ShopMobileRadio RSSRivals.com Yahoo! Sports


Off-Topic - Red Head Board
The off-topic board is for politics, tickets and trade, pro sports, jokes, tailgating and more.
Register User Options
Site: Forum:


Post New topic Post New Poll Post Reply   Page 1

Previous Topic | Next Topic | Back to Topics
No one doubts that cutting taxes for the middle and lower classes creates jobs because they usually spend the money on goods and services within the economy. The rich however already have all the money they need to buy anything they want so tax breaks for them has been based on the idea that the extra money will be used to create jobs. But from an economic standpoint, this makes no sense.

Job creators make hiring decisions based on how much an employee brings in or loses for the company. If hiring a worker will make money for the boss, he will hire that worker even if he has to borrow money to do it. Conversely if hiring a worker costs the employer money he will refuse to hire no matter how much money he has. Unless he is some kind of philanthropist, the so called job creator will lay off workers if they cost him money even if he has millions in the bank so giving him more cash in the form of tax breaks will have no effect on unemployment levels. Even so, if the purpose of tax breaks for the rich were to create jobs, shouldn’t there be some requirement to use the money for the purpose for which it is intended? In other words instead of giving money to millionaires and saying we hope you create jobs wouldn’t it make more sense to say to them “If you create jobs then we will give you a tax break”? A tax break for a job creator with no strings attached could even be used to move jobs out of the country and thus result in a net job loss in America.

It is more than obvious that the primary reason that Republicans promote tax breaks for millionaires is to provide an economic incentive for those millionaires to donate to the party. Investing in a Republican candidate who successfully gains office has the potential particularly in a down economy, to pay back far more than even the hottest stock but the rationale for the tax policy is both bogus and dishonest.



Posted on 3/10 1:58 AM | IP: Logged

You're a liberal even you should know that cutting taxes doesn't create jobs. Raising them and hiring more government employees with big 20 year pensions does. Just ask Greece.



Posted on 3/10 8:00 AM | IP: Logged

Jobs are created by market demand. Companies only hire people when they must in order to increase production.

Giving millionaires tax cuts to "create jobs" is nonesense and only a moron would believe it. Business taxes by and large do not function like individual income tax unless you operate as a sole proprietorship business. If you give a millionaire a tax cut, he will either spend it (perhaps a newer, bigger TV) or he will invest it in the stock or bond market. Regardless most of the "jobs" created as a result of this expenditure/investment will likely be in China.

Cheers!

Posted on 3/11 11:50 PM | IP: Logged


Originally posted by PORTACARD:
No one doubts that cutting taxes for the middle and lower classes creates jobs because they usually spend the money on goods and services within the economy. The rich however already have all the money they need to buy anything they want so tax breaks for them has been based on the idea that the extra money will be used to create jobs. But from an economic standpoint, this makes no sense.

Job creators make hiring decisions based on how much an employee brings in or loses for the company. If hiring a worker will make money for the boss, he will hire that worker even if he has to borrow money to do it. Conversely if hiring a worker costs the employer money he will refuse to hire no matter how much money he has. Unless he is some kind of philanthropist, the so called job creator will lay off workers if they cost him money even if he has millions in the bank so giving him more cash in the form of tax breaks will have no effect on unemployment levels. Even so, if the purpose of tax breaks for the rich were to create jobs, shouldn’t there be some requirement to use the money for the purpose for which it is intended? In other words instead of giving money to millionaires and saying we hope you create jobs wouldn’t it make more sense to say to them “If you create jobs then we will give you a tax break”? A tax break for a job creator with no strings attached could even be used to move jobs out of the country and thus result in a net job loss in America.

It is more than obvious that the primary reason that Republicans promote tax breaks for millionaires is to provide an economic incentive for those millionaires to donate to the party. Investing in a Republican candidate who successfully gains office has the potential particularly in a down economy, to pay back far more than even the hottest stock but the rationale for the tax policy is both bogus and dishonest.



You spend way too much time reading liberal talking points and far too little reading economics or demographic tables.

Let's start with tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts reduced the highest rate from about 39% to 35%. At the low end, it reduced rates for some from 15% to Zero. The net result is the upper ten percent of earners (not "wealthy", but "earners") pay a larger percentage of the federal tax bill than ever in our hisotry. Around 48% of all earners pay no income taxes at all. That percentage has never been higher in our hisotry (since passage of the 16th Amendment, anyway). So, to say the Bush tax cuts "only benefitted the wealthy" is either coming from ignorance or dishonesty.

The reason you cut taxes (further0 for the so-called "job creators' is that all jobs are created by people with money. I have never in my life received a pay check from a poor person and neither has anyone else. But, if you steal all the money as libs are want to do, then there is no money to invest in an existing business or start up a new one.

