Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The legislation would provide a tax credit equal to one percent of taxable income to employers who fulfill the following conditions:
· First, employers must not decrease their ratio of full-time workers in the United States to full-time workers outside the United States and they must maintain corporate headquarters in the United States if the company has ever been headquartered there.
· Second, they must pay a minimum hourly wage sufficient to keep a family of three out of poverty: at least $7.80 per hour.
· Third, they must provide a defined benefit retirement plan or a defined contribution retirement plan that fully matches at least five percent of each worker’s contribution.
· Fourth, they must pay at least sixty percent of each worker’s health care premiums.
· Fifth, they must pay the difference between a worker’s regular salary and military salary and continue the health insurance for all National Guard and Reserve employees who are called for active duty.
· Sixth, they must maintain neutrality in employee organising campaigns.
This is designed to provide tax incentives for companies that employ American workers instead of sending work overseas. In other words to stop outsourcing. What's wrong with that?
This is designed to provide tax incentives for companies that employ American workers instead of sending work overseas. In other words to stop outsourcing. What's wrong with that?
The tax benefit is too small to offset the problems with the bill.
For one thing, would you hire someone in the National Guard or Reserves if you knew you had to supplement that person's active duty salary if they were called away? Most companies wouldn't. It's not up to companies to do this. If the government thinks it is that important, then the government should pay for it. (Think of how many companies pay for jury duty -- and that's usually only a week or two!)
On top of all that, companies don't pay that much tax here in the USA anyway. A 1% tax credit is nothing to most companies.
Fifth, they must pay the difference between a worker’s regular salary and military salary and continue the health insurance for all National Guard and Reserve employees who are called for active duty
Considering the salary tables for the military and that many of them hold skilled jobs on the outside that do not pay that well in the military, this would be a very steep cost for the employer and it would hurt the people in the Reserves and the Guard very badly.
It all sounds peachy on paper till you find guys there who are denied jobs or fired because of the regs on the books NOW. Try suing to get your job back - not fun. Seen it happen.
And why exactly should they be forced to carry the insurance premium while the military already gives free health care???? That is pretty bizarre..
"Of course Sen. Hilary Clinton has been no better in her shameless attempts to snare the funding and get-out-the-vote machine of organised labour. Bill Clinton’s greatest achievement as President was his remarkable and unstinting support for a liberal international economic order. As candidate for the Democratic nomination, Hilary Clinton proposes to destroy her husband’s one great legacy for the United States and the world. As Obama’s populist co-sponsor Sherrod Brown said admiringly, ‘Hillary's clearly moved way away from the old Clinton position.’ Hilary Clinton, however, now appears unlikely to win the Democratic nomination, so we focus on Barack Obama’s position. "
You allegedly support Hillary. You've quoted the National Review, Karl Rove, Bill Kristol and now the Turkish Weekly in an attempt to disparage Barack Obama. You claim to be a lifelong Democrat. This article says words about Hillary just as bad as Obama. What gives?
"Of course Sen. Hilary Clinton has been no better in her shameless attempts to snare the funding and get-out-the-vote machine of organised labour. Bill Clinton’s greatest achievement as President was his remarkable and unstinting support for a liberal international economic order. As candidate for the Democratic nomination, Hilary Clinton proposes to destroy her husband’s one great legacy for the United States and the world. As Obama’s populist co-sponsor Sherrod Brown said admiringly, ‘Hillary's clearly moved way away from the old Clinton position.’ Hilary Clinton, however, now appears unlikely to win the Democratic nomination, so we focus on Barack Obama’s position. "
You allegedly support Hillary. You've quoted the National Review, Karl Rove, Bill Kristol and now the Turkish Weekly in an attempt to disparage Barack Obama. You claim to be a lifelong Democrat. This article says words about Hillary just as bad as Obama. What gives?
Since Hillary appears to be losing, I'm switching my focus to supporting John McCain. After all, he's the only moderate in the race.
Yes, most of the economic blogs are aghast when anyone talks about "how bad NAFTA is" because they all say it's not NAFTA that's at fault.
You have to go to publications outside of the USA to get honest discussion on a lot of our monetary policies because the American press doesn't talk about it. They didn't want to admit we had a housing bubble, now they don't want to admit we are going to get something worse than a recession. And meanwhile, gold might go over $1000 an ounce this week and silver over $20 an ounce tonight! The US press is almost worthless on these things.
Since Hillary appears to be losing, I'm switching my focus to supporting John McCain. After all, he's the only moderate in the race.
Obama and Hillary are virtually the same on issues. They differ slightly on health care. Obama showed better judgment on Iraq. Their votes in the Senate are exactly the same save two. Their differences are in style and the ability to relate to people. How can you possible argue that McCain is the next logical step from Hillary? It's disingenuous to me.
Obama and Hillary are virtually the same on issues. They differ slightly on health care. Obama showed better judgment on Iraq. Their votes in the Senate are exactly the same save two. Their differences are in style and the ability to relate to people. How can you possible argue that McCain is the next logical step from Hillary? It's disingenuous to me.
The economy matters the most to me. Hillary and McCain have "experience" and a track record. Obama has none.
If Hillary was running with Obama's resume, she would have been out of the race about a year ago. And that's when I think he should have been out of it too.
The economy matters the most to me. Hillary and McCain have "experience" and a track record. Obama has none.
If Hillary was running with Obama's resume, she would have been out of the race about a year ago. And that's when I think he should have been out of it too.
Obama and Hillary's economic policies are virtually the same. McCain admits he doesn't know much about the economy, but his people are going to have wildly different approaches to the economy than Hillary or Obama. How can you really say the economy is most important to you and switch from Hillary to McCain? It seems disingenuous.
Experience as First Lady? Does that count? Does age = experience?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
