Graves, Rogers Introduce JOBS Act Of 2010

More change I can believe in. From the press release:

The latest JOBS Act is a continuation of Graves’ efforts in the Georgia General Assembly to advance conservative, free-market solutions that empower the private sector and drive Georgia’s economic recovery. Support for Graves’ legislation was noted by the large presence of both House and Senate members at today’s announcement.

“Our goal should be nothing less than making Georgia the most job friendly and investor friendly state in America,” said Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock). “This legislation should be like a bright neon sign, telling the world Georgia is open for business and open for investment. These difficult economic times call for bold action. Giving Georgia entrepreneurs the freedom they need to do business will be the key to a prosperous Georgia with good high paying jobs.”

Graves’ JOBS Act of 2010 contains eight initiatives that are designed to spur job creation in Georgia and recognize the private sector, not government, as the driving economic force to recovery.

The act is comprised of two pieces of legislation, House Bill 1023 and House Bill 1024.

House Bill 1023 contains:

Creation of the “Year for Georgia Entrepreneurs”: Allowing Georgians the opportunity to start a new business with no state fees could remove the only hurdle many entrepreneurs need to begin.

“Angel Investor” Tax Credit: An income tax credit of up to 50% of an investment made in small or start up Georgia businesses with 20 or fewer employees. The income tax credits would be available after 2 years of investment. The total “Angel Investor” tax credit pool would be limited to $10 Million per year (adjusted for inflation).

Quarterly Credit Towards Unemployment Insurance Tax: For each eligible employee hired who is receiving State Unemployment benefits, a company will receive a quarterly credit towards their unemployment tax.

$2,400 Tax Credit for the Hiring of the Most Difficult to Employ: Any Georgia company which hires a person who is difficult to employ and is currently receiving unemployment benefits and has been unemployed for at least four weeks, shall receive a tax credit of $2,400 after 24 months of consecutive employment.

Elimination of the Net Worth Tax: The net worth or intangible tax is a hold over from a 1930’s law that taxes wealth accumulation. The Tax Foundation advocates the elimination of this tax as we are only 1 of a handful of states that still retain it.

A Triggered 50 Percent Reduction of the Capital Gains Tax for all Georgia Taxpayers: Georgia currently has the 15th highest Capital Gains tax in the country and the 2nd highest in the Southeast, with two of our neighboring states at 0%.

House Bill 1024 contains:

· Gradual Phase out of the Sales Tax Deposit on Small Businesses:

Phases out an outdated tax deposit that is required for Georgia Businesses. Once implemented, this will return nearly $200 million of working capital to Georgia’s small business that is held on deposit with the state.


  1. griftdrift says:

    Someone else says something very similar in some big recent speech and the proprietor of Peach Pundit proclaims it was an “assault of the free market”.

  2. ByteMe says:

    So in a year when they’re looking for ways to cut more and more from the state budget, where exactly are these revenue cuts — and that’s what they’ll be in the first few years — coming from in the budget?

    • Dave Bearse says:

      Why from an oversized, wasteful and bloated state budget of course. Get ready for a “walk the talk” to resemble a DUI from an episode of “Cops”.

  3. bgsmallz says:

    Can someone please give me a non-partisan report on how this would be projected to effect state revenues, job creation, etc. etc.

    This sounds like a lot of money going out of the system that I’d like to see if it can be replaced by projected grown based upon the actual law. At the end of the day, competing with neighboring states is going to require incentives but it will also require competitive services like transportation infrastructure (including rail), schools, and the like.

    I’m just not sure constant revenue cuts is the right answer. At some point, don’t you have to figure that starving the beast can lead to killing the beast which leads to a dead carcass and maggots?

    I’d like to see one person in office make the realistic argument that we need to create a solid environment for business by not collecting as many revenues from you for employing our citizens, but that we also need to continue to collect enough revenue to keep our house in order. (We might have the cheapest house for sale on the block…but if it looks like garbage, I’m not sure people wouldn’t pay a little more to live in a nicer place.)