To say a business only hires a worker if that worker will make it money is an over-simplification. It is true by itself only when a business hires a worker to replace one who has left. For a business to add a new worker (job creation), it has to come to the belief that businiess expansion will be profitable. Moreover, the profitability has to be reasonably assured over an extended time frame. With an administration that is openly hostile to the business community, seeing a long-term profit on expansion is impossible. No one knows what confifiscatory taxes are coming down the road; how much new lations are going to cost them; how much that new employee is going to cost them in benefits and other government-mandated expenses; or anything else long-term financial planning requires. Corporations are hording cash right now rather than risk squandering it on an expansion that may blow up in their face before the Obama administration is finished wrecking the economy. Worried about jobs going over seas? No you're not. You are all for it. That is why libs like support a punitive regulatory structure that makes the cost of doing business here too high for many industries.

Now lets talk demographics: Of the wealthiest Americans, do they self-report alliance more with the GOP or the Dems? Which candidates do they normally support? As between Obama and McCain, who received more inn campaign contributions from Wall Street in 2008? Do Hollywood and music stars who are financially successful (the true "stars") tend more to support liberals or conservatives? If your answer to any of the foregoing was in any way close to GOP/conservative/Republican candidates, you are wrong. But, maybe the George Soros/Warren Buffet sponsored talking points memo didn't tell you that, so you didn't know. Maybe it will be featured in Michael Moore's next film.

Posted on 3/20 3:23 PM | IP: Logged

Business taxes by and large do not function like individual income tax unless you operate as a sole proprietorship business

You can do individual income tax as a LLC. For tax purposes my LLC requested to pay taxes as an S-Corp.

FWIW, taxes won't help the job markets. When I built computer systems for large corporations one thing was always constant. --We'd launch a new system only to watch the company announce major layoffs. Why? Because our new system basically did the work of hundreds/thousands of workers almost instantly.



Posted on 3/21 9:49 AM | IP: Logged

Taxes don't matter a bit.

There are 8000 American's making $10+ mil a year. If you confiscated all of their money , the Gov't could operate for 18 DAYS.

EIGHTEEN FRIGGIN DAYS!

So what is even a 95% tax rate going to accomplish? Until we quit spending, and have some way of getting something/anything from the 50% paying nothing, we have trouble coming.

Physical, violent trouble. Hell, you libs will have to buy a gun just to protect your stuff from looters who aren't getting their checks anymore. Or you can always just tell them you're on their side. I'm sure they'll cut you some slackroll

Link: We're Better Than Barry Thinks We Are


Posted on 3/23 9:54 PM | IP: Logged

To further CL's post, the last I heard, the top 500 American companies had $3T set aside for investment. But, like CL pointed out, why risk it when the uncertainties of future punitive BHO legislation make it look chancy at best and the certainties of what has already been passed (AHCP for example) make it look like certain failure?

Note that Japan recently lowered their corporate tax rate, leaving us as the highest taxed business climate in the world. Is it any wonder that it is hard to find product that is made in this country? Even BHO's pet companies are investing overseas (GE, e.g.).

Why are these simple economic facts so hard for people to understand? Why is it so easy for BHO to perpetuate the class envy syndrome when, as it was pointed out in this thread, the simple mathematics of the "tax the rich" mantra is nothing but a political ruse?

Can anyone give a logical answer to these questions after having read "The Road to Serfdom" and "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America"?



Posted on 3/26 7:36 PM | IP: Logged

The poor and middle class do not actually pay taxes. The top 50% of all wage earners pay 95% of the tax revenues. If taxing the wealthy more did not matter John Kerry would not try to hide his yaught in another state to avoid a big tax bill.



Posted on 4/3 3:57 PM | IP: Logged


Originally posted by card126:
The poor and middle class do not actually pay taxes. The top 50% of all wage earners pay 95% of the tax revenues. If taxing the wealthy more did not matter John Kerry would not try to hide his yaught in another state to avoid a big tax bill.


Beg your pardon dude. The wife and I qualify as middle class. I clearly pay taxes, got the forms and receipts to prove it.

Don't know what weed your smokin', or is that what Fox is spoon feeding you.

Cheers.

Posted on 4/3 11:57 PM | IP: Logged


Originally posted by 71card:
To further CL's post, the last I heard, the top 500 American companies had $3T set aside for investment. But, like CL pointed out, why risk it when the uncertainties of future punitive BHO legislation make it look chancy at best and the certainties of what has already been passed (AHCP for example) make it look like certain failure?

Note that Japan recently lowered their corporate tax rate, leaving us as the highest taxed business climate in the world. Is it any wonder that it is hard to find product that is made in this country? Even BHO's pet companies are investing overseas (GE, e.g.).

Why are these simple economic facts so hard for people to understand? Why is it so easy for BHO to perpetuate the class envy syndrome when, as it was pointed out in this thread, the simple mathematics of the "tax the rich" mantra is nothing but a political ruse?

Can anyone give a logical answer to these questions after having read "The Road to Serfdom" and "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America"?



