This jobs bill is different? Really? How's that?
I own a small business, which means I hire 100% American and pay my taxes to our country only.
One of the thing's I've complained about is that there have been no real incentives for small business to hire people in anythig offered by Obama or Bush before him. This is different. How: None of was in any previous bills:
1. Cut payroll tax in half on 1st $5M in wages. This is great. Big Corps who ship their jobs and tax renenues overseas won't even notice it. Who will? American small businesses like mine. Which of course is why the GOP is already fighting this clause. WTF?
2. Cut payroll tax completely on new hires & raises, up to the first $50M. This is good too! This could help the economy! Which again, is why I'm sure it will be attacked by those who normally fight for tax cuts and say they are the answer to everything.
3. 100% write-offs for new locations and equipment. This eliminates depreciating stuff over years so basically, you get like, 5 times the normal deduction. In other words, if I hire a new recruiter for my firm, I can write off the new computer I buy for them. If I open a new office, same thing on a bigger scale. I really don't see how anyone could argue against this but I'm sure I know who will...
4. Obama's talking about cutting the payout time to American small businesses to 90 days - which would give 100% American companies a chance at billions we pay to foreign or not-totally US companies. How's he going to do it? Um yeah. Good luck with that. I'm doubtful. But if he could, what would be the problem with it?
5. One thing I like is that he's talking about helping people who have been out of work, start their own business. I used to volunteer in Texas, teaching people how to do exactly that. They were often surprised how easy it could be. The key was always capitalization. If someone could keep their unemployment while starting a new business, this would solve that problem. If only one out of hundred were successful, that would be huge.
That's what's different.
Now none of this is a magic wand or even rocket science. If you make hiring people and the cost of materials they need to work and the cost of opening locations here in America cheaper, that's an incentive. It may not be a big deal to Conoco Philips, who could give a f*ck about the U.S. economy or hiring Ameicans, but it will make a difference to Fred, who just got some new contracts and has been wrestling with the idea of hiring someone.
What I find interesting, is that the same GOP who has been screaming at the top of their lungs, that all of our problems would be solved by lowering taxes, have already come out against a couple of the above incentives. Why? They don't help their Big Business donors and worse, could end up creating real competition for them. So when it comes to what's best for Americans or what's best for Big Business, their priorities are clear.
I am also a small business owner and I find your post a bit strange. I, and nobody else I know running a business, would consider a temporary reduction in FICA as anything more than a lollipop to appease an angry kid. I, and nobody else I know running a business, would see it as an incentive to expand, hire, or buy. So you are pretty much an anomaly in that regard.
Help the deficit or help jump start the economy? Not a chance.
Also paying somebody to hire new employees is great if I needed the employee anyway. No way am I going to hire somebody I will be responsible for after the little windfall up front runs out. If I need the employee anyway, I would have hired him/her anyway but hey, free money is free money and I wouldn't turn that down.
Again that blind squirrel should be able to see that free money isn't free but adds to the deficit, adds to the debt, and takes as much money out of the economy--more actually because the debt has to be serviced--than it pays in.
Help jump start the economy? No way.