Enter your username and password below to sign in to your PewterReport account.
x close
Quote from: dbucfan on May 27, 2011, 09:57:31 PMBarry didn't do what he said he was going to do. He dislike the bill he voted for, vowed to change it as a candidate, and meekly signed it without changes. He didn't lie, he didn't mislead - he simply did do what he said he was going to do. So while one person might find him a flip-flopper, another might feel more comfortable with calling Barry a failure, or even something different like forgetful, or ineffective... who knows.I would call him neither a flip flopper or a failure. I'd call him a politician. Show me a President that has ever kept every single one of his campaign promises and I'll show you a figment of your imagination.
Barry didn't do what he said he was going to do. He dislike the bill he voted for, vowed to change it as a candidate, and meekly signed it without changes. He didn't lie, he didn't mislead - he simply did do what he said he was going to do. So while one person might find him a flip-flopper, another might feel more comfortable with calling Barry a failure, or even something different like forgetful, or ineffective... who knows.
Quote from: CBWx2 on May 27, 2011, 10:33:20 PMQuote from: dbucfan on May 27, 2011, 09:57:31 PMBarry didn't do what he said he was going to do. He dislike the bill he voted for, vowed to change it as a candidate, and meekly signed it without changes. He didn't lie, he didn't mislead - he simply did do what he said he was going to do. So while one person might find him a flip-flopper, another might feel more comfortable with calling Barry a failure, or even something different like forgetful, or ineffective... who knows.I would call him neither a flip flopper or a failure. I'd call him a politician. Show me a President that has ever kept every single one of his campaign promises and I'll show you a figment of your imagination.Oh it is clear you wouldn't acknowledge the differences in Obama's positions or promises. Wouldn't expect you to.
Florida's unemployment tax rate soarsICS Logistics Chief Financial Officer Mark Gier says his company has been fighting in the face of the Great Recession to avoid laying off any of its 444 Jacksonville employees, but a 140 percent increase in unemployment tax this year isn't going to help...ICS received a notice detailing the hikes in the company's unemployment tax, but Gier said the paperwork for the company's first quarterly payment, due April 30, hasn't yet been filled out. He estimates ICS will have to pay about $60,000 more in unemployment tax than last year. that's $60,000 more or in addition to what they are already paying"That's a couple of peoples' pay," he said.In 2009, the minimum tax rate was .12 percent on the first $7,000 of an employee's pay, but that rose Jan. 1 to 1.18 percent on the first $8,500, which represents a 1,094 percent increase in the minimum tax per worker from $8.40 to $100.30. And if a business has laid-off workers in the past three years, the rate can be higher - as much as 5.4 percent, according to the Department of Revenue. At that rate, the per-worker tax would be $459.That means a 50-employee company that at the minimum rate in 2009 paid $420 in state unemployment taxes can be stuck with a 2010 tab as high as $22,950.Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/business/2010-01-29/story/floridas_unemployment_tax_rate_soars#ixzz1NfLYZDOG
Employer Costs for Employee CompensationPrivate industry employers spent an average of $27.75 per hour worked for total employee compensation in December 2010, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Wages andsalaries averaged $19.64 per hour worked and accounted for 70.8 percent of these costs, while benefits averaged $8.11 and accounted for the remaining 29.2 percent. Total compensation costsfor state and local government workers averaged $40.28 per hour worked in December 2010. Total employer compensation costs for civilian workers, which include private industry and state andlocal government workers, averaged $29.72 per hour worked in December 2010....Table A. Relative importance of employer costs for employee compensation, December 2010Compensation Civilian Private State and local component workers industry governmentWages and salaries 69.7% 70.8% 65.6%Benefits 30.3 29.2 34.4 Paid leave 7.0 6.8 7.5 Supplemental pay 2.3 2.7 0.8 Insurance 8.8 8.0 11.9 Health benefits 8.4 7.5 11.6 Retirement and savings 4.5 3.5 8.1 Defined benefit 2.7 1.5 7.3 Defined contribution 1.8 2.0 0.8 Legally required 7.8 8.2 6.0http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm
QuoteFlorida's unemployment tax rate soarsICS Logistics Chief Financial Officer Mark Gier says his company has been fighting in the face of the Great Recession to avoid laying off any of its 444 Jacksonville employees, but a 140 percent increase in unemployment tax this year isn't going to help...ICS received a notice detailing the hikes in the company's unemployment tax, but Gier said the paperwork for the company's first quarterly payment, due April 30, hasn't yet been filled out. He estimates ICS will have to pay about $60,000 more in unemployment tax than last year. that's $60,000 more or in addition to what they are already paying"That's a couple of peoples' pay," he said.In 2009, the minimum tax rate was .12 percent on the first $7,000 of an employee's pay, but that rose Jan. 1 to 1.18 percent on the first $8,500, which represents a 1,094 percent increase in the minimum tax per worker from $8.40 to $100.30. And if a business has laid-off workers in the past three years, the rate can be higher - as much as 5.4 percent, according to the Department of Revenue. At that rate, the per-worker tax would be $459.That means a 50-employee company that at the minimum rate in 2009 paid $420 in state unemployment taxes can be stuck with a 2010 tab as high as $22,950.Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/business/2010-01-29/story/floridas_unemployment_tax_rate_soars#ixzz1NfLYZDOGSo why aren't companies hiring, BHO did spend Zillions to create "shovel ready jobs", where are they???What? All that stimulus money went to pay Fed and State taxes and NOT to new jobs?? Shut the door!
I am kind of confused here. The unemployment has gotten better.
Quote from: ONEBIGDADDY on May 28, 2011, 01:34:37 PMI am kind of confused here. The unemployment has gotten better.It has?? Has unemployment declined or has the way the DoL calculates the figures been jiggered? I think it is more the later than the former.Besides, my point is if you want to increase employment, isn't it a good idea not to penalize employers for hiring?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world.We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.What in the heck happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'OBD,I'd just like to point out that many of those taxes actually did exist 100 years ago, and that the large middle class referred to in the piece wasn't really the reality of 100 years ago either. Maybe about 60 years ago, but not 100.I'd also like to point out that while the politicians deserve a lion share of the blame, it's important not to absolve the factors that drive many of them to legislate the way that they do. Behind just about every law are bill where the average Joe got a raw deal, you can probably find a money trail that leads to the bank account of a large corporation that lobbied to make it happen.
Illegal immigrants are leaving Also it was proven by RS that he messed up on the train