Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop

motherjones.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 56 posts

Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop

#31

Post by Tichy »

CoryMathews wrote: post #28
Tichy wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't have to do anything with the taxes, though. Suppose he is willing to pay 40000$. If taxes are 30000$, he can pay 10000$ to a new hire. If nobody wants to work for that money, it is the fault of the new hires. Of course it would be better if taxes were lower, but since they are a real cost, it makes no sense to say "I pay double". Maybe it costs 0.70$ to grow the apple, so it simply isn't possible to sell t…

"Suppose he is willing to pay 40000$. If taxes are 30000$, he can pay 10000$ to a new hire. If nobody wants to work for that money, it is the fault of the new hires." - Wow I hope I never work for you.. I cannot see how you say this is the "fault of the new hires" its not their fault, its the employers and government. Because the employer cannot afford to pay them more, they have 40,000 to pay them. Its the governmen…

Your analysis is too short sighted. Presumably the taxes are required to keep society running. So somebody has to pay them. In fact it doesn't really matter who pays them. Suppose businesses wouldn't have to pay taxes anymore. Instead there would be a new apple tax. So now apples would cost 2$ instead of 1$.

Now you can pay your hire 20000$ instead of 10000$. But the hire needs twice the money for food, so he needs to ask for a higher salary in return, so that he can still eat apples. So you still can't afford the hire.

That there is probably a lot of waste of taxes is another subject entirely. Of course it would be preferable to require as little taxes as possible. But taxes are not just some arbitrary costs governments can inflict or take away with the flick of a finger.

Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop

#32

Post by Tichy »

CoryMathews wrote: post #30
Tichy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who else should pay the taxes in your opinion?

Its not who should pay them its why so many are needed. Are the programs they are paying for actually needed?

I agree that there is probably a lot of waste of tax payer money. But then I would like to read articles detailing the waste and what could be done about it. An article saying "I wish taxes were lower" contains no useful information at all.

Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop

#33

Post by secretasiandan »

CoryMathews wrote: post #30
Tichy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who else should pay the taxes in your opinion?

Its not who should pay them its why so many are needed. Are the programs they are paying for actually needed?

Care to address that question?

Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop

#34

Post by encoderer »

CoryMathews wrote: post #23
Tichy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand that logic. Yes, if I buy an Apple for 1$, it costs double than if an Apple would just cost 0.50$. You are paying for employees what they cost, that is, what the market determines. What are you doubling? (The taxes and whatnot are simply part of the total cost).

yes but if I only have 20$ I can get twice as many if they are $.50 instead of $1. Thus he could hire more people if the overhead per hire was lower.

The tax burden in this country is lower than European nations, lower than Japan, lower than Canada.

The op-ed is a trite political attack piece (not out of character for the WSJ). Your comments, well, they seem directed towards the half-brained. That is, if you're smart, what your saying is obvious: Obviously Right if you're a conservative, Obviously Wrong if you're a progressive.

If you're a true neutral centrist and you care most about lowering taxes, I can point you in the direction of a gigantic defense budget that could be cut.

But in my experience, people who think Obama is an evil business killer also think that we mustn't cut a cent from the defense budget.

Finally, saw something interesting yesterday.. apparently annualized corporate profits hit 1.2 Trillion recently, the highest ever recorded.

Yes, socialist Obama is certainly proving himself the nemesis of prosperity for America's business community. Clearly.

Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop

#36

Post by suppressingfire »

SamAtt wrote: post #14
hjkl wrote: post #4

The original WSJ article struck me as disingenuous, but this article seems to just go the ad hominem route.

I've always lived by the rule "if you think someone's wrong based on who they are and not what they said than your argument is too weak to present to others".

What if they're wrong based on what they said AND who they are?

Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop

#37

Post by ZachPruckowski »

CoryMathews wrote: post #20

While I agree his business is doing lousy and thats a huge reason why he cannot hire more, his point still rock solid. The government takes way to much for each employee hired. 33%! The author would realize this is a HUGE problem for employers, but I forget he is only a political blogger. Thus when you hire 3 and a tax rate of 33% + 33% + 33%, you are really paying for 4 people and getting 3. That makes it hard to hi…

The totality of compensation (benefits, taxes, salary) scales primarily with living standard, not with economic or political structure.

If we moved those taxes off income into sales, then you'd have to pay your workers 25-33% more for them to be able to buy the same stuff. If we moved healthcare and other benefits onto the employee, you'd be paying that money as extra salary, or else they're getting effectively less compensation. If we went with a libertarian model, you'd just be paying higher wages so that your employees could buy their current stuff and also hire their own police and fire companies (and you'd need to pay for your business's protection).

That's not to say you couldn't trim some fat with other methods, but the only real ways to eliminate paying that 33% involve cutting your employees' standards of living. I'm not saying it's your job to care about that, but let's call a spade a spade here. That money isn't dead weight loss, it's money that straight up improves the quality of life of your employees, and is therefore compensation.

Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop

#38

Post by stoptypingnow »

secretasiandan wrote: post #29
bkmrkr wrote: post #7

As a small business owner I can tell you we are putting of hiring for pretty much the same reasons mentioned in WSJ. Basically you are paying double to hire an employee.

Do you believe that the costs are too high on an absolute level or just too high to hire given current business conditions? If too high on a absolute level, I'm curious to know what you believe to be a reasonable tax rate is. What services and level of service would this provide? Is it inefficiency or uncessary services that makes taxes too high? Or something else? Re health care benefits : that's not something you H…

Extending this point a little, in a competitive environment I believe it matters what your competitors are paying for their labor and services. Since overhead (taxes and insurance) is relatively uniform, taxes should matter very little to his ability to compete.

Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop

#39

Post by ZachPruckowski »

CoryMathews wrote: post #23
Tichy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand that logic. Yes, if I buy an Apple for 1$, it costs double than if an Apple would just cost 0.50$. You are paying for employees what they cost, that is, what the market determines. What are you doubling? (The taxes and whatnot are simply part of the total cost).

yes but if I only have 20$ I can get twice as many if they are $.50 instead of $1. Thus he could hire more people if the overhead per hire was lower.

So what you're saying is that we should dramatically cut the standard of living of the average American in order to solve our unemployment issues? In the face of increasing corporate profits?

Further, there's another massive flaw in your argument: You're not going to hire twice as many people unless you have excess work even after the first hire. There are a few companies in that enviable situation, but for the most part, demand is lagging right now. So at best those companies would hire one worker at half-price and then keep the money saved.

Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop

#40

Post by CoryMathews »

encoderer wrote: post #34
CoryMathews wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes but if I only have 20$ I can get twice as many if they are $.50 instead of $1. Thus he could hire more people if the overhead per hire was lower.

The tax burden in this country is lower than European nations, lower than Japan, lower than Canada. The op-ed is a trite political attack piece (not out of character for the WSJ). Your comments, well, they seem directed towards the half-brained. That is, if you're smart, what your saying is obvious: Obviously Right if you're a conservative, Obviously Wrong if you're a progressive. If you're a true neutral centrist an…

"The tax burden in this country is lower than European nations, lower than Japan, lower than Canada." Possibly, I didn't compare it to other countries.

"If you're a true neutral centrist and you care most about lowering taxes, I can point you in the direction of a gigantic defense budget that could be cut." I do agree its WAY out of hand. They pay for all sorts of crazy ridiculous things, the budget should be closer then half of what it is.

"But in my experience, people who think Obama is an evil business killer also think that we mustn't cut a cent from the defense budget." Normally so, but I wouldn't say I follow that same boat. (see above)

"Finally, saw something interesting yesterday.. apparently annualized corporate profits hit 1.2 Trillion recently, the highest ever recorded." Its only the small businesses that are really be effected particularly non-tech around 25 people.

Post reply on HN