    • John Konop says:

      In all honesty the ideas are very creative, because they are designed to drive investment, take people off welfare ie a cost and create tax revenue via jobs. The only thing I would add is shifting tax rebate money toward a % of a loan guarantee.
      It looks fairly clear the ideas would drive more revenue than they cost.

    • Dave Bearse says:

      Assuming 80% (conservatively low I think) of those earning the government subsidy would have been hired anyway, the incentive works out to $12,000 per job. But hey, let’s not confuse the issue with mathematics.

        • Dave Bearse says:

          An increase in unemployment means that more people are being laid off than being hired, not that people aren’t being hired at all.

          If the credit results in 5 people being hired when 4 would’ve been hired without the credit, that fith hire cost 5 x $2,400 or $12k. Surely you won’t suggest we rely on the word of employers to certify that the hire would not have occurred without the credit.

          • John Konop says:

            Dave Bearse

            The unemployment has grown by over 100% in the last 18 months. Your math does not box. Do you have any study that backs up what you are saying? Also the faster someone gets a job it helps us with money going out ie unemployment benefits, school lunch subsidies…….. And the person starts contributing tax revenue as well as makes more purchases that spur more jobs.

  4. trainsplz says:

    The $10M “Angel Investor” credit seems pretty brilliant, on the face of it. Seems like it would be $10M of revenue extremely well-spent. I don’t quite get how the pool works, though – they let you know how much of a credit you get after the fact? Or it’s first-come-first-served? Weird.

    The most-difficult-to-employ bit seems like they’re saying that they’ll give you some of Joe’s unemployment benefits after the fact if you keep him for 24 months, rather than hiring someone more competent. I dunno about the free-market-ness of that one.

    Wouldn’t it be more in GA’s interest to levy a special exclusion on the capital gains tax for investment in GA companies, rather than lowering it across the board?

    Pretty interesting ideas, on the whole. I half agree with Byte about making the budget, but I’d like to see the projected numbers these guys are working with.

    • ByteMe says:

      If they’re anything like they usually are, they don’t have projected numbers, just an unending faith that cutting taxes increases jobs.

      • trainsplz says:

        Agreed. But I’d back that Angel Investor credit no numbers at all, though. I know about ten guys out of Georgia Tech trying to get little software/wetware startups off the ground that could use some Angels. And the little market around the corner from my house wants to start selling wine by the glass, but needs about $10k to get the POS systems and licensing. I think the small-scale investors have a pretty tough time in this market climate, especially. But yes, numbers would sure help.

        • ByteMe says:

          I can’t disagree that some of them will help, but the reality is that most of the credits and breaks come this year, but the payoff for increased state revenue doesn’t come until later when the businesses start being profitable or grow, so I question how this will help the state budget problems.

    • Dave Bearse says:

      Many the difficult to employ angle is being crafted as insurance for current incumbents come November.

  5. TalmadgeGhost says:

    You cannot believe anything Chip Rogers is involved with since he bears too striking a resemblance to Urban Meyer.

    But aside from that issue, I have a very hard time justifying any of this done at the Federal or the State level. Ease tarrifs and restrictions by joining trade blocs on the national level, provide as much education and re-training for people out of work now as you possibly can at the State level. That’s about it. Georgia is one of the most business friendly places in the country already. But guess what, the “I don’t care nuthin bout no education” chicken is coming home to roost in this fair state.

    And let it not be lost on anyone that if these baby boomers would just hurry up and retire already – unemployment would immediately go back to 4-5%.

    It’s all you ancient wonders, breathing my air, taking up my space at work, contributing nothing but telling me how much better it was 20 years ago, and making waaaaay too much money for what you contribute that cause the unemployment figures to be so high. If the people actually doing the work day to day can manage to push the Dow back up above 11,000 in the near future (restoring your 401k values – unless you like most of the boomer idiots pulled your $$ out at 6,500), will you PLEASE LEAVE?

