Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (507363)	9/10/2012 2:57:26 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 793838

Thanks. In just scanning through the legislation -- a dangerous thing to do if you're seriously evaluating it -- it seems like there is no requirement of hiring more people at all. The rule was more about encouraging higher wages for those who were already employed; so, if you simply gave everyone a 10% raise, you would qualify for the credit, which really doesn't guarantee that businesses claiming the credit would do so by virtue of getting anyone off the unemployment roles. This was more of a credit for paying people more money. Bonus Depreciation is always good but with today's Section 179 arrangement I doubt it would have made a lot of difference. I'd much rather see an investment tax credit for personal property used in a trade or business, since that is more apt to spur investment than bonus depreciation on items that, in many cases, are already limited out (mobile equipment, for example). This really has the stench of legislation that was hurriedly thrown together, perhaps more as a political ploy than something that was thought through as being 'stimulative' -- probably with the prior knowledge that it would never stand a chance of getting enacted.