Does it not bother you that they have 3T to begin with? What happened to a quality product for a quality price? The People's Republic of Apple has several billion in cash on hand. That's just from phones and walkmans. I sure would like to see those supply and demand graphs. Or just maybe, with all of this crazy computer power and data we have at our disposals, they found a sweet price point that goes beyond traditional reasoning. Like kids will pay triple for the same product if it makes them feel special as well and being counter-culture. Think of it as searching for the next Michael Jordan in a dataset. IMO, data-mining is relatively new so we've only begun to see it's impact at the corporate levels. Here's a tip. Invest in Ford. The data they're collecting from the navigation systems (which you pay extra for) will one day be worth more than the cars they build.

This post was edited on 4/4 12:06 PM by meltdown213



Posted on 4/4 11:54 AM | IP: Logged

You asked:

Does it not bother you that they have 3T to begin with?

Why should it bother me? I don't understand your question.



Posted on 4/4 6:22 PM | IP: Logged


Originally posted by SR_Card:
Jobs are created by market demand. Companies only hire people when they must in order to increase production.

Giving millionaires tax cuts to "create jobs" is nonesense and only a moron would believe it. Business taxes by and large do not function like individual income tax unless you operate as a sole proprietorship business. If you give a millionaire a tax cut, he will either spend it (perhaps a newer, bigger TV) or he will invest it in the stock or bond market. Regardless most of the "jobs" created as a result of this expenditure/investment will likely be in China.

Cheers!



SR, it was about a century ago that consideration was given to closing down the U. S. Patent Office. What would have happened if if it had closed and, like you suggest, the only hiring was done to keep up with market demand. What would we do without the television, computer, veg-o-matic or Sham-Wow?

The $3T of available investment money is being held back for one simple reason: fear of loss. Note that new products and services aren't the only way to invest venture capital. One huge example is WalMart. Thet did not invent retailing; they invented a new way to do it. Now Walmart has come up with another idea to help jump start somebody else's business.

See the link.

Investing venture capital involves risk. When that risk is further encumbered by onerous regulations and taxes, smart investors take their money to a better place. Right now that better place is either in cash, securities or in other countries.

There is one way to grab that money now. The government could confiscate it and nationalize indusrty. Absurd? If you think it is absurd, read about the past of the current admistration, what they are doing now, who they are aligned with, what like-minded people have done in the past and the results of their actions.

Link: Creating new demand


Posted on 4/5 7:24 AM | IP: Logged

They have that much money on hand because they can. Those price points they sell goods at aren't very friendly. Especially in the major industries where there isn't much competition. Take ATM machines. They still charge $2 fees per transaction for technology that hasn't changed much in 25 years. So traditional reasoning would stand that the cost to use ATMs would go down. It's went up. They save money every time you use the ATM machine yet you pay more for it. --That's how you quickly get 3T.



Posted on 4/5 11:31 AM | IP: Logged

I'm not against corporations. I just feel the leaderships teams have lost their way. If the entire business model is based on market returns then things are going to get a lot worse for a lot of people.

How about this? Instead of having one worker work 60 hours a week, hire 2 and only have them work 30 hours a week. It would be better for the country as a whole but the problems is it would increase costs and reduce returns/cash stores. And a CEOs pay is based on market returns. So CEos will not increase jobs unless someone reminds them of their true obligation in society.



Posted on 4/5 11:52 AM | IP: Logged

"Instead of having one worker work 60 hours a week, hire 2 and only have them work 30 hours a week."

The problem with that scenario is that if that company's demand falls and you have to reduce some hours you may end up with 2 workers working 25 hours which a week. i would argue that it is more beneficial to society to have one fully benefited worker at 50 hours instead of two part-time workers.

That being said, I think there is a whole new field of research showing that the highest performing companies are those that understand that ROI and being socially beneficially do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Posted on 4/5 6:09 PM | IP: Logged


Originally posted by meltdown213:
They have that much money on hand because they can. Those price points they sell goods at aren't very friendly. Especially in the major industries where there isn't much competition. Take ATM machines. They still charge $2 fees per transaction for technology that hasn't changed much in 25 years. So traditional reasoning would stand that the cost to use ATMs would go down. It's went up. They save money every time you use the ATM machine yet you pay more for it. --That's how you quickly get 3T.


Sorry, meltdown, non sequitor.

My point was about why the money was not invested. Are you conceding my point?



Posted on 4/6 11:00 AM | IP: Logged


Originally posted by meltdown213:
I'm not against corporations. I just feel the leaderships teams have lost their way. If the entire business model is based on market returns then things are going to get a lot worse for a lot of people.

How about this? Instead of having one worker work 60 hours a week, hire 2 and only have them work 30 hours a week. It would be better for the country as a whole but the problems is it would increase costs and reduce returns/cash stores. And a CEOs pay is based on market returns. So CEos will not increase jobs unless someone reminds them of their true obligation in society.



Another non sequitor, meltdown. You are ignoring the point of my post. Go back and read it again. If you still don't understand it, I'll explain it to you.



Posted on 4/6 11:04 AM | IP: Logged


Originally posted by 71card:

Originally posted by meltdown213:
They have that much money on hand because they can. Those price points they sell goods at aren't very friendly. Especially in the major industries where there isn't much competition. Take ATM machines. They still charge $2 fees per transaction for technology that hasn't changed much in 25 years. So traditional reasoning would stand that the cost to use ATMs would go down. It's went up. They save money every time you use the ATM machine yet you pay more for it. --That's how you quickly get 3T.


