Why I'm Not Hiring

[TheWebHead]

Michael P. Fleischer - president of Bogen Communications Inc. in Ramsey, N.J.

With unemployment just under 10% and companies sitting on their cash, you would think that sooner or later job growth would take off. I think it's going to be later—much later. Here's why.

Meet Sally (not her real name; details changed to preserve privacy). Sally is a terrific employee, and she happens to be the median person in terms of base pay among the 83 people at my little company in New Jersey, where we provide audio systems for use in educational, commercial and industrial settings. She's been with us for over 15 years. She's a high school graduate with some specialized training. She makes $59,000 a year—on paper. In reality, she makes only $44,000 a year because $15,000 is taken from her thanks to various deductions and taxes, all of which form the steep, sad slope between gross and net pay.

Before that money hits her bank, it is reduced by the $2,376 she pays as her share of the medical and dental insurance that my company provides. And then the government takes its due. She pays $126 for state unemployment insurance, $149 for disability insurance and $856 for Medicare. That's the small stuff. New Jersey takes $1,893 in income taxes. The federal government gets $3,661 for Social Security and another $6,250 for income tax withholding. The roughly $13,000 taken from her by various government entities means that some 22% of her gross pay goes to Washington or Trenton. She's lucky she doesn't live in New York City, where the toll would be even higher.

...When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally's job each year.

more...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704017904575409733776372738.html

[depakid]

1. It'll be interesting to see this idiot get debunked

The nation's full of them- which is why it's head inexorably toward third world status.

[alc]

20. which part should be debunked?

The numbers are pretty similar to what I look now at as a hiring manager and what I remember from when I owned businesses.

Take home pay isn't the reason he's not hiring so the title doesn't make sense to me but the rest of it is pretty accurate. He may be using contractors, temps, or outsourcing instead of hiring. So the title could be accurate but he should mention that.

Also, my part of ss and medicare come out of the budget I have for my employees' salaries. It's silly that it gets separated into employee and employer parts. If it went away, you'd get both parts from me and most owners and hiring managers I know. It shouldn't go away, but I think a lot of people don't understand how hiring and salaries work and wanted to point it out. Hiring managers would prefer to pay as much as we can so there's less chance of you leaving. We don't make more money by cheating you. Owners can make more money if you get less, but that can go away quick if you quit (hiring, training, and getting others to do your work for the transition costs more than the difference).

[depakid]

21. Well, let's see- taxes, obligations (and wages) are higher in nations like Australia for example

where unemployment's in the 4% range and falling -and we're building and stocking libraries, not shutting them down and burning books like New Jersey.

This in addition to paid parental leave, 4 weeks paid vacation (at higher rates) and highly regulated private insurers (which businesses often pick up the tab for) and a truly robust public option.

So something doesn't add. N'est pas?

[dmallind]

23. Australia GDP per capita 37500. US 46500 in USD. Something DOESN'T add up

Starting with those higher wages.....

[depakid]

25. Take Mother Theresa, Bill Gates and 48 citizens of Kolkata

and average out their income...;-)

Bottom line is that the average Aussie is healthier, wealthier, more secure and has a better standard of living in comparison to average Americans- by leaps and bounds.

Starting with the $15.00 minimum wage- and well respected and even better paid tradesmen.

[dmallind]

40. What does the median Australian make? US? Median house price per sq ft? Car? NT

[depakid]

50. It's much more about the mode than the median

and the standard of living enjoyed by most Australians as opposed to most Americans. The utilitarian sort of deal "greatest good for the greatest number" coupled with a fair go for all.

Due to demand, housing is expensive- and there may be a few bubbles in parts of the countries (as we didn't experience a housing price collapse).

Here we have tradesmen (plumbers, carpenters, mechanics, etc. (doing quite well and even living near or on the beach or on a nice spread) in many communities. That ute (pickup) you see in the driveway isn't there to do a job- they live in that house!

Teachers, small business owners, etc., also do quite well- and take paid vacation abroad. Medical bankruptcies (strictly due to medical bills) are essentially unheard of.

One of the reasons for all this is higher wages translates into a population with the ability to purchase goods and services from one another- hereby creating multiplier effects, whereby each dollar increases in value as it passes from one hand to the next.

That's one of the unseen benefits of a more equitable wealth and income distribution (and a reasonable safety net).

