Creating jobs without "stimuli."

[middleagedgamer]

I have a plan on how we can create 100% employment for only about $300 billion, as opposed to the $1.5 trillion the Obama wants to spend on bail-outs and stimuli (that's plural for "stimulus").

Give employers a tax cut of $20,000 for every full-time permanent job that they create. Part-time workers do not qualify; temporary workers do not qualify; workers that were hired to replace former employees (whether they quit, or were fired) do not qualify. You must increase the size of your permanent full-time workforce, and it must be domestic; foreign outsourced jobs don't count.

There are currently 15 million unemployed people in the United States, according to this right here:

Unemployment rate drops to 9.7% in January 2010 | MNN - Mother Nature Network

That means for this program to have 100% success, it would cost us $300 billion (15 million jobs times $20,000 per job).

I can think of several benefits to this:

1. It is much, MUCH cheaper than any "stimulus package."
2. It does not create any artificial jobs; employers can hire for whatever position they want. They can hire secretaries; they can hire cashiers; hell, they can hire strippers for all I care! If there is a demand for the labor, and it is not temporary, part-time, or a mere replacement, it can qualify.
3. This will not cost $300 billion a year; rather, it could be $150b in 2011, $100b in 2012, and $50b in 2013. This tax cut is permanent and on-going, because we could ALWAYS use extra jobs!
4. If it doesn't work, we don't have to spend the money. This is one of those "satisfaction guaranteed, or your money back" kind of things.

Thoughts?

 

[justabubba]

clever [/s]

ok. i am a small business owner who jumps at this opportunity to enrich myself - at the expense of the taxpayer

so, uncle sugar is going to give me a tax credit of $20,000 for each FT job i create this year.
so, i hire an employee at $7.25/hr - less than $15,000. and by the time i make my social security contribution, unemployment compensation contribution i still get the employee's efforts for a cost less than what the government will pay ... let's estimate $3000 as the net gain after subtracting all employee expenses
even if i pay the employee to watch tv from home i make money on him/her
so, i hire lots of people to watch tv from home, because the government is going to give me a $3,000 windfall for each employee i add
now, that only works until the amount of money i expect to pay as income tax this year
assuming i will pay $60,000 to the IRS, i can now afford to hire 20 bodies to watch tv from their homes and stil issue them a regular pay check

now, it gets even better this year, because i only have to hire them from may thru december, 2/3 of the year, so instead of a $17,000 employee cost in year 2010 it becomes a $11,300 cost to hire the employee this year
for this year only, i make $8,700 per employee to offset my $60,000 IRS bill. that means i can only hire 7 employees this year
so, i will wait until 2011 to hire the additional 13 to cover next year's tax obligation

so, uncle sugar offsets my tax bill, i hire 20 employees to watch tv at home and the taxpayer - the wage earner - not the business owner - picks up the tab for this incentive program you have concocted

notice how well it works?

me either

 

[Captain America]

I have a plan on how we can create 100% employment for only about $300 billion, as opposed to the $1.5 trillion the Obama wants to spend on bail-outs and stimuli (that's plural for "stimulus").

Give employers a tax cut of $20,000 for every full-time permanent job that they create. Part-time workers do not qualify; temporary workers do not qualify; workers that were hired to replace former employees (whether they quit, or were fired) do not qualify. You must increase the size of your permanent full-time workforce, and it must be domestic; foreign outsourced jobs don't count.

There are currently 15 million unemployed people in the United States, according to this right here:

Unemployment rate drops to 9.7% in January 2010 | MNN - Mother Nature Network

That means for this program to have 100% success, it would cost us $300 billion (15 million jobs times $20,000 per job).

I can think of several benefits to this:

1. It is much, MUCH cheaper than any "stimulus package."
2. It does not create any artificial jobs; employers can hire for whatever position they want. They can hire secretaries; they can hire cashiers; hell, they can hire strippers for all I care! If there is a demand for the labor, and it is not temporary, part-time, or a mere replacement, it can qualify.
3. This will not cost $300 billion a year; rather, it could be $150b in 2011, $100b in 2012, and $50b in 2013. This tax cut is permanent and on-going, because we could ALWAYS use extra jobs!
4. If it doesn't work, we don't have to spend the money. This is one of those "satisfaction guaranteed, or your money back" kind of things.

Thoughts?

Well, that would be cool if the corporations paid taxes to begin with. What's zero minus twenty thousand?

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes | Reuters

Would your idea be a one-time shot or a 20,000 deduction every year that job is made available? If it's a one time shot, it will work for one year. Any gains will either be squandered or assimilated amongst the upper tier, (or invested in a losing market.) The employer will get a 40,000 dollar employee for 20,000, on the backs of American taxpayers, and then terminate said employee the following year, when they would have to pay full price..

Thoughts?

 

[middleagedgamer]

clever [/s]

ok. i am a small business owner who jumps at this opportunity to enrich myself - at the expense of the taxpayer

so, uncle sugar is going to give me a tax credit of $20,000 for each FT job i create this year.