Sorry, meltdown, non sequitor.

My point was about why the money was not invested. Are you conceding my point?



I thought you might find the conversation interesting how they got that 3t to begin with. I did hijack it a bit but things had deteriorated to you don't pay taxes, I pay taxes. However this thread is really about the POTUS for you. For me it's about creating jobs.

So I'll leave on this. When a deal went bad, my father taught me all you had to do was follow the money to see who won. It was this type of reasoning that kept the country honest. But the reality is the people are broke, the government is broke, and the corporations have 3t on hand. In the 50's this would have been a big PR issue.



Posted on 4/6 12:57 PM | IP: Logged

From meltdown:
"I thought you might find the conversation interesting how they got that 3t to begin with. I did hijack it a bit but things had deteriorated to you don't pay taxes, I pay taxes. However this thread is really about the POTUS for you. For me it's about creating jobs."

It is about "cutting taxes to creating jobs". I stuck to the topic by explaining why the top 500 companies were not investing $3T of accumulated capital, i.e. because of onerous taxes. Cutting taxes them would, therefore, result in new ventures that would create jobs.

What part of that did you not understand?



Posted on 4/6 9:24 PM | IP: Logged

As someone who works in a small business and has owned small business, I can tell you most confidently that hiring only occurs when the business sees production demand from the market - real or anticipated.

If you form an LLC or a Corp. your tax structure is based on revenues minus allowable expenses = profit (or loss). You are taxed on the profit only. Giving millionaires a low tax "hoping" that they will create jobs has little merit in the business world. Businesses at present do not want to invest in expansion, or reinvestment because as you say fear of loss, so the result is large companies are sitting on vast amounts of cash.

The tax structure of millionaires (whose tax rate is already the lowest in decades) has nothing to do with this. Its a bit like when President Bush gave everyone a stimulus check "hoping" everyone would spend it and get the economy moving. THe result; most of the money either went into peoples bank account or paid down personal debt.

My suggestion is to give anyone (poor, middle or rich) a tax credit if they create a job or jobs. If your unemployed start a one-man business = tax credit, expand your buisness and hire new people = tax credit x # of new employees.

Posted on 4/15 12:34 AM | IP: Logged


Originally posted by SR_Card:
As someone who works in a small business and has owned small business, I can tell you most confidently that hiring only occurs when the business sees production demand from the market - real or anticipated.

If you form an LLC or a Corp. your tax structure is based on revenues minus allowable expenses = profit (or loss). You are taxed on the profit only. Giving millionaires a low tax "hoping" that they will create jobs has little merit in the business world. Businesses at present do not want to invest in expansion, or reinvestment because as you say fear of loss, so the result is large companies are sitting on vast amounts of cash.

The tax structure of millionaires (whose tax rate is already the lowest in decades) has nothing to do with this. Its a bit like when President Bush gave everyone a stimulus check "hoping" everyone would spend it and get the economy moving. THe result; most of the money either went into peoples bank account or paid down personal debt.

My suggestion is to give anyone (poor, middle or rich) a tax credit if they create a job or jobs. If your unemployed start a one-man business = tax credit, expand your buisness and hire new people = tax credit x # of new employees.



First, SR, congratulations for suggesting a solution.

I have been in business, also. I'll give you a pass for leaving out things like depreciation, depletion allowances and other tax credits.

You said you agree with my assessment that fear of loss is the reason why the top 500 companies are not investint the $3T. I gave a reason for it. What is yours? You IMPLIED that they were just afraid for lack of courage. In other words, they lack innovation and entreprenurial spirit. Is that what you are saying? History tells another story, SR.

If millionaires has nothing to do with it, why did you bring it up? I didn't. BTW, I didn't agree with Bush's "stimulus".

Make our corporate taxes competitive with the rest of the world. We need to bring the jobs back home.



Posted on 4/15 3:13 PM | IP: Logged

Fear in the business community is the result of a lack of confidence in the economic recovery, fear of economic trouble in Europe and how that might affect the U.S., uncertainty of what health care reform means and a banking system that has become very tight with business loans. Also I think a lot of the fear (what I personally have seen) is small business owners who have witnessed a real honest-to-God economic meltdown that was close to a collapse and it scared them. They saw the tidal wave of a free fall economy and how they could get pulled under.

Think about all of the cash being held back by large businesses? In good economic times such a move by a business would result in a stock holder revolt! Invest or resign from the board! In todays economic its called being safe just in case the economy slides back (real or preceived fear).

Again I just don't see how an income tax break for millionaires is going to affect either a.) a change in this corporate attitude or b.) Is going to stimulate the economy to any real degree by giving rich folks even more cash in hand.

You make great points 71 - in a larger sense I very much agree with you, but as for now I see a lot caution out there.

Cheers!