      • Game Fan says:

        Naw, it ain’t the fault of the government it’s all those stupid people right? The “boomers” the smokers, the “Terri Schiavo”s, the Democrats, the liberals, or the (fill in your least favorite group of Americans here) Typical for the “less than spineless” folks who find it easier to to blame someone, ANYONE rather than their own spineless nature.

        • Game Fan says:

          “Ease tarrifs and restrictions by joining trade blocs on the national level…”

          (my talking point-o-meter is going haywire over here)

          But, uh common sense would suggest that easing tariffs doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with joining trading blocs. How about we quit subsidizing grain production for agribusiness? That would be a start among real conservatives.

    • Republican Lady says:

      At what age do you consider someone to be an ancient wonder? How old are you? When did your ego get so big as qualify you as the only significant one?

      Let’s look at this logically. Some baby boomers mortgaged their homes to put their kids through college so the kids would move out and have a rosy future. Now some of these graduates can’t get a job to help repay these loans and mommy and daddy can’t sell their homes to pay off all the debts and downsize to lower living costs because of the market.

      As for, (restoring your 401k values – unless you like most of the boomer idiots pulled your $$ out at 6,500), will you PLEASE LEAVE? many stocks, bonds, IRA’s, etc, started losing value long before this crisis economy wiped out much of their profits. Then, depending on where these ancient wonders worked, some companies that went under (Enron, WorldCom, etc) wiped out years of retirement, leaving fifty and sixty-year-olds back where they started from, an older twenty-year old starting over.

      These baby boomers will live to be in their late eighties to early nineties. Are you going to pay higher Social Security taxes and other related costs to take care of them? As they age, their Social Security benefits go down while their needs go up. While I am not in my sixties yet, I am in the category where I can’t draw full benefits until I am 67. Are you going to take care of me? I think not.

      Old people, depending on your definition of old, need food, shelter, clothing, have to make medical co-pays for more serious diseases, pay for more prescriptions, hearing aids, which many insurance companies as well as Medicare do not cover, and have other costs just like you. We like Starbucks and sex too.

      So which do you prefer, letting ancient wonders work longer to be self-sufficient and less of a drain on social programs or letting you pay more for our care? – Sounds like we might all die of starvation or preventable illnesses if you were in charge.

      You sound way too young to have any wisdom at your age and it shows, so you are not ready to be a CEO yet. In fact, your attitude indicates you may never be old enough to be in charge, to which the ancient wonders collectively breathe a sigh of relief.

      By the way, did your parents go into debt for you and if so, have you paid them back? Maybe they will be smart enough to spend your inheritance while they can still enjoy most of it.

      • polisavvy says:

        You know, Republican Lady, that us “boomers” are the root of all evil and everything that is wrong with the world. From what I have gauged from some of the posters here, perhaps it would be best served if we were all rounded up and shot. Once that happened, the sky would turn blue, the birds would sing, and a chorus of angels would break into song (oh, wait, I think Hillary has already used that line). Any way, some believe that the world would be a much better place without us evil boomers.

        • Republican Lady says:

          Yea, I know. I for one remember when 30 was old, now I think sixty is young. I am sick of some of the younger ones thinking the world owes them something just for being here and breathing air without contributing anything. Some of my college students think this way and want an “A” without doing the work.

          You may be old enough, maybe not, to remember when President John Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” I didn’t thing many young people would honor that statement but then my faith is restored everytime I see a soldier on the street going toward danger, or coming home from danger. My nephew when to Iraq three times, helped out with Katrina, and now he is in Haiti.

          Hopefully, the spoiled ones are in the minority and the smart ones will let us live.

          • Republican Lady says:

            Geesh, I must be tired because I totally didn’t see the mistakes until I posted this. Guess I need to up my “Geritol” dose.

          • polisavvy says:

            I agree with you. As I heard said on a news report one day, this group of young adults (the age of my own children) are considered to be the most narcissistic group to date. Unfortunately, some of the blame is also shared by their parents who have blown sunshine up their rears and told them how wonderful they are and praised them excessively for each and every thing they do/did. My husband and I were not financially in the position to overindulge our children. All we could do was encourage them to do their very best. Also, for some reason, this age group also fails to see that anything is ever their fault. Takes no personal responsibility.

