SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Law'd)

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Well it wouldn't sound it exactly like that. Typically net profit is between 2%-8%. If you have a net loss of 40% of revenue it is far too late for any relief to help. Unless it is a one time thing imposed like a fine or something and the company has the reserves to absorb it.


It thought this was being aimed at the employees of such companies? Is that not so?

Do you feel that this would be an appropriate measure?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Haha- yes, yes, it is.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Amendment has passed.


Scott, would the text you added be read the same as a "17% decline in Net Income"?

Yes.  I realize that was probably a grammatical error.   Do you feel it's necessary to fix it?

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Well not even that, it brings back my point from before about needing multiple criteria or something.

The implication of a 17% decline in net income is that they are still profitable and have a positive net income.

So you could be allowing Exxon-Mobile to cut their employees pay, and get the Gov't to pick up the tab all by virtue of shifting activities accounting for 17% of their net income from one accounting period to another.

Wouldn't any malicious shifts in income be detected by the department that's overseeing the businesses?

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

It's just adding more layers of bureaucracy...

Not really.  The bill merely assigns a new responsibility for the DoIA, so no new departments are created.  Someone, unfortunately, has to be in charge of approving the business applications so that employers aren't simply getting cheaper labor at the expense of the taxpayer.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

It's just adding more layers of bureaucracy...

Not really.  The bill merely assigns a new responsibility for the DoIA, so no new departments are created.  Someone, unfortunately, has to be in charge of approving the business applications so that employers aren't simply getting cheaper labor at the expense of the taxpayer.

I know you are trying to do your best here but a more efficient use of our resources would be to spend more on constructing or repairing our infrastructure rather than providing subsidies to corporations.

Well, I'm really not concerned about corporations; I am concerned about helping workers keep their jobs in a tough economy, which is the key element of the bill.  If we must get rid of this section of the bill, then it needs to be replaced with an alternative means of helping workers, otherwise this effort would have been for nothing.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Well not even that, it brings back my point from before about needing multiple criteria or something.

The implication of a 17% decline in net income is that they are still profitable and have a positive net income.

So you could be allowing Exxon-Mobile to cut their employees pay, and get the Gov't to pick up the tab all by virtue of shifting activities accounting for 17% of their net income from one accounting period to another.

Wouldn't any malicious shifts in income be detected by the department that's overseeing the businesses?

Yes, if the bill directs them to check for a specific secondary or subsequent criteria, which would clue them in as to the shift. Just assuming they will know what to look for and when could lead to them not looking at all.

Wouldn't it be easier to simply direct the SOIA to not accept applicants from businesses that are shifting their income around?  I 'm not sure what you mean by 'secondary criteria' unless you're referring to something like that.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Well not even that, it brings back my point from before about needing multiple criteria or something.

The implication of a 17% decline in net income is that they are still profitable and have a positive net income.

So you could be allowing Exxon-Mobile to cut their employees pay, and get the Gov't to pick up the tab all by virtue of shifting activities accounting for 17% of their net income from one accounting period to another.

Wouldn't any malicious shifts in income be detected by the department that's overseeing the businesses?

Yes, if the bill directs them to check for a specific secondary or subsequent criteria, which would clue them in as to the shift. Just assuming they will know what to look for and when could lead to them not looking at all.

Wouldn't it be easier to simply direct the SOIA to not accept applicants from businesses that are shifting their income around?  I 'm not sure what you mean by 'secondary criteria' unless you're referring to something like that.

No that wouldn't work there are numerous legitimate reasons to be "shifting money". You would cripple any business with such a restriction.

I am thinking of another line on a financial statement. How familiar are you with accounting?

I'm really not...

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Yankee, what type of financial statement did you have in mind?

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Oh, sorry.  That was an amendment I just offered.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I am still worried about some of things in this bill, but I am unsure about how to go about fixing them. I like the underlying idea, but it is a very thing tiny needle to thread to get this kind of thing right and not end up subsidizing healthy companies to cut their employees and letting the gov't pick up the tab.

What in the amendment do you not find sufficient?  Truth be told, if this were real life, we would probably have written up a good five hundred pages or so that would standardize the requirements for these benefits.  I'm not sure what the bill lacks now that we need to fix.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

If no one raises any objections to section three or any other parts of the current text, I will call for a final vote in the next 24 hours.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Aye.

I'll just say, I'm going to be a little pretty dang ticked off if this thing fails since only a few senators offered their own opinions/suggestions when this thing has been on the floor for almost a month and because I had said I'd like a final vote if no one expressed any further concerns with the legislation -- which no one did.