This post was edited on 4/16 11:23 PM by SR_Card

Posted on 4/16 11:20 PM | IP: Logged

SR, in your second last post you dissed me for bringing up millionaires. YOU are the one who is bringing them up. You did it again! Taxing millionaires doesn't mean doodly-squat in our economy - go back and read my previous post about the effect of the "Buffett effect". This millionaire crap is just a liberal talking point to foment class envy. If you do they math, it doesn't impact our bottom line but a fraction of 1/10 of 1%.

What is it that you don't understand about the fact that the USA has the highest CORPORATE tax rate in the world and the 500 largest CORPRATIONS are not investing money in the USA OR they are not investing it at all to the tune of $3T.?

Herman Cain has a great plan for corporate AND individual income taxes. It would cut out all the loopholes. I hope he has some influence in the new administration. Herman would make sure that the rich pay their fair share.

While I like the thoughts behind your proposal, SR, I'd rather stay away from more regs. More regs tend to create more loopholes; they create more bureaucracy; they create more paperwork for businesses and they give more control of our lives to lawyers and politions.

Simplify taxes so it's harder to cheat; simplify laws so it's easier to provide customers with a good value; let profit be the incentive for bright and creative people to come up with new products and services or improve on existing ones.



Posted on 4/17 12:09 AM | IP: Logged

If I dissed you it was not intended, my apology.

You're right the revenues obtained by taxing millionaires is relatively little in the grand scheme of things, but it is the repub. who are advocating cutting taxes for the wealthest in order to "create jobs." My original contention was then and still is that such an idea is outrageous. Because creating jobs is what happens within businesses who see opportunity, not by giving daddy warbucks a lower tax on his income.

I think we pretty much agree that there is extreme caution (call it fear if you will) out there that has made businesses reluctant to spend. Also there is in some cases over regulation as you point out that also is a hinderence. But that is industry specific, hard to go in depth on a message board.

As far as the corporate tax rate goes, I have mixed feelings. On one hand I agree with you, but on the other hand the high rate is an incentive for a company to reinvest its profits so it will not get hit with a big tax bill. What happens if the rate is lower? More reinvestment? Why? Also bare in mind that many countries with low corp. rates (Europe for example) have very high personal tax rates. So do we shift the burden to the tax payer, or do we spread it around to everyone. Because the reality is that if we are going to bring down the debt its going to occur with a combination of tax hikes and spend cuts. I know you will disagree with me, but I think most economist would agree with me.

But difference in opinion is what makes the world go around.

Cheers.

Posted on 4/17 7:02 PM | IP: Logged

In two of your previous posts you said;

“The tax structure of millionaires (whose tax rate is already the lowest in decades) has nothing to do with this. Its a bit like when President Bush gave everyone a stimulus check "hoping" everyone would spend it and get the economy moving. THe result; most of the money either went into peoples bank account or paid down personal debt.”

“You're right the revenues obtained by taxing millionaires is relatively little in the grand scheme of things, but it is the repub. who are advocating cutting taxes for the wealthest in order to "create jobs." My original contention was then and still is that such an idea is outrageous. Because creating jobs is what happens within businesses who see opportunity, not by giving daddy warbucks a lower tax on his income.”

If you meant what you said, why do you keep bringing it up? If you really think it has a big effect on the economy, we can debate it. Your words say not, but your actions say otherwise. Let me know if you want to:

1. Debate the milionaire issue now and drop the corporate tax issue.
2. Debate the corporate tax issue now and drop the milionaire issue .
3. Debate the corporate tax issue now and defer the milionaire issue to a different thread.
4. Concede the milionaire issue now and debate the corporate tax issue.



Posted on 4/18 12:08 PM | IP: Logged

I bring up the millionaire issue, because Portacard brings it up in his original post, and that is what I originally responsded to.

I really don't have the luxury of time for a protracted debate, I guess I'm envious of you in that respect (a little humor here).

I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve by treating this like a Master's thesis, it is after all a message board. I have simply attempted to state a position based on some of the things mentioned on this threat, sorry you preceive it a a threat (somehow I sense great tension and angst in your post, sorry if I contribute to that).

But I will conclude my position with thus, sorry it doesn't satisfy your desire to split hairs three fold:

THe REPUBLICAN PARTY is the group that has pushed for a tax break for the very wealthy, citing it will CREATE JOBS. I simply do not believe it will.

Taxing millionaires will not make a huge difference in revenues. However there is an issue of fairness (which is a subjective term that we can debate till the end of the Mayan Calendar). If were really serious about reducing debt everyone needs to pay a fair (me included). And please spare me the statistics about who pays what, they can be twisted to prove everything and nothing.

A simplifying and restructuring of corporate taxes very well may be a good thing, however IMHO most corp. would like to have the simplification (aka lower rate) and retain most of the deductions (just my opinion).

Hope that helps. Now relax and enjoy the nice weather... cool

Posted on 4/18 2:02 PM | IP: Logged

"But I will conclude my position with thus, sorry it doesn't satisfy your desire to split hairs three fold:

THe REPUBLICAN PARTY is the group that has pushed for a tax break for the very wealthy, citing it will CREATE JOBS. I simply do not believe it will.