[dmallind]

55. No it isn't

The mode just tells us the exact dollar figure most common. Unless we band that into large segments it's useless. The median is the measure to use when comparing populations.

[teknomanzer]

63. GDP per capita doesn't mean squat.

If you payed attention in High School you would understand how averages work. Here is a little mathematical education for you.

10+10+10+10+10/5=10

46+1+1+1+1/5=10

Did you see what I did there?

[dmallind]

22. I doubt this

Why would employees get all the FICA benefits in cash if they "went away"?

Regardless of what people say about their tax burden, they work for net real income not gross income (to verify this ask if someone would prefer a 50K job with 10% taxes or a 100K job with 60% takes). People of Sally's skill and experience are willing, by definition, to work for 44K of spending power. Unless we imagine Sally is either very underpaid or very overpaid (which in itself would be an exception by definition, not the rule), we can assume that this is what the pool of Sally-like workers need to get them to join your company.

So if your costs to hire Sally went down 7.65% all of a sudden, what does that do to change the fact that Sally-like workers demand 44K in spendable income? Nothing at all. Sallies still need 44K to work for you, it just costs you only $72K not 77K or thereabouts to give them that spending power.

Saying thatr employees would naturally get any gain from lower costs to hire them is like saying that employees would naturally get paid less if you had to use headhunters to find them rather than just a Monster ad, or that they would get paid more if you didn't even have that cost of hiring. Do employees get paid more if medical insurance paid by employer goes down? Why would they if FICA does?

[liberal N proud]

2. That is some new math

[Igel]

65. No, it's not.

Back in the '80s when we were thinking about hiring a new person I had the task of adding up that person's actual cost.

FICA, unemployment paid by the employer, etc., etc. How much they got in their paycheck was the least of our concern.

In fact, we had to look not just at the $ amounts involved, we also had to consider training costs, work space and additional resources that the person would consume. It was a non-profit organization. The person would have been useful. But when looking at the start-up costs for his (or her) workstation, supplies, and everything else we simply couldn't afford another person. When it was pointed out that the budget could cover that person's salary, I had to try to convince those who would benefit from that position that the salary was the least of our concerns. None of them even wanted to believe that they cost their own employers any more than their gross pay.

In fact, this "new math" is the key to understanding one of the little secrets about the lack of pay increases in the '00s. It's a bone of contention in what UAW employees at GM made. This "new math" has surfaced fairly consistently over the past decade, and was around for long, long before that. Wilfully failing to recognize this "new math" is the single biggest reason that public pensions are in horrible shape.

Take the near 0% increase in average pay in the '00s. At the same time, the cost per employee continued to rise at a pretty good clip because benefits increased. Perhaps it was just because the cost of health insurance increased. It was helped by having the employer's contribution towards health insurance not be taxable. If you look at earned income there was no increase; if you look at the full benefits package, there was a sizeable increase. Of course, many in government resent the consequences that the tax-code was constructed to produce (again, "we want this result--wait, shit, look, it's a disaster, we got the result we wanted!"--the law of intended consequences, apparently). Having set up the tax code as a matter of public policy to drive an increase in benefits, how they lament that so much revenue that properly belongs to the government is being diverted to pay for benefits in a less-than-egalitarian fashion.

[markbark]

3. A question for Mr Fleischer

How much of Sally's salary is deducted from your company's tax burden as a business expense?

[notesdev]

5. I got an idea

why don't you try running a business and finding out for yourself.

The guy in the story is exactly right. If not for the costs directly imposed by government, I too would be able to give someone a job who currently doesn't have one. Government claims a third of everything my business makes but it sure as hell doesn't contribute a third of the effort it takes to make that money in the first place.

[Dr.Phool]

14. Bullshit.

If the money is there to be made, ie: the business is there, the hire will be made. The employees tax burden has no relationship to the employers hiring.

Nothing I hate more than overtaxed, whiney, rich people. The ones doing all the belly-aching, are the ones who have everything.

[notesdev]

24. Try learning some math

if an employee costs 50% more, a business has to charge 50% more for the work that employee would be doing. If the demand isn't strong enough to command 50% more, then that employee won't be hired.

In the age of offshoring and outsourcing, the demand for US workers is definitely not there to support 50% additional hiring costs.

