Monday, September 10, 2012

Stuff That Obozo Doesn't Mention

From a Romney press release:

Lower-Paying Jobs Account For Nearly 60% Of The Jobs Added Since The Recession Ended In 2009. “Lower-paying jobs, with median hourly wages from $7.69 to $13.83, accounted for just 21% of the job losses during the recession. But they’ve made up about 58% of the job growth from the end of the recession in late 2009 through early 2012.”  --quoting the LATimes

Oh, and those "balanced" tax increases which Obozo favors?

President Obama’s Tax Plan “Would Hurt Small-Business Job Creators In Particular.” “New research, released today by the National Federation of Independent Business, shows that allowing tax relief on the top individual rates to expire will hurt job creation and the economy. The report, published by top accounting firm Ernst & Young, shows raising top individual rates would hurt small-business job creators in particular.”  --quoting NFIB

Just thought we'd mention that.

HT:  Real McCain


Jim said...

Any body care to tackle this:

If raising the tax rate on income above (and only that portion above) $250,000 would hurt small-business job creators, why haven't these so-called job creators been creating jobs for the past 3.5 years while enjoying the lower tax rate?

Anonymous said...

ummm...cuz it's a load of BS? These so-called job creators have been enjoying the tax cuts for TEN years, yet still standing on the sidelines waiting for....what?

If only I had a pony...

Dad29 said...

This may be a challenge for you, Jim.

See, in 2008, 2009, and 2010, business was very slow.

That's why people did not "add jobs."

Now that there is some lame and halting recovery, a business owner COULD add employees; but if his tax rate goes up--costing him, say, $35K more next year--he may well decide to add X minus 1 employee ($35K being total compensation for one).

Of course, there must be demand sufficient to add X employee(s), AND a large portion (or more) of the tax increase.

Jim said...

You're leaving out (at least) one thing, Dad. Any compensation paid to that new employee is pre-tax. He could hire 20 new employees and his taxes would have nothing to do with it. You don't have to have after-tax profit to hire a new employee. You have to have enough demand to make the sales that would pay for the new employees PRE-TAX. Whether a small business has 2 employees or 20 employees, its tax liability is based on net profit after paying for however many employees it has.

This whole "can't raise the tax rate or they won't hire" crap is...well, crap. As someone recently said, in a word, it's "arithmetic".

Dad29 said...

....and you're leaving out "capitalization", Jimbo.

One does not hire people--nor acquire machinery--without the foreseeable ability to add to the SE corner of the balance sheet in the long term.

That is after-tax. It is crucial to sustaining the business and for future growth.

You can ask any lender in your former employer's office. It's called "finance 101."

Jim said...

Not that we were talking about machinery, but are you saying that a small business deducts depreciation on capital equipment AFTER tax?

Which accounting rule is that?

Anonymous said...

I see nothing about 'depreciation' in Dad's comment.

Where did you find that?

Jim said...

Dad will know, Non.

Dad29 said...

No, Jimbo, I know some rules on taxes.

Try again. See if you understand the need for a solid SE corner.

Anonymous said...

Jim sucks off ni66ers behind grocery stores.

Saint Revolution said...

TO: Jim.

Your sightedness is obviously short..."...sing past your nose...", said Frank.

You calculate hiring like it is black and white.

If you've ever executed any REAL hiring(s), as I have, there is/are always imputation(s) of risk(s) management(s), configured for real numbers, and cost(s) of doing business, i.e., cost(s) of hiring, already endemically real number calculable.

Top down accounting (i.e., private sector) demands imputation(s) of risk(s). Not so much with bottom line up accounting (i.e., public sector, etc.) as bottom line up accounting, by design, forces imputation(s) of risk(s) in "starting" numbers.

Simple remuneration(s) (pre-/post-tax salary(ies), benefits, etc.) calculations pre-tax is/are nowhere NEAR what is considered in hiring.

Imputing in risk(s) management (possible (future) law suits over terminations, etc.; government imposed sanctions, i.e., Affirmative Action, etc.; cost of back end SSI; UIC premium payouts changing; etc.) as well as pre-calculated "cost(s)-of-hiring" (man hours involved in hiring; hiring tests; third party vendor payouts (contract/consulting firms, bullshit psychological testing, etc.); etc.) are requisite hiring costs considerations when deciding on human resources expansions.

It is all these imputed "grey matter" areas that private sector deem "hiring-tepid" at this time...and NONE of these "grey matter" escrow areas are pre-tax.

I do NOT, however, agree with the lack of human resources investment by huge corporations that are sitting on $trillions. No hiring, no training, nuthin'.

That, here in America, in a technology driven age, is bullshit.

But, of course, offshoring, outsourcing, H1-B'ing, other visa'ing, PERM lawing, and other "politicians-selling-us-down-the-river" demises are long as it DOESN'T benefit the American taxpayer paying for it.

Dad29 said...

Jim doesn't understand "SE Corner" much less terms like 'imputations.'

Anonymous said...

And neither do you, Dad29.

Dad29 said...

Jump right in, Anony, and 'splain it all for Jimbo. I'll correct your work.