21–30 of 56 posts
I hate the fact that somebody can explain how arithmetic works, and folks will trash them for political reasons. I hated watching the comments on HN when the first article was posted, and I hate watching the reaction today.
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).
The logic is that taxes and other fees are pushing the cost of hiring people over what he's willing to pay. To use your example imagine you only have $1 to your name and you can get by without the Apple. At which point you don't buy the Apple where as if it was $.50 you might buy the Apple because it wouldn't take all your money. I'm not saying his logic is correct but it's not hard to understand
Of course it would be better if taxes were lower, but since they are a real cost, it makes no sense to say "I pay double". Maybe it costs 0.70$ to grow the apple, so it simply isn't possible to sell the apple for 0.50$. Taxes are the costs for growing employees. What good is it to complain that you would buy an apple if only it cost just 0.50$, if it already costs more than 0.70$ to grow the apple?
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.
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).
I hate the fact that somebody can explain how arithmetic works, and folks will trash them for political reasons. I hated watching the comments on HN when the first article was posted, and I hate watching the reaction today.
Honestly, everyone reading the WSJ knows how math works. The point of the article was not to explain math - it was to blame "government" - and Barack Obama - for the lack of private hiring. A political statement gets (and deserves) a political response.
Also he is only blaming Obama for the health care price raise not the previous amount.
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…
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.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The logic is that taxes and other fees are pushing the cost of hiring people over what he's willing to pay. To use your example imagine you only have $1 to your name and you can get by without the Apple. At which point you don't buy the Apple where as if it was $.50 you might buy the Apple because it wouldn't take all your money. I'm not saying his logic is correct but it's not hard to understand
It doesn't have to do anything with the taxes, though. Suppose he is willing to pay 40000$. 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…
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 governments fault because they are taking 13200(assume 33% instead of 30k) this only allows the employer to offer a job if someone takes it for 26800.
Hes complaining because it does not need to cost this much. If the government is all about helping the country out of this "recession" shouldn't they be helping businesses hire new people?
It's hard for them to do this when it becomes more and more expensive to hire.
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.
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 HAVE to give your employees. Why do you choose to offer them?
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…
Who else should pay the taxes in your opinion?