[sinkingfeeling]

29. If you pay somebody a salary of $60,000, doesn't it cost you $60,000 plus

something like 7.65% for the SS & Medicare contribution? How much the governments take out of the $60,000 for taxes doesn't increase your cost. Or are you saying you would like to pay everybody just $30,000 and have them pay no taxes?

[notesdev]

32. plus the cost of mandates

the big one being health care

and the other half of SS/Medicare comes out of the paycheck too, as does the rest of the health care expenses, and also unemployment "insurance".

Throw in various taxes and tolls associated with commuting and the end take-home is even worse.

It's the take-home pay that matters, because people need a minimum to survive. So the gross payout has to be that plus all the overhead added by taxes and regulations. If the business isn't paying it directly, it still must pay it indirectly as the employee has to get enough out of working to be able to survive and be able to get to work.

Now throw into the mix how easy it is to offshore jobs to places where none of those things are required, and the premium to hire a US worker is prohibitive.

If we were getting an excellent government for all that money, it would be one thing. But what we get for that money is war, political payoffs, bailouts for the least deserving - all that is borne on the backs of those who are actually productive, and not only is there no sign of any real reform of the system, the various farces sold to us under the name of reform have each and every one made the situation worse.

[Dr.Phool]

34. I do know some math.

I've owned a business, with employees. I was also on the bargaining committee for my union, and we knew how to break down a pay package, to know exactly what each employee cost. And ours were higher, being that we paid into Railroad Retirement, which cost each employee an additional 4% above Social Security, and the employer an additional 16%. On top of that we had to calculate defined benefit pensions. And health insurance, dental, vision, FELA liability, and on and on.......

I'd say, with some confidence that I know a little more than your propaganda piece.

[notesdev]

35. defined benefit pensions?

That doesn't exist in the private economy. That only exists in the government economy where the bottom line is not based on how much business can be done.

I doubt you have owned a business if you think there is an equivalent between the two types of employers.

[Dr.Phool]

44. Boy, are you wrong.

I'm collecting one now. Have been for almost 9 years, since I retired at age 49.

I don't know what world you're living in, but it's sure not the real one.

And, I don't really give a rats ass if you believe I owned a business or not. It was a restaurant, after I retired, and several people on this board have been there.

Which kindergarten economics school did you attend?

[bergie321]

45. You try learning some math

If an employee can make 10 widgets per day, and the demand for widgets is 100 per day, how many employees would you hire if the tax rate was 10%, 15%, 25%, or 50%?

Unless you want us to believe that companies hire people out of a sense of charity?

[meegbear]

27. +1

[fasttense]

4. Better to lie by omission then to lie be admission.

Why does he list Social Security and Medicare separately? All my pay checks have them lumped together. Perhaps he is counting Medicare twice.

The federal income tax mostly comes back at the end of the year.

The medical and dental don't have to be so high if her employer would provide her with better benefits.

Now let's look at how much it costs a company to pay a CEO.

Is the CEO's taxes proportional to what Sally pays?

[notesdev]

6. Did you actually just post that

"The medical and dental don't have to be so high if her employer would provide her with better benefits."

Advice: don't post on economic issues again, ever. That statement encapsulates the ignorance of everyone who thinks that you can get something for nothing. "Better benefits" would come right out of her paycheck dollar for dollar.

[Loki]

11. The amount he listed as her share of health care benefits

is almost the same amount that we pay for my family of four and two other employees with a $3,000.00 deductible. without our employees paying anything. Now we don't have dental, but believe me, dental insurance is crap, because we deal with it every day. Maybe her deductible is lower, but that seems quite high and our insurance is good, and we have a small business too. My husband and I were talking about this just the other day. We work in an industry that if people don't have jobs and don't have health insurance, we don't have business. If we get a tax cut, we won't hire anyone else unless we have the business that requires it. When I hear Repubs use the mantra of "small business", I just laugh.

[Indydem]

7. He listed it twice...

Because he pays half as her employer and she pays half from her paycheck.

[Dr.Phool]

8. And what does the employees tax burden have with the employer not hiring?

If the business is there, the company will hire.

And yes, I've been a business owner. And there have been times, that me or my partner didn't take home a paycheck for 6 months, because business was down. But, the employees always got paid.

[Igel]

66. If the profit is there.

That's what you mean by "business." I once was involved in a business with $74 million in annual revenues. We laid people off and imposed salary reductions because it was losing money.

