• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Senate Passes Small-Business Bill

her209

No Lifer
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703440604575495882236157048.html

Senate Passes Small-Business Bill

WASHINGTON—After an impasse of more than a month, the Senate on Thursday approved a small-business bill that includes measures aimed at boosting access to capital and tax credits to provide temporary financial relief.

Democrats hope the legislation will help show voters they are in control of managing the economic recovery, even though the current employment picture looks grim.

Both parties agree that renewed hiring by small businesses is crucial to any turnaround in the job market. Lawmakers say most job growth comes from small businesses.

The national jobless rate of 9.6% has remained stubbornly high despite repeated attempts by the Obama administration and Congress to foster job creation. This legislation is almost certain to be the last attempt by Democrats to prime the economic pump before the November midterm elections, even though many of the provisions included in the bill are unlikely to be enacted before the Nov. 2 vote.

President Barack Obama urged lawmakers to pass the legislation.

Senators voted 61-38 Thursday, with two Republicans—Sens. George LeMieux (R., Fla.) and George Voinovich (R., Ohio)—joining every Democrat in voting in favor of the bill.

The House must still vote to approve the bill before it is sent to Mr. Obama for his signature. A senior House Democratic leadership aide said the House is likely to take up the measure next week.

The centerpiece of the bill is the creation of a $30 billion lending facility that would direct taxpayer money to regional banks on the condition they lend it to small businesses. Unlike the emergency rescue package implemented at the height of the crisis in 2008, banks would have to volunteer to participate in this program.

The rate of interest they are charged on the public funds would depend on how much they increased their small business lending.

The bill also includes about $12 billion in tax breaks, including an immediate write-off of 50% of new equipment purchases in 2010 for small and large businesses. It would double, to $500,000, the amount of new investment that small businesses are allowed to expense in 2010 and 2011.

The legislation would allow self-employed people to deduct health-insurance costs for themselves and their families. It also removes employer-provided cellphones from a list of items that can be taxed as fringe benefits.


Although efforts to provide assistance to the small-business sector are generally passed with ease by lawmakers, this legislation has been stuck on the Senate floor for more than a month because of partisan rancor.

Initially, Republicans opposed the creation of the lending facility, drawing comparisons to the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

A lengthy disagreement over what other measures Republicans would be allowed to hold votes on further delayed consideration of the bill.

Ultimately, the Democrats allowed the minority party just two votes: one on extending a biofuels tax credit by a year and another seeking to make permanent a research-and-development tax credit. Both were defeated Thursday morning.
This should have been passed months ago (debate on the bill started on June 29, 2010). A little too late IMO to have any effect on the upcoming elections.
 
Ultimately, in my opinion, you have a responsibility as a politician to govern and do what is best regardless of what it means for your party. I hope this is a good bill. I do not know.
 
Well... Small Business have an avenue to borrow. All we need now is the reason to borrow and the circle might be complete...
 
Only 2 Republicans voted for the bill. I thought they were all about capitalism and small business... or was that big business?

I think this illustrates my biggest problem with Obama. This bill has been debated since June. I never heard about it until a few weeks ago, or I heard about it and forgot it. Why hasn't Obama been out stumping for the bill and bashing Republicans over the head with it? It's like after the election he forgot how to do politics.
 
I think it's a good bill. The TARP comparisons don't really hold. The trouble with the TARP money is that the banks largely kept it and didn't lend it out. This bill is structured to peg the interest rate the banks pay to how much of the money is lent to small businesses. If they don't turn around and lend it, then they get charged high interest. Seems like a sound idea to me.

- wolf
 
Only 2 Republicans voted for the bill. I thought they were all about capitalism and small business... or was that big business?

I think this illustrates my biggest problem with Obama. This bill has been debated since June. I never heard about it until a few weeks ago, or I heard about it and forgot it. Why hasn't Obama been out stumping for the bill and bashing Republicans over the head with it? It's like after the election he forgot how to do politics.

This bill is worthless. $30 billion in loans for small business? Too little, WAY too late. As stated above, small businesses don't really have reason to borrow right now, after this long. Those that are still around aren't going to try to expand, and those that aren't around or are failing are not going to borrow money to make payroll.

I can understand why Republicans voted against it. It's a publicity stunt that says "HEY, WE HELPED SMALL BUSINESS!" when in reality the bill isn't useful at all.

It may have also been a question of where the funding was coming from. Were I a senator, I would have required that the funding come from unspent "Stimulus" money before I voted on it.
 
Only 2 Republicans voted for the bill. I thought they were all about capitalism and small business... or was that big business?

I think this illustrates my biggest problem with Obama. This bill has been debated since June. I never heard about it until a few weeks ago, or I heard about it and forgot it. Why hasn't Obama been out stumping for the bill and bashing Republicans over the head with it? It's like after the election he forgot how to do politics.

