Bribe companies to hire ? Seriously ?

[pocketfullofshells]

If a company can only be profitable with 10 employees, and they would go into the red by hiring an 11th, then how is offering them a $3,000 tax break going to justify another employee? It's not.

A full time employee is going to cost at least $30,000, you get a whopping $3,000 tax break, that's a loss of $27,000. Since you think it's such a great deal, go out and hire a few dozen full time workers at $30,000 a person and start your very own recovery effort.

because sometimes, companies actually want to have more people, but can't afford more...and it burns out there employers they have left. But Fine, no tax breaks for companies that hire people...happy? Why are you for tax increases? Being against it, is being in favor or raising taxes you know ( republican logic here)

Obama should just give up, the Right *****es when he says tax breaks for business, crys when he says spending freeze....you will never be happy with anything even remotely possible.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Obama during the election: "This is the worst economy since the great depression!"

Obama after winning: "The economy is even worse than we thought!"

Obama before the Stealfromus Package: "If we pass this bill, unemployment won't go above 8%!"

Unemployment after the Stealfromus Package: Over 10%

Obama in every speech: "Any bad news is Bush's fault, any good news is all me!"

republicans...Obama is at fault for all things regardless if they happened before he was in office...And we cast no blame on Bush for the Econ,,as it only tanked under him....so why not blame the guy who took over....

 

[GenSeneca]

because sometimes, companies actually want to have more people, but can't afford more...

Perhaps if it were a tax break on every current employee, an employer with 10 employees could afford to hire another employee for $30,000/yr, in which case the idea might have some merit. But that's not the proposition, its only for new hires.

Obama should just give up, the Right *****es when he says tax breaks for business, crys when he says spending freeze....you will never be happy with anything even remotely possible.

Besides leaving office, what were you lefties happy about concerning Bush?

The tax break is a political gimmick, just like the spending freeze.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Perhaps if it were a tax break on every current employee, an employer with 10 employees could afford to hire another employee for $30,000/yr, in which case the idea might have some merit. But that's not the proposition, its only for new hires.


Besides leaving office, what were you lefties happy about concerning Bush?

The tax break is a political gimmick, just like the spending freeze.

fine no tax break no spending freeze...happy?

 

[GenSeneca]

republicans...we cast no blame on Bush for the Econ

Find one here on the HOP. You might get a bite from Always but I doubt anyone else would absolve Bush of his role in the economic meltdown.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Perhaps if it were a tax break on every current employee, an employer with 10 employees could afford to hire another employee for $30,000/yr, in which case the idea might have some merit. But that's not the proposition, its only for new hires.


Besides leaving office, what were you lefties happy about concerning Bush?

The tax break is a political gimmick, just like the spending freeze.

And as for things Bush did right? China with the Airplane crashed deal, thought he handled well...Afghanistan..did it right...till he went and focused on Iraq and lost it there. He saw the need for the bank bail out, though failed to do it in a smart way...Just a few off the top of my head...

 

[GenSeneca]

fine no tax break no spending freeze...happy?

How about real tax breaks, like for every current employee as I suggested, and a real spending freeze, that covers 91% of the budget (9% is interest on the debt) and includes all entitlement and defense spending?

 

[chestnut]

Considering the state of what he inherited he is not doing too badly.

Th republicans got the US and the world into deep doo doo.

It is not going to get fixed over night

The economy started tanking once the dems gained control for the last 2 years of Bush's 2nd term.

If you hold Bush accountable, you have to hold the democrats on Capitol Hill as well.

 

[rationalist]

Look, the bankers had been in the casino for years and they kept doubling up to cover losses but on the day it went wrong it went very wrong.

Bankers are republicans

 

[dogtowner]

Look, the bankers had been in the casino for years and they kept doubling up to cover losses but on the day it went wrong it went very wrong.

Bankers are republicans

Frank Raines is not and he is the epicenter of the matter

 

[MrSheepish]

If a company can only be profitable with 10 employees, and they would go into the red by hiring an 11th, then how is offering them a $3,000 tax break going to justify another employee? It's not.

A full time employee is going to cost at least $30,000, you get a whopping $3,000 tax break, that's a loss of $27,000. Since you think it's such a great deal, go out and hire a few dozen full time workers at $30,000 a person and start your very own recovery effort.

I don't understand why you are so down on this. Who says this is aimed at companies that can only be profitable with their current number of employees?

