Job Creation

[crb]

Barack Obama has proposed a $3k tax credit to businesses that create new jobs. However he has also proposed fines for businesses that do not provide health insurance. He refuses to say how much that fine will be, but we know how much insurance can cost, it can be 6-12k per year So in effect, it will be more expensive to hire an employee under Obama than today. His tax policies as such will not create a single job, $3k is not enough incentive for a business to spend $30k unless they needed to hire someone anyways.

Suppose a business wanted to hire a new cashier at $24k per year full time (thats around $10 an hour). It will now cost them $30k per year under Obama. For year 1, they get a $3k tax credit (yay thanks?) but still pay $3k more for that employee than they do today. In all future years they pay $6k more. Even with no healthcare mandate, 3k per year is not enough to get a business to spend $24k. It just isn't, you still need that $21k.

So in the end, this $3k rebate is not an encouragement, it is a pat on the back, an "atta boy" to businesses who create jobs. But it itself it will not encourage a single new job to be created and will only reward those who were going to create jobs anyways, businesses doing well. It does nothing to help businesses that are struggling.


In contast John McCain wants to take our second-highest-in-the-world 35% business tax rate to 25%. A small business with 30 employees and 1 million in net income would receive a $100k benefit. This is enough to fully fund a few new employees, buy new equipment which could provide jobs for those who manufacture, transport, and sell that equipment, or maybe help open a new location that could eventually employ dozens.

This is a big difference between the two. John McCain would give all businesses 10% of their net income back, which would help those that are profitable but struggling, as well as those going gangbusters. And that would be enough money to fully fund new employees. Fully, and it isn't a one time thing, you pay taxes every year.

I haven't even mentioned about how Obama wants to increase the employer's share of FICA tax (I know, I know, on the "rich" not on "working americans". But lawyers and doctors can make a lot of money, (as can plumbers who own their own business) and if law firms have to pay more in the employer's FICA share for their lawyers, maybe they hire less paralegals. And if hospitals have to pay more for their doctors, maybe they hire less support staff).

So, can anyone honestly say Obama will be good for job creation?

I know... I know... You'll say he'll take that extra tax revenue from taxing businesses and small business owners and "the rich" and spend it on public works to create jobs. Well, if you think the government spends money more efficiently and more creatively than small businesses then I have a bridge to sell you in Alaska. (see what I did there?)

Someone might mention how he wants to encourage "green collar" jobs by investing in alternative energy - as does McCain - only McCain wants to make Nuclear and Oil jobs too.

So really, I can understand voting for Obama because you're still angry about the 2000 election. I can understand voting for him because of white guilt. I can understand voting for him because you think Iraq was a very bad decision. I can understand voting for him because you're a loud and proud socialist. I can understand voting for him because you're queer and you think his administration will work more for your rights (despite, on paper, him and McCain having the exact same policies), I can understand all these things. But to think he'll be better for the economy and for job creation? I just find it ludicrous.

You cannot tax businesses into not shipping jobs overseas. You cannot tax businesses into job creation. You cannot tax businesses into providing better wages. You cannot tax businesses into expansion, entrepreneurship, or the creation of new and better systems and technologies. And government spending will never be as creative or as efficient as small business spending. Simply because the people holding the government's purse strings are usually thousands of miles away from the work that they have purchased.

You cannot help the wage earner by hurting the wage payer.

ps. Ya... it is nice for businesses to provide healthcare, but ya know. Ask someone unemployed if they'd rather have a job without healthcare or nothing.

[Sean of the Thread]

Job market is shit. Fucking depressing.

[Mabus]

So, can anyone honestly say Obama will be good for job creation?
They will say it, not honestly, but they will say it.


ps. Ya... it is nice for businesses to provide healthcare, but ya know. Ask someone unemployed if they'd rather have a job without healthcare or nothing.
That depends on the person. If they want to sit around, do nothing and hope that the government will "share the wealth" they may take the "nothing" option.

I am still interested in hearing the specifics of these sanctions on parents and businesses he is proposing. Fines, imprisonment, seizure? Specifics.

[Mabus]

Here is an interesting article from Chief Executive magazine.

Job Creators Prefer John McCain 4-to-1 Over Barack Obama (http://www.chiefexecutive.net/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=67E20819CD7646C3B380AD60BB17EFAA)

One except:
"Chief Executive magazine’s most recent polling of 751 CEOs shows that GOP presidential candidate John McCain is the preferred choice for CEOs. According to the poll, which is featured on the cover of Chief Executive’s most recent issue, by a four-to-one margin, CEOs support Senator John McCain over Senator Barack Obama. Moreover, 74 percent of the executives say they fear that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country."

[Parkbandit]

It couldn't be that the CEOs are looking out for themselves in that poll...

As I look at the two different candidates and their proposals, I think I can honestly say that Obama could be better for my businesses, mostly to the money I believe he will be dumping into energy conservation. I can find enough shelters to safeguard again the gigantic tax increases I'll be facing.

