Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have enjoyed reading this thread especially as a result of the great degree of intelligence that has been consistently displayed. I hope none of you that have displayed the great degree of intelligence are not insulted or bored by the entry level of intelligence you are about to read.
On Saturday morning my neighbor and I both exit our garages at 8 am to cut our lawns and we both do so while paying ourselves nothing then the GDP represented in the lawns being cut would be 0 dollars.
If we both exit our garages at 8 am with our lawn mowers to cut each others lawn and both agree to pay each other 30 dollars for the work to be done then we both would have a profit of zero while the same work was done but the GDP would be 60 dollars while we both have the same amount of money we started with when we had breakfast before we cut each others lawn. GDP has nothing to do with the consumers ability to live as a citizen. Income,taxes,debt and the ability to manage them do. Reducing corporate taxes while not reducing debt and increasing income and the ability to manage all of them will be an approach that creates no additional benefit compared to the present state of affairs.
It depends on the industry, but taxes are most certainly prominent.
You wish to avoid the larger truth by hiding in the weeds of meaningless and insignificant examples. What drives location decisions is expectations of overall profitability. Many factors enter into such calculations. Taxes are but one and not a prominent one.
the goal isn't to lower prices. the goal is to encourage more businesses to operate in America. encourage more businesses to keep more operations in America rather than abroad. that means jobs for people in America.
We are by far the largest economy in the world. You act like the last of the water is swirling down the bathtub drain here.
Another fine post from the non sense 1% playbook. Why should I pay taxes for others voracious appetite for corporate goods. Those who use those items should pay for it not me. My taxes already support enough deadbeats, and you want me to support more?
Your taxes aren't yours anymore once you have paid them. And the uses of all taxes are decided by the representatives we have elected to make such decisions for us. You might not have gotten the memo, but that's how it works here.
Our overall tax rate as a nation is FAR too low to support what I would consider to be an adequate level of social welfare spending (given that military spending above a certain rate appears to be a "fixed cost" at this point).
In major european economies, care is taken to assure that the middle class earns enough so that their taxes are sufficient to support their own benefit programs. Income and wealth redistriibution in this country have gone so far that it is now only the wealthy who can afford to pay the taxes necessary to support middle class benefit programs. This is not a healthy situation.
I have enjoyed reading this thread especially as a result of the great degree of intelligence that has been consistently displayed. I hope none of you that have displayed the great degree of intelligence are not insulted or bored by the entry level of intelligence you are about to read.
On Saturday morning my neighbor and I both exit our garages at 8 am to cut our lawns and we both do so while paying ourselves nothing then the GDP represented in the lawns being cut would be 0 dollars.
If we both exit our garages at 8 am with our lawn mowers to cut each others lawn and both agree to pay each other 30 dollars for the work to be done then we both would have a profit of zero while the same work was done but the GDP would be 60 dollars while we both have the same amount of money we started with when we had breakfast before we cut each others lawn. GDP has nothing to do with the consumers ability to live as a citizen. Income,taxes,debt and the ability to manage them do. Reducing corporate taxes while not reducing debt and increasing income and the ability to manage all of them will be an approach that creates no additional benefit compared to the present state of affairs.
Jack dividend tax? Essentially its pre-tax for dividends.
Raising income taxes goes from affecting companies/shareholders to everyone else. Jacking up dividend taxes I'd gander to be the "fairest" way to do it.
I think it makes sense to make capital gains taxes the same as income.
however, it is important to note that I do not want any gain in tax revenue for the government. so if you increase capital gains taxes, then income tax rates should fall. I have no interest in putting more dollars into uncle sam's bank account.
No.
TL;DR. We do not need another tax break for the richest Americans, who are represented by the corporations.
how are the richest americans represented any more by corporations than the employees of the corporation? corporations exist to make people money and in the process they hire people. its a magical thing. corporation benefits = workers benefit. in addition to some fat cats, corporations also involve employees and regular folk investors. unemployment, household income, quality of life, etc. aren't going to go up if our corporations are going down.
how are the richest americans represented any more by corporations than the employees of the corporation? corporations exist to make people money and in the process they hire people. its a magical thing. corporation benefits = workers benefit. in addition to some fat cats, corporations also involve employees and regular folk investors. unemployment, household income, quality of life, etc. aren't going to go up if our corporations are going down.
Stockholm Syndrome at its finest. No, our captors are providing us with benefits, how dare you fight them!
But let's address these points in series.
First, the richest Americans are represented by corporations, but employees are not... because corporations are not unions; corporations represent shareholders and ONLY shareholders. 81% of all investment wealth is held by the richest 10% of the population, and nearly 50% of all stock ownership is held by the wealthiest 1%.
Second, corporations hire people as a last resort in the process of making money. After all, paying workers a decent salary with decent benefits eats into revenue and decreases net profit. So, lobbying for any number of laws that lower corporate costs, including labor costs, would be in the interest of a corporation but not their workers.
Third, corporations don't necessarily need to "go down", they need to be restricted and controlled. Profit margins need to be brought low or else made unattractive by progressively taxing capital gains income and dividends. That way companies will have to re-invest, maybe even occasionally invest in the plight of their laborers who create all those products and wealth. Yes, that will impact some people with pensions and mutual funds, but that's why I specified "progressively taxing capital gains income." We can give a larger exemption to persons living on fixed incomes (to make up for the lower dividends/margins).
Then again, the latter wouldn't be as necessary if we had a public pension system better than SS.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