If you set an employee's wage by approximate take-home pay--which I personally think is the way to do it--then the employee's taxes are a cost of doing business, every bit as much as employer's FICA. It's a matter of how you allocate expenses in the ledger, for the most part (not entirely because the tax code gives the employee a lot if variability in the tax rate--all sorts of deductions come into play).

If you want your cook to make $35k/year after taxes and taxes were to suddenly triple, "if the business is there" suddenly means "there's enough business to cover a hefty pay raise." If there were no taxes, then it'd take much less business to cover employee take-home salaries that are appropriate benchmarked.

Of course, it's possible the business isn't there, in which case the tripling of taxes would suddenly reduce the cook's take-home pay markedly and the owner, if he only looked at the gross pay, might wonder why the employee is suddenly so much less committed.

[Indydem]

9. I'm not hiring...

Because one of my major customers (end user GE) sent their widget production to Mexico.

One of my other customers WHO I HELPED GET OFF THE GROUND sent the production of their parts to China.

In both cases, I couldn't buy the material for the price they were paying for cheap foreign parts.

Little hard to hire someone when I wonder if I'll have a job next week.

[leveymg]

10. So, Mike, you don't hire because your employees have to pay taxes?

Admit it, Mike, you'd rather just take your Bush tax cut and federal stimulus payment and invest that $74,000 in Asian Growth Funds and hide the profits in untaxed offshore accounts.

Noble Mike, TEA-bagger, a real humanitarian and patriot.

[jody]

12. Fleischer is right but those who have never run a business will disagree. Ignorance is truly bliss

and guarantees business failure.

[no_hypocrisy]

13. So does Mr. Fleischer suggest that Sally would be "better off" without her

deductions for the protections against disability, unemployment, and old age? Not to mention the stipend allowing her to seek medical treatment with possible hospitalization?

Or is Mike saying he could "afford" another employee were it not for those pesky stipends to the government?

He could always try to hire independent contractors instead of employees but he would lose control over how they perform their services.

[Lint Head]

15. Sounds like poor littleMichael P. Fleischer - president of Bogen Communications Inc.

is really suffering. Poor thing.

[Phil The Cat]

52. Again I say...Distribution by need, not production for greed!

Abolish private business for profit and ownership of real estate and resources, set up a national, or at least regional, job service that does the hiring based on needs and availability, not prejudices and homophobia! Provide everyone with a basic needs card that lets them obtain the necessities and a few niceties of life without the need for "cash money", and problem solved!

The problem is not the value of the number - it is what it will buy!

[philly_bob]

16. The business I was in didn't hire Full Time employees because of medical costs

Decisions were made by a Board. I would have liked to hire, but the argument that we can't afford to pay health insurance costs for a new employee always won.

[Locrian]

17. wow so taxes are too high...

wow so taxes are too high... I guess the poster must REALLY be against the war(s), eh? And the MIC? And the bailout? And tax breaks on the rich, corporations moving overseas, etc...

[Botany]

18. Bullshit piece

As the owner of a small biz myself the question is not the $74,000 / year that Sally costs his company but
how much her work makes for Mr. Fleischer?

[hobbit709]

30. Evidently Bogen Communications isn't exactly all that small

so I wonder how much the boss gets.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. Exactly

And of course what he is really saying is that he is not able to generate business enough to keep his concern growing and going, and/or that he is having a hard time keeping a hold on his own six figs.

[stopwastingmymoney]

53. +1

[Igel]

67. How's this?

Ultimately, you have an employee if he's profitable, or a required member of a team that generates a profit.

No profit, no business.

During a recession with less business, a company might have trouble maintaining its employees. In other words, you get people laid off. Each employee or team must remain profitable, i.e., generate enough profit after paying for costs associated with that employee or team.

If you reduce the costs, however, each employee or team must generate less revenue to create the same amount of profit.

Taxes are a cost. This is unarguable when it comes to employer-side taxes. It's also true, but less and variably so, for employee-side taxes.

This was made explicit by Obama in signing a bill into law that provided subsidies or gave tax breaks for businesses who hire new employees. You add revenue and if the employee sees a use for a new employee that produces sufficient revenue to produce a profit after expenses and *with* that subsidy, you get a new employee.

It's put harshly in the OP. But it's essentially the same underpinnings found in legislation that Democrats trumpeted rather loudly. Perhaps that sound was the spluttering of brown excrement proceeding from their mouths and being expelled from their instruments, but I think not.

