[Tichy]

I don't understand that logic. Yes, if I buy an Apple for 1$, it costs double than if an Apple would just cost 0.50$.

You are paying for employees what they cost, that is, what the market determines. What are you doubling? (The taxes and whatnot are simply part of the total cost).

[SamAtt]

The logic is that taxes and other fees are pushing the cost of hiring people over what he's willing to pay. To use your example imagine you only have $1 to your name and you can get by without the Apple. At which point you don't buy the Apple where as if it was $.50 you might buy the Apple because it wouldn't take all your money.

I'm not saying his logic is correct but it's not hard to understand

[jbooth]

Yeah, except taxes have gone DOWN for that employee under Obama, and healthcare premiums have been skyrocketing for the last 10-15 years (and most of quote "ObamaCare" hasn't even kicked in yet).

So the author is either a total idiot or willfully dishonest. Hence, the article was poop.

[Tichy]

It doesn't have to do anything with the taxes, though. Suppose he is willing to pay 40000$. If taxes are 30000$, he can pay 10000$ to a new hire. If nobody wants to work for that money, it is the fault of the new hires.

Of course it would be better if taxes were lower, but since they are a real cost, it makes no sense to say "I pay double". Maybe it costs 0.70$ to grow the apple, so it simply isn't possible to sell the apple for 0.50$. Taxes are the costs for growing employees. What good is it to complain that you would buy an apple if only it cost just 0.50$, if it already costs more than 0.70$ to grow the apple?

[CoryMathews]

"Suppose he is willing to pay 40000$. If taxes are 30000$, he can pay 10000$ to a new hire. If nobody wants to work for that money, it is the fault of the new hires." - Wow I hope I never work for you..

I cannot see how you say this is the "fault of the new hires" its not their fault, its the employers and government. Because the employer cannot afford to pay them more, they have 40,000 to pay them. Its the governments fault because they are taking 13200(assume 33% instead of 30k) this only allows the employer to offer a job if someone takes it for 26800.

Hes complaining because it does not need to cost this much. If the government is all about helping the country out of this "recession" shouldn't they be helping businesses hire new people?

It's hard for them to do this when it becomes more and more expensive to hire.

[Tichy]

Your analysis is too short sighted. Presumably the taxes are required to keep society running. So somebody has to pay them. In fact it doesn't really matter who pays them. Suppose businesses wouldn't have to pay taxes anymore. Instead there would be a new apple tax. So now apples would cost 2$ instead of 1$.

Now you can pay your hire 20000$ instead of 10000$. But the hire needs twice the money for food, so he needs to ask for a higher salary in return, so that he can still eat apples. So you still can't afford the hire.

That there is probably a lot of waste of taxes is another subject entirely. Of course it would be preferable to require as little taxes as possible. But taxes are not just some arbitrary costs governments can inflict or take away with the flick of a finger.

[CoryMathews]

yes but if I only have 20$ I can get twice as many if they are $.50 instead of $1. Thus he could hire more people if the overhead per hire was lower.

[encoderer]

The tax burden in this country is lower than European nations, lower than Japan, lower than Canada.

The op-ed is a trite political attack piece (not out of character for the WSJ). Your comments, well, they seem directed towards the half-brained. That is, if you're smart, what your saying is obvious: Obviously Right if you're a conservative, Obviously Wrong if you're a progressive.

If you're a true neutral centrist and you care most about lowering taxes, I can point you in the direction of a gigantic defense budget that could be cut.

But in my experience, people who think Obama is an evil business killer also think that we mustn't cut a cent from the defense budget.

Finally, saw something interesting yesterday.. apparently annualized corporate profits hit 1.2 Trillion recently, the highest ever recorded.

Yes, socialist Obama is certainly proving himself the nemesis of prosperity for America's business community. Clearly.

[anamax]

> The tax burden in this country is lower than European nations, lower than Japan, lower than Canada.

Actually, it's about the same in terms of dollars per person.

When I buy something, I don't ask "what fraction of my income?". I ask "What value am I getting for my $."

Why should we treat govt any differently?

[CoryMathews]

"The tax burden in this country is lower than European nations, lower than Japan, lower than Canada." Possibly, I didn't compare it to other countries.

"If you're a true neutral centrist and you care most about lowering taxes, I can point you in the direction of a gigantic defense budget that could be cut." I do agree its WAY out of hand. They pay for all sorts of crazy ridiculous things, the budget should be closer then half of what it is.

"But in my experience, people who think Obama is an evil business killer also think that we mustn't cut a cent from the defense budget." Normally so, but I wouldn't say I follow that same boat. (see above)

"Finally, saw something interesting yesterday.. apparently annualized corporate profits hit 1.2 Trillion recently, the highest ever recorded." Its only the small businesses that are really be effected particularly non-tech around 25 people.

[Tichy]

The thing is that the overhead isn't lower. Hires cost what they cost. Why does the hire need 10000$ in the bank? Because apples are 1$. If apples were only 0.50$, the hire could feed himself for only 5000$. So you could blame high apple prices just as much as taxes. It doesn't make sense to single out taxes.

[ZachPruckowski]

So what you're saying is that we should dramatically cut the standard of living of the average American in order to solve our unemployment issues? In the face of increasing corporate profits?

Further, there's another massive flaw in your argument: You're not going to hire twice as many people unless you have excess work even after the first hire. There are a few companies in that enviable situation, but for the most part, demand is lagging right now. So at best those companies would hire one worker at half-price and then keep the money saved.