• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Team Eyes Employer Payroll Tax Break

disneydude said:
I don't like this idea of corporate welfare at all. The idea of giving money to private businesses with the hope that they will turn around and hire people in exchange is just a variation on the gop's failed policy of trickle down... It failed under Reagan and Obama shouldn't fall for it either
Click to expand...

What Obama is proposing is not "trickle down". Its just a cosmetic BS gesture. Trickle-down worked marvelously under Reagan. Real trickle-down goes to increasing demand and lowering the cost of supply. Obama's idea of tax breaks is redistribution. Doesn't work. We got proof all around us.

Obama couldn't shine Reagan's shoes. Or mine.
 
donsutherland1 said:
From Bloomberg.com:

Obama Team Eyes Employer Payroll Tax Break - Bloomberg

That the White House is considering another round of stimulus is not too surprising given the persistent high rate of unemployment that is threatening to bump up against the 2012 electoral calendar. IMO, this stimulus should not be adopted for a number of reasons:

1. It would further exacerbate the nation's long-term imbalances, not just a short-term increase in the budget deficits, as it would increase the long-term unfunded liability associated with Social Security.

2. It would undermine any credibility of any fiscal consolidation agreement that might be attached to an increase in the debt ceiling.

3. In macroeconomic terms, it would have only a marginal to small impact. First, the multiplier with such stimulus is well below 1. That means every dollar of this form of stimulus would yield less than a dollar increase in the GDP. Second, hiring depends on expectations about sustained increases in macroeconomic demand that productivity/capital investment cannot accommodate, making it necessary for firms to expand payrolls (a recurring expenditure). Third, companies remain especially risk averse coming out of the financial crisis/recession. Hence, savings from the payroll tax reduction would far more likely be used to bolster cash than to lead to a dramatic increase in new hiring.
Click to expand...

if this was done as some form of a tax rebate, then yes, it wouldn't have much effect. however, if this is a permanent rate reduction, then it will have a salutory effect. Not as powerful as if he were to adopt his own Bi-Partisan Debt Reduction Commission's tax reforms; but it would be positive.
 
disneydude said:
I don't like this idea of corporate welfare at all. The idea of giving money to private businesses
Click to expand...


you heard it here, folks. punishing someone less than you were punishing them previously for the sin of creating jobs is "giving money to private business" and "corporate welfare".
 
apdst said:
It may not spur hiring, but it would have a positive effect on a company's capital, thereby allowing them to re-invest into their company, which would make it easier to keep the employees that they have one the payroll.

It would help my business tremendously.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that it would have a positive impact for companies. It would increase their cashflow. Some might invest that additional cash in capital purchases. A very small number might hire. However, as the tax break would be temporary, that factor would also inhibit its impact on hiring. In sum, the idea is being framed as a means for increasing hiring. Nevertheless, the impact would likely be quite marginal with respect to hiring.
 
cpwill said:
if this was done as some form of a tax rebate, then yes, it wouldn't have much effect. however, if this is a permanent rate reduction, then it will have a salutory effect. Not as powerful as if he were to adopt his own Bi-Partisan Debt Reduction Commission's tax reforms; but it would be positive.
Click to expand...

Everything I've read indicates that it would be a temporary measure. It would not be permanent.
 
then it's effect would be exceedingly limited - why would you permanently hire a person you can only afford for a short period of time?
 
disneydude said:
I don't like this idea of corporate welfare at all.
Click to expand...

The government isn't giving people money. The government is letting people keep more of their own money.




The idea of giving money to private businesses with the hope that they will turn around and hire people in exchange is just a variation on the gop's failed policy of trickle down... It failed under Reagan and Obama shouldn't fall for it either
Click to expand...

You don't fully undersand, "trickle down economics".

Let me use myself as an example: I'm in the trucking business. If I have more capital, I can perform maintanance and make equipment upgrades, that I've been putting off, because of the uncertainty in the industry. When I spend that money, it goes into someone else's pocket: tire repairman, mechanic, parts store, etc.
 
donsutherland1 said:
I don't disagree that it would have a positive impact for companies. It would increase their cashflow. Some might invest that additional cash in capital purchases. A very small number might hire. However, as the tax break would be temporary, that factor would also inhibit its impact on hiring. In sum, the idea is being framed as a means for increasing hiring. Nevertheless, the impact would likely be quite marginal with respect to hiring.
Click to expand...

Tax cuts for the private sector will be good for the economy. We've seen what happens when the president promises to allow private sector income taxes go up.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
What Obama is proposing is not "trickle down". Its just a cosmetic BS gesture. Trickle-down worked marvelously under Reagan. Real trickle-down goes to increasing demand and lowering the cost of supply. Obama's idea of tax breaks is redistribution. Doesn't work. We got proof all around us.

Obama couldn't shine Reagan's shoes. Or mine.
Click to expand...

