Last week the Obama administration announced a bill that would potentially help relieve the pressure of the waning job market that resulted from the lengthy economic recession. Part of Obama’s American Jobs Act proposes a tax relief specifically for businesses as a means to initiate job development and avoid layoffs.
Though the bill does mean that some of the money will go to small businesses that are indeed needful of the support, it begs the question of whether this business tax cut is the best way to generate employment opportunities as many of the businesses that would receive the tax cuts will not necessarily benefit from them.
However, the American Job’s Act touts the extension of unemployment benefits that will enable struggling out-of-workers to survive and support their families as they continue to seek employment; in addition, Obama proposed more than $30 billion to help local administrations prevent job layoffs and get teachers, firefighters, and law enforcement back to work. The act, which is estimated to cost over $400 billion, was presented to congress on Monday and was received with some criticism from the left and the right.
Both parties reviewed the bill with hesitation as the congressional Republicans were concerned primarily with the tax increases for wealthier families, while some congressional Democrats expressed uneasiness with more tax cuts.
Though Obama’s Job’s Act has come under much criticism, concerns have been raised regarding how the bill will be funded. Perhaps the suggested tax increases on high income earners will contribute to the funding of the bill, which is reminiscent of a Marxian ideal of redistributing wealth (also understood by Obama as “spreading the wealth”); which could, as a result, have an effect on poverty rates and rates of employment.
Other criticisms come from concerns over the necessity of Social Security being part of the bill; as a result of its inclusion, if the tax rate is restored to its former rate in 2010, it could result in an unnecessary tax increase on workers. Another concern regarding the Job’s Act is the potentiality for raising the cost of labor, which looks good on paper, but could have an adverse reaction to the unemployment rate. In order for costs of production and distribution to stay competitive, outsourcing of jobs will continue to rise as American workers become more expensive to hire, making it difficult to create jobs and retain workers.
Part of the bill, it is suggested, will provide state and local legislature with funding to help prevent job layoffs and maintain retention of workers; this could present better opportunities to raise the employment rate, rather than driving up the cost of laborers and in-turn providing businesses with reasons for outsourcing. Regardless of Obama’s fervent plead encouraging congress to pass the bill, it looks like we may see a revision to the act before it moves any further.
However, the American Job’s Act touts the extension of unemployment benefits that will enable struggling out-of-workers to survive and support their families as they continue to seek employment; in addition, Obama proposed more than $30 billion to help local administrations prevent job layoffs and get teachers, firefighters, and law enforcement back to work. The act, which is estimated to cost over $400 billion, was presented to congress on Monday and was received with some criticism from the left and the right.
Both parties reviewed the bill with hesitation as the congressional Republicans were concerned primarily with the tax increases for wealthier families, while some congressional Democrats expressed uneasiness with more tax cuts.
Though Obama’s Job’s Act has come under much criticism, concerns have been raised regarding how the bill will be funded. Perhaps the suggested tax increases on high income earners will contribute to the funding of the bill, which is reminiscent of a Marxian ideal of redistributing wealth (also understood by Obama as “spreading the wealth”); which could, as a result, have an effect on poverty rates and rates of employment.
Other criticisms come from concerns over the necessity of Social Security being part of the bill; as a result of its inclusion, if the tax rate is restored to its former rate in 2010, it could result in an unnecessary tax increase on workers. Another concern regarding the Job’s Act is the potentiality for raising the cost of labor, which looks good on paper, but could have an adverse reaction to the unemployment rate. In order for costs of production and distribution to stay competitive, outsourcing of jobs will continue to rise as American workers become more expensive to hire, making it difficult to create jobs and retain workers.
Part of the bill, it is suggested, will provide state and local legislature with funding to help prevent job layoffs and maintain retention of workers; this could present better opportunities to raise the employment rate, rather than driving up the cost of laborers and in-turn providing businesses with reasons for outsourcing. Regardless of Obama’s fervent plead encouraging congress to pass the bill, it looks like we may see a revision to the act before it moves any further.
Please login to post.