[Mabus]

The Democrats have stupid some business policies, for the most part. No getting around that. Rather than increasing taxes like they're proposing, we need to drastically lower spending. On "defense." On entitlements.
This may be why 74% see a presidency by him as "disastrous for the country".

Maybe a trillion dollars in new entitlement programs and higher taxes on businesses will create many jobs and be great for the economy, in some peoples' eyes.

[Mabus]

However, people at large trust Obama more than McCain on finance. We've seen his poll numbers shoot up and McCain's fall as the economic crisis erupted.
And those people create how many jobs as compared to the CEO's polled?


1) That Obama really is better on financial policy (and that the Democrat's policy itself is better, since Obama follows the Democratic party's platform 96% of the time as you love saying)
That the ignorant and deluded like him does not mean that his economic policies are better, just that [arty and personal bias, as well as his propaganda and the media bias, worked.

The 96% party line vote is congressional record. Look it up.


2) that they don't think McCain understands it at all

3) that Americans don't understand finance?
Both of those are possible.

That still does not address the reasons why those CEO's poll that way. PB had a decent stab at it; that it was in their personal interest. I am not sure that all of it lies just in greed with those that were polled.

[Kembal]

Barack Obama has proposed a $3k tax credit to businesses that create new jobs. However he has also proposed fines for businesses that do not provide health insurance. He refuses to say how much that fine will be, but we know how much insurance can cost, it can be 6-12k per year So in effect, it will be more expensive to hire an employee under Obama than today. His tax policies as such will not create a single job, $3k is not enough incentive for a business to spend $30k unless they needed to hire someone anyways.

Seriously, if you could present an issue honestly, people might believe you.

Here's the plan statement that directly applies:


Make employer contributions more fair by requiring large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees health care.

It does not cost a large employer 6-12k a year to provide healthcare for an employee. Hell, it doesn't even cost my company that much, and we're nowhere close to a large employer. (and we pay 100% of the employee's premium, and 30% of the premiums for his family)

On top of that, the plan has a small business health tax credit.

Of course, I'm sure you'll rationalize this away somehow (or ignore it completely), just as you did with Palin's abuse of power finding.

[crb]

However, people at large trust Obama more than McCain on finance. We've seen his poll numbers shoot up and McCain's fall as the economic crisis erupted.

What does this mean?

1) That Obama really is better on financial policy (and that the Democrat's policy itself is better, since Obama follows the Democratic party's platform 96% of the time as you love saying)

2) that they don't think McCain understands it at all

3) that Americans don't understand finance?

Maybe people in crisis just want to be told "the government will fix all your problems." That's probably the cause, I'd wager. Either way, the Democrats in power works in my favor for social policy.
What it means is that Obama has better marketers working for his campaign. McCain should have been punching about this stuff for months, and instead he didn't really give a good stand on it until some speech he gave yesterday I saw on TV. Yesterday...

[crb]

Seriously, if you could present an issue honestly, people might believe you.

Here's the plan statement that directly applies:



It does not cost a large employer 6-12k a year to provide healthcare for an employee. Hell, it doesn't even cost my company that much, and we're nowhere close to a large employer. (and we pay 100% of the employee's premium, and 30% of the premiums for his family)

On top of that, the plan has a small business health tax credit.

Of course, I'm sure you'll rationalize this away somehow (or ignore it completely), just as you did with Palin's abuse of power finding.


It does not cost a large employer 6-12k a year to provide healthcare for an employee. Hell, it doesn't even cost my company that much, and we're nowhere close to a large employer. (and we pay 100% of the employee's premium, and 30% of the premiums for his family)

Kembal, you're not taking notes. Your boy used an employer layout of 12k per year for health insurance in the last debate when he was attacking McCain's healthcare plan (he tried to confuse voters saying $12k > 5k - which is true, but you don't pay taxes on the full 12k, if you're in the 25% bracket you pay $3k, and $3k < $5k). I didn't pull that out of my ass, that is an Obama talking point.

And as I said in my OP - even without the healthcare mandate, $3k is not going to incentive businesses to spend $24k, or 30k, or 50k. A one time $3k rebate for a new full time employee is a stunt. It will not encourage new jobs, not like a business tax cut would.

[Warriorbird]

Truman 1949 -1952 5.2
Eisenhower 1953 - 1956 2.7
Eisenhower 1957 - 1960 0.8
Kennedy/Johnson 1961 - 1964 5.7
Johnson 1965 - 1968 9.8
Nixon 1969 - 1972 6.1
Nixon/Ford 1972 - 1976 5.2
Carter 1977 - 1980 10.4
Reagan 1981 - 1984 5.2
Reagan 1985 - 1988 10.8
Bush 1989 - 1992 2.5
Clinton 1993 - 1996 11.6
Clinton 1997 - 2000 11.5
Bush 2001 - 2004 (0.1)
Bush 2005 - 2008 5.1