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.
What we have learned (so far) in this thread is that overall, people in other industrialized countries are both happier and healthier when they are taxed more and that those taxes go towards social programs that benefit the greater good. This was presented both with links and facts. One is free to do their own investigative research on the matter to see for themselves.
We have learned, the people in healthy and happy countries accept the higher taxes for the overall improvement in the majority and for the greater good. They view it as an acceptable and fair trade off (I get less because I am taxed more but I can still thrive and be happy and it is for the benefit of the greater good). The greater good are programs such as (but not limited to), Universal Healthcare, Free education, subsizdized parental leave etc. These are facts (people in other industrialized countries are happier when the greater good is the incentive even with a higher personalized taxation rate) in poll after poll and survey after survey, year after year of people of other industrialized nations.
In knowing this fact, while reasonably trimming the deficit is a good thing, this is a step in the wrong direction:
"Revenue shortfalls created by the new GOP tax law could make House Speaker Paul Ryan's political goals easier to achieve."
"Ryan wants to cut so-called entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security to reduce the deficit."
"In particular, Ryan wants to curb spending on the giant "entitlement" programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "How you tackle the debt and the deficit," the speaker declared recently, is by "entitlement reform.
Democratic presidents saw those programs as a means of preventing destitution and medical calamity among senior citizens, the disabled and the poor. More than any other contemporary Republican leader, Ryan represents the philosophical tradition that opposed their creation in the first place."
"But Ryan entered politics as a devotee of 20th-century author Ayn Rand, who opposed tax-and-spend benefit programs as immoral confiscation that sapped the power of capitalism"
"Evidence indicates that, unlike Ryan, most Americans want government to do more, not less."
"During last year's presidential campaign, leaders of both parties vowed to assist average families left behind in an era of high corporate profits but slow-growing wages. Trump, pledging not to touch Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, galvanized "forgotten" blue-collar whites anxious about threats to their benefits.
Voters applauded those messages. In an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll in April, 57 percent of all Americans agreed that government should do more to meet people's needs, outpacing the 39 percent who said government is doing too much.
That represented the strongest support for more government action in the two decades that the NBC/WSJ poll has asked that question. Two-thirds of college-educated white women and 59 percent of both independents and non-college white women favored more government action."
God, I want Paul Ryan to pursue his entitlement reform, and I want Trump behind it. They have already made record books passing a tax cut that only 25% of the population was asking for.
It will make their defeats in 2018 and 2020 so much more satisfying.
Surprise surprise. What large companies say in public is often different then what they do in private. Some good examples of "trickle down economics" "working" here. Corporations get millions/billions in tax relief. How do they spend it?
"On the same breath that Walmart announced that it is raising its hourly wages to $11 and giving employees bonuses due to tax reform, the world’s largest retailer also revealed it’s closing 63 Sam’s Club locations across the U.S., which will ultimately lay off thousands of workers."
"Despite its claim that a corporate tax cut would create thousands of middle-class jobs in its industry, AT&T recently announced that hundreds of workers in the Southwest would be declared 'surplus' and subject to layoff," CWA said in an announcement of its lawsuit." "AT&T got both the tax cut and the net neutrality repeal but then started laying employees off."
"After announcing that the majority of its United States employees would receive a $1,000 holiday bonus as a result of the new GOP tax plan, AT&T quietly laid off more than 1,000 employees."
Surprise surprise. What large companies say in public is often different then what they do in private.
Well, I think they are laying off people in "public" as well! What they say vs what they do...
It's pretty simple arithmetic. Companies don't invest and produce (or hire) more unless there is *demand* for products and services. Demand comes from consumer buying power. Giving companies a tax break to increase their profit margins will not result in greater investment and production, unless these things were previously constrained by a lack of capital. Which is the polar opposite of the situation we now have.
With economic income inequality negatively affecting a sizable portion of people in the United States what can be done to reasonably decrease this inequality?
This problem, according to the data, seems to be getting worse, not better. If true, this means more and more people will be suffering and struggling as long as this issue remains unchecked.
You Tube Video (this video uses an easy to understand graph that puts the articles listed above in an easy to understand format) Wealth Inequality in America:
Roads have to be built, railroads have to be maintained, we need someone to answer the phones when we dial the local emergency number and people to come to our rescue when called (police, fire, EMS) etc. etc. . The list goes on and on. Reasonable things cost money.
If we lower the tax on everyone this helps everyone financially but this will not get these reasonable expenses covered. If we raise taxes on everyone, these reasonable things are better covered but it negatively affects everyone financially.
The question also must be asked, is $1 to a person who makes $20,000 a year the same thing as $1 to someone making $200,000 a year?
Some things can't be privatized, because this leads to tyranny of the wealthy. It's really that simple.
Well, I think they are laying off people in "public" as well! What they say vs what they do...
It's pretty simple arithmetic. Companies don't invest and produce (or hire) more unless there is *demand* for products and services. Demand comes from consumer buying power. Giving companies a tax break to increase their profit margins will not result in greater investment and production, unless these things were previously constrained by a lack of capital. Which is the polar opposite of the situation we now have.
Exactly RRuff.
Companies/industries in an unregulated capitalistic system's goal is to make more profit. They do this by being as efficient and/or cutting as much as possible. It is as simple as that.