[Blue_Tires]

19. So what does the taxes "Sally" has to pay have to do with why Bogen isn't hiring?

I can't register for the full piece, but I at least hope Fleischer gave a breakdown of what his own income and expenses are costing the company...

[NJCher]

26. not necessarily a logical decision

Everyone is expecting this business owner's decision to be logical and I'm not so sure it is. Sometimes, when there isn't a good option, people just do nothing.

Example (not necessarily applicable): I called some carpenters for estimates on doing some work in my living room. It's decorative work. The estimates were high. When I went back to the various bidders, I got the same answer, which was that they had to factor in unemployment insurance, health insurance, disability, etc., and that figure has to be put on to what they need as an hourly wage. Ironically, one of the carpenters was from Ramsey, NJ.

Someone suggested to hire an immigrant to do the work. It was pointed out that they charge a basic rate and since they're not "in the system" they don't pay taxes for disability, etc.

I thought about this but discarded the idea because of the high degree of communication that would be needed to do the job the way I wanted it done.

So the job and the project just sit undone. Nobody gets the work. At some point when I have enough time I'll either do it myself or figure out an option that doesn't take so much skill.

The point of my story is that when there isn't a good or viable option, the task might remain undone. If it is done, it might fall to other workers in the company to piece the job together when they can.


Cher

[sinkingfeeling]

31. Any good finish carpenter will run between $30 and $40 per hour here in the boonies.

[sinkingfeeling]

28. Hate to tell the guy, but $14,455 is only 24.5% of $59,000. Then Sally files her income tax return

and ends up getting most of her $6250 back from the feds. By the way, New Jersey's only taking a 3.3% in income tax... that's less than half on what I pay to the state, but I don't have to contribute to unemployment.

[Igel]

68. Not his point.

There are employer-side taxes and charges, as well. He included those to reach his 33%.

The ellipsis matters.

[Hawkowl]

36. So we should give employees a tax beak?

And shift the burden to the bottom line of corporations? Meaning, make it cheaper to hire employees, but tax the shit out of dividends and corporate profits?

Makes sense doesn't it? Cheaper to higher workers and more expensive to rape them and pocket extra cash as dividends and profits which are then used to buy competitors.

Checkmate Asshole.

[Blue_Tires]

37. So for those who subscribe and can read the whole piece; WHAT is his solution?

He wants more tax breaks for his business? Outsource to cheaper employees? Universal healthcare? Less legal rights for employees??

Please tell me Mr. CEO has something of substance other than the garden-variety big business anti-taxation screed...

[wisteria]

38. That 33% is average and has been taken out of paychecks for years now.

It never stopped employers from hiring before. And, people do receive services for the taxes they pay-sooner or later.

Frankly, I doubt the reason he isn't hiring is because of government taxes-shouldn't Sally be the one complaining about this? I think it is more about bigger profits for himself. And, there have been in place government incentives for small business' to hire new employees, thanks to President Obama. The guy is full of sh*t.

[TheWebHead]

39. to get the full article

you can enter through google:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awsj.com+%22Before+that+money+hits+her+bank%2C+it+is+reduced+by+the+%242%2C376+she+pays%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1WZPB_en___US359

sorry, didn't realize the link was an excerpt.

[Blue_Tires]

43. thanks...i read the rest of it and that clown is a jaggoff

"Because my company has been conscripted by the government and forced to serve as a tax collector, we have lost control of a big chunk of our cost structure. Tax increases, whether cloaked as changes in unemployment or disability insurance, Medicare increases or in any other form can dramatically alter our financial situation. With government spending and deficits growing as fast as they have been, you know that more tax increases are coming—for my company, and even for Sally too.

Companies have also been pressed into serving as providers of health insurance. In a saner world, health insurance would be something that individuals buy for themselves and their families, just as they do with auto insurance. Now, adding to the insanity, there is ObamaCare.

Every year, we negotiate a renewal to our health coverage. This year, our provider demanded a 28% increase in premiums—for a lesser plan. This is in part a tax increase that the federal government has co-opted insurance providers to collect. We had never faced an increase anywhere near this large; in each of the last two years, the increase was under 10%.

