Why I'm not hiring

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
Why I'm Not Hiring

When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits.

By MICHAEL P. FLEISCHER

With unemployment just under 10% and companies sitting on their cash, you would think that sooner or later job growth would take off. I think it's going to be later?much later. Here's why.
Meet Sally (not her real name; details changed to preserve privacy). Sally is a terrific employee, and she happens to be the median person in terms of base pay among the 83 people at my little company in New Jersey, where we provide audio systems for use in educational, commercial and industrial settings. She's been with us for over 15 years. She's a high school graduate with some specialized training. She makes $59,000 a year?on paper. In reality, she makes only $44,000 a year because $15,000 is taken from her thanks to various deductions and taxes, all of which form the steep, sad slope between gross and net pay.

Before that money hits her bank, it is reduced by the $2,376 she pays as her share of the medical and dental insurance that my company provides. And then the government takes its due. She pays $126 for state unemployment insurance, $149 for disability insurance and $856 for Medicare. That's the small stuff. New Jersey takes $1,893 in income taxes. The federal government gets $3,661 for Social Security and another $6,250 for income tax withholding. The roughly $13,000 taken from her by various government entities means that some 22% of her gross pay goes to Washington or Trenton. She's lucky she doesn't live in New York City, where the toll would be even higher.

Employing Sally costs plenty too. My company has to write checks for $74,000 so Sally can receive her nominal $59,000 in base pay. Health insurance is a big, added cost: While Sally pays nearly $2,400 for coverage, my company pays the rest?$9,561 for employee/spouse medical and dental. We also provide company-paid life and other insurance premiums amounting to $153. Altogether, company-paid benefits add $9,714 to the cost of employing Sally.
Then the federal and state governments want a little something extra. They take $56 for federal unemployment coverage, $149 for disability insurance, $300 for workers' comp and $505 for state unemployment insurance. Finally, the feds make me pay $856 for Sally's Medicare and $3,661 for her Social Security.
When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally's job each year.
Because my company has been conscripted by the government and forced to serve as a tax collector, we have lost control of a big chunk of our cost structure. Tax increases, whether cloaked as changes in unemployment or disability insurance, Medicare increases or in any other form can dramatically alter our financial situation. With government spending and deficits growing as fast as they have been, you know that more tax increases are coming?for my company, and even for Sally too.
Companies have also been pressed into serving as providers of health insurance. In a saner world, health insurance would be something that individuals buy for themselves and their families, just as they do with auto insurance. Now, adding to the insanity, there is ObamaCare.

Every year, we negotiate a renewal to our health coverage. This year, our provider demanded a 28% increase in premiums?for a lesser plan. This is in part a tax increase that the federal government has co-opted insurance providers to collect. We had never faced an increase anywhere near this large; in each of the last two years, the increase was under 10%.
To offset tax increases and steepening rises in health-insurance premiums, my company needs sustainably higher profits and sales?something unlikely in this "summer of recovery." We can't pass the additional costs onto our customers, because the market is too tight and we'd lose sales. Only governments can raise prices repeatedly and pretend there will be no consequences.
And even if the economic outlook were more encouraging, increasing revenues is always uncertain and expensive. As much as I might want to hire new salespeople, engineers and marketing staff in an effort to grow, I would be increasing my company's vulnerability to government decisions to raise taxes, to policies that make health insurance more expensive, and to the difficulties of this economic environment.
A life in business is filled with uncertainties, but I can be quite sure that every time I hire someone my obligations to the government go up. From where I sit, the government's message is unmistakable: Creating a new job carries a punishing price.
Mr. Fleischer is president of Bogen Communications Inc. in Ramsey, N.J.
<!-- article end -->

http://online.wsj.com/article_email...09733776372738-lMyQjAxMTAwMDAwODEwNDgyWj.html
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
This is why we needed Health Care Reform. Costs are out of sight. I am not happy with what we ended up with. To be honest I don't know what we ended up with. We need true Health Care Reform.
 

kcwolf

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 1, 2000
7,224
21
0
Iowa City
Competitors will have already driven this guy out of business. In my business, the rate was 1.21. I believe the national average is still around 1.3. All employers know what their budget figure will be and hire or not hire based on simple demand.