Trickle down worked under Reagan? Hardly. Trickle down economics is just a Republican ploy that keeps failing...but for some strange reason Republicans keep wanting to try it. Obama is showing that he is just another moderate politician...trying to play to the middle.
 
apdst said:
The government isn't giving people money. The government is letting people keep more of their own money.





You don't fully undersand, "trickle down economics".

Let me use myself as an example: I'm in the trucking business. If I have more capital, I can perform maintanance and make equipment upgrades, that I've been putting off, because of the uncertainty in the industry. When I spend that money, it goes into someone else's pocket: tire repairman, mechanic, parts store, etc.
Click to expand...
That's how trickle down is "supposed" to work....but rarely does. The reality is....the idea of giving money to corporations so that they will turn around and hire more workers never works....because Americans are inherently stingy. When you give them more money....they pocket it and keep it for themselves....they don't trickle down the way that the failed policy envisions.
 
Proper "stimulus" is putting money directly into people's hands that are likely to quickly spend it, and not pay back debts. No one is in that position right now.

disneydude said:
That's how trickle down is "supposed" to work....but rarely does. The reality is....the idea of giving money to corporations so that they will turn around and hire more workers never works....because Americans are inherently stingy. When you give them more money....they pocket it and keep it for themselves....they don't trickle down the way that the failed policy envisions.
Click to expand...

Trickle down economics would work is people were inherently altruistic, but America largely destroyed its natural altruism over the last 60years. On top of this, technological innovations has made the demand for most goods require less labor, which means that rich guys who "keep more of his money" that goes out an buys a private jet doesn't necessarily lead to more people getting hired to build it.
 
Last edited:
....because Americans are inherently stingy
Click to expand...

Im sorry...is that bigotry? Cause it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
Lamest argument Ive heard in a while.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Im sorry...is that bigotry? Cause it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
Lamest argument Ive heard in a while.
Click to expand...

Is the evil maximum now at the heart of our economic eco-system now or not?
 
disneydude said:
That's how trickle down is "supposed" to work....but rarely does. The reality is....the idea of giving money to corporations so that they will turn around and hire more workers never works....because Americans are inherently stingy. When you give them more money....they pocket it and keep it for themselves....they don't trickle down the way that the failed policy envisions.
Click to expand...

That's because you think that the only corporations that spend money are the multi-million dollar corporations and have zero perception of how how many small businesses exist in this country.

You harp about Republican economic failures; how has O'Bama's economic strategy worked out, so far? Money isn't trickling down very fast, is it? Wanna know why?
 
xpiher said:
Proper "stimulus" is putting money directly into people's hands that are likely to quickly spend it, and not pay back debts. No one is in that position right now.



Trickle down economics would work is people were inherently altruistic, but America largely destroyed its natural altruism over the last 60years. On top of this, technological innovations has made the demand for most goods require less labor, which means that rich guys who "keep more of his money" that goes out an buys a private jet doesn't necessarily lead to more people getting hired to build it.
Click to expand...

Government entitlements have destroyed American altruism. How can I give money to charity, when I don't know how the government is going to **** up the economy, next?
 
disneydude said:
Trickle down worked under Reagan? Hardly. Trickle down economics is just a Republican ploy that keeps failing...but for some strange reason Republicans keep wanting to try it. Obama is showing that he is just another moderate politician...trying to play to the middle.
Click to expand...


I will say that I will never cease to be amused by Democrats Economic Talking Points being dependent on arguing that the 80's were a period of economic suffering while the 30's were a period of strong economic growth and vitalization.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
We always had pulled out of prior Recessions in 12-24 months, and the deeper the Recessions had been, the stronger the recoveries.
Click to expand...

a very timely point

on may 19, the usa today published a very short, very heavy piece explaining how "historically slow" was this recovery:

Nearly two years after the economic recovery officially began, job creation continues to stagger at the slowest post-recession rate since the Great Depression.

The nation has 5% fewer jobs today — a loss of 7 million — than it did when the recession began in December 2007. That is by far the worst performance of job generation following any of the dozen recessions since the 1930s.

In the past, the economy recovered lost jobs 13 months on average after a recession. If this were a typical recovery, nearly 10 million more people would be working today than when the recession officially ended in June 2009.
Click to expand...

Job creation limps along after recession - USATODAY.com

in the three weeks since usa's seminal synopsis i have read or heard the phrase, "historically slow recovery" more than a dozen times via msm sources

i've comes across the deadly appellation, "double dip," more than two dozen times

awareness and recognition of exactly how far down we've fallen, as well as the headwinds we face, is universal and intense, literally depressing this economy
 
in my opinion a payroll holiday, which by definition is a reduction in the TAX ON HIRING, is too late

had a 2 year payroll holiday gone down in that determinative spring of 09 and---most signficantly---if it were TALKED ABOUT a lot, ie, promoted by this administration, we would not be where we are today

but it's too late now, i fear

the gravity of this particular economy as of late has become fully PSYCHOLOGIZED

the EMOTIONAL impact of this economy can be felt in cnn's poll last week that found 48% of americans EXPECT another GREAT DEPRESSION in the next year