Taxing millionaires will not make a huge difference in revenues. However there is an issue of fairness (which is a subjective term that we can debate till the end of the Mayan Calendar). If were really serious about reducing debt everyone needs to pay a fair (me included). And please spare me the statistics about who pays what, they can be twisted to prove everything and nothing.

A simplifying and restructuring of corporate taxes very well may be a good thing, however IMHO most corp. would like to have the simplification (aka lower rate) and retain most of the deductions (just my opinion).
========================================================================
I assume that you took the option to debate the "splitting hairs issue” rather than the issue that would really help our recovery. Does that mean that you concede that lowering corporate tax rates to make our country competitive with the rest of the World would help create jobs here in the USA? After all, you simply offered an opinion without any reason."

If you want to debate the “splitting hairs issue”, there is a term for fairness, SR. It’s called “social justice”. Is that what you are trying to say? Let me know.

If you do not want to debate either, let me know. My time is valuable, too.



Posted on 4/18 5:01 PM | IP: Logged

Well first off I think you're taking this a bit too serious.

Second, you think lowering corp. taxes and deregulation is what is required to stumulate the economy. I don't disagree in principle, but I think its a bit more complex than that. To a certain level all businesses must adhere to some level of regulation, some areas more than others. Will less regulate make things easier for investment and subsequent job ceration? Well yes, but at what price? Do we allow unfair business practices as a result? Do we skip on worker safety? Do we suspend environmental laws? To what extent do we suspend regulation in order to grow business? Its a tricky balance.

As for Corp. taxes I'm not opposed to a restructuring, but I'm not convinced that it will create more investment. Corp. tax structure as is, is designed to encourage reinvestment. The more reinvestment of profits the lower the subsequent tax bill (talking in simplistic terms here). If I lower the tax rate might that discourage reinvestment - like giving all the higer ups an even bigger bonus? Historically American companies (again, speaking generally here) have a much poorer record of long term investments that companies in Europe where they are much more likely to inverst long term. Why? Largely because public companies in American have a thirsty bunch of stock holders who want to see the share price pumped up in the near future, not over 5 years. So its at least resaonanable to assume that a lower tax rate could end up as a bigger dividend or spent on something splashy that makes stock holders clap their hands and stop their feet, but doesn't really advance the compay position over the long haul. But this is one of many scenerios, the opposite could occur as well.

The real bottom line though is this; companies invest when they see a chance to profit. Pure and simple, regardless of taxes, regulation, and the flavor of the current administration. Yes in a pure sense less taxes and regulation would help stimulate the economy and all that goes with it, I've never denied this, but to simply advocate less tax and regulation is too grossly simplestic to be really meaningful in terms of public policy.

Cheers. (damn that's a lot of typing!)

Posted on 4/18 9:28 PM | IP: Logged


Originally posted by SR_Card:
Well first off I think you're taking this a bit too serious.

Second, you think lowering corp. taxes and deregulation is what is required to stumulate the economy. I don't disagree in principle, but I think its a bit more complex than that. To a certain level all businesses must adhere to some level of regulation, some areas more than others. Will less regulate make things easier for investment and subsequent job ceration? Well yes, but at what price? Do we allow unfair business practices as a result? Do we skip on worker safety? Do we suspend environmental laws? To what extent do we suspend regulation in order to grow business? Its a tricky balance.

As for Corp. taxes I'm not opposed to a restructuring, but I'm not convinced that it will create more investment. Corp. tax structure as is, is designed to encourage reinvestment. The more reinvestment of profits the lower the subsequent tax bill (talking in simplistic terms here). If I lower the tax rate might that discourage reinvestment - like giving all the higer ups an even bigger bonus? Historically American companies (again, speaking generally here) have a much poorer record of long term investments that companies in Europe where they are much more likely to inverst long term. Why? Largely because public companies in American have a thirsty bunch of stock holders who want to see the share price pumped up in the near future, not over 5 years. So its at least resaonanable to assume that a lower tax rate could end up as a bigger dividend or spent on something splashy that makes stock holders clap their hands and stop their feet, but doesn't really advance the compay position over the long haul. But this is one of many scenerios, the opposite could occur as well.

The real bottom line though is this; companies invest when they see a chance to profit. Pure and simple, regardless of taxes, regulation, and the flavor of the current administration. Yes in a pure sense less taxes and regulation would help stimulate the economy and all that goes with it, I've never denied this, but to simply advocate less tax and regulation is too grossly simplestic to be really meaningful in terms of public policy.

Cheers. (damn that's a lot of typing!)



I'm glad that you agree that lowering corporate taxes would stimulate the economy.



Posted on 4/19 12:04 AM | IP: Logged


Originally posted by 71card:





I'm glad that you agree that lowering corporate taxes would stimulate the economy.



Glad that suits you. However as phrased its merely a convservative talking point.

Cheers!

Posted on 4/19 10:05 AM | IP: Logged

SR, you can do better than that. There are two references in this thread - from me and from Rollem. The only thing YOU have contributed are "talking points". Please don't call the kettle black.