You can tell its an election year, garbage in and garbage out with this article.
 

bleedingpurple

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 23, 2008
22,391
228
63
52
Where it is real F ing COLD
She is making that much money with a high shcool education (specialized traiining) in audio systems? According to the author she makes the same amount of money as some nurses.. She is only the median employee? I maybe crazy but it seems as though this guy has skewed some numbers..

He has 83 employees and the median on paper is $74,000. That is roughly 6 million he pays out on paper give or take a few nickels. Add operating expense and this Audio business is probably near 10 million in expense. Seems a bit high but on the east coast I siuppose a commercial audio business could do it.. I just think I call bullshit to the story.
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
This is why we needed Health Care Reform. Costs are out of sight. I am not happy with what we ended up with. To be honest I don't know what we ended up with. We need true Health Care Reform.

DUH!!!!!!!!!!!



--which of these highlighted "money savers" did you miss on prior posting.

update Bloomberg
Appears I may have been incorrect on Obiecare adding 13 million to Medicade--could be 16 million.

--and these 16million added to medicade must be the "working class" liberals speak of

--and per the grift of savings by cutting admin and paperwork cost--

The new law creates 68 grant programs, 47 bureaucratic entities, 29 demonstration or pilot programs, six regulatory systems, six compliance standards and two entitlements.

:0008


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...n-hassett.html

Obamacare Only Looks Worse Upon Further Review: Kevin Hassett

<CITE class=byline>By Kevin Hassett -<SCRIPT type=text/javascript>document.write(dateFormat(new Date(1280710806000),"mmm d, yyyy h:MM TT Z"));</SCRIPT> Aug 1, 2010 8:00 PM CT </CITE>
<CITE class=byline></CITE>
<CITE class=byline>One of the more illuminating remarks during the health-care debate in Congress came when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told an audience that Democrats would ?pass the bill so you can find out what?s in it, away from the fog of controversy.?
That remark captured the truth that, while many Americans have a vague sense that something bad is happening to their health care, few if any understand exactly what the law does.
To fill this vacuum, Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, the top House Republican on the Joint Economic Committee, asked his staff to prepare a study of the law, including a flow chart that illustrates how the major provisions will work.

The result, made public July 28, provides citizens with a preview of the impact the health-care overhaul will have on their lives. It?s a terrifying road map that shows Democrats have launched America on the most reckless policy experiment in its history, the economic equivalent of the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Before discussing what the law means for you, we have to look at what it does to government. That?s where the chart comes in handy. It includes the new fees, bureaucracies and programs and connects them into an organizational chart that accounts for the existing structure. It?s so carefully documented that a line connecting two structures cites the legislative language that created the link.
Ornate System
This clearly is a candidate for most disorganized organizational chart ever. It shows that the health system is complex, yes, but also ornate. The new law creates 68 grant programs, 47 bureaucratic entities, 29 demonstration or pilot programs, six regulatory systems, six compliance standards and two entitlements.
Getting that massive enterprise up and running will be next to impossible. So Democrats streamlined the process by granting Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius the authority to make judgments that can?t be challenged either administratively or through the courts.
This monarchical protection from challenges is extended as well to the development of new patient-care models under Obama?s controversial recess appointment, Donald Berwick, whom Republicans are calling the rationer-in-chief. Berwick will run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, where he can experiment with ways to use administrative fiat to move our system toward the socialized medicine of Europe, which he has at times embraced.
Closer to Home
A sprawling, complex bureaucracy has been set up that will have almost absolute power to dictate terms for participating in the health-care system. That?s what the law does to government. What it does to you is worse.
Based on the administration?s own numbers, as many as 117 million people might have to change their health plans by 2013 as their employer-provided coverage loses its grandfathered status and becomes subject to the new Obamacare mandates.
Those mandates also might make your health care more expensive. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that premiums for a small number of families who buy their insurance privately will rise by as much as $2,100.
The central Obamacare mechanism for increasing insurance coverage is an expansion of the Medicaid program. Of the 30 million new people covered, 16 million will be enrolled in Medicaid. And you could end up in the program whether you want it or not. The bill states that people who apply for coverage through the new exchanges or who apply for premium-subsidy credits will automatically be enrolled in Medicaid if they qualify.
Hurting the Elderly
To pay for this expansion, the bill takes $529 billion from Medicare, with roughly 39 percent of the cut coming from the Medicare Advantage program. This represents a large transfer of resources, sacrificing the care of the elderly in order to increase the Medicaid rolls.
For all this supposed reform, you, the American taxpayer, can expect a bill to the tune of $569 billion.
Front and center among the new taxes is the 40 percent excise tax on those lucky people with so-called Cadillac health plans. The higher insurance costs that are driven by the government mandates will push many more ordinary plans into Cadillac territory.
If the idea of taxing people with coverage deemed too good doesn?t bother you, maybe the new 3.8 percent tax on investment income will. That will apply even to a small number of home sales, those that generate $250,000 in profit for an individual or $500,000 for a married couple.
In vivid color and detail, Congressman Brady?s chart captures the huge expansion of government coming under Obamacare. Harder to show on paper is the pain it will cause.
(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He was an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)
</CITE>
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
DUH!!!!!!!!!!!



