Warren Buffet speaks common sense; alarms most Republicans

[giblets]

Wouldn't it be a ~3% reduction in the cost of employing someone next year? Could you explain why that's not a meaningful incentive to hire more people?

[Dauphin]

In a facile way, if the people you are employing can do the job, and you are now paying them less, why would you choose to employ more people when you could pocket the saving yourself. Alternatively the saving could be eaten up by employee (net) pay increases.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Wouldn't it be a ~3% reduction in the cost of employing someone next year? Could you explain why that's not a meaningful incentive to hire more people?

Because you nimwit its a one year comittment of little value. Companies do not hire personnel typically for a one year comittment, they contract those short term assignements out. You don't sign on for training costs, benefits, and overhead for a one year comitment and then be faced with the proposition of severence costs unless you were sure you were going to create or backfill the position anyway. Thus this temporary measure provides no impact to hiring decisions particularly since it was never offered to the employers in the first place.

[Dinner]

If Republicans love tax breaks so much, why did they oppose payroll tax relief extension for the working class?

For the same reason they didn't like the stimulus even though it was 40% tax cuts (and that was the main reason it didn't get enough bang for the buck). Namely, they only want tax breaks for the special interests which pay them money and they don't care about anyone or anything else. It's the ultra wealthy and large corporations they care about so small businesses and normal people don't factor in for them.

[giblets]

Because you nimwit its a one year comittment of little value. Companies do not hire personnel typically for a one year comittment, they contract those short term assignements out. You don't sign on for training costs, benefits, and overhead for a one year comitment and then be faced with the proposition of severence costs unless you were sure you were going to create or backfill the position anyway. Thus this temporary measure provides no impact to hiring decisions particularly since it was never offered to the employers in the first place.

Excuse me? I asked a simple question and you started name calling. What is your problem?

[Dinner]

He's had anti-social issues and mild retardation for the better part of a decade.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Me I 'm fine, I'm not the nitwit.

[Dauphin]

For Poly, nimwit is a term of endearment.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

It was as pleasant a descriptor that I could find.

[giblets]

He's had anti-social issues and mild retardation for the better part of a decade.

Well apparently I'm a moron because I didn't immediately conclude that subsidizing something would fail to make people do more of it.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

No you typically are a moron for many other reasons, in this case just a moron for not understanding that it was never subsidized in the first place.

[giblets]

We're talking about the "jobs act", right? The act that's supposed to cut the employer portion of the payroll tax?

[Dinner]

You two are talking past each other. Gribbler is right that if you subsidize something then you get more of it while Ogie is arguing that the subsidy isn't large enough or long enough in duration to effect employment numbers substantially. You're both likely right.

My problem is cutting payroll taxes will increase the under funding of earned benefit programs, nee "entitlements" are prejudicially call them. That said it's just about the only way to get more cash into most people's hands unless you want to increase the earned income tax credit (which right wingers also hate because it give people more money then they paid in taxes).

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

We are? Then please give me the vote break down of the house and senate votes so that we can assure ourselves that only the GOP has indeed taken a contrarian stance.

The attempt to make this "a GOP is going to kill this bill in the house issue" is laughable considering latest reports are Senate Dems say it wont get through the senate.

[giblets]

We are? Then please give me the vote break down of the house and senate votes so that we can assure ourselves that the GOP has indeed taken a contrarian stance.

The attempt to make this "a GOP is going to kill this bill in the house issue" is laughable considering latest reports are Senate Dems say it wont get through the senate.

Yes, I thought we were because I asked MrFun if he was referring to the jobs bill and he said "yes". This was before you responded to MrFun.