ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax


How much will a temporary change really affect anything? What stops someone from firing two part timers and hiring one FT and keeping the difference in payroll tax in their own pocket?
A long long time ago... I can still remember how that Fair Tax used to make me smile.
Why sixty days? That seems like an incentive not to hire someone who has just been laid off. I wouldn't want to be laid off tomorrow and be hearing that if I wait until late March the company I am interviewing with can save several thousand dollars in 2010 - or that they filled the job with someone who was laid off in November, and not to bother calling in March.
Also, doesn't this reward regular turnover, and in particular businesses with high turnover?
Maybe the incentive should be structured as 6.2% of incremental payroll. So if your monthly payroll was $1,000,000 in January and $1,100,000 in February, you receive $6,200 for February.
I also agree with Nick that the temporary nature of the program could be problematic. The labor market is different from product markets, but recall what happened to home sales after the homebuyer tax credit (briefly) disappeared and car sales in the wake of cash for clunkers...
If the economy requires recalculation, and we want to use fiscal policy to 'fix' the economy, might we instead increase unemployment compensation for the long-term unemployed who agree to go back to school? If it's just a case of labor costs being too high, then I'd be more inclined to support Scott Sumner in his quest of jawboning the Fed into targeting NGDP futures and closing the gap between current NGDP and the historical trend in NGDP.
As Justin Dailey so well presented, the problem with such programs are the details. Even to the point of how is a 60 day unemployed person defined? Someone on unemployment insurance roles, an independent contractor whose business dried up, but being ineligible for unemployment compensation? Or a new 16 year old who never had a job? Or the housewife who wishes to return to employment after raising her children?
To extend the argument, much of the benefit of a program will accrue to the bureaucrat whose job is to protect us all from corruption. Simply put, such stop gap measures serve mostly to hide the real problem, federal revenues have reached a point in size that private initiative is greatly inhibited from action of solving individual problems.
This would be a great time to eliminate the SS and medicare taxes. Then later we can raise the eligibility ages and standardize the SS checks to a fixed amount, no longer giving more to those who paid in more, making it more like retirement insurance than a retirement plan.
Accuse me of being biased if you want, but I agree with my father and other economists who think we need to go bigger.
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrs/hrSpectrum/HR-Policy-Bishop-Job-Creation-Tax-Credit.html
Bob Etheridge's bill is closest.