--which of these highlighted "money savers" did you miss on prior posting.

update Bloomberg
Appears I may have been incorrect on Obiecare adding 13 million to Medicade--could be 16 million.

--and these 16million added to medicade must be the "working class" liberals speak of

--and per the grift of savings by cutting admin and paperwork cost--

The new law creates 68 grant programs, 47 bureaucratic entities, 29 demonstration or pilot programs, six regulatory systems, six compliance standards and two entitlements.

:0008


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...n-hassett.html

Obamacare Only Looks Worse Upon Further Review: Kevin Hassett

<CITE class=byline>By Kevin Hassett -<SCRIPT type=text/javascript>document.write(dateFormat(new Date(1280710806000),"mmm d, yyyy h:MM TT Z"));</SCRIPT> Aug 1, 2010 8:00 PM CT </CITE>
<CITE class=byline></CITE>
<CITE class=byline>One of the more illuminating remarks during the health-care debate in Congress came when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told an audience that Democrats would ?pass the bill so you can find out what?s in it, away from the fog of controversy.?
That remark captured the truth that, while many Americans have a vague sense that something bad is happening to their health care, few if any understand exactly what the law does.
To fill this vacuum, Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, the top House Republican on the Joint Economic Committee, asked his staff to prepare a study of the law, including a flow chart that illustrates how the major provisions will work.

