Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
In an op-ed published today in The New York Times, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, propose that any private-sector employer that hires a worker who had been unemployed for at least 60 days not have to pay its 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax on that employee for the duration of 2010.
Workers would have to be hired for a minimum of 30 hours per week. And nepotists need not apply: The employer's family members would not be eligible. And job shedders would have to bulk up: if the company had a lower total payroll in 2010 than it had in 2009 it would have to forfeit the benefit.
"The beauty of this proposal goes beyond its simplicity. Unlike a jobs tax credit of a specific dollar amount, this credit is 'front-loaded' in that it provides an incentive for businesses to hire workers earlier in the year because the tax benefit will be greater. A $60,000 worker hired on Feb. 1 will save a business about $3,400 in taxes, while that same worker hired on May 1 will save it about $2,500," they write.
Nothing in it for the employer.
If the idea goes anywhere, it won't help much.
Schumer, Hatch Propose Payroll Tax Break - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
In an op-ed published today in The New York Times, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, propose that any private-sector employer that hires a worker who had been unemployed for at least 60 days not have to pay its 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax on that employee for the duration of 2010.
Workers would have to be hired for a minimum of 30 hours per week. And nepotists need not apply: The employer's family members would not be eligible. And job shedders would have to bulk up: if the company had a lower total payroll in 2010 than it had in 2009 it would have to forfeit the benefit.
"The beauty of this proposal goes beyond its simplicity. Unlike a jobs tax credit of a specific dollar amount, this credit is 'front-loaded' in that it provides an incentive for businesses to hire workers earlier in the year — because the tax benefit will be greater. A $60,000 worker hired on Feb. 1 will save a business about $3,400 in taxes, while that same worker hired on May 1 will save it about $2,500," they write.
I'd prefer to see more cut than just that, but it's a start.
Thoughts?
I wouldn't bet that the bill lets the employer off the hook for the other half (which the employee really pays anyways, but that's another thread).Nothing in it for the employer.
If the idea goes anywhere, it won't help much.
yes and no....i don't have to pay my share of the ss on the emplotyees behalf but i do have to pay local employee taxes their salary and the healthcare....
Exactly what I was getting at.and with nothing for them to actually do it seems rather pointless to hire some to save a couple of bucks and spend hundreds ..... with no roi.....
Nothing in it for the employer.
If the idea goes anywhere, it won't help much.
Nothing in it for the employer.
If the idea goes anywhere, it won't help much.
I don't think it will add as many jobs as they're saying, but it will add the ones that companies would LIKE to add but are forgoing because of the expense.
If you really need someone but are doing without, at least you're getting a little break with this.
I think it would be good for startups who have no other choice BUT to hire someone. That might be me in a couple months, actually, if things go according to plan.
Nothing in it for the employer.
If the idea goes anywhere, it won't help much.
I don't think it will add as many jobs as they're saying, but it will add the ones that companies would LIKE to add but are forgoing because of the expense.
If you really need someone but are doing without, at least you're getting a little break with this.
I think it would be good for startups who have no other choice BUT to hire someone. That might be me in a couple months, actually, if things go according to plan.
hiring is risk....even if people were free as in the government picks up their salary....i have nothing for them to do....
I don't think it will add as many jobs as they're saying, but it will add the ones that companies would LIKE to add but are forgoing because of the expense.
If you really need someone but are doing without, at least you're getting a little break with this.
I think it would be good for startups who have no other choice BUT to hire someone. That might be me in a couple months, actually, if things go according to plan.
hiring is risk....even if people were free as in the government picks up their salary....i have nothing for them to do....
That's why I said "If you really need someone, but are doing without ..."
It's an immediate incentive to hire, for those who are considering doing so.
If you were going to hire next year, now you have incentive to hire this year to take advantage of the break you wouldn't get next year. Yeah, it's risk, but that's business.
I'm hoping to get past a bunch of regulatory red tape for this business I'm hoping to open sometime before the spring, and I'm going to need 2 people right off the bat. This would be a huge help for someone like me.
But you already said you have nothing for anyone to do, even if they were free.hiring is risk....even if people were free as in the government picks up their salary....i have nothing for them to do....
That's why I said "If you really need someone, but are doing without ..."
It's an immediate incentive to hire, for those who are considering doing so.
If you were going to hire next year, now you have incentive to hire this year to take advantage of the break you wouldn't get next year. Yeah, it's risk, but that's business.
I'm hoping to get past a bunch of regulatory red tape for this business I'm hoping to open sometime before the spring, and I'm going to need 2 people right off the bat. This would be a huge help for someone like me.
all i can say is my partners and i have employed between 50 and 250 people over the last 15 years and the kind of "savings" we are talking about would not motivate me one way or the other.....
