America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 13 years ago by borndead1. 20 replies replies.
Stimulus idea
tweoijfoi Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
Obama's ideas for stimulus have, frankly, fell flat on their face. We've seen so little job creation from such a large amount of money it's staggering. The other day I had an idea for a stimulus which might actually work. Apply stimulus money directly towards subsidizing new jobs!

People always say don't tax the rich, because the less money they have the less people they can hire. I agree to this, but it's pretty obvious that they don't have to hire people with money they save from reduced taxes. They can keep the money. There's nothing wrong with that, but if we're trying to create jobs by reducing/redistributing taxes, how about doing it in the most obvious way possible.

The idea:

Subsidize wages on new jobs. Say, hypothetical situation here, congress wants to spend $5 billion on job creation. Subsidize a certain percent of wages, say between 10% and 25%, for any new employees. The % depends on which is deemed most likely to great the most jobs for the money.

Limitations:

- Only applies to new highers, which exceed the # of employees last year. Why? To prevent firing and re-hiring to get the subsidy. A company could still higher up to their previous level at no subsidy, and then new ones would be subsidized.
- Will go towards for up to a 10% increase in workforce of a particular company from 1-year-ago's employment, or 10 employees, whichever is greater. Why? To attempt to prevent employers from hiring beyond what they can maintain (i.e. just using it for the stimulus without intending to keep the employees once it runs out)

1) What do you think?

2) Any ideas of your own?


MARKQ Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 10-04-2004
Posts: 2,392
I say send every taxpayer a rebate check that will then be spent on stimulating the economy of a certain cigar producer south of Miami.
JadeRose Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 05-15-2008
Posts: 19,525
What would these employees do? A business...any business will hire the number of employees it NEEDS based on the market. Artificially adding to the workforce in the manner you prescribe will decrease wages and cause inflation. ALLOW THE MARKETS TO WORK!!!!!! The best thing to do to fix a down business cycle is......nothing. Let the markets work.....don't subsidize anything....allow businesses with poor models to fail. You know.....everything this administration AND THE LAST have not done. It's kinda like the idea.."Just send everybody a check for $100000". Uh...no. A good example.....the tax cuts for installing new windows or Energy Star HVAC systems. Do you honestly believe that the sellers of these units didn't raise their prices accordingly when they found out that people were getting big rebate checks on them?
DadZilla3 Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
Abolish Federal, state, and local income taxes completely and replace them with a national sales tax. That way EVERYONE pays their fair share of the tax burden. Buy a cheap car? Pay a little bit of tax. Buy a Lamborghini? Pay a lot of tax.

No loopholes, no tax dodges, no more property tax, no more school tax. State and local governments get their own slice of the national sales tax pie.

The beauty is, you'd pay that tax no matter how you made your money, legally or otherwise as soon as you buy something. And if you want to save it all and never spend any, that's your business, not the government's.

Let us keep our money and spend what we want to spend, and choose how we decide to spend it, and the economy will prosper.
snowwolf777 Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 06-03-2000
Posts: 4,082
Stop treating the corporations and small businesses who really create the jobs and the wealth like they're criminals. Stop punishing them with insane taxes and endless regulations and red tape. Then they have more money to hire workers. You'll need more workers, because you'll also stop punishing the current workers with sky-high taxes, so they'll have more money to spend, so you'll need more products.

In the meantime, the government will shrink back to what it was originally supposed to do (due to lower tax income), instead of playing all-seeing, all-knowing, all-providing mother to the entire country. Your only tax will be a flat sales tax on everything, which will then automatically be progressively higher for those who want to spend more and have more to spend. T hey won't care. Those who have less to spend will be taxed less. But they WILL contribute SOMETHING, instead of just taking.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast of the people's revolution. Kill the rich. Burn all the businesses. Take what we don't burn and divide it equally. Then we'll all sit in a circle and wait for the magic 8-ball to tell us what to do next.

daveincincy Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2006
Posts: 20,033
tweoijfoi wrote:
Obama's ideas for stimulus have, frankly, fell flat on their face. We've seen so little job creation from such a large amount of money it's staggering. The other day I had an idea for a stimulus which might actually work. Apply stimulus money directly towards subsidizing new jobs!