The result, made public July 28, provides citizens with a preview of the impact the health-care overhaul will have on their lives. It?s a terrifying road map that shows Democrats have launched America on the most reckless policy experiment in its history, the economic equivalent of the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Before discussing what the law means for you, we have to look at what it does to government. That?s where the chart comes in handy. It includes the new fees, bureaucracies and programs and connects them into an organizational chart that accounts for the existing structure. It?s so carefully documented that a line connecting two structures cites the legislative language that created the link.
Ornate System
This clearly is a candidate for most disorganized organizational chart ever. It shows that the health system is complex, yes, but also ornate. The new law creates 68 grant programs, 47 bureaucratic entities, 29 demonstration or pilot programs, six regulatory systems, six compliance standards and two entitlements.
Getting that massive enterprise up and running will be next to impossible. So Democrats streamlined the process by granting Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius the authority to make judgments that can?t be challenged either administratively or through the courts.
This monarchical protection from challenges is extended as well to the development of new patient-care models under Obama?s controversial recess appointment, Donald Berwick, whom Republicans are calling the rationer-in-chief. Berwick will run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, where he can experiment with ways to use administrative fiat to move our system toward the socialized medicine of Europe, which he has at times embraced.
Closer to Home
A sprawling, complex bureaucracy has been set up that will have almost absolute power to dictate terms for participating in the health-care system. That?s what the law does to government. What it does to you is worse.
Based on the administration?s own numbers, as many as 117 million people might have to change their health plans by 2013 as their employer-provided coverage loses its grandfathered status and becomes subject to the new Obamacare mandates.
Those mandates also might make your health care more expensive. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that premiums for a small number of families who buy their insurance privately will rise by as much as $2,100.
The central Obamacare mechanism for increasing insurance coverage is an expansion of the Medicaid program. Of the 30 million new people covered, 16 million will be enrolled in Medicaid. And you could end up in the program whether you want it or not. The bill states that people who apply for coverage through the new exchanges or who apply for premium-subsidy credits will automatically be enrolled in Medicaid if they qualify.
Hurting the Elderly
To pay for this expansion, the bill takes $529 billion from Medicare, with roughly 39 percent of the cut coming from the Medicare Advantage program. This represents a large transfer of resources, sacrificing the care of the elderly in order to increase the Medicaid rolls.
For all this supposed reform, you, the American taxpayer, can expect a bill to the tune of $569 billion.
Front and center among the new taxes is the 40 percent excise tax on those lucky people with so-called Cadillac health plans. The higher insurance costs that are driven by the government mandates will push many more ordinary plans into Cadillac territory.
If the idea of taxing people with coverage deemed too good doesn?t bother you, maybe the new 3.8 percent tax on investment income will. That will apply even to a small number of home sales, those that generate $250,000 in profit for an individual or $500,000 for a married couple.
In vivid color and detail, Congressman Brady?s chart captures the huge expansion of government coming under Obamacare. Harder to show on paper is the pain it will cause.
(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He was an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)
</CITE>

Based on the piece of crap that you posted what would you like to have done? Have the employer not have to pay for benefits and put more burdon on the employee? You been in the crooked insurance business too long.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
Gee you liberals sure can make a compelling case for yourselves--again some great research -- :clap:

--As usual--will take me a while to sort through the facts. :)
 

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh
Why not do easy stuff like allow individuals to deduct the cost of their health insurance from their taxable income, just like their employers can right now.

End all state insurance mandates. If some insurance company wants to market an insurance policy that doesn't cover for the normal costs of childbirth, drug abuse treatments, mental health treatments, obesity treatments, alcohol-related treatments and the like ... then let them.

Allow people to shop across state lines for their medical insurance.

Expand the privileges of nurse practitioners. I don't need someone with seven years of medical school and residency to prescribe an antibiotic for a sore throat.

Charge a minimum of $5.00 per visit to any public health facility ... regardless of income. This will weed out the people for whom a visit to the doctor is more of a weekly social event.

Allow employers to shut out smokers from any company-provided health insurance benefits.

It doesn't cost a fortune to at least try things like this first.
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
Why not do easy stuff like allow individuals to deduct the cost of their health insurance from their taxable income, just like their employers can right now.


Huh? They already can. If they pay for ins, they can deduct. Read your 1040 instructions.


End all state insurance mandates. If some insurance company wants to market an insurance policy that doesn't cover for the normal costs of childbirth, drug abuse treatments, mental health treatments, obesity treatments, alcohol-related treatments and the like ... then let them.

You don't understand the purpose of insurance, which is to spread risk. not concentrate it as you would do.

Allow people to shop across state lines for their medical insurance.

Then every insurance company would flee to the shithole state which has the weakest regulations, just like the credit card issuers fled to SD so they could continue screwing their customers.

Expand the privileges of nurse practitioners. I don't need someone with seven years of medical school and residency to prescribe an antibiotic for a sore throat.

That's a good idea, and many docs now have NPs.

Charge a minimum of $5.00 per visit to any public health facility ... regardless of income. This will weed out the people for whom a visit to the doctor is more of a weekly social event.

Do let me know when you see someone in an ER for a social visit.

Allow employers to shut out smokers from any company-provided health insurance benefits.

And fatties, and old folks, and those with pre-existing conditions, and motorcycle riders, athletes, beer drinkers, and mandatory genetic testing for all, so we can weed out any who might get sick.

It doesn't cost a fortune to at least try things like this first.

