Helpful insights on good business practices, commercial loans, alternative forms of financing and planning your company’s future.

Unemployment Insurance Kills Small Business

December 27, 2010

December 10, 2010    

from the website: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=20126&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm

While politicians in Washington negotiate a deal to provide welcome temporary payroll, income and estate tax relief to America’s workers, struggling employers wonder how long they’ll have to pay for the compassion of others — and whether they can survive, says Michelle Malkin.

The Beltway deal hinges on extending federal unemployment insurance (UI) for another 13 months.  This would mark the sixth time that the deadline has been extended since June 2008.

The cost of the joint federal-state program is borne by employers who pay state and federal taxes on a portion of wages paid to each employee in a calendar year.  (At the federal level, employers must pay 6.2 percent of the first $7,000 of income to keep the system afloat.)

The combined burden of these hidden state and federal payroll taxes has exploded during the recession as economic recovery interventions backfire and the jobless rate remains stuck near double-digits.  State Unemployment Insurance  funds have gone broke in nearly half the states.  As of April 2010, 35 states and jurisdictions had unemployment fund-related debts worth $39.5 billion, says Malkin.

In an interminable money shuffle, these bankrupt state Unemployment Insurance funds are now borrowing money from the feds, whose own regular unemployment benefits account and extended benefits account are both in the red.

In Colorado, small and midsize firms have been saddled with eye-popping unemployment insurance bills that have doubled, tripled and more in the past year.

Greg Howard, owner of McCabe’s Tavern in Colorado Springs, told the Colorado Springs Gazette his bill spiked a whopping 600 percent.

A small commercial painting contractor say that her nine-person company’s first quarter Unemployment Insurance bill has gone from $1,000 to more than $6,500 over the past three years.

Source: Michelle Malkin, “Unemployment Insurance Kills Small Business,” Washington Examiner, December 8, 2010.

For text:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2010/12/michelle-malkin-unemployment-insurance-kills-small-business

Take Advantage of 2 New Tax Breaks for Hiring Previously Unemployed People

June 29, 2010

Source:  National Restaurant Association, http://restaurant.org/advocacy/news/hiring/

Employers can take advantage of two new tax incentives for hiring and retaining certain people who haven’t worked in the past 60 days.  The benefits are part of the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act. President Obama signed the HIRE Act into law March 18. Here’s how you can use the incentives when you hire qualified new employees:

• Get a break from the 6.2 percent payroll tax. Under the HIRE Act, businesses are exempt through year-end from paying their 6.2 percent share of Social Security taxes on qualified employees’ wages. Here’s the fine print:

  • The payroll tax exemption applies to qualified employees hired between Feb. 3, 2010, and Jan. 1, 2011. It applies to those employees’ wages from March 19 through Dec. 31, 2010. The tax incentive is capped at $6,622 per employee (6.2 percent of wages up to the maximum taxable Social Security wage base of $106,800).
  • Newly hired employees must sign affidavits certifying they hadn’t worked for more than 40 hours in the 60-day period ending on the day they start work. The IRS today released the final version of a sample affidavit, Form W-11, HIRE Act Affidavit.
  • Employers claim the exemption when they file their quarterly Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return. Employers can begin to claim the exemption on the Form 941 filed for the second quarter of 2010. The IRS has issued a draft revised Form 941 to reflect the new payroll tax incentive.
  • The employee continues to pay his or her 6.2 percent share of the Social Security tax, and both employers and employees pay the 1.45 percent Medicare tax on all wages.
  • Other restrictions apply. For example, new employees mustn’t be related to the employer. Also, the employer must certify that the new hire isn’t replacing another employee unless that employee separated voluntarily or for cause.

Check the IRS’s HIRE Act: Questions & Answers for Employers for details.

• Get up to $1,000 for retaining those employees. If an employer continues to employ one of the above-described people for at least 52 consecutive weeks, the business also can receive an employee retention credit of up to $1,000.

Businesses claim the credit on their 2011 tax returns. The credit is worth $1,000 or 6.2 percent of an employee’s wages over 52 weeks, whichever is lower.

The employee retention credit follows the rules that apply to all general business credits under Section 38 of the Internal Revenue Code. The only exception is that any excess business credit resulting from the employee retention credit can’t be carried back. It can, however, be carried forward.

Note: Employers who claim the Work Opportunity Tax Credit when they hire certain employees from disadvantaged groups can claim either the HIRE provisions or the WOTC, but not both. Individual companies should compare the tax benefits associated with the WOTC (which offers a maximum annual benefit of $2,400 per worker) and the two HIRE provisions, to determine which provides the better tax benefit.

Economic and Financial Developments

February 5, 2010

There were monumental changes in both the economy and economic policies this past year. While business activity continued to decline during the first half of the year, by mid-year the economy began to grow.

Some attribute the turnaround in the economy to an unprecedented 18% increase in federal government spending. However, in spite of much talk about government stimulus, increases in federal spending tend to be associated with economic weakness rather than strength.
Some economists believe that government spending can boost total spending. This view first emerged during the 1930s when total spending collapsed and prices were falling. Few associated the collapse in spending with the Federal Reserve’s monetary restraint. Desperate to restore spending, politicians and economists reasoned that if government increased its spending then total spending would also increase. The problem with this line of reasoning is that the federal government cannot spend money without first taking it from someone else.

Read the rest of this entry »

Allied Affiliated Funding
Corporate Headquarters

5151 Beltline Road, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75254

Tel: 972-776-5300
Fax: 972-404-9955