People always say don't tax the rich, because the less money they have the less people they can hire. I agree to this, but it's pretty obvious that they don't have to hire people with money they save from reduced taxes. They can keep the money. There's nothing wrong with that, but if we're trying to create jobs by reducing/redistributing taxes, how about doing it in the most obvious way possible.

The idea:

Subsidize wages on new jobs. Say, hypothetical situation here, congress wants to spend $5 billion on job creation. Subsidize a certain percent of wages, say between 10% and 25%, for any new employees. The % depends on which is deemed most likely to great the most jobs for the money.

Limitations:

- Only applies to new highers, which exceed the # of employees last year. Why? To prevent firing and re-hiring to get the subsidy. A company could still higher up to their previous level at no subsidy, and then new ones would be subsidized.
- Will go towards for up to a 10% increase in workforce of a particular company from 1-year-ago's employment, or 10 employees, whichever is greater. Why? To attempt to prevent employers from hiring beyond what they can maintain (i.e. just using it for the stimulus without intending to keep the employees once it runs out)

1) What do you think?

2) Any ideas of your own?




If I'm not mistaken, there is already something like that in place or preparing to go into place. I forget all the details, but I read some things where employers/companies would get some sort of tax credit(s) for new hires. However, one of the problems I saw was that there is so much to keep track of (i.e. hoops to jump through) that it just doesn't seem worth the hassle. Just like anything the government does, they don't make it easy...which is probably the point. Make it tedious and no one will take advantage of it unless they have a huge HR & accounting staff to deal with it.

I agree with Snowwolf.
tweoijfoi Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
daveincincy wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, there is already something like that in place or preparing to go into place. I forget all the details, but I read some things where employers/companies would get some sort of tax credit(s) for new hires. However, one of the problems I saw was that there is so much to keep track of (i.e. hoops to jump through) that it just doesn't seem worth the hassle. Just like anything the government does, they don't make it easy...which is probably the point. Make it tedious and no one will take advantage of it unless they have a huge HR & accounting staff to deal with it.

I agree with Snowwolf.


That's a good point. Plus then there has to be government beaurocrats making sure everyone does everything right with the paperwork. Oy. I guess I prefer this over other stimulus things (like giving money directly to certain businesses, or cash for clunkers) but lower tax rates would be the same thing but benefits everyone equally and requires less paperwork.
Stinkdyr Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,948
Choose freedom instead.

Just cut taxes and gobment spending.

Let people make their own decisions about how to spend their own $.


Freedom...........what a scary concept.


Brick wall
DrMaddVibe Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,301
Stinkdyr wrote:
Choose freedom instead.

Just cut taxes and gobment spending.

Let people make their own decisions about how to spend their own $.


Freedom...........what a scary concept.


Brick wall



ZACKLY!

It's not the government's business to "stimulate" a damn thing. EVERY "stimulus" program these idiots dream up has been and will always be a big hole in the ground that swallows your money FOREVER!
richokeeffe Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 12-07-2004
Posts: 7,020
DadZilla3 wrote:
Abolish Federal, state, and local income taxes completely and replace them with a national sales tax. That way EVERYONE pays their fair share of the tax burden. Buy a cheap car? Pay a little bit of tax. Buy a Lamborghini? Pay a lot of tax.

No loopholes, no tax dodges, no more property tax, no more school tax. State and local governments get their own slice of the national sales tax pie.

The beauty is, you'd pay that tax no matter how you made your money, legally or otherwise as soon as you buy something. And if you want to save it all and never spend any, that's your business, not the government's.

Let us keep our money and spend what we want to spend, and choose how we decide to spend it, and the economy will prosper.


I agree with one refinement.

