not be high on my list of places to look for it.

It came from - you guessed it - intrusion and regulation by the Federal government.

Sometimes the Fed has the best of intentions for what it does. But that doesn't stop bad results from creeping in anyway.

During WWII, the Fed clamped huge price and wage controls on most businesses, supposedly to prevent swings in wages, demand, etc. as large segments of the population joined the Armed Services to fight in the war. And businesses trying to attract the best talent, suddenly couldn't offer higher wages as an incentive to come work for them. So they found a loophole in the government regulations: In-kind "benefits" were not controlled or regulated. So they started offering "free" medical insurance and other such benefits instead of higher monetary pay, to get the people they wanted to work for them.

The war ended and some controls were removed, including most wage and price freezes. But by then, taxes on incomes had risen hugely, exceeding 90% in some cases... and needless to say, were not removed or reduced with the end of hostilities. But the taxes on those "free" benefits had not risen, and were in fact zero. People quickly found it cost them less to pay a "contribution" with pre-tax money, than to buy their own insurance with after-tax money. And so the employer-offered insurance remained, due to government's punishing people who bought their own.

So market competition in the medical-insurance industry was radically reduced, as most people found themselves limited to the few options offered by their employers, or else face crushing tax burdens on the money they paid to buy their own. Insurance companies outside that person's employer, couldn't compete, no matter how much they streamlined their offerings, with government imposing large tax penalties on every dollar the consumer tried to spend on them.

The best thing (in the long run) that can be done to straighten out the mess that is the American medical insurance industry, is to stop taxation on money spent on "outside" medical insurance... or better yet, to remove the tax breaks on employer-offered insurnace. Once people get over the shock of finding out how much government taxation and regulation adds to the cost of medical insurance, they will begin shopping outside their employer's offerings as well as inside. (And maybe they will start kicking out a few politicians who have imposed such high, hidden taxes on them for so long.) And insurance companies will find they've lost their guaranteed clienteles, and have to offer plans the customer wants the most to get people to buy them.

Problems remain, such as pre-existing conditions. But the overall savings nationwide will be huge - as huge as the present waste and fraud are. And when consumers discover the real costs of Cadillac plans that pay for every sniffle, hangnail and aspirin pill, they will scale back to actual "insurance" plans intended only to pay for huge, unexpected medical costs instead of routine treatments.
 
or it had to do with, it was a benefit people wanted from a job...and a job with 30,000 employees gets better deal then you on your own...saving money...

But its ok, you think health care is something you only should have a right to, if you make enough...so I can see why you want companies to stop paying for it...let the free market find out who lives and dies...
 
Werbung:
Health care costs started skyrocketing when government became a buyer and then forced everyone into insurance. I cost my dad $250 to be born. My daughter cost ME $250 but cost my insurance company 30-35 times that. Mom and I were in the hospital for a week and daughter and spouse 1.5 days. But as it wasn't costing me, I had n incentive to comparison shop. Government is he best friwend of the medical industrial complex.

yea health care was cheap a year ago...and was not going up at record pace....yep yep....You can be nice tell your insurance you want to cover those costs yourself if you wish :)

your having a heart attack..quick get the yellowpages and shop for prices!
 
Back
Top