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.
My question is, and please understand that I'm not very knowledgable in economics or politics for that matter, but how do we know that companies will cease out-sourcing and hire American employees? Is there a law that says they must do so according to how much they are taxed? Or is it possible that they could continue to outsource after their taxes have been lessened and collect the profits?
It's a good question, and I think no matter who ends up in office, this is something that needs to be addressed.
In Obama's plan, he will give tax incentives to companies who keep the jobs onshore. Companies will still have the choice to send jobs overseas, but Obama wants to make it more enticing for companies to keep the jobs in America.
I'm not aware of anything in McCain's plan that offers the same.
Again, thanks for the civil replies, I enjoy learning about this stuff, it is important to know as I decide who my vote will go to. I really believe in a lot of things both sides bring to the nation (what does that make me, a "centrist?") I'd also like this reply to serve as a bump because I don't feel that both sides have presented arguments equally.
Am I understanding this? And if I am, we're still at my original question, which in a way is broadly asking, which position is the most beneficial to you or I? "Main Street" "The Average Joe" etc.
If I remember right we have one of the lowest tax rates for corporations in the world (if not the lowest) after loopholes and other sneaky things are factored in. I read this after the debate at a factcheck site. I don't have a link, though I bet I could find one. So our large corporations are not exactly "taking it on the chin".
One other thing you might consider. The amount of people in the bottom half of the economic spectrum keeps increasing. The jobs that have been created in the past 8 years have been largely low paying jobs.
The income gap is increasing.
I'm not sure exactly what that leads to.
Some things I've read tied a large income gap to increased crime.
Minimum wage (national) is 21% lower than it was in 1980.
Adjusted for inflation.
So minimum wage workers were compensated better 28 years ago.
That needs to be tied to inflation.
Any change in a company's cost structure will cause the company to re-evaluate how they are doing business. Why? For starters, the investors will expect companies to grow their profit and margins, not shrink them. More taxes will reduce margins. Smaller margins will result in reduced stock price. Reduced stock price results in more difficulty in borrowing money and a higher cost of capital.[/b]
Raise import taxes to give American goods a price advantage to help offset the increased tax?
I'm sure our legislators can come up with something enticing.
Isn't the that why California is always broke? The heavy taxes have driven out many busineses.
Calif. is broke for several reasons. Everything was great till too many illegals brought down living quality for everyone via education, health care, job availability, housing costs. People fled Ca. in droves for cheaper living in other states. Finally, illegals fled Ca. also. Tax increase caused many large and even small businesses such as contractors to leave. We now have many hospitals shut down, many stores empty, many houses cannot sell with housing and commerical rentals are sky high. L.A. is turning into a third world in many areas.
When big corporations are taxed more they will either move to a more tax friendly location or raise the prices for their products. Corporations are in business to make money.
From one side; companies will set up shop elsewhere in the world, which, in this global economy is completely and reasonably plausible.
From the other side; most companies cannot afford to do so (and not necessarily monetarily speaking), but MAY or MAY NOT outsource certain components of their business to save themselves money in order to continue to exist which is completely reasonable as well.
Am I understanding this? And if I am, we're still at my original question, which in a way is broadly asking, which position is the most beneficial to you or I? "Main Street" "The Average Joe" etc.
The real issue is whether or not companies based in the US generate productive jobs that are competitive internationally.
Taxation is one variable in the the producitivity/competitiveness equation.
It is easy, appealing, headline-grabbing, a good sound bite for politicians to make propaganda about saving people's homes and creating jobs. And unfortunately they actually make policy and rob the treasury based on that propaganda.
From the purely economic standpoint, the crux of the matter is productivity and competitiveness.
But when is the last time you saw a politician screaming in front of a bunch of people or in front of a television camera "I promise more productivity and competitiveness!"?
It just isn't sexy enough, whereas discussions about taxation, giving away houses, and job creation for the sake of it stir controversy and sell advertising space in the mass media ... and attract votes.
Raise import taxes to give American goods a price advantage to help offset the increased tax?
I'm sure our legislators can come up with something enticing.
I'd love to see more intelligent tariffs. However...
It's pretty hard to do this when some of our biggest trade partners (especially China and Japan) hold trillions of dollars in federal debt. The tariffs will be what the debt holders want them to be.
California has the highest state GDP and has one of the highest per capita incomes.
It has some of the best universities in the World. And World class cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Or we can live in Mississippi where the TAXES ARE LOW?!?!?!
don't forgot this headline:
The Golden State goes bust
The US housing crisis has hit California hard, causing the worst financial crisis in the state since the Great Depression.
It's a good question, and I think no matter who ends up in office, this is something that needs to be addressed.
In Obama's plan, he will give tax incentives to companies who keep the jobs onshore. Companies will still have the choice to send jobs overseas, but Obama wants to make it more enticing for companies to keep the jobs in America.
I'm not aware of anything in McCain's plan that offers the same.
McCain isn't planning to raise business taxes in the first place.
That said, Vote Libertarian!
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.