He's been stumping for expansion of small business lending since at least February, and has been stumping for this bill over the summer. I don't know about hitting the repubs over the head with it, but he's talked about the importance of the bill on more than one occasion. Google Obama and small business loans.

- wolf
 
This bill is worthless. $30 billion in loans for small business? Too little, WAY too late. As stated above, small businesses don't really have reason to borrow right now, after this long. Those that are still around aren't going to try to expand, and those that aren't around or are failing are not going to borrow money to make payroll.

I can understand why Republicans voted against it. It's a publicity stunt that says "HEY, WE HELPED SMALL BUSINESS!" when in reality the bill isn't useful at all.

It may have also been a question of where the funding was coming from. Were I a senator, I would have required that the funding come from unspent "Stimulus" money before I voted on it.

So you're sure there are no small businesses out there who want to borrow but can't get a loan? It's not what I've been reading for the past year. Furthermore, you are contradicting yourself by claiming that $30 billion is too little then stating there is no demand for loans in the first place. Which is it?

- wolf
 
A more detailed look at the Small Business Bill.
http://www.businesspundit.com/whats-inside-the-small-business-bill/

The Senate has passed the Small Business Jobs Act, a small business bill aimed at increasing lending. The measure would invest $30 billion in small community banks to spur business lending. The New York Times has a good detailed look at what’s inside the bill. Here’s the quick and dirty of it, from the bill itself and this Reuters Factbox:

Forcing banks to lend to small businesses

The Treasury would have one year to send money to those banks. The banks would pay a 5% dividend on the government money. If banks lend enough money to make up the 2009 base level of lending, their dividends would decrease, with 1% being the lowest payment. If banks take the money, but do not increase small business lending in two years, they’ll have to pay a 7% dividend.

The government will provide an additional $1.5 billion to state small business credit program. All Small Business Administration (SBA) loan limits will go up, with the highest limit (from a 504 loan) now at $5.5 million. Loan fees will also be eliminated.

Tax changes

New Deductibles

Starting this year, if you own a business, you can deduct the cost of health insurance for yourself and your family from your self-employment tax calculations.

Cell phones can now be deducted and depreciated “like any other business property.”

Tax deductibles for startup costs will go up to $10,000 from $5,000. You can write off depreciable assets by 50% in the first year. You will be able to expense up to $250,000 in capital spending, including leased property that you improve (“qualified leasehold property&#8221😉, restaurant, and retail property.

No Long-Term Capital Gains Tax for Certain SMB Stock

If you hold the stock of a “C corporation whose gross assets do not exceed $50 million (including the proceeds received from the issuance of the stock) and who meets a specific active business requirement,” you won’t have to pay capital gains tax if you sell it after more than five years.

More Carry Back for Tax Credits

You can also now carry back your unused tax credits five years, instead of just one. You can carry them forward 20 years.

Government Help for Exporters and Federal Contractors

The government will start an effort to help make it easier for small businesses to export their goods. The Department of Commerce will hire more people to help small businesses in this capacity.

The government will give more funds to export grants, while beginning to take export potential into account when assessing manufacturing and innovation grants. There’s also a new State Export Promotion Grant Program (STEP) grant designed for small businesses that export.

The act will also make it easier for small businesses to land government contracts by closing loopholes and red tape that traditionally make it easier for multinationals, but harder for businesses, to land a contract.

How will the government pay for the bill?

By making certain tax rules stricter, so that fewer people get certain tax credits, and more people have to pay others. For small business owners, this means the following:

If you get rental income from a real estate property, you now need to file an “information return” to the IRS (I interpret this to be a new form, rather than the usual rental income you report in your taxes). You also have to send a return to anyone who worked on your property who you paid more than $600 during the year. If you just rent out a room in your property, this doesn’t apply.

If you don’t file your returns on time or miss filing a return (I imagine this also applies to estimated taxes), penalties will double or triple, depending on what you did and the amount at stake.

If you’re a federal contractor, and you owe the government taxes, the IRS can now levy your account without a hearing. It used to be that you had your hearing before they could issue a levy. This one could really hurt, if you happen to be in that position.

State and local governments can now issue Roth retirement accounts.

If you have a 401(k), 403(b), or 457(b), you can roll your pre-tax account balances into a Roth account. But the amount you roll over now becomes taxable income (“except to the extent it is the return of after-tax contributions&#8221😉.

Other income sources for the Feds:

The Cellulosic Biofuel Producer Credit, given to producers of biofuels from “cellulosic feedstocks,” will no longer apply to any highly corrosive fuels, such as the Crude Tall Oil that is a byproduct of paper manufacturing. Translation: Some big manufacturers are getting the shaft on some of their tax credits.

A complicated new rule on guarantees basically means that US taxpayers (the banks and savvy investors who deal with guarantees, which are generally associated with mortgage-backed securities) will have to pay a new withholding tax.
 
Note that in my comments above, I do support tax incentives and easier loans for small businesses, but they have to be the right kind.

