[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.