What do you think of Obama's economic proposals?

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081013/ap_on_el_pr/obama_31

[Chreamps]

Wow, I really don't think anyone really knows what to do to solve this mess; but all I can say is that at least his ideas are helping average people and small businesses rather than helping the corporations who helped make the mess. Whether it could work or not, I have no idea.

[Tiffikat]

I like his ideas and they do seem set to benefit individual people and businesses. I hope that something like this will be able to happen. I know something needs to be done.

[tammy1999]

Speaking from a business and bookeeper's eye, it costs more than $3000 to hire a new employee. That part wouldn't work very well.

[JCSimon]

Speaking from a business and bookeeper's eye, it costs more than $3000 to hire a new employee. That part wouldn't work very well.


Not being snarky at all, Tammy....I've never had to employ other people. Can you explain why it costs that much to hire a full-time employee?

[tammy1999]

Not being snarky at all, Tammy....I've never had to employ other people. Can you explain why it costs that much to hire a full-time employee?

Not being snarky at all. Thanks for asking.

The insurance, payroll taxes and payroll alone will eat up that $3000.00. Thats just the basics. A small businesses biggest expense is payroll. Ex: Making $7.00 an hour, and I hope I figured correctly for 52 weeks alone is about $14,500.00 in payroll.

And that deduction is only for 1 year.

[JCSimon]

Not being snarky at all. Thanks for asking.

The insurance, payroll taxes and payroll alone will eat up that $3000.00. Thats just the basics. A small businesses biggest expense is payroll. Ex: Making $7.00 an hour, and I hope I figured correctly for 52 weeks alone is about $14,500.00 in payroll.

And that deduction is only for 1 year.

OK...I wasn't thinking of the insurance. I'm sure that alone could do it! On payroll, though, if you needed an employee, you'd be paying that anyway, right? I mean, you're paying someone for doing work for you in return. So, your only real payroll "expense" would the employer's share of SocSec & MediCare.

I'm clear now on what costs so much. I'm just thinking that, if you need to hire a new employee, you'd still be getting a $3000 "bonus" that you wouldn't normally get.

[SarahMD]

Is it silly that just yesterday I was thinking. why do they HAVE to foreclose? why can't banks give people extensions or lower interest rates or different terms to their loans? Then I saw on the news that little bit about paris hilton saying something similar.

I really think all the average person needs is just a little time, unless the pay is just not paying ANYTHING at all... what if these people at least pay something per month??

I'm so confused by the situation but ANYTHING that helps us as the average american instead of letting us drown in someone else's mistakes has to be better!

I mean I honestly don't know or understand everything about the situation and I feel like I'm just trying to make due...

[strangejen]

Can you explain why it costs that much to hire a full-time employee?

It's a lot of small things.

Sometimes confirming employment eligibility of potential new hires and background checks can get expensive -- especially when you have to do it to everyone you're CONSIDERING hiring before you can make your final decision.

Plus, there's ordering a handy-dandy name-tag or desk plate! (Kidding on that one.)

[JCSimon]

It's a lot of small things.

Sometimes confirming employment eligibility of potential new hires and background checks can get expensive -- especially when you have to do it to everyone you're CONSIDERING hiring before you can make your final decision.

Plus, there's ordering a handy-dandy name-tag or desk plate! (Kidding on that one.)


:D Good one, Jen!

[tammy1999]

It's a lot of small things.

Sometimes confirming employment eligibility of potential new hires and background checks can get expensive -- especially when you have to do it to everyone you're CONSIDERING hiring before you can make your final decision.

Plus, there's ordering a handy-dandy name-tag or desk plate! (Kidding on that one.)

Ain't it the truth. Even to get decent renters you have to do all that credit and background checks.

[tammy1999]

OK...I wasn't thinking of the insurance. I'm sure that alone could do it! On payroll, though, if you needed an employee, you'd be paying that anyway, right? I mean, you're paying someone for doing work for you in return. So, your only real payroll "expense" would the employer's share of SocSec & MediCare.

I'm clear now on what costs so much. I'm just thinking that, if you need to hire a new employee, you'd still be getting a $3000 "bonus" that you wouldn't normally get.


Your right. You do have to have employees, but if the $3000 was for more than one year, it might be worth it.

[strangejen]

oh, and there's the extra $10 you have to set aside for a Christmas present . . . LOL.

[tammy1999]

CHRISTMAS BONUSES!!!!!!!!!! :yahoo

[scribler]

I have to wonder how much control he would really have over whether or not you could withdraw money from your retirement account. I know the rules of the 401k setup by the company I work for do not allow for any type of withdraw, even for an emergency. I'm not saying it wouldn't help some people, but I suspect there is a good percentage of 401k holders that don't actually have access to that money for withdrawals (and they may not even realize that they don't).

[scribler]

That $3000 will barely cover the cost of the pain reliever purchases brought on by the hiring process. lol (I hate having to hire new employees. I really do.)

[Chreamps]

How would people withdrawing from their 401K's affect the stock market?

[scribler]

How would people withdrawing from their 401K's affect the stock market?

That is an excellent point. I think it would have a very negative impact. There is a reason most 401k providers limit the number of transactions you can make in a year.

[Gina.Maria]

Tammy, I realize you don't care for Obama but even you have to admit that a company that is expanding and needs employees will benefit from a $3,000-per-new-job credit. If you have no need for new employees or haven't the ability to sustain a new position, then this shouldn't really be an option for you. You can't expect the taxpayers to provide everything from wages to benefits for an employee that ultimately benefits you and your business.

[scribler]

Tammy, I realize you don't care for Obama but even you have to admit that a company that is expanding and needs employees will benefit from a $3,000-per-new-job credit. If you have no need for new employees or haven't the ability to sustain a new position, then this shouldn't really be an option for you. You can't expect the taxpayers to provide everything from wages to benefits for an employee that ultimately benefits you and your business.

