I cannot seem to post bills at this time so I am posting this as a blog. Please feel free to comment.
THE SMASHEY HIRING/RETENTION BILL OF 2009
MISSION: The Smashey Hiring/ Retention Bill of 2009 seeks to make incentive for good, viable businesses to hire and retain new employees, spurring job growth and helping the economy and the American public.
This bill seeks to accomplish it's mission through the following manner:
* Provide every business, with a viable and strong balance sheet, a $2,800 tax credit for each full time employee hired that is retained for at least one calendar year.
* Each business will have to provide legal documentation of each employee hired including but not limited to - photo I.D., 1-9 documentation, pay and hours worked records.
* Upon providing legal documentation regarding each individual employee hired and retained, said business can apply for the $2,800 tax credit which will be applied to the next fiscal year proceeding the employees one year anniversary of employment.
This bill is designed to provide an incentive to hire new employees instead of cutting costs to drive stock price. The largest controllable expense any business has is payroll. The cost cutting has helped the stock market but hurt the employment of millions of Americans. This in turn hurts revenue to the federal government and results in borrowing and printing of money as well as an increase in debt, deficit, taxes and inflation.
We believe the key to America's economic success is employment. This bill seeks to spur job growth and to assist in the economic recovery of all Americans and the country as a whole.
|
|
| |
|
|
Yea if those larger companies are not having their own issues. It might help and is better than another stimulus package.
True Lucky, it is difficult for small businesses to find the capital on the front end. This plan may not work for some of them but it will provide incentive for larger business to hopefully hire some people.
Actually, my message to Erock word for word:
you still online?
If I were you i'd call back today to follow up on the interview.
Tax credits suck for small business. Small businesses have problems with capital in the short term and tax incentives are really a joke to small business owners facing a bad economy in my opinion. We need fund in the short term. Tax incentives assume that you already have the money and you will get paid back ... basically. That really doesn't help out small businesses.
LOL. So why you talking to erock! LMAO
Not much waiting to hear back from the job I want.
Yes I agree that is less they will borrow but still even if they don't borrow the debt still grows from interest. and if interest rates go up well thats going to mean more taxes.
Yes, I am a fag. However, I prefer bick black dicks over little white ones. lol
Fags! ;)
Oh nothing ... I was just bored. Whats going on?
lol lucky yep the man trying to keep u down. Hey lucky whats going on? I got your pm from last night.
I agree erock but the more revenue they take in the less they have to borrow and print. I didn't mean they would use it to pay down the debt, as we both know that would be too difficult for them.
It not just you. Half the time I type up a reply and hit submit this site loses it so I just quit typing up things over a couple of sentences long.
Smashey that is assuming the governmet will in fact put revenue towards the debt. Bush saw from 02-06 a massive increase in revenue but as I point out time and again in my blogs the government just spends it.
Dunno what the damn deal is, but it still won't let me post bills. The man's tryin to keep me down.
"I cannot seem to post bills at this time so I am posting this as a blog." lmfao. Hmm? That is unusual. Oh wait .... no it isn't. ha ha
My last 2 sentences were directed at the government and not at Kempite. :)
And those principles start with jobs. If unemployment continues to rise, and it will, the problem will not get better. Jobs put money in the pockets of consumers to purchase goods and services which because of demand, creates more jobs. Jobs also put revenue into the government coffers. The more revenue the government takes in equals a smaller deficit. The problem lies with jobs, not with the companies themselves. If the government wants to help, help with job creation. And real job creation, not the bloated numbers you have been touting about the stimulus. I think the AP pointed out very well how that turned out.
The truth is that none of us have the answers and we never will. Not Republicans, not Democrats or Independents. All we have are our own attempts to best help us deal with existing circumstances and to do so by moving ahead in a way that avoids past mistakes, and, as best as possible, avoids creating new problems in the future. It is simply my belief that the right of center approaches which lean toward economic growth based upon sustainable, free market principles, does offer the way forward that creates the least problems in the future.
I'm not claiming to have the answer but merely an idea to help lower the unemployment rate under current conditions. It may not work well, but it is at least a feasible idea to help the millions of Americans who are out of work and it is a better idea than what we are doing.
I guess this bill might do some good. So why not give it a try!
Exactly Kemp and maybe I should be more clear in stating my stances are dealing with current situations, not the ones I advocate. My thought process sometimes get lost in my eagerness to get the proposal out. Thanks for the support.
I just don't see alot of companies hiring people for a future tax credit when they are not making as much profit and the biggest drain on a store is man power. I just do not see this working. Sure some companies like McDonalds will hire or some other companies but by and large alot of places are going to pass.
Smashey, I understand. I am aware of your early support of a flat tax. So I kind of thought this was meant as an "in lieu of" proposal. I just wanted to clarify my position and so I stressed that if a flat tax fails to be adopted, I support this. The bottom line is that I totally agree with you. I myself have several existing proposals that are based on passage if we can't get the preferred reforms passed. I believe in dealing with the realities we face and your proposing this bill as an option available to deal with the existing screwed up tax code if it is not dropped for a flat tax, is wise. So to reiterate, I support both the bill and the designs behind it.