            Yes, I do remember John Kennedy. I was completely devastated the day he was killed (and remained so for several days). I commend your nephew. Having had a father retire from the military, I always admire anyone who is willing to sacrifice that much. As for the Geritol, I think we all need it on occasions — even the young ones who are so quick to want to do away with us boomers. The only thing I disagree with you on is that, from seeing friends of my own children, the spoiled ones might have a slight majority — at times! 🙂

    • benevolus says:

      Back when I was in the prime of my productivity (yeah OK , it was about 20 years ago)… a person could work a good job, with a pension, so that after 20 or 30 years you COULD retire and still support a family. But then all these youngsters came along and kept agreeing to work for less and less money and benefits. People working in the jobs I had back then make the same amount of money now as I did, despite inflation, so you can’t really save anything, and the idea of a pension is long gone. So it’s YOUR FAULT for agreeing to work for less that is keeping us from retiring. We fought so hard and so long to bring decent benefits to all workers so they could take care of their families… and you kids threw it all away. Why, I used to have to mix hazardous chemicals in an unventilated room without a mask! I used to come to work Monday morning and my eyes would sting from the air as soon as I walked into the building!
      You kids don’t know how good you have it. Always wanting to work at home, and broadcast every ridiculous thought you have, and have a break every 5 minutes to tweetbook or whatever you call it. You probably have a nice Honda or something, but even if you have a Toyota let me tell you something… I used to have a FIAT! I had to learn to change the clutch cable during a red light! That was a skill worth having! Builds character too! You can’t get experience like that sitting if front of a Chinese made flat screen TV.

      • Republican Lady says:

        Awesome reply. Talmadge Ghost sounds like a narcissist with a high school mentality. Wonder if he/she is still in high school.

      • ChuckEaton says:

        Is it the fault of the American worker for agreeing to work for less or is it the fault of American consumers for wanting to buy more items with their paychecks. I’m always amazed at these standard of living arguments, where people look at income and forget it’s only one component of a two variable equation. To some extent what you make is irrelevant, it’s what you can buy with what you make that is relevant. Our massive debt and short-sighted currency management will have more effect on my daughter’s ability to acquire “things” than her “agreeing” to work for less money.

        • John Konop says:


          Not according to the father of the free market system Adam Smith. He would argue that workers must have the same legal rights as employers which is not the fact in places like China. The concept of GOD given individual rights in which our country was founded on is credited to Adam Smith.

          That is why Adam Smith was leading abolitionist of his time. Adam Smith like I was all for the free flow of goods, but was against the usage of workers with no real legal rights!

          What you are advocating is a race to the bottom economic model. And Adam Smith in his book “Wealth of Nations” warned about being fooled into thinking this is free market economics.

          Henry Ford said it best I want my workers making enough to buy my products. And the China economic model does the opposite for 80% of the workers, which you are advocating.

          • macho says:

            Of course Henry Ford didn’t have international world market to worry about.

            If you don’t want a “race to the bottom,” then what is your solution. Are you proposing government set wages?

          • John Konop says:


            No absolutely not. What I am proposing is enforcing trade current trade agreements and if they do not comply fines for their products. Adam Smith was against tariffs but for retaliatory fines for violations like slave labor, currency manipulation…….

            If we do not enforce the agreement that what good is it?

  6. If tax cuts for corporations is such a great idea, why aren’t we rolling in jobs after eight-plus years of handing them out and shifting the tax burden to the middle-class? You regregulate-everything tax-cut-for-the-rich fools essentially ripped out the steering wheel, the car went into the ditch, and now you’re telling us we should yank the transmission too? How stupid do you think we Georgians are?

    • John Konop says:


      Not all tax cuts are the same. Some tax cuts do target growth while other tax cuts may not.

      The above tax cuts make sense because they are targeted at investment and hiring unemployed people. And when you hire someone unemployed you not only gain the tax revenue but you no longer subsidize the person.