Link: Another reference


Posted on 4/19 1:45 PM | IP: Logged

Here's another, SR. Please, if you don't have anything concrete, then just admit it is just an opinion and go home.

Link: http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/tax-the-rich-14-facts-you-may-want-to-consider


Posted on 4/19 1:47 PM | IP: Logged

SR, did you know that class envy is one of the Seven Deadly Sins?

Herman Cain does and he's not Catholic like you.

Link: Herman Cain speaks out


Posted on 4/19 1:49 PM | IP: Logged

My goodness 71, you sure are a busy fella!

Well let me conclude this most entertaining discusion with a few basic comments...

1. I don't suffer from class envy. If you got what it takes to make a pile of cash, congrats! I hold no ill will toward anyone who has it. I do not resent Mitt Romney for all his wealth, more power to him!

2. You consevs. crack me up thinking that "class warfare" is something Obama has concocted. Its been part of American history since the War of Independence and has regularly manifest itself throughtout our history. Rich against poor, poor against rich, its all there (come on -71, your a smart dude, you know this already).

3. Simply saying that lower corp taxation equals economic recovery, is a grossly simplistic conservative talking point (PERIOD). I can say Martha White makes the best pancakes, but we all know that there are a lot variables involved in making 'em fluffy.

4. Your choice of links to enlighten me are very telling. All coming from very conservative websites, all very intent on presenting the evils of Obama and the shining path of conservativism. I love hearing conserv. whine about the evil liberal media and then they show off their equally bias, subjective, unbalanced, cherry-picking-of-the-facts conservative media and pretending that it is somehow truthful (again, you know better than that).

5. Lastly, one of the truly great problems in America that affects both the left and the right is this prevailing idea that one's beliefs constitutes truth, that opinion equals undisputable fact and that careful selection of facts and the carefull ommission of other facts is a legit way of creating "truthful' understanding. All of that is a big lie!!! Sadly too many Americans don't see it, they have made up their minds, no point confusing them with the facts. Being objective is tough to do, it means putting your beliefs to the test and sometimes admitting that the way one thinks has to be adjusted. That applies to both you and I and all the rest, but most won'r do it because its too much like work and sadly most are comfortable believing what feels good, f**k the rest.

And so it goes...well I'm off to the Bats game and then out of town for a few days in the sun and beach. If we cross paths at either, I'd be happy to buy you a cold one -71.

Cheers my friend.

Posted on 4/19 5:48 PM | IP: Logged

All-in-all, this turned out to be an interesting thread. However, to some extent I think Sr, 71 and meltdown are talking past each other without realizing they agree on the major points.

First, it is correct to say that lowering taxes will not lead to job creation - at least lowering taxes alone.

Second - the first point is true whether we are talking about individuals or corporate taxes. Since businesses are currently sitting on hordes of cash, lowering taxes (with nothing more done) would just increase the rate of growth of their hordes of cash.

Third, as technology increases, traditional jobs are lost. Manufacturers do not need as many employees to turn out the volume of product due in large part to the development of automated systems. That means the work place is changing and it will continue to do so until the Sun blows up. The economy as a whole is changing and the talents and education that were sufficient just 30 years ago are now obsolete to a large extent. What is often over looked, however, is there are currently millions of open positions with employers all over the country and almost all of them have been open for 6 months or longer. The reason is the employers can't find anyone with the skill set needed to fill them. There has been over the last twenty years or so a slow, tectonic shift in the job market and, frankly, a lot of people out there are effectively useless. I am not saying they are "bad", just that they lack any skills or training that are still in demand.

To those three problems we have what was noted earlier: a lack of confidence by the business community in the future with respect to taxes, regulations, and general hostility by this administration. Cutting taxes will not change that fact. Instead, just changing the anti-business culture pervasive in Washington would probably do more to boost the economy and job growth than cutting taxes to zero could hope to achieve. The strawman Obama likes to knock down is that the idea of rolling back regulations means conservatives want dirty air and dirty water etc. Nice try there, Barry.

Posted on 4/23 11:50 AM | IP: Logged

Taxmageddon comes

If the clowns in D.C. let these tax cuts expire and tax increases go into effect we shall see what tax increases do for employment. Any guesses?

"Almost 34 percent of the tax increase from Taxmageddon comes from the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. These cuts are best known for reducing marginal income tax rates, but they also reduced the marriage penalty, increased the Child Tax Credit and the adoption credit, and increased tax breaks for education costs and dependent care costs.

Another 25 percent of Taxmageddon comes from the expiration of the once-temporary payroll tax cut. The expiration of the patch on the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) -- which would raise the income threshold over which families qualify for the AMT to prevent middle-income families from paying this tax that is only supposed to impact "the rich" -- accounts for 24 percent of the total potential 2013 tax increase.

The balance of the tax hikes comes in part from new taxes under Obamacare, the expiration of tax cuts in the 2009 stimulus, the expiration of a group of policies known as "tax extenders," changes in the current policy on the death tax (in 2013, it will rise from 35 percent today to 55 percent and the exemption will fall from $5 million to $3.5 million), and the expiration of businesses' ability to fully expense new capital investments.