To offset tax increases and steepening rises in health-insurance premiums, my company needs sustainably higher profits and sales—something unlikely in this "summer of recovery." We can't pass the additional costs onto our customers, because the market is too tight and we'd lose sales. Only governments can raise prices repeatedly and pretend there will be no consequences."
=============================
=============================


Several fallacies by our esteemed Galt CEO:

1. Health insurance is NOT ever like car insurance, genius (except they are both for profit corporate entities)....And people have always been able to buy their own health plans (assuming they are in perfect health with no pre-existing conditions)

2. Health insurance companies have been repeatedly bumping up renewal rates long before reform was ever discussed...Why? Because they can...You can blame the increase on a federal tax all you want but you know it isn't true...

3. I know it's hard to explain, but believe it or not, Sally DOES get a lot of the money taken for taxes back in other ways...She'll need it, because I didn't notice any pension plan available on your company's website.

4. I've looked at the financial statements on the website and the company has only had a slight revenue drop-off...So pleading poverty for one administrative employee is beyond weak, especially since you didn't list what your OWN financials and benefits are costing the company...Also, using a high school educated, clearly expendible employee to illustrate your point as opposed to a specialist is beyond low class...Also, how many of your employees work on a sales commission instead of proper salary?

And finally, after all the numbers and all the bullshit, he still does not properly show what taxes have to do with hiring practices... I thought companies hired based upon work/job duties which exceeded the capacity of the current workstaff... And even THEN instead of proposing solutions Mr. Big Ideas CEO just wants to have a bitchfest against big gummitt and the evil forces of anti-capitalism...

[NJCher]

47. nice trick!

Thanks!


Cher

[Martin Eden]

41. Sorry Mr. Fleischer, that's not the reason.

Thing 1:
Sally's taxes have not risen above pre-recession levels. Therefore, it is no more a factor in hiring now than it was then.

Thing 2:
The need for more employees is tied to sales & productivity. If you need more employees to meet customer orders you will hire more employees or you are a friggin idiot.

Thing 3:
More likely you're a greedy bastard who doesn't give a shit about Sally and you think people are stupid enough to believe your completely illogical argument.

[ensemble]

62. you have to understand...

demand does not exist in right wing economics.
Just do whatever you have to in order to improve the short term corporate bottom line:
cut taxes, cut wages, cut regulation.

[roody]

42. That would be fine if she received more than

endless war in return. She should have health care and education for her taxes.

[DFW]

46. The numbers aren't a big surprise

If the company can turn a profit, then it's fine.

Our French employees, for example, take home about one third of what it costs us to keep them.
The taxes and other deductions in France pay for a lot of stuff we would kill to have, but they
grumble about it, and so do employers that have to try to turn a profit (we don't). This man here
is telling us his employee costs him less than double what his employee takes home. That would be
utopia to many European employers.

Conversely, French employers are jealous about how "little" American employers have to pay in
relation to that their employees take home. However, if French employees got as little in the
way of state-guaranteed benefits as American employees do, the whole country would be on strike
on a permanent basis.

[bergie321]

48. Well

The ruling class in this country has never met the business-end of a guillotine so they are not afraid of the working class.

[Dr.Phool]

49. It's about time for a formal introduction.

[Prophet 451]

51. Just another rich fuck bitching about taxes n/t

[northernlights]

54. back in 2000-1 I grossed $65K

I took home $47K after all taxes, health care, long and short term disability and dental.

I was very happy with that income, which allowed me to live a decent life and save copiously for retirement. I don't see that as a reason not to hire.
I now gross all of $15/hour. I lost the bulk of my retirement savings to unemployment and some fraud, probably thanks to assholes like the author in the OP using excuses to not hire or to pay shit when they do hire. My home is decreasing in value due to more fraud. I work part time and go to school part time, trying to retrain for a field that will carry me to when I can retire, which looks increasingly like a fantasy.

I don't need my employer to grouse about how much *I* pay in taxes, and frankly I don't appreciate it when my current employer grouses about evil government and evil taxes, even as they fuck my life up in every way they can. I would appreciate an employer who respected my work enough to pay me a decent wage, and one that respected my time enough not to shit all over it. Unlike the author of the crap above (and my current employer, sad to say.)

[Tutankhamun]

56. Rupert Murdoch strikes again.

Imagine a world without Murdoch. WSJ would still suck, as it did before he bought it. But we'd have no Faux News, and Bush would almost certainly not have taken power. No tax cuts for the rich, no Iraq war, (likely) no September 11, no Afghanistan, etc.