The problem with this sort of system is that it is a far heavier load on low income folks than it is on high income folks. As people prosper more, they can much more easily afford to give up the chunk of their income (this is part of why we have the graduated income tax systems we have today). So, to handle that condition, I would propose the following:

Every registered person is pre-bated the amount of taxes that we would expect a person at the poverty level to spend. Adjust the tax rates a bit higher to cover the difference. As an example - if we instituted a 10 percent tax, we might reasonably expect that a person making 1200 dollars in a month would spend (say...) 100 dollars in taxes. So, we make the rate 12 percent and rebate everyone 120 dollars.

This would also take a nice little swipe at illegal immigration. Illegal Immigrants will be contributing to the tax base and not getting the monthly pre-bate check. Nice incentive to get legal.
jpotts Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
tweoijfoi wrote:
Obama's ideas for stimulus have, frankly, fell flat on their face. We've seen so little job creation from such a large amount of money it's staggering. The other day I had an idea for a stimulus which might actually work. Apply stimulus money directly towards subsidizing new jobs!

People always say don't tax the rich, because the less money they have the less people they can hire. I agree to this, but it's pretty obvious that they don't have to hire people with money they save from reduced taxes. They can keep the money. There's nothing wrong with that, but if we're trying to create jobs by reducing/redistributing taxes, how about doing it in the most obvious way possible.

The idea:

Subsidize wages on new jobs. Say, hypothetical situation here, congress wants to spend $5 billion on job creation. Subsidize a certain percent of wages, say between 10% and 25%, for any new employees. The % depends on which is deemed most likely to great the most jobs for the money.

Limitations:

- Only applies to new highers, which exceed the # of employees last year. Why? To prevent firing and re-hiring to get the subsidy. A company could still higher up to their previous level at no subsidy, and then new ones would be subsidized.
- Will go towards for up to a 10% increase in workforce of a particular company from 1-year-ago's employment, or 10 employees, whichever is greater. Why? To attempt to prevent employers from hiring beyond what they can maintain (i.e. just using it for the stimulus without intending to keep the employees once it runs out)

1) What do you think?

2) Any ideas of your own?





What do I think?

Subsidizing any job is completely idiotic. In fact, subsidizing just about anything is completely stupid as all it does is fuel inefficient bureaucracies.

You want to create more jobs? Here's how you do it:

1) Cut taxes across the board,

2) Ease restructions on drilling and energy production,

3) Ease restrictions on emissions standards,

4) Cut social spending dramatically,

5) Abolish unions for government workers and unskilled labor,

6) Abolish the estate tax,

7) Open up ANWR to drilling,

8) Eliminate subsidies and tax cuts for "green" initiatives,

9) Deregulate the major lending institutions, and eliminate any hope of their ever getting bailed-out again,

10) Impose a trade embargo on Japan, China, and India,

11) Track down and deport every illegal alien in this country.

12) Slash the minimum wage in half.
Brewha Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,147
Jeeeez dude, you sound like a complete misanthrope.

How’ bout we eat children too?
borndead1 Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,215
jpotts wrote:
What do I think?

Subsidizing any job is completely idiotic. In fact, subsidizing just about anything is completely stupid as all it does is fuel inefficient bureaucracies.

You want to create more jobs? Here's how you do it:

1) Cut taxes across the board, -- Agree

2) Ease restructions on drilling and energy production, -- Agree

3) Ease restrictions on emissions standards, -- States should have the power to regulate emissions, not Federal

4) Cut social spending dramatically, -- Agree

5) Abolish unions for government workers and unskilled labor, -- I disagree...employers need more discretion to fire screwups. That would help A LOT.

6) Abolish the estate tax, -- Agree

7) Open up ANWR to drilling, -- Agree, and it should also be sold.

8) Eliminate subsidies and tax cuts for "green" initiatives, -- Agree, and also farm subsidies and other forms of "corporate welfare"

9) Deregulate the major lending institutions, and eliminate any hope of their ever getting bailed-out again, -- I disagree...there should be a few very clear and ENFORCED regulations, not entire books of legalspeak with dozens of loopholes and no enforcement.

