Gloat over my stupidity--say you want employers to hire

[jpgray]

Say further that the largest employers are hoarding cash, buying back stock, and generally doing anything but hiring. Why would our answer to this ever include giving these employers more money?

If we presume, as we should, that businesses only hire when necessary, and we know they have cash on hand to hire but are not hiring, shouldn't we address the lack of necessity for expansion rather than cut every employer's taxes on the first $5 million in payroll? Cutting these taxes by half for this portion of payroll means little to an individual employer already sitting on billions, but it means a lot in terms of lost revenue. So why the employer payroll tax cut?

Even more, shouldn't the idea be to make it difficult and unpleasant to hoard cash? If we sought a higher target for inflation, say, cash-hoarding would become unwise and debtors would have some relief as the real value of their debts would shrink. A weaker dollar as a potential result would improve our ability to export as well.

But my confusion still rests on a simple question: if someone has more than enough to hire but won't, how does giving that person still more ensure or even influence future hiring?

[Tennessee Gal]

1. It is my understanding that the cuts are not directed at the

mega corporations sitting on large piles of cash. They are directed at smaller companies.

[jpgray]

2. I believe it halves taxes for every employer on the first $5 million of payroll

Even those with well over $5 million in payroll. Just as the employee side of the cut has taxes halved on the first $108k for every employee, even those making well over $108k.

Can you point me to the language where certain employers and employees are excluded? It's my understanding it's a straight payroll tax cut, without any specific targeting beyond the limits of the tax itself and the $5 million cap for employers.

[Tennessee Gal]

6. From the fact sheet:

Cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses: The President’s plan will cut in half the taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll, targeting the benefit to the 98 percent of firms that have payroll below this threshold.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/fact-sheet-american-jobs-act

I believe that means that they all benefit from it. However, larger companies don't benefit as much as smaller ones because it is capped at the $5 million in payroll. I think that would be a more significant boost to small businesses.

[jpgray]

9. Thanks, I'm glad I didn't get that completely wrong. (nt)

[Ruby the Liberal]

3. Until the politicians in this country stop listening to the Chamber and their lobbyists

and start listening to actual ECONOMISTS, we will be stranded in this 'trickle down' mentality.

Anyone with an ounce of sense (including most business owners) will say that DEMAND creates jobs and until DEMAND is up, you can throw as much money at companies that you want. With no one to buy their products and services, they will just continue to horde cash.

[msongs]

4. eliminate ALL tax breaks/credits/subsidies to corporations hoarding money nt

[The Magistrate]

5. Exactly, Sir: The Right Course Is To Make Hoarding Cash Expensive And Unpleasant

Exourting it should be made even more difficult and costly than hoarding locally....

[kentuck]

7. I can't imagine anyone thinking otherwise..?

unless it was conceived by a conservative?

[MadMaddie]

8. I don't pretend to be an economics person

but many of the large employers are making record profits off of people that still have jobs.

People have jobs = profits for companies, as more people get layed off they buy less products, and the cycle continues to decline.....

My point is the companies are playing this political game at their own peril, if a company was smart they would hire in order to spurn growth with their suppliers and other companies and local communities.

For those companies that are not hiring, if they are using HB1Visa's to bring in cheap foreign workers then they should not receive ANY tax breaks. The companies should not get tax breaks for outsourcing jobs either....

The war the Republicans are waging are against small and mid sized companies and until people understand that we will continue to spiral downward.

Finally, if you think the Roberts decision to allow more money into politics was a fluke, wait until you have a Supreme Court appointed by a Radical Republican President. You can kiss the American dream for folks like us good bye.....hello 3rd world...here we come.

[Rochester]

10. Don't entice. Coerce.

Tell them that if they don't hire, we'll tax them and give it to the unemployed. The message should be "The money is going to go from you to the workers whether you want it to or not. Whether you get any work out of them in exchange is entirely up to you."
Tell the businessmen that if they move to escape the taxes, they won't take any part of their business or capital or means of production with them. If they leave they can't take anything but the clothes on their back.
Then enforce it with as much firepower as needed.