the in-the-gut gravity or our situation can be seen in usa today's finding two weeks ago that americans "overwhelmingly" intend to "delay major purchases" for at least a year

when i saw that, i knew---there's no up, at least none within sight

the housing market underlies it all, it's in our neighborhoods, we pass the foreclosure signs on the way to 7-11

and the fed's announcement friday that qe is over, no more fed pumping of the bonds markets

those things are real, they're unavoidable like math

but i'm talking more about the MOOD of america, which is mired miserably in MALAISE

a very severe case of malaise

it's empirical in consumer confidence numbers, thru the floor and dropping

67% of american say we're in a recession---rasmussen yesterday

89% have a "negative view" of the economy---wapo/abc this week

a woeful worry is it affecting the dow

another totally out-there awareness i see, and this possessing the professional political class---there is physically NOT ENOUGH TIME for this employment picture to turn before the campaign

especially when americans are so DOWN

wsj said yesterday that americans who make between 31 and 72000 per year expect to work til they're SEVENTY TWO in order to have a 50-50 chance at being able to make their monthlies

the references to this psychologizing, this internalizing of our anemic economy are becoming ubiquitous, in my opinion

stay up

and hold on
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
I will say that I will never cease to be amused by Democrats Economic Talking Points being dependent on arguing that the 80's were a period of economic suffering while the 30's were a period of strong economic growth and vitalization.
Click to expand...

That's a good one! I LOL'ed at that.
 
apdst said:
Government entitlements have destroyed American altruism. How can I give money to charity, when I don't know how the government is going to **** up the economy, next?
Click to expand...

1) The bold statements aren't correlated
2) Government hasn't destroyed altruism society/culture has, slowly, over the since the 1920s. This is when you saw America transitioned from community/family centrism to individual is god.

I'm currently reading Road to Serfdom. I largely agree with it, but neither Ayn Rand nor Hayke anticipated the depravity that would be born of their moral philosophies. The more I read contemporary and post-WW2 philosophers the more I appreciate the wisdom of Adam Smith.
 
All of the half measures being bandied about are not going to solve the problems we face.

There has to an all encompassing program that addresses Corporate tax, incometax, capital gains tax, Gas tax, along with regulations that restrict growth and expansion such as stupid environmental laws, and include tort reform across the board to limit liability to reasonable amounts so that it hurt the defendant but doesn't put them out of business, unless they are crooks.

Open all the known oil fields but make sure the Oil Companies know they well pay 100% for any damages they cause, and make them pay enough taxes so that the people of what ever state it is get a check from the profits like in Alaska.

This would change the attitudes of people and allow then to spend with a little piece of mind. Until people stop feeling we are going the wrong direction they are not going to spend and until they do there is no reason for growth of any industry.

As recovery returns we can go back and address all the environmental issues as well as all regulations that were temporarily removed, but this all needs to be done in moderation using a logical approach without the radical extremist fear mongering and lies that run the Country too damn much.

Now all we need to do is find a Statesman who can understand these simple solutions and has the balls to argue for them and do it with conviction.
 
xpiher said:
Proper "stimulus" is putting money directly into people's hands that are likely to quickly spend it, and not pay back debts. No one is in that position right now.



Trickle down economics would work is people were inherently altruistic, but America largely destroyed its natural altruism over the last 60years. On top of this, technological innovations has made the demand for most goods require less labor, which means that rich guys who "keep more of his money" that goes out an buys a private jet doesn't necessarily lead to more people getting hired to build it.
Click to expand...


If someone pays down debts, what do credit card companies and banks do with that money? They lend it to others to make money with.

The difference between a corporation spending money and the government spending money is that the corporation earned it and the goverment stole it. Legally stole mind you, but stole nonetheless.

What you have to remember is that whatever money the government takes, that is money that someone else isnt pushing into the economy in some way. The government is essentially acting as a middleman and wasting money every time they touch it. They have no incentives to treat it as their own money---they can either take or make more.

Government stimulus can be described as inefficient trickle down that is channeled through whoever is cronies to the party in power at the time. With a government cut, of course.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Isn't Obama supposed to be an evil anti-business socialist communist Maoist Stalinist Marxist foreigner?
Click to expand...

Getting reelected makes many politicians abandon their "principles" Look at Obama signing the Bush tax rate extensions in an attempt to keep the dems from taking a bath
 
OpportunityCost said:
If someone pays down debts, what do credit card companies and banks do with that money? They lend it to others to make money with.
Click to expand...

Right now, those credit card companies are in debt as well. The rest of your post is rehashed talking points

TurtleDude said:
Getting reelected makes many politicians abandon their "principles" Look at Obama signing the Bush tax rate extensions in an attempt to keep the dems from taking a bath
Click to expand...

He extended them 2years because the repubs were going to filibuster everything until he did it. Nothing would have been done. The repubs played chicken and Obama flinched.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom