- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 5, 2011 at 4:55 pm #597531
hooper1961Memberthe cost of continuing to provide unemployment is a 36% rise in the unemployment tax rate
January 5, 2011 at 5:58 pm #713142
JoBParticipanthooper1961
since it is obvious you are quoting “facts” from some source
please link the source.
January 5, 2011 at 6:02 pm #713143
hooper1961Membertoday’s seattle times
January 5, 2011 at 6:29 pm #713144
JanSParticipanthooper…I’m not finding it..could you be more specific? did you read online? or in the paper? If online, could you give the actual link?
January 5, 2011 at 6:54 pm #713145
hooper1961Memberit may have been on king 5 news last night; also l and i is proposing significant hikes in the premium
January 5, 2011 at 7:15 pm #713146
admiral momParticipantI am a small business owner. Here is what has happened in the last two years. I have not laid off any of my employees In 2009 my rate was .35
for 2011 it is 1.33. That is an increase of almost 4 times. I understand that the state has depleted its’ account and their investments are not making anything: but this is the type of thing that makes it very hard to stay in business.
January 5, 2011 at 7:50 pm #713147
JanSParticipantproposals for the state of WA:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2013843308_jobs05.html
January 5, 2011 at 7:50 pm #713148
hooper1961Memberadmiral mom – i hear you; yet many of our neighbors are clueless as to the adverse consequences of continuously raising taxes.
January 5, 2011 at 8:08 pm #713149
JoBParticipanthooper 1961
“yet many of our neighbors are clueless as to the adverse consequences of continuously raising taxes.”
you have two choices when it comes to the costs of unemployment.
you can pay them up front in the cheapest way possible by buying into the insurance pool…
or you can choose to pay them as taxpayers in the most expensive way possible.
that’s the way we have chosen to fund health care…
in the most expensive least effective way possible.
somehow i have a problem with choosing short term profits instead of long term savings…
i think it’s what got our country into this mess in the first place…
infrastructure is more than roads.
admiralmom…
and did you figure the increased cost of unemployment insurance into any raises you gave to your employees since that is wage compensation paid by you to the govt on their behalf ?
I certainly would.
and you seem like a savvy businessperson
so i am guessing you did.
unemployment insurance paid on behalf of employees is as much a part of their total compensation package as health insurance or life insurance or … wages.
January 5, 2011 at 8:23 pm #713150
admiral momParticipantjoB Sure it is considered along with worker’s comp, health insurance etc. However I would dare you find any company that projects unemployment taxes to quadruple in two years. This is our 21st year and have gone through downturns and have never seen this. Increases in a couple of years when the economy turns would be better. Business is down, less revenue, but still have to pay 4 times the taxes. Makes it hard to survive
January 5, 2011 at 8:30 pm #713151
JoBParticipantadmiralmom
the length of time that legitimate job seekers with qualifications are unemployed in this “downturn” is unprecedented.
as was the breadth and severity of the financial crisis.
I am not sure how any of us plan for that.
I commend you for keeping your doors open.
January 5, 2011 at 8:45 pm #713152
hooper1961Memberadmiral mom – as a small business owner i see the adverse consequences of increased cost. the added tax burden has cost jobs.
the fact is there are jobs available for people who look hard for them; my ex gf was one who worked very hard to find a job and did part time work until she found a job. the pay of the new job is a bit less than what she had before but it is a job because she worked hard to find it.
January 5, 2011 at 11:35 pm #713153
JoBParticipanthooper 1961..
yes.. there are jobs out there for people who look for them…
but there are also a lot of applicants for every job.
I know people who have been short listed more than once only to find that they were .. unfortunately.. the second choice.
as for the added burden of the unemployment tax rate increase costing jobs..
the rate is so low that you would have to have a lot of employees for that increase to cost one single job.
you can do the math on that one yourself.
January 5, 2011 at 11:56 pm #713154
elikapekaParticipantHooper, please just stop saying there are jobs available if you look hard enough. When statistics over and over show that there are between 4 and 6 unemployed people for every job opening, what you are saying is simply not true. Yes, I know people like your girlfriend who have managed to find jobs. I also know a 60-year old with middle management-type experience in a variety of industries who has sent out over a thousand resumes and not gotten a job. He’s interviewed, he’s willing to relocate, he’s willing to take less – nothing. So please spare us the anecdotal tale of the same one person over and over. I can match you with an anecdote on the other side of that coin every time. It’s becoming tiresome.