10) Impose a trade embargo on Japan, China, and India, -- I disagree about Japan and India, but I say put tariffs on the Chinese if they do not allow their currency to appreciate.

11) Track down and deport every illegal alien in this country. -- Completely disagree. Do you have any idea how much money that would cost? Instead of harrassing people, punish the companies that hire them. The penalties for hiring illegal immigrants should be downright Draconian. If nobody will give them jobs, they will stop coming on their own.

12) Slash the minimum wage in half.-- There should be no Federal minimum wage.



Holy crap, I agreed with Jpotts on 7 out of 12 of his ideas!
jpotts Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
borndead1 wrote:

Agree, and also farm subsidies and other forms of "corporate welfare"


You'd better define "corporate welfare." Most people define it as giving tax breaks to corporations, which is not a subsidy. Subsidies are handed out after taxs are collected, not before.

Giving me an income tax break does not subsidize my household, as the tax collected is origially my money that I earned through hard work.

borndead1 wrote:

I disagree...there should be a few very clear and ENFORCED regulations, not entire books of legalspeak with dozens of loopholes and no enforcement.


That is effectively deregulation.

borndead1 wrote:

I disagree about Japan and India, but I say put tariffs on the Chinese if they do not allow their currency to appreciate.


Japan not only closes their market to American products, but also manipulates its currency like China.

India's strategy is much like Japan's in that they ate in the initial process of flooding the American markey with cheap good and services in order to get penetration into the market. Don't be surprised if they eventually move to closing their markey to American goods and also manipulate their currency.

So, shut them both down. We'll see who laughs last.

borndead1 wrote:

Completely disagree. Do you have any idea how much money that would cost? Instead of harrassing people, punish the companies that hire them. The penalties for hiring illegal immigrants should be downright Draconian. If nobody will give them jobs, they will stop coming on their own.


Wrong, because shutting down employers who hire illegal aliens is totally ineffective. In most instances, people who hire illegal aliens don't even know they are indeed illegal.

Secondly, going after employers who hite illegals does N-O-T-H-I-N-G to stop the practice ot illegal aliens coming here to tap our social services framework. This bleeds billions of dollars every years from the various government entities. Plus, this does not take into account all of the illegal immigrants here who work exclusively in the black market, which is illegal in the first place.

One way or another it is going to cost you money. In the end, if you simply put a bounty on the head of any illegal alien, and have private bounty hunters track them down, and turn them in for deportation, you'll not only quickly stem the tide of illegals coming to this country, you'll also be able to deport them without the massive bureaucratic overhead.

Find them. Confiscate everything they have. Send them back over the border nekked, and auction their possessions. After a year of that, we'll see just how many people want to come here illegally. Hell, all it took was Arizona passing a law - they didn't even have to enforce the damn thing - to cause the illegals to flee their state. Imagine what will happen when they start getting rounded up?

Oh, and I'll add this: jail any public servent who harbors, and by an action of their office offers shelter to illegal aliens. Give them 5 years. Then we'll see just how dedicated some people are to creating "sactuary cities."
jpotts Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
Brewha wrote:
Jeeeez dude, you sound like a complete misanthrope.

How’ bout we eat children too?



The funny part about this is that European nations, who have lived under the same socialist delusions you presently cling to, are going in the very same direction that I've laid out.

I guess they figured out that your belief system sucks. It just took them a few decades.
jackconrad Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
DRILL baby DRILL !
tweoijfoi Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
I'm jumping back in late. I'll read up on other posts later... here's my take on your points jpotts.

jpotts wrote:

1) Cut taxes across the board, -Agree

2) Ease restructions on drilling and energy production, -Agree. Lets start with nuclear power... we should have way more nuclear power than we do and we are not building more because of crybabies who are falsely convinced it is dangerous.

3) Ease restrictions on emissions standards, -Disagree. Emissions cost more in the longer term than they will save in the short term.

4) Cut social spending dramatically, -Agree

5) Abolish unions for government workers and unskilled labor, -Agree

6) Abolish the estate tax, -Half Agree. Should be lowered, not eliminated. I'm against the idea of someone inheriting enough money to never have to work in their life.