      Finally the ‘Angele Investor” will help free up capital to a small business market starving for cash! No cash for small business no new jobs!

  7. Dave Bearse says:

    Make it pro-business all the way, and the credit applicable to only minimum wage jobs. It’s what small businesses more than most foster, low wage employment.

    • John Konop says:


      I am a small businessman and the lowest paying job in my shop pays $12 an hour. Do you have any statistics to back up your claim that we all generally pay minimum wage? I know in my industry that is not true.

      • Ken in Eastman says:


        I would believe that it’s not just you and that it is very industry specific. Small business owners have to compete with larger businesses in their fields so to keep talent, they pay the going rate, or better.

        The Little Shop Around the Corner was a long time ago.

      • Joshua Morris says:

        I would submit that a sizable percentage of small businesses are in professional fields–engineering, medicine, consulting, accounting, law, etc. (I work for a 10-person engineering firm.) These types of businesses are not full of minimum wage jobs. Not everyone is building cabinets or selling auto parts.

        • benevolus says:

          In any case, I think small businesses don’t usually use minimum wage workers because they can’t devote someone else to train and supervise them.

      • Dave Bearse says:


        I didn’t say that small businesses generally pay minimum wage, but that small business generally pay low wages (without defining low, and without statistics to back up the claim however low is defined).

        This isn’t to disparage you or your business. I don’t know your business, its required skill sets or conditions, or whether you of the type of business generally provide healthcare, but $12 an hour wage for an independent living adult that doesn’t include substantial help on healthcare has taxpayers or others subsidizing both the employment and the product (which is not to say that a little subsidy isn’t a whole lot better than the big subsidy of unemployment).

  8. Dave Bearse says:

    “Giving Georgia entrepreneurs the freedom they need to do business will be the key to a prosperous Georgia with good high paying jobs.”

    Thiss bill gives entrepeurs money, not freedom.

  9. TalmadgeGhost says:

    Republican Lady,

    That has got to be an ironic nickname, like calling a 300lb. man “Tiny”. I mean come on, do you want socialism or not?

    While I post something blatantly ironic, you come behind it and make the Obama argument (thanks for that).

    So the next time someone asks you about healthcare reform, insuring and expanding social programs like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, protecting EEOC provisions (age discrimination) – I don’t expect you to mimic what you heard on Fox News or Hannity. I expect you to tell the “ditto-heads” at the party that they are all wrong, and to ask them “what if it happened to you?”

    While I’m sure Matt Towery will throw you out of his house for that (if he happens to be there and not at Dafuskie Island – “I don’t know nothin’ bout no nudie club dancers”, just keep in mind that those of us who can truly think and act on behalf of community good, the Democrats, will always welcome a like minded person like yourself.

    I do have to add however that when I read – We like Starbucks and sex too… I was mildly aroused. Although it seems to me that young Democrats make great lovers, there is nothing like a Republican Cougar… nothing.

    Benevolus – awesome. Only one flaw in the argument – I would still blame it on your generation for figuring out that the guy in Mexico/India/Guatemala/Vietnam, would do the job for cheaper and that is what caused the young-bucks to have to take less money. We aren’t competing with Wisconsin anymore, we are competing with Mumbai.

    • Republican Lady says:

      Obama isn’t a republican so he mane a democrat argument. Study point – Republicans want less government involvement, not more, Democrats want more social programs, not less. Dust off that book in your locker and read it.

      • TalmadgeGhost says:

        Obama isn’t a republican so he “mane” a democrat argument.
        I’m going to guess you meant “made”. No worries.

        Okay point by point – you say “Study point – Republicans want less government involvement, not more, ” but in your earlier post you say “These baby boomers will live to be in their late eighties to early nineties. Are you going to pay higher Social Security taxes and other related costs to take care of them? As they age, their Social Security benefits go down while their needs go up. While I am not in my sixties yet, I am in the category where I can’t draw full benefits until I am 67. Are you going to take care of me? I think not.” So which is it? Do you want government to fund your retirement and medical insurance or not? Are you one of those people marching up and down the street with the sign saying “Keep Govts. hands off my Medicare”? (Ahh the daftness of that is just appalling, isn’t it?)
        Is it just Government’s involvement and benefits for “other people” what you aren’t for – but their involvement with your benefits, well don’t be touching that!!!