Pretty much.

so, i hire an employee at $7.25/hr - less than $15,000. and by the time i make my social security contribution, unemployment compensation contribution i still get the employee's efforts for a cost less than what the government will pay ... let's estimate $3000 as the net gain after subtracting all employee expense.
even if i pay the employee to watch tv from home i make money on him/her
so, i hire lots of people to watch tv from home, because the government is going to give me a $3,000 windfall for each employee i add
now, that only works until the amount of money i expect to pay as income tax this year
assuming i will pay $60,000 to the IRS, i can now afford to hire 20 bodies to watch tv from their homes and stil issue them a regular pay check

now, it gets even better this year, because i only have to hire them from may thru december, 2/3 of the year, so instead of a $17,000 employee cost in year 2010 it becomes a $11,300 cost to hire the employee this year
for this year only, i make $8,700 per employee to offset my $60,000 IRS bill. that means i can only hire 7 employees this year
so, i will wait until 2011 to hire the additional 13 to cover next year's tax obligation

so, uncle sugar offsets my tax bill, i hire 20 employees to watch tv at home and the taxpayer - the wage earner - not the business owner - picks up the tab for this incentive program you have concocted

notice how well it works?

me either

Then, would you like to reduce the tax cut to $15,000, essentially breaking even?

Hey, I'm all for that! That'll reduce the overall cost of this program down to $225 billion!

Woot!

 

[middleagedgamer]

Well, that would be cool if the corporations paid taxes to begin with. What's zero minus twenty thousand?

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes | Reuters

Small companies typically cannot afford all of the deductions that corporations get.

Small companies create the majority of jobs, anyway.

Would your idea be a one-time shot or a 20,000 deduction every year that job is made available?

One time shot.

If it's a one time shot, it will work for one year. Any gains will either be squandered or assimilated amongst the upper tier, (or invested in a losing market.) The employer will get a 40,000 dollar employee for 20,000, on the backs of American taxpayers, and then terminate said employee the following year, when they would have to pay full price..

Thoughts?

My thoughts are, you're paranoid.

Besides, if they just law off a worker one year, that wouldn't be permanent, would it?

If they replaced that worker, that wouldn't count, either.

They have to increase their workers!

 

[Captain America]

Yeah, I'm paranoid and you're delusional. Should make for a great conversation.

I think your idea, in theory, is headed in the right direction but would benefit from a little tweaking. Call it paranoia, if you prefer, but I prefer to look at is as healthy skepticism looking for the loophole that needs patched. Proper prior planning prevents piss-poor performance.

So. You wanna let's cuss and discuss and build on your idea together or just try to insult the people who came to the playground to play with you?

Besides, if they just law off a worker one year, that wouldn't be permanent, would it?

I don't know. How many people you see laid off, as of late, returning back to work? I believe the term I used was "terminated." That's quite a distance from "laid-off."

 

[middleagedgamer]

Yeah, I'm paranoid and you're delusional. Should make for a great conversation.

I think your idea, in theory, is headed in the right direction but would benefit from a little tweaking. Call it paranoia, if you prefer, but I prefer to look at is as healthy skepticism looking for the loophole that needs patched. Proper prior planning prevents piss-poor performance.

So. You wanna let's cuss and discuss and build on your idea together or just try to insult the people who came to the playground to play with you?

When did I cuss in this thread?

I don't know. How many people you see laid off, as of late, returning back to work? I believe the term I used was "terminated." That's quite a distance from "laid-off."

Still, that would not be a permanent arrangement.

If he claims that the worker is permanent, when, in fact, he actually intends to lay off that worker once the worker has "done his job" of getting the tax cut, that's tax evasion, because he lied about the "permanent" status of his new employee.

 

[justabubba]

When did I cuss in this thread?


Still, that would not be a permanent arrangement.
If he claims that the worker is permanent, when, in fact, he actually intends to lay off that worker once the worker has "done his job" of getting the tax cut, that's tax evasion, because he lied about the "permanent" status of his new employee.

and how will you prove that the "surplus" employee was no longer needed to handle the business' revised activities
or prove that the employee was not unsatisfactory as determined by the business owner/manager
there are a great number of plausible reasons the business could use to shed the employee

in the meantime you must be able to PROVE the business owner was circumventing the law. a difficult standard to meet

 

[middleagedgamer]

and how will you prove that the "surplus" employee was no longer needed to handle the business' revised activities
or prove that the employee was not unsatisfactory as determined by the business owner/manager

How do you prove that they fired Samantha because she was a woman?

There are ways.

there are a great number of plausible reasons the business could use to shed the employee

in the meantime you must be able to PROVE the business owner was circumventing the law. a difficult standard to meet

And yet, it can be done.

Besides, if they start doing this five times, over ten years, eventually, the IRS will get suspicious, and send an auditor.

 

[justabubba]

How do you prove that they fired Samantha because she was a woman?

There are ways.

i have won a title VII gender discrimination case in federal court
you almost need a smoking gun to prevail

And yet, it can be done.

Besides, if they start doing this five times, over ten years, eventually, the IRS will get suspicious, and send an auditor.

but how long does the business have to maintain its tax records ... less than a 10 year ascension period
How long should I keep records?
ooops! so much for that theory
tough to prove; easy to avoid

 

[CriticalThought]

I have a plan on how we can create 100% employment for only about $300 billion, as opposed to the $1.5 trillion the Obama wants to spend on bail-outs and stimuli (that's plural for "stimulus")

You never took Economics did you? 100% employment would cause disastrous inflation.

What you are also suggesting is flawed in the simple sense of supply and demand. Forcing a huge supply of workers into the market would not increase the demand for those workers.

If you can't create the demand, then a corporation has no incentive to hire a full time worker for a $20,000 tax credit because they would likely lose money.