There are plenty of companies out there that are looking to expand operations, but which can't because they don't have enough cash on hand and the banks have stopped lending. Tax breaks that make the hiring of a new employee ~10% less expensive during the first year might be enough to convince a company that would not otherwise perform the hire to do so. This is a good thing when an economy has been recovering but the jobs have not, and you are trying to kick-start the jobs-market. Obviously it's not a game changer, but it might help a little.

Now, I haven't investigated this, so maybe there are key details that I don't understand, but the way you have described this proposals sounds quite reasonable to me.

 

[GenSeneca]

I don't understand why you are so down on this.

Welcome back, I had hoped we could discuss Health Care but you'll probably see my discussions on that topic in another current thread. Feel free to jump in and give your position.

As for this topic, the tax credit for new hires, I stand by my statements, it sounds more like a feel-good-gimmick than a real effort to affect employment. I also disagree with your comment about banks not lending, that is false. Banks have returned their lending standards to where they should be and that necessarily makes it tougher to get a loan, but it also makes another collapse for bad loans less likely. I also disagree that the economy is recovering but it depends on whether or not you see government spending as a driver for the economy. When the private sector begins expanding, then the real recovery will begin and that point will likely be marked by the FED raising interest rates (although there are other reasons the FED may raise rates prior to a private sector expansion).

You may have missed it but I offered a counter proposal, give companies the same tax break for every current employee. Companies with 10 employees or more, could save enough to pay an additional employees salary for every 10 employees they currently have on staff. A company of 100 people, could hire an additional 10 employees.

 

[MrSheepish]

Welcome back, I had hoped we could discuss Health Care but you'll probably see my discussions on that topic in another current thread. Feel free to jump in and give your position.

Yes, sorry about that. I have been extremely busy recently. Normally I have time to make a couple of posts per day. During the last week I have had virtually no time at all. I am hoping that that will change soon. I am very interested in discussing health care. The problem is that it is a complicated issue, so I am nervous about jumping into it until I have some free time to do a bit of prep-research first. I should be able to get to it sometime in the next week I think.

As for this topic, the tax credit for new hires, I stand by my statements, it sounds more like a feel-good-gimmick than a real effort to affect employment.

I think it's along the same philosophical lines as the stimulus spending. It takes the philosophy that when the economy has capsized, temporary tax cuts and spending measures can help to right it. I think this is something that is intended to be a small, quick encouragement to get companies to hire a little bit more, with the hope that things will be better enough next year that the one-time nature of the tax break/stimulus won't matter.

I also disagree with your comment about banks not lending, that is false. Banks have returned their lending standards to where they should be and that necessarily makes it tougher to get a loan, but it also makes another collapse for bad loans less likely.

My impression is that they have dramatically reduced lending to an almost zero level even with the stimulus money flowing into the banks - too far in the opposite direction. Unfortunately I have been unable to find statistics to quantify this one way or another yet.

I also disagree that the economy is recovering but it depends on whether or not you see government spending as a driver for the economy. When the private sector begins expanding, then the real recovery will begin and that point will likely be marked by the FED raising interest rates (although there are other reasons the FED may raise rates prior to a private sector expansion).

In some sectors it seems to have recovered a bit. The stock market is certainly *much* better than it was earlier in the year, and in many other categories such as the banking, home investment, business investments, and exports, things also look better. It depends what you factors you look at, but I agree that it is a long road back to the point where consumer spending has recovered and businesses are hiring people like before.

You may have missed it but I offered a counter proposal, give companies the same tax break for every current employee. Companies with 10 employees or more, could save enough to pay an additional employees salary for every 10 employees they currently have on staff. A company of 100 people, could hire an additional 10 employees.

Of course that would boost hiring more, but it would also be *much* more expensive.

 

[samsara15]

Local governments routinely bribe corporations by giving them tax breaks and other perks, and I never hear any complaints from you Conservatives. This is often done with a tacit understanding that these corporations will benefit the local economy by hiring local people. Seemingly, in almost every case, the corporations screw the local governments, and do not provide the jobs that the local governments hoped they would. Where are your complaints about THAT?

 

[asur]

The economy started tanking once the dems gained control for the last 2 years of Bush's 2nd term.

Exactly right. And also when Obama looked destined to take over.

His latest ploy, of using tax incentives is a Republican tactic that works in combination
with supporting policies. But Obama's other policies are anti private business and cancel out
the good, this would accomplish.


For example, Obama's recent threat to raise taxes on banks will dry up small business lending. It has already spooked the stock market and caused damage to the economy.

The sad part is he may not even tax banks. Just saying he would caused the damage.

Unemployment is stuck in double digits under Obama.
Home sales are pathetic and prices are dropping.