        “Democrats want more social programs, not less.” I would position that right now, we’d just settle for energy independence, tighter financial regulations, better schools, and a healthcare safety net.

        And Oxendine is the devil, spawned by the same seed that produced Nick Saban.

        • Republican Lady says:

          You should move out of your parents home while you know everything and move back in when you learn that what you think you know doesn’t work.

          You obviously didn’t get the “mane” comment so never mind or the other points of my post so I don’t see the point of drawing you a picture.

          • TalmadgeGhost says:

            Ahh things were a lot simpler when I was living at home, a couple of decades ago – why do you think I’m a teenager instead of someone married, with two kids, a mortgage, car payments and a mountain of student loan debt brought on by graduating with an MBA from one of the top 20 business schools in the world (and no it’s not in the South).

            My comments were mainly brought on by all the articles and position papers written at the beginning of the last decade of how “all these boomers are going to be retiring and the US won’t have enough people to fill all the jobs”. Just shows how much things can change in a very short period of time doesn’t it? If the trends had maintained, we would have no unemployment problem.

            I have to ask, I really have no idea why you said “mane”. If you would respond or anyone else, I would appreciate it. Because although I love taking shots and causing consternation, I also really like learning something new everyday, and this could be that thing today.

    • benevolus says:

      It’s actually the consumers who always insist on the absolute lowest price that cause the problem. “Buy American” used to mean something.

      • TalmadgeGhost says:

        Benevolus, the consumer’s conundrum, eh?

        You know Wal-Mart is China’s 7th largest export partner, just ahead of the United Kingdom – unreal isn’t it?

        Unfortunately you can’t Buy American anymore, because we really don’t make anything anymore to buy – save a few larger items that it’s too expensive to import (cars, trucks, locomotives, etc.)

        Although I like this President, the “increasing exports from the US” may be the end-all-be-all pipedream of his administration’s plans.

        • ByteMe says:

          We’re increasing exports now as well as decreasing exports. It’s being caused by the dollar tanking. We finally got away from a “strong dollar” policy that made imports cheap and helped the rest of the world at the expense of our manufacturing base.

          • TalmadgeGhost says:

            Right on – except oil is still traded in US Dollars, which means the lower the currency goes, the higher that price will climb (will take more $$’s to buy a barrell, regardless of whether or not the actual value of the oil goes up) – which will raise gas prices and put a cramp on all of us.

            That very reason is why I don’t understand the consternation of the extreme right of OPEC “un-binding” the price of oil from the US Dollar.

            I hope we can get the manufacturing base back – could solar cells, advanced batteries, wind turbines, and the accompanying technologies be the conduit for us to do that? Just an open question.

          • ByteMe says:

            Oil having a high price is good for local production (and there are literally thousands of miles of leases that are just sitting there because exploration wasn’t worth it with overseas oil being so cheap). Yes, it hurts at the pump… once we get to about $3.50, based on recent experience.

            I personally would like it to hurt more at the pump to spur our innovative juices to find a way out of the Middle East. If it doesn’t hurt, we don’t look for solutions to change it.

            Of course, I also work at home and drive very little, so high gas doesn’t bother me as much as someone who lives in Braselton and commutes every day to a job in Atlanta… the poor stupid schmucks who thought that a house way out there was a good “investment”.

          • Dave Bearse says:


            I’m with you that high oil prices, in my opinion by taxation if necessary, as the best means to oil harness the market to direct develop cost-effective alternative energy. Our current method of the goverment subsidizing R&D and/or production/operations is based on politicians and the special interest that fund their campaigns selecting the best technology.


    I suggest that everyone go to the Karova Milk Bar, relax, and have a little of the old “In-Out, In-Out”

Comments are closed.