Companies aren't going to be selling goods at a loss because of big discounts erock. Go back to business 101 class. That would defeat the purpose of driving traffic into the building with the low prices. That statement makes no sense. They are taking larger discounts to drive traffic in a sluggish economy. Even if you see a 75% off sale, they are still making money, albeit at a smaller margin. That is why everyone sells goods made overseas. They are purchased at a cheap rate and can be sold at a cheap rate while still being profitable. I agree with your lower taxes now and get government out of the way statement but once again it is not realistic. I am willing to wager that as the unemployment rate creeps over 10%, some form of my bill will happen.
** This comment was deleted by Smashey due to inappropriated content **
Alright Smashey have a good one!
Not in the here and now. Again why would hire someone who is going to hurt my bottom just for a future tax credit? Lets say Target sees sluggish sales they are not going to hire more than they need to or its going to hurt their bottom line in the here and now. Companies are already getting set to offer huge sales this year. Those sales will mean goodes will be sold at a lose. That means less revenue to pay people. Plus if we are worried about taxs next year its really simply here lower them and get government out of the way.
We can agree to disagree I guess. Gotta run, thanks for the debate.
The extra capital your ideas offer does not give incentive to hire. You do not have to use it for that. There has to be a plan with incentive to HIRE. Just giving companies money as you wish doesn't ensure they will hire with it, it ensures more profit. I will guarantee companies will hire if they can use it as a tax credit next fiscal year. The outlook for taxes next year is looking bleak. They will get ahead of the game to ensure they aren't fubar by the upcoming increase they are almost guaranteed to see. Your plans are great for getting them capital but mine gives capital and requires it to create jobs.
Also meerly slashing the payroll tax would allow them to give more hours to their employees and more capital means more ad buys, maybe they buy new equipment. All those things start to stimulate the economy. Someone needs to build the equipment, move it install it. Etc. Thats how u get job growth. I just don't see even large companies using this tax credit when the future economy is shaky at best.
Okay even if a company has a viable balance sheet why is it viable? Have they reduced hours or done something else that has allowed them to do well. What effect will them hiring someone do to their bottom line. Again its in the future that the tax credit comes. And with dropping sales no one is going to hire for a future tax credit.
Again I would not take a credit when the fact is its in the future. Plus capital gives me more to do with. Again you forget most companies who are not hiring and showing a profit of any kind did so by cutting manpower! Few if any companies will hire when it will only hurt them in the here and now. They capital more anything else.
Your ideas are giving them additional capital but not incentive to use that capital to hire. This credit is strictly tied to hiring and retention. The rest are nice ideas but don't hold the business to hire with the funds you are freeing up for them.
The bottom line hurting now doesn't matter if you ensure the balance sheet is strong and the company is going to be around. They will hire for the tax credit even if it is next year. Especially since they are afraid their taxes will be going up with the current economy. Slashing taxes on investment will spur investment but will the company hire or simply show a larger profit to get the investment dollars? Before the company can get the credit they have to have a viable/ strong balance sheet. Only showing a profit due to slashing the workforce would not be viable. a tax credit PER employee would work. Or we could just give them more incentive to cut jobs as we have been. I'll take my idea.
Also slashing taxes on investment accounts would spur the stock market and thus provide more capital to companies. Increasing the amount companies can expense for equipment taxes would also work. and slashing the payroll tax by 75% would do the trick to. I am just not sure that offering a company some future credit will do the trick.
If it is a future tax credit they will not hire. Why hire when the bottom line NOW is hurting. Cutting taxes allows companies more profits and then they will hire. But if u go to a company that is only showing a profit because it cut manpower they won't hire for some future tax credit.
Erock: The companies will hire if the incentive is there. Current policy gives incentive only to profit. If they have incentive to profit AND hire, they will hire. Capital gains tax cuts will spur investment as well and I advocate that, however the main issue with our economy is job loss and this is a way for companies to hire. Until jobs are created the economy will not recover. A strong balance sheet would require the company to be operating in the black. Kempite: I also advocate a flat tax but in leiu of one and to spur job creation I have presented this in it's current form. Big Daddy: I will violate my libertarian philosophy in order to spur job growth and help the economy. Profit doesn't have to be taken out of the equation but jobs have to be added to it. Comrade. ;)
No company is going to hire if they don't see the tax credit till next year. Plus many many companies are only afloat because they have cut their manpower to start with. I would reather see tax freezes and capital gains taxes cut and a Flat inacted that would do alot more to get companies on their feet.
I will support this bill but only if a flat tax fails to be adopted. It is part of my reform agenda and if passed, such manipulation of the tax code becomes unnecessary and would not be allowed. However, as I stated, if the flat tax were not be passed, I would wholeheartedly endorse and promote this bill as a way to deal with the current oppressive tax system which stifles job groth and shrinks the economy.
oh yeah,m,, almost forgot,,, you COMMIE!!!
sorry, in order to create incentives to hire and retain jobs, you would violate your libertarian philosophy.... and there is no greater incentive than profits.
the only thing here that I see is that they will get the ta credit a year from now and then perhapes cut that person. Plus define "strong viable balance sheet" they only reason they may have one is that they cut manpower.
|
<< Home