This $494 billion in higher taxes will certainly hit families and business hard in 2013, but their effects are already being felt. Dubay explains that Americans must plan for tomorrow, and the tremendous uncertainty about tax policy makes the future much more uncertain, thus discouraging the investments and other actions needed to spur the economy to create jobs faster today."

This post was edited on 4/23 12:13 PM by gamedaynut


Posted on 4/23 12:10 PM | IP: Logged


Originally posted by SR_Card:
My goodness 71, you sure are a busy fella!

Well let me conclude this most entertaining discusion with a few basic comments...

1. I don't suffer from class envy. If you got what it takes to make a pile of cash, congrats! I hold no ill will toward anyone who has it. I do not resent Mitt Romney for all his wealth, more power to him!

2. You consevs. crack me up thinking that "class warfare" is something Obama has concocted. Its been part of American history since the War of Independence and has regularly manifest itself throughtout our history. Rich against poor, poor against rich, its all there (come on -71, your a smart dude, you know this already).

3. Simply saying that lower corp taxation equals economic recovery, is a grossly simplistic conservative talking point (PERIOD). I can say Martha White makes the best pancakes, but we all know that there are a lot variables involved in making 'em fluffy.

4. Your choice of links to enlighten me are very telling. All coming from very conservative websites, all very intent on presenting the evils of Obama and the shining path of conservativism. I love hearing conserv. whine about the evil liberal media and then they show off their equally bias, subjective, unbalanced, cherry-picking-of-the-facts conservative media and pretending that it is somehow truthful (again, you know better than that).

5. Lastly, one of the truly great problems in America that affects both the left and the right is this prevailing idea that one's beliefs constitutes truth, that opinion equals undisputable fact and that careful selection of facts and the carefull ommission of other facts is a legit way of creating "truthful' understanding. All of that is a big lie!!! Sadly too many Americans don't see it, they have made up their minds, no point confusing them with the facts. Being objective is tough to do, it means putting your beliefs to the test and sometimes admitting that the way one thinks has to be adjusted. That applies to both you and I and all the rest, but most won'r do it because its too much like work and sadly most are comfortable believing what feels good, f**k the rest.

And so it goes...well I'm off to the Bats game and then out of town for a few days in the sun and beach. If we cross paths at either, I'd be happy to buy you a cold one -71.

Cheers my friend.



Welcome home, SR. Hope you enjoyed the beach.

1. That’s great, SR. We agree that class envy is sinful; we agree that lowering corporate taxes would stimulate the economy; and we agree that the real bottom line is that companies invest when they see a chance to profit. CardLaw brought up an excellent point about some of the other factors that may be of concern to you. They are excellent points, namely the onerous regulations that are anti-business and the lack of competent people to fill some positions. [Google DDDOA for details on this subject] CardLaw also points out that some companies (SR & I agreed to limit our discussion to companies.) would continue to simply sit on money in light of lower tax rates. Another thing they ARE doing is buying back their own stock.
CardLaw also makes a good point about the negative impact of improved automation. My aim was to stick to topic and isolate variables by concentrating on the impact of lowering the corporate tax rate so that we are not the most expensive place on the planet to do business. Thanks, however, for the good input, CardLaw! It sheds more light on the subject. However, it would be a great mistake to get derailed by the education issue. It deserves multiple threads.

2. I don’t think BHO invented it; he is just fomenting it. We, as Catholics, do not fall for it because of our adherence to the Beatitudes. Thanks, for the affirmation, Sr.

3. Simply saying anything does not make it happen. You are right! Doing nothing in the face of an impending financial disaster is dereliction of duty. Doing something that has shown past success is a very sound step in the right direction. Doing something that has failed in the past is insanity. As far as it being a “talking point”, please explain. Congress has proposed “action” in this direction and BHO has done nothing but “talk” about lack of cooperation. If you disagree with me, say so. But provide some evidence. All you have done is say “I'm not convinced”, “again, speaking generally here”, “thirsty bunch of stock holders who want to see the share price pumped up”, “too grossly simplestic”, etc. Be specific.

4. I’ll ignore the ad hominen remarks.

5. Agreed! Brilliant generalization! Now, SR, please come up with some sources that prove that there is a better way to stimulate the economy than cutting corporate taxes. … not just another way … a better way.

Posted on 5/1 7:22 PM | IP: Logged

Previous Topic | Next Topic | Back to Topics

Post New topic Post New Poll Post Reply Page 1

LATEST NEWS




Rivals.com is your source for: College Football | Football Recruiting | College Basketball | Basketball Recruiting | College Baseball | High School | College Merchandise
Site-specific editorial/photos © CardinalSports.com. All rights reserved. This website is an officially and independently operated source of news and information not affiliated with any school or team.
About | Advertise with Us | Contact | Privacy Policy | About our Ads | Terms of Service | Copyright/IP policy | Yahoo! Sports - NBC Sports Network

Statistical information ©2007 STATS LLC All Rights Reserved.