I think her point is not that it wouldn't help, but it's so small that it doesn't really creative an incentive that might lure a business that could use another employee, but doesn't really have to have one, to take on that new employee.

[Gina.Maria]

Small is relative, scribler. The fact is that it's an incentive, nonetheless. It's not going to push a struggling business to stretch themselves to the brink of disaster but no one would want that. It just gives a healthy business, looking to expand, a small push to do so now instead of waiting for a better economic climate. It's positive no matter how you look at it.

[scribler]

We'll just have to disagree on this one. I don't really think it's big enough to get most businesses to start hiring if they were not going to do so anyway. I just think it makes for a good sound bite.

[Chreamps]

MOMocrats (http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2008/10/some-thoughts-a.html) has an article on Obama's plan today (I'm still reading and thought I would post).

[tammy1999]

We'll just have to disagree on this one. I don't really think it's big enough to get most businesses to start hiring if they were not going to do so anyway. I just think it makes for a good sound bite.

I agree. And its just for 1 year. How many small businesses hire in one year? If it was for many years, then it would be something to think about.

[tammy1999]

Tammy, I realize you don't care for Obama but even you have to admit that a company that is expanding and needs employees will benefit from a $3,000-per-new-job credit. If you have no need for new employees or haven't the ability to sustain a new position, then this shouldn't really be an option for you. You can't expect the taxpayers to provide everything from wages to benefits for an employee that ultimately benefits you and your business.

I'm looking at it as a business woman, not that I don't agree with Obama. As a business, I always look for things that will help my business. This is a one year program and wouldn't help most small businesses. The insurance is just so high anymore. Now, if he would say this program is good until further notice. I would look into it more.

[maggie965]

Not being snarky at all. Thanks for asking.

The insurance, payroll taxes and payroll alone will eat up that $3000.00. Thats just the basics. A small businesses biggest expense is payroll. Ex: Making $7.00 an hour, and I hope I figured correctly for 52 weeks alone is about $14,500.00 in payroll.

And that deduction is only for 1 year.

The deduction is for two years, he's proposing solutions that the current government can put in place. I wonder if he's thinking that would give the economy more time to stabilize so the extra help wouldn't be needed (in two years)?

ETA: My husband is a small business owner and that $3000 (6K over two years) that he wouldn't have to spend on an employee would help him to by materials and tools.

[tammy1999]

The deduction is for two years, he's proposing solutions that the current government can put in place. I wonder if he's thinking that would give the economy more time to stabilize so the extra help wouldn't be needed (in two years)?

ETA: My husband is a small business owner and that $3000 (6K over two years) that he wouldn't have to spend on an employee would help him to by materials and tools.

I wonder too. In our case, we are a really small business, just for liability insurance is over $1000 a year. I just wish it was for more years.

[Tiffikat]

Perhaps it's something that could be continued if it works well to benefit the economy.

[nightlily]

I have a few questions about this policy.

First of all, though, I am confused as to what Sen. Obama plans to accomplish. Yes, of course I see the obvious intent on the creation of new jobs, but I think this (along with everything else...) is a bit skewed due to the election. I understand a bit about running a small business, and in no way do I see it geared towards small businesses. I see this plan as being targeted towards LARGE multi-million dollar companies who are sending jobs overseas, a bit of a last-ditch attempt to keep jobs here. Those are the companies that will benefit most from a proposition such as this, as they have the capital available to hire full-time employees. Yet again, giving the big fish tax breaks.... isn't that something that Dem's are traditionally against? And... you will tax them more, but then give them a tax break per new employee? Isn't this simply running around in circles?

Being the child of a small business owner, and having run that business for two solid years, I know that a 3000 dollar tax credit per NEW full-time employee isn't a solid investment, at least for our situation. Much like another mentioned, the cost of additional wages, benefits, insurance, background checks, and licensure would be a step backwards. In order to expand, we would need at least 10 new employees, plus additional space which requires building permits, inspections, licensure, certification, etc. and we just don't have the capital for that.

A few more questions...
How much oversight will this program dictate?
How do we ensure that the big bad corporations aren't going to apply these credits to jobs created here in America but staffed overseas?
How much is that oversight going to cost?

And lastly, what is going to be cut in order to finance this operation?
And what is going to be cut in order to finance an oversight program?


I think it is terribly important to look at who this will affect the most, positively or negatively. I see this helping out the giant corporations more than small business owners. But, to each their own.

[NellieRose]

I think it is terribly important to look at who this will affect the most, positively or negatively. I see this helping out the giant corporations more than small business owners. But, to each their own.

All good questions Sarah...I just heard last night that candidates rarely, if ever, put the whole plan out, be it taxes, health care, etc. b/c it leaves too much meat and potatoes to be picked to the bone and have them raked over the coals leading up to the election. There was also mention of what is proposed in comparison to what actually makes it through.......

[nightlily]

All good questions Sarah...I just heard last night that candidates rarely, if ever, put the whole plan out, be it taxes, health care, etc. b/c it leaves too much meat and potatoes to be picked to the bone and have them raked over the coals leading up to the election. There was also mention of what is proposed in comparison to what actually makes it through.......

Which completely explains why we never get a clear answer during any debate, interview, article, or otherwise. :mad

The part that gets me is they will leak a few tasty morsels for the public to devour, solid plan or not. I can't make decision on a few tasty morsels, you know what I mean? In every aspect of my life, I like to know exactly what I'm getting into(or in this case who I will be voting for....), and gather as much information as possible.
Frustrating. :think

Another tasty morsel in the trash can. Damn, am I hungry.


I'm still undecided.