15% Payroll Tax Increase

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Mirage, Oct 13, 2009.

  1. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    Supposedly this health care bill includes a 15% payroll tax increase to help pay for this. Does Obama think he's going to create jobs by doing this? That all these companies that hire employees just have 15% of their budget sitting around ready to spend on taxes?

    You have $10,000 a month to spend on employee paychecks. You have 5 employees each earning $2,000 a month salary. You now have to pay an extra 15% on each of them. That leaves you with less than enough to pay your 5 employees at the end of the month. What do you do?

    Simple, you lay one of them off. I guess it's time we all get used to unemployment going up. We truly have an incompetency issue in the White House.

    Maybe I'm missing something, but somebody please explain to me how raising the payroll tax will also increase jobs.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2009

  2. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    All I can find on that, is something saying Obama proposed imposing a payroll tax on the incomes of those making over $250,000 a year. In any case, nobody has ever explained to me why companies are hiring useless employees to begin with, in the thousands of times someone has made that argument (i.e. the taxes=termination argument), and the thousands of times I have addressed it on this forum. If a company can do just as well without having an employee, then it would seem they should fire him, in order to increase productivity.
     
  3. Jeanie

    Jeanie still nobody's bitch V.I.P. Lifetime

    Why would you start a thread about something that is supposedly going to happen, rather than checking out the facts first? That makes no sense. Unless you are trying to bias people.
     
  4. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    Who says they can do just as well without that employee? Companies don't operate the same way the government does. They don't generally operate at a loss and rack up huge amounts of debt keeping useless employees around.

    Simply put, if they can no longer pay for an employee, even if that employee is a great employee, then they have to lay them off.
    ------
    There ARE no facts on this because the health care bill hasn't even been written yet. How can I check the facts if the idiots voting on this bill haven't even written it or read it themselves? They aren't even checking the facts. Maybe you should contact your senators and express your concerns to them. The health care bill is nothing more than hype and speculation and yet they are voting on it today. Apparently they will fill in a few thousand blank pages later after it passes. They are basically voting to give themselves a blank check, paid for by American tax dollars.

    See this thread for more details: http://www.generalforum.com/political-news/phantom-legislature-64710.html
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2009
  5. Jeanie

    Jeanie still nobody's bitch V.I.P. Lifetime

    Honestly, Hybrix, you're just scaring people in an effort to get them to see things your way. You're chicken-littling.

    "Supposedly there's going to be a 15% payroll tax to pay for it" - at least provide your source for this so people can judge the validity of this claim for themselves
     
    Major likes this.
  6. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    Which I said they should do in any case, if the employee does not make them money. If an employee does not increase productivity and thus the profit of his company, then he is dead weight where he is, and his talents could be better utilized somewhere else. An exception may be when someone hires someone else simply to decrease their workload, but because money taken in taxes does not disappear, presumably it will be spent, and that would open up new job opportunities in order to make up for whatever jobs people lose.
     
  7. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    Did you read my post? THE BILL HAS NOT YET BEEN WRITTEN. They are voting on it today without even writing it or reading it. There has been a lot of talk of this being in it. That's evidence enough and warrants the topic being addressed.

    You do realize that most of the health care bill isn't written, which means any thread on it is based on speculation. If you are going to troll this thread on the account that I didn't post facts then you should go troll those as well. There is no hard and concrete evidence of what's in the bill because most of it hasn't officially been written yet.
    ------
    But that has nothing to do with the OP. Obviously idiot employees should be fired. This has nothing to do with the fact that increasing the payroll tax would force companies to fire productive employees. Like I said, if a company only makes so much money even WITH productive employees, if their taxes are raised then they can only afford to keep some of their employees. Productive employees will be fired.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2009
    pro2A likes this.
  8. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    If an employee that makes a company money is fired, then that company will take a greater loss by firing him than by keeping him on. Your reasoning here escapes me.
     
  9. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    When did it become illegal to start threads based on possibilities? Not to be rude or anything, but haven't you gotten on my case about "mini-modding" in the past?

    I don't think that would ever pass, Brix. That's way too much of a tax increase and information like this is suitable for a chain email at best. That kind of tax hike is so astronomical it could crush the US.
     
  10. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    After doing what I felt was a pretty thorough search, I still found nothing more than what I mentioned in my first post in this thread. Nowhere is the "15%" number given. What is the source of this?
     

Share This Page