Okay, you go first. Surely you can find a scummy insurance company to enroll with.

.....
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Dogs, any chance u can buzz back the author and find out how much of those taxes are going to those twe farce of wars ur buddy started or how about farm subsidies? How much of those tax dollars are going to that rediculous overblown corrupt defense budget? Dogs the guy did a poor job telling us where all the money is going. :0002
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Charge a minimum of $5.00 per visit to any public health facility ... regardless of income. This will weed out the people for whom a visit to the doctor is more of a weekly social event.

Do let me know when you see someone in an ER for a social visit.

Allow employers to shut out smokers from any company-provided health insurance benefits.

And fatties, and old folks, and those with pre-existing conditions, and motorcycle riders, athletes, beer drinkers, and mandatory genetic testing for all, so we can weed out any who might get sick.
bania2.jpg

___"That's Gold, Jerry... Gold!!"___
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
DUH!!!!!!!!!!!

Appears I may have been incorrect on Obiecare adding 13 million to Medicade--could be 16 million.

--and these 16million added to medicade must be the "working class" liberals speak of
For fuck's sake... give it a rest.

Everybody but YOU knows the individual mandate will NEVER see the light of day.

Just another DTGumby strawman argument...

phil_straw-man.jpg
 

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh

Why not do easy stuff like allow individuals to deduct the cost of their health insurance from their taxable income, just like their employers can right now.


Huh? They already can. If they pay for ins, they can deduct. Read your 1040 instructions.

Sorry, I didn't know that...I see on line 29 that there is a Self employed Health Insurance Deduction, but what happens to those of us who are not self employed? You must be some kind of tax preparer.

End all state insurance mandates. If some insurance company wants to market an insurance policy that doesn't cover for the normal costs of childbirth, drug abuse treatments, mental health treatments, obesity treatments, alcohol-related treatments and the like ... then let them.

You don't understand the purpose of insurance, which is to spread risk. not concentrate it as you would do.

I thought the idea was to make insurance more affordable? What if I don't want coverage for childbirth, drug abuse treatments, mental health treatments...etc. Shouldn't I be able to have the choice? And if somehow I do manage to have a child or get hooked on drugs, can't I be made to pay for those out of my own pocket?

Allow people to shop across state lines for their medical insurance.

Then every insurance company would flee to the shithole state which has the weakest regulations, just like the credit card issuers fled to SD so they could continue screwing their customers.

So, as a lover-of-all-things-government you think more regulations will lessen the cost of insurance?

Expand the privileges of nurse practitioners. I don't need someone with seven years of medical school and residency to prescribe an antibiotic for a sore throat.

That's a good idea, and many docs now have NPs.

I just about fell out when I saw this..

Charge a minimum of $5.00 per visit to any public health facility ... regardless of income. This will weed out the people for whom a visit to the doctor is more of a weekly social event.

Do let me know when you see someone in an ER for a social visit.

This was meant as an exaggeration as I'm sure nobody goes for social calls, but I'm also sure you have heard of a hypochondriac. (There are those who abuse the system)

Allow employers to shut out smokers from any company-provided health insurance benefits.

And fatties, and old folks, and those with pre-existing conditions, and motorcycle riders, athletes, beer drinkers, and mandatory genetic testing for all, so we can weed out any who might get sick.

I guess you do have a freedom of choice bone in your body somewhere, but as a lover-of-all-things-government I'm sure you would like to see more laws to enforce a more healthier lifestyle. (i.e. San Frans law to ban the use of trans fats) The government may well pass a law to protect us from ourselves, so you might see beer drinking, smoking, and eating fatty foods become illegal to defray the costs associated with covering those less fortunate to understand these activities can make you sick.

It doesn't cost a fortune to at least try things like this first.

Okay, you go first. Surely you can find a scummy insurance company to enroll with.

If the government would let me, that would be great. But unfortunately my government will not give me the freedom to do things like this. Like you they think I'm too dumb to take care of myself.

I know you think that government can do no wrong, but I don't think they can deliver a letter without losing money.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top