Without Murdoch we probably wouldn't be talking about any great recession/depression II today. Fuck him. Fuck WSJ. Fuck Faux. Fuck NY Post.

Die Murdoch, you shrivelled old evil piece of decaying horse shit. You make Montgomery Burns (Simpsons) look like jolly old Santa Claus.

[Doctor_J]

58. Good catch. I didn't even notice that a "Dem" posted from a notorious

fascist journal. Can't believe this shit stands while some honest polls get locked.

[Doctor_J]

57. This liar counts Sally's $2736 private insurance premium as "government tax"

He pretends that the $2736 is going to the government. THis is more preposterous than most right-wing lies.

[JohnWxy]

59. Freedom from government.. ah, picture

society requires rules, laws, social responsiblity to others, without these it isn't society but a mob__JW

[JohnWxy]

60. I get away with paying less taxes than I should --- Warren Buffett.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/oct/31/usnews

[JohnWxy]

61. employers are not hiring because of weak demand, and fear the Repubs will succeed in completely

killing off any recovery. The Republicans by fighting every stimulus bill, unemployment extension bill, even the bill to make loans to small businesses (whom they claim to be so concerned for) is putting serious doubts in all businessmens minds and the minds of donsumers that the Government will provide enough stimulus to bring down unemployment and to help the economy build itself out of this REPUBLICAN DYSTOPIA.

So consumers are holding onto their money, not spending much, and the weak demand doesn't provide businesses a reason to hire more permanent, full-time workers.

So now we're heading for deflation. NOt good, but Republicans are planning on campaigning in November saying "Look how Obama screwed up the response to the recession" Of course, many of the serfs out there won't remember the Great Recession was caused by the Republicans and their religion of Deregulation but what the fuck.

....sometimes I think the way people don't use their heads, you almost can't blame the Republicans for having such towering contempt for us "little guys". We're just bugs to them.

[hay rick]

64. Boo hoo.

Suddenly Mr. Fleischer isn't hiring because of the prohibitive tax burden associated with hiring new employees. It didn't stop him from hiring in the past, however, and the tax burden hasn't materially changed recently, so I find the assertion dubious at best. The fact that the economy is in the dumper might have a little bit more to do with his decision not to hire at this time. Most well-managed companies don't hire when they expect flat or declining sales in the near future. It's worth noting too that his competitors face the same costs, so the tax takeout doesn't put him at a competitive disadvantage.

The sub-head of the article sums up his argument: "When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits." The outrage is based on the assumption that the "missing" $18,000 is simply lost and not used for Sally's benefit. So let's look at those taxes and see what she gets for them.

The first item is $126 for unemployment insurance. If Mr. Fleischer decides to lay her off, she will collect more than that amount in the first week. And she may be able to collect for up to 99 weeks. Sounds like a bargain and an important part of the social safety net to me. She pays $149 for disability insurance. Wow. If she gets really hurt on the job she could collect for life, if necessary. Sounds kind of prudent and humane.

Next up is Medicare: $856 as a down payment for health care coverage when she is retired, old, and infirm. I think I'm in favor of that.

The next item is $1,893 for New Jersey state income taxes. A note of explanation about assumptions is in order here. Mr. Fleischer itemizes about $13,000 in payroll tax deductions then throws out an $18,000 total tax bill at the end ($74K - ($44K + $12K). I suspect the additional $5,000 is a pro-rated share of Sally's family's property and/or sales taxes- substantial taxes which are not paid through her employer. In any event, the New Jersey state income tax ($1,893 in Sally's case) is one of the primary sources of revenue for the state, which in turn provides parks, roads, police and prisons, health services, and aid for schools and other local services. Local schools, police, and public works consume the greatest share of the unitemized but implied expenses attributable to property taxes.

The Social Security tax is $3,661 from both the employee and employer. In return for this she is assured of a monthly retirement check and a good start on avoiding the impoverished old age that was common in earlier generations.

Finally, there is $6,250 in income tax withholding. If, like most people she get's a refund, her actual income taxes will be less. For her expenditures she gets an interstate highway system, NASA, welfare and food stamp programs, national parks, our military, the Army Corps of Engineers,the VA, the EPA, and a long list of other institutions and services, many of which the private sector is unable or unwilling to provide.