TornadoSiren
New member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2012
- Messages
- 16
- Reaction score
- 6
- Location
- Pennsylvania
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Pooh pooh, you say. I am dead serious, and would love to hear your thoughts.
There is much talk about the "job creators". I would never deny that money can create jobs. Business can and does create jobs. Many of the proposed and existing tax credits just automatically assume that throwing that money out there will result in job creation. I think we can all agree (okay, most can agree) that this is not always the case. I am all over rewarding job creation with extra tax credits. In fact, I think it is a splendid idea. Let's do it! My problem is not in the concept, my problem is in the actual act itself. The tax credits are given BEFOREHAND, and if said tax credits, or rebates, or incentives, or whatever key word you want to call it, do not result in the creation of jobs, they still get to keep their bonuses.
If I hire someone to do some work for me, they get paid after the work is finished. The payment is dependent upon the work being done.
How about we make these extra tax breaks and incentives (which are always touted as the way to increase jobs) tied to performance? If a company creates jobs, they get the extra tax breaks and incentives. I am all for something like this. I object to simply throwing extra tax breaks and incentives to companies and then watch them lay off 5000 workers, and then say they need MORE tax breaks and credits so they can rehire.
My point is, these rewards for job creation should not just be given out in the HOPES that they will result in job creation. I cannot see how it can possibly be wrong to expect and demand results. The employers demand it from their workers, right?
There is much talk about the "job creators". I would never deny that money can create jobs. Business can and does create jobs. Many of the proposed and existing tax credits just automatically assume that throwing that money out there will result in job creation. I think we can all agree (okay, most can agree) that this is not always the case. I am all over rewarding job creation with extra tax credits. In fact, I think it is a splendid idea. Let's do it! My problem is not in the concept, my problem is in the actual act itself. The tax credits are given BEFOREHAND, and if said tax credits, or rebates, or incentives, or whatever key word you want to call it, do not result in the creation of jobs, they still get to keep their bonuses.
If I hire someone to do some work for me, they get paid after the work is finished. The payment is dependent upon the work being done.
How about we make these extra tax breaks and incentives (which are always touted as the way to increase jobs) tied to performance? If a company creates jobs, they get the extra tax breaks and incentives. I am all for something like this. I object to simply throwing extra tax breaks and incentives to companies and then watch them lay off 5000 workers, and then say they need MORE tax breaks and credits so they can rehire.
My point is, these rewards for job creation should not just be given out in the HOPES that they will result in job creation. I cannot see how it can possibly be wrong to expect and demand results. The employers demand it from their workers, right?