And did you read the Seattle Times article in its entirety? As usual, you are cherry picking your information. The point of the article is that this raise is scheduled to take place if nothing is done, but the governor is trying to make changes in the formula and make other adjustments so that hike will not occur and to help the state’s businesses. Our state recently was named the fifth best for business by Forbes magazine, so despite all the bashing, it appears we’re doing something right.
Admiral Mom, I am self employed, but I am incorporated, so I have to pay this tax. I feel your pain. I agree that increases when times are good would be better. It would be much more sensible to have a rainy day fund to fall back on when times are tough, because now we have increased needs and decreased revenues with nothing in the bank. But when times are good, the same anti-tax crowd says the taxpayers have a right to that money back, so we have the worst of both worlds now.
What we are going to have to decide is if we are a “me” society, or a “we” society. I vote for the latter.
But one bright point – the City of Seattle has raised the threshhold for the city B&O tax from revenues of $80,000 to $100,000. So that will help offset some of the other increases.
January 6, 2011 at 12:45 am #713155
charlabobParticipantYup, Admiral Mom — the system is geared to disadvantage real small businesses and to advantage “small businesses” such as Exxon. And as long as real small businesses don’t understand the enemy isn’t the unemployed or the uninsured or—this faux class warfare will continue. There is a real enemy here and, unfortunately, that enemy has control of the means of production and of communication. So those of us at the bottom will continue to feed on each other while the rich (and rich wannabes) continue to get richer.
Eli, sadly, we’ve decided this long ago and we lost–fortunately, many of us haven’t had the good taste to roll over and play dead.
What we are going to have to decide is if we are a “me” society, or a “we” society. I vote for the latter.
January 6, 2011 at 1:46 am #713156
JoBParticipantcharlabob…
in today’s AARP magazine an article pointed out that increasingly Americans are turning to what it called family solutions…
we are family.
January 6, 2011 at 2:45 am #713157
miwsParticipant“There is a real enemy here and, unfortunately, that enemy has control of the means of production and of communication. So those of us at the bottom will continue to feed on each other while the rich (and rich wannabes) continue to get richer.”
I agree wholeheartedly, and have for quite some time, long before the Economy tanked.
And, I imagine them sitting back and monitoring comments such as the ones on these WSB forums threads, and absolutely loving those such as hooper, because they want that distraction to take the average Joe’s attention away from the real issues and the truth.
Mike
January 6, 2011 at 3:27 am #713158
charlabobParticipantI have no objection to “family solutions” — I object to the idea that it’s enough. I’ll never forget watching senator Tom Coburn at a town meeting, telling a woman whose husband was dying of cancer and who couldn’t get help because their insurance was cancelled to “have a bake sale.” I wish I was kidding. JoB, I know that’s not what you’re saying, but I’m not about to let the people involved in the social contract that WAS America get off the hook.
January 6, 2011 at 3:34 am #713159
hooper1961Memberelikapeka – “But one bright point – the City of Seattle has raised the threshhold for the city B&O tax from revenues of $80,000 to $100,000. So that will help offset some of the other increases.”
I have not heard of this and it only helps if you only pay on revenues in excess of $100,000.
January 6, 2011 at 6:00 am #713160
elikapekaParticipantHooper, it’s on your tax form which you should have received from the city. I didn’t see any press release or anything. I haven’t looked closely at it, but I think once you hit the $100,000 you pay the full tax. But for those businesses or self employed people who do less than 100 and more than 80, it does help – you won’t pay any city tax this year, and you would have last year.
January 6, 2011 at 6:15 am #713161
hooper1961Memberi will need to look into this.
January 6, 2011 at 7:18 am #713162
JanSParticipantCharlabob… that bake sale? It may not be in the not too distant future…keep the stove warm ..
January 6, 2011 at 2:13 pm #713163
miwsParticipantOoooooooh! Pickled Beet Tarts?
Heck, if I could bake, I’d whip some up!
And probably toss in a Prune Danish too!
Just sayin’……
Mike
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.