A tax incentive that gives a $5000 credit for hiring a full-time employee isn't going to accomplish anything. If the employer needs the full-time employee, he'll hire him regardless of the credit, and if the employer doesn't need the employee, he's not going to hire an extra hand.

The tax incentives need to be flat-out tax breaks that help small businesses to remain profitable during the bad economic times by lowering the government payments. Most small businesses aren't going to expand or hire willy-nilly. They need to be stabalized until the economy recovers somewhat, and tax breaks could really help that.
 
Only 2 Republicans voted for the bill. I thought they were all about capitalism and small business... or was that big business?

I think this illustrates my biggest problem with Obama. This bill has been debated since June. I never heard about it until a few weeks ago, or I heard about it and forgot it. Why hasn't Obama been out stumping for the bill and bashing Republicans over the head with it? It's like after the election he forgot how to do politics.

Why haven't you heard of this before? Ground Zero mosque, teabaggers, anchor babies, life as the first lady is hell, and the myriad of other things that dominate the "news" cycle.
 
So you're sure there are no small businesses out there who want to borrow but can't get a loan? It's not what I've been reading for the past year. Furthermore, you are contradicting yourself by claiming that $30 billion is too little then stating there is no demand for loans in the first place. Which is it?

- wolf

Oh, I know there are some small businesses out there looking for loans. In fact, I just wrapped up a $30k project with one and a $120k project with another, both were delayed because of troubles with lenders.

Neither project, however, resulted in a single person being hired.
 
How about having no bill and revoking the ridiculous and fantastically expensive burden of accounting for just about every transaction to raise 17 billion for healthcare?
 
The measure is expected to create 500,000 jobs, according to a Senate summary of the bill

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/16/smallbusiness/small_business_jobs_bill/index.htm?hpt=T2



Lets assume their numbers are not exaggerated, and there are 500,000 jobs created.

Thats 84k per job.



Lets say it makes 350,000 jobs.

Thats 120k per job



Assuming these small business jobs are engineers and doctors then its money well spent...

/shrug

I think you're wrong to sneer at a bill that would create jobs at $84k apiece as that would be a very good investment. However, you're probably right to be skeptical that the bill will create that many jobs. The entire stimulus bill, which is 25x larger than this, was supposed to create like 3-4 million jobs.

- wolf
 
The measure is expected to create 500,000 jobs, according to a Senate summary of the bill

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/16/smallbusiness/small_business_jobs_bill/index.htm?hpt=T2



Lets assume their numbers are not exaggerated, and there are 500,000 jobs created.

Thats 84k per job.



Lets say it makes 350,000 jobs.

Thats 120k per job



Assuming these small business jobs are engineers and doctors then its money well spent...

/shrug

It's a loan. It takes credit to create jobs. If noone is lending, you won't be able to buy equipment to hire a worker to operate it in the first place.
 
I need to see the bill, but if it's like the House version I think:

1. In the absense of any government loan guarantee I suspect we'll still see banks reluctant to lend. The poor economic conditions and uncertainty about the future that is said to have been repressing businesses' investment (at least for those who do have the cash) will likely also discourage banks from lending. Getting loans for a new/start-up business has always been hard as h3ll, I don't see how these non-guaranteed loans will help whatsoever; yet we need those new businesses. Edit: There is some improvement in SBA (guaranteed) loans; SBA predicts $5 Bil in additonal/new SB loans.

2. We'll need to see the details on how the loan incentive works (higher 'dividend rates'), but my recollection (which could surely be wrong) was that they compared a bank's prior small business lending history and needed to see that it was maintained/increased to permit reduced/dividends. If so, that's a loophole. For banks that historically do very little small business lending - say only 5% - they can take the money and use most for loans to non-small business clients and still get the reduced dividend rate. This is contrary to the stated intent of the bill. Edit: The summary looks like it confirms the incentive is keyed to a bank's lending history (4 prior quarters). I.e., loophole I mention appears to be confirmed.

Edit #2. See my post #57 below


3. I found it curious, and perhaps misguided, that this is structured as a preferred stock purchase by the government (however, see below). Dividends are non-deductible. So, the interest payments banks receive for the loans is taxable for tax purposes, but banks' interest (dividends) payments back to the government are non-deductible? This should result in these loans carrying a pretty high rate of interest; that's undesirable.

4. (Need a banker's input here) It may that this is structured as a stock purchase, or capital infusion into the bank, so it can be leveraged into an amount of loans far higher than just $30 billion. For example, if banks are are required to maintain capital of at least 10% of outstanding loans, $30B in new capital would translate into a potential $300B in new loans. But somebody familiar with lending restrictions needs to confirm this angle.

Fern
 
Last edited:
Took long enough. Glad Congress can get its collective ass together to finally put something through that's truly useful.

Also, considering it's $30Bil. in loans, shouldn't it cost, after a few years/loans repaid, significantly less than that? Or am I not getting how gov't loans work?
 
Back
Top