The Catholic Cricket

I heard some politician (I believe it was a House Democrat, but I could be mistaken) talking on some talk radio show (I think it was Michael Medved) as I was driving to or from some contract job or other.  As you can tell, the details are really sharp in my mind.

What is really sharp was his complaint that people who want to see some type of tax incentive for businesses to hire more people are clueless about the impact any such tax rebate (or however it would be handled) would really have.  His chief complaint: no business would hire a new employee, paying them $50,000 (including benefits) for a $10 tax break.  He went on to say something along the lines of ”it would have to be something like $1000, and that’s a lot of money” (very much paraphrased).

On another show at a different time (go figure….still no recollection of who or what show), an “expert” suggested a secondary problem to tax breaks for new employees: unfair competition.  If restaurant A is fully staffed, and brand new restaurant B opens up across the street, hiring an entirely new staff, B would get a huge tax break that A wouldn’t have access to.

So I thought “why not put the ideas together”.  Instead of giving a tax break for every new job, give a tax break for EVERY job.  Every single job gets a $2000 tax break.  Hows that for an incentive?

But wait, you say.  That’s a lot of money.  Is it?  The population of the US is roughly 308,841,458, give or take a little.  If every single man, woman, and child were employed…100% full employment and beyond, the tax incentive would cost $617.6 billion dollars.  That’s significantly less than the $787 billion stimulus plan from 2009.

That would be a much better use of taxpayer dollars, keeping money in the hands of the businesses and giving them an incentive to unfreeze hiring.