7) Open up ANWR to drilling, -Disagree

8) Eliminate subsidies and tax cuts for "green" initiatives, -Half Agree. I agree many incentives are stupid. Some are okay.

9) Deregulate the major lending institutions, and eliminate any hope of their ever getting bailed-out again, -Half Agree

10) Impose a trade embargo on Japan, China, and India, -Disagree completely. This would be disastrous.

11) Track down and deport every illegal alien in this country. -Half Agree. I agree with borndead1. And no social benefits for them! I can't believe some politicians even suggest allowing them to have them.

12) Slash the minimum wage in half. -Half Agree


4 agrees, 5 half-agrees, and 3 disagrees. Hey we do have common ground!
Stinkdyr Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,948
Eliminate welfare breeding.


think about it.
gringococolo Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 02-04-2006
Posts: 4,626
jpotts wrote:
What do I think?


5) Abolish unions for government workers and unskilled labor,

.



Jeff, I generally am not a fan of Unions. Now I belong to one: NATCA (National Air Traffic Controllers Association). I am just curious about how you feel about that union.

I can not speak for about any other government worker unions, but there is 100% a need for NATCA. Ironicly, most of the work the union does involves fighting off the ignorance of government (congress and others). The focus on the outside (and sometimes inside) seems to evolve around pay, which is good for an ATCer.

What is comical is when Bush busted the Union (effectively in 2006 by allowing the FAA to impose work rules, and push from the barganing table), management and bureaucrat kept getting pay raises (like 10% year over year) while the skilled labor actually involved in separating aircraft got their pay frozen and reduced.

It's all strange for me, but if it werent for the union the skies would be a lot less safe.



As far a some dude getting $75 an hour to drive a forklift or put a bumber on a pinto. That is silly as hell.
borndead1 Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,215
jpotts wrote:
You'd better define "corporate welfare." Most people define it as giving tax breaks to corporations, which is not a subsidy. Subsidies are handed out after taxs are collected, not before. -- Let's see...the bailouts of the last few years come to mind. I don't define corporate welfare as a tax break. EVERYBODY needs a tax break.




Japan not only closes their market to American products, but also manipulates its currency like China.

India's strategy is much like Japan's in that they ate in the initial process of flooding the American markey with cheap good and services in order to get penetration into the market. Don't be surprised if they eventually move to closing their markey to American goods and also manipulate their currency.

So, shut them both down. We'll see who laughs last. -- I did not realize Japan does this.


Wrong, because shutting down employers who hire illegal aliens is totally ineffective. In most instances, people who hire illegal aliens don't even know they are indeed illegal. -- I don't buy that for a second. But if it is indeed true, then it's simple. Papers proving your citizenship or no job.

Secondly, going after employers who hite illegals does N-O-T-H-I-N-G to stop the practice ot illegal aliens coming here to tap our social services framework. This bleeds billions of dollars every years from the various government entities. -- I'd have to see numbers, but I would bet that the number of people who sneak over here specifically for those reasons is not very significant. The vast majority come here for jobs.

Plus, this does not take into account all of the illegal immigrants here who work exclusively in the black market, which is illegal in the first place. -- There will always be a black market and there will always be crime. Again, I'd have to see numbers on this one. But of course, they should be deported. ANY person who immigrates to this country even legally should be deported if they are a criminal. I'm in favor of a "1 strike law" for immigrants committing violent crimes.

One way or another it is going to cost you money. In the end, if you simply put a bounty on the head of any illegal alien, and have private bounty hunters track them down, and turn them in for deportation, you'll not only quickly stem the tide of illegals coming to this country, you'll also be able to deport them without the massive bureaucratic overhead.
Find them. Confiscate everything they have. Send them back over the border nekked, and auction their possessions. After a year of that, we'll see just how many people want to come here illegally. -- Potts, as much as you and Dog the Bounty Hunter would love that, it's just not realistic and would never happen in a million years.

Users browsing this topic
Guest