Once a company can no longer be more efficient "cutting the fat", to continue to make profit each quarter, they go after the internal "muscle" either in cutting pay, benefits or outright cutting (firing) employees. It doesn't matter if this is the health insurance industry, telecommunication industry, pharmaceutical industry, retail industry etc. It doesn't matter the industry or the company.
As you so aptly put it, if there is not an increase in demand for a companies products and services, then there is no need to hire more people. Throwing/giving more money to a company/industry does not mean they will hire more people as these new hires would just go towards making the company less efficient. As you so aptly put it, hiring and firing is based solely on a companies demand for its products and services. The only hamper on this is, as you said, a lack of capital/money (if you are new/starting/growing business). Most established large companies do not fall into this category. Why hire people to just hire people so they can stand around and do nothing because they are not needed? Its not done.
So, if companies will not hire people if you give them more money because there is not an increase in demand for their goods and services and they want to maintain efficiency, why are they telling us they will?:
"Markets are betting that companies would use their new spare cash to help investors: by purchasing boatloads of stock and beefing up their dividends. Both outcomes can help propel the soaring stock market to new heights, even if jobs and wages don't follow suit."
"During the last overseas tax holiday in 2004, companies leaned very heavily on buybacks. In fact, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities later concluded that the 2004 tax holiday "did not produce the promised economic benefits" because companies mostly bought back stock instead of investing to grow their businesses."
Just like throughout history, what do we see today when tax relief for companies without capital constraints was announced:
We see companies doing the exact same thing. They don't invest in more jobs, they just invest more in stocks. In fact, they continue to fire and trim people while doing so. Just look at Walmart, AT&T and others.
"Trump tweeted over the weekend that "TAX CUTS" will lead to "higher growth, higher wages, and more JOBS!" The GOP tax overhaul would slash the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% and offer incentives for companies to bring foreign profits back home."
To contradict that statement:
"Just 14% of CEOs surveyed by Yale University said their companies plan to make large, immediate capital investments in the United States if the tax overhaul passes."
""As we've seen in history, this doesn't raise wages," he wrote. "What it does lead to is richer shareholders."
"Markets just love it," Michael Block, chief market strategist at Rhino Trading Partners, wrote in a note on Tuesday."
"If claims about the job-creation benefits of lower tax rates had any validity, these 92 consistently profitable firms would be among the nation’s strongest job creators. Instead, we found just the opposite."
Companies want you to think they will invest in you after being given more money. History, both recent and throughout time has shown us that this is untrue. Publicly they are saying they will invest in people after they received tax relief but companies actions, all throughout time, have shown us the opposite. Large company's hiring/firing of people is based on demand, not unavailable capital/money and that companies invest in themselves (through the stock market and competitor acquisition) to become more profitable, not in their own people when they receive more money.
Last edited by txbullsfan; 01-12-2018 at 12:14 PM..
Well, I think they are laying off people in "public" as well! What they say vs what they do...
It's pretty simple arithmetic. Companies don't invest and produce (or hire) more unless there is *demand* for products and services. Demand comes from consumer buying power. Giving companies a tax break to increase their profit margins will not result in greater investment and production, unless these things were previously constrained by a lack of capital. Which is the polar opposite of the situation we now have.
Not really. Companies have layoffs because they outsource or shift to lower labor cost regions all the time. Or they use their capital to automate so they can produce products and services with less labor. Every dollar you don't spend on labor goes right to the bottom line as profit.
The whole income equality thing is caused by the glut of unskilled and semi-skilled labor. Those people have to compete against themselves. They have to compete against lower labor cost places. They have to compete against automation. That drives their wages down. If you have a skill that is relatively scarce and a company needs the skill, they'll pay more for it. Giancarlo Stanton can hit a 100 mph fastball, a major league curve ball, and 59 home runs. That skill is so scarce and creates so much profit for his employer that they're happily paying him $25 million/year. There are 100 million people who can cook French fries at McDonalds. That's worth minimum wage.
Surprise surprise. What large companies say in public is often different then what they do in private. Some good examples of "trickle down economics" "working" here. Corporations get millions/billions in tax relief. How do they spend it?
"On the same breath that Walmart announced that it is raising its hourly wages to $11 and giving employees bonuses due to tax reform, the world’s largest retailer also revealed it’s closing 63 Sam’s Club locations across the U.S., which will ultimately lay off thousands of workers."
LOL, it's not a bad thing that Walmart is giving bonuses and raising starting pay. This should be great for our community.
Many of the laid off employees from the few Sam's Club locations may be rehired as they transform those locations into facilities for online purchases.
I'm sure other companies will also give raises, knowing that Walmart is now paying $11.
The whole income equality thing is caused by the glut of unskilled and semi-skilled labor. Those people have to compete against themselves. They have to compete against lower labor cost places. They have to compete against automation. That drives their wages down.
That sounds precisely like the conditions in the late 1800s. What happened for the next 100 years to completely change the situation? Hint: workers didn't get more skills, and we didn't go luddite.
Capitalism doesn't naturally take care of this. That's why Marx predicted (correctly) that without major adjustments,capitalism would self destruct. The wealth/income generated by productivity advances must be actively distributed to the working/consumer class via wage laws, taxation, and public benefits.
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.
