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

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Or perhaps we can reinstate the traditional working hours?

After thinking about it, I've decided that I would rather not remove section three completely.  That just defeats one of the bill's main components.  Perhaps by reinstating the normal working hours with section three in place, workers could work more and take cuts when it's most appropriate.

[Napoleon]

I cannot, as President, participate in erasing the Snowguy legacy. Sorry, guys. You can work around me on that if you want but I find a lot of what we accomplished in that era to be central to our economic future. I will gladly speak in defense of these policies if explanation is needed.

[Sbane]

Or perhaps we can reinstate the traditional working hours?

After thinking about it, I've decided that I would rather not remove section three completely.  That just defeats one of the bill's main components.  Perhaps by reinstating the normal working hours with section three in place, workers could work more and take cuts when it's most appropriate.

I would be fine putting it at 35 hours. Would that alleviate the President's concerns? And then we could go ahead with your plan for a year, but the question still remains on the gaming of the system that might be possible. I don't really have an answer to that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What if we create a ten-person board and prosecute any business that attempts to bribe its members?

It would still need a set of standards or it could get out of control very fast.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What are you trying to restrict here?  I think for the most part any employer and employee aren't going to agree to this unless to avoid layoffs.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

What are you trying to restrict here?  I think for the most part any employer and employee aren't going to agree to this unless to avoid layoffs.

The idea is to somehow restrict businesses from lying their way into cutting their employees' pay or work hours at the expense of the taxpayers.  I'm still trying to think of a way to prevent this system from being abused.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Basically he wants to give business tax breaks and other subsidies that have a substantial moral hazard attached to them and thus he is in desperate need of regulations, restrictions and other statist measures to reduce that downside risk as much as possible.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Basically he wants to give business tax breaks and other subsidies that have a substantial moral hazard attached to them and thus he is in desperate need of regulations, restrictions and other statist measures to reduce that downside risk as much as possible.

Well, if you mean 'regulation' as in 'standards to prevent abuse,' then yes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Basically he wants to give business tax breaks and other subsidies that have a substantial moral hazard attached to them and thus he is in desperate need of regulations, restrictions and other statist measures to reduce that downside risk as much as possible.

Well, if you mean 'regulation' as in 'standards to prevent abuse,' then yes.

I wanted to give Shua the bottom line.

Speaking of bottom lines, how about a net loss of a certain size and a certain duration. You would need others as well, because you can easily manipulate a financial statement if the monetary incentive is strong enough.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Basically he wants to give business tax breaks and other subsidies that have a substantial moral hazard attached to them and thus he is in desperate need of regulations, restrictions and other statist measures to reduce that downside risk as much as possible.

Well, if you mean 'regulation' as in 'standards to prevent abuse,' then yes.

I wanted to give Shua the bottom line.

Speaking of bottom lines, how about a net loss of a certain size and a certain duration. You would need others as well, because you can easily manipulate a financial statement if the monetary incentive is strong enough.

Financial statements could easily be checked for any kind of manipulations, in my opinion.  But what do you mean by net loss of size and duration?  Could you be more specific?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What are you trying to restrict here?  I think for the most part any employer and employee aren't going to agree to this unless to avoid layoffs.

The idea is to somehow restrict businesses from lying their way into cutting their employees' pay or work hours at the expense of the taxpayers.  I'm still trying to think of a way to prevent this system from being abused.

Why would they have to lie?   Isn't allowing employers to cut pay or work hours without greatly harming their employees the whole point of this?   In fact, that's already the major employment policy in Atlasia as it stands: to encourage businesses to cut employees work hours in order to try to make them hire more workers.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

What are you trying to restrict here?  I think for the most part any employer and employee aren't going to agree to this unless to avoid layoffs.

The idea is to somehow restrict businesses from lying their way into cutting their employees' pay or work hours at the expense of the taxpayers.  I'm still trying to think of a way to prevent this system from being abused.

Why would they have to lie?   Isn't allowing employers to cut pay or work hours without greatly harming their employees the whole point of this?   In fact, that's already the major employment policy in Atlasia as it stands: to encourage businesses to cut employees work hours in order to try to make them hire more workers.

Businesses should only be cutting pay or work hours if it's absolutely necessary for them to in order to stay in business.  The current policy doesn't encourage employers to cut work hours, it requires them to, and this could potentially hurt workers who want to work longer when their business doesn't even have to make the cuts.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Basically he wants to give business tax breaks and other subsidies that have a substantial moral hazard attached to them and thus he is in desperate need of regulations, restrictions and other statist measures to reduce that downside risk as much as possible.

Well, if you mean 'regulation' as in 'standards to prevent abuse,' then yes.

I wanted to give Shua the bottom line.

Speaking of bottom lines, how about a net loss of a certain size and a certain duration. You would need others as well, because you can easily manipulate a financial statement if the monetary incentive is strong enough.

Financial statements could easily be checked for any kind of manipulations, in my opinion.  But what do you mean by net loss of size and duration?  Could you be more specific?

Yes they could, but you would have to know what to look for.   

You want to aim these are struggling businesses, correct? So you could put in a minimum net loss for a minimum amount of time as being the primary standard for which the aid is given out.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Basically he wants to give business tax breaks and other subsidies that have a substantial moral hazard attached to them and thus he is in desperate need of regulations, restrictions and other statist measures to reduce that downside risk as much as possible.

Well, if you mean 'regulation' as in 'standards to prevent abuse,' then yes.

I wanted to give Shua the bottom line.

Speaking of bottom lines, how about a net loss of a certain size and a certain duration. You would need others as well, because you can easily manipulate a financial statement if the monetary incentive is strong enough.

Financial statements could easily be checked for any kind of manipulations, in my opinion.  But what do you mean by net loss of size and duration?  Could you be more specific?

Yes they could, but you would have to know what to look for.  

You want to aim these are struggling businesses, correct? So you could put in a minimum net loss for a minimum amount of time as being the primary standard for which the aid is given out.

A minimum loss of income?  Okay.

So for example, if a business is found to be losing more than 40% of its income over a year, it would be eligible for the program?

Ugh, now this is just starting to sound like corporate welfare.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I need to check some resources of mine that I have first. I would like to know what shua thinks. First about the idea in general then how best to implement it.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I need to check some resources of mine that I have first. I would like to know what shua thinks. First about the idea in general then how best to implement it.

If a company is experiencing a 17% or more revenue loss, you are still likely going to see layoffs even if they go through with this program.  But it could help.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Amendment has passed.


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

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

"Just nod if you can here me. Is there anyone home?"

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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?