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.
The problem is they never see these taxes, do you think there might be a little bit of outrage if they see a 20% or 30% sales tax on everything they buy even if the total cost was still the same?
Fair enough, cutting that would simplify things but I would still support taxes on certain items such as energy use because it can shape consumer behavior in a good way.
A friend sent me this article. It talks about the elimination of the corporate income tax as a solution to unemployment. The writer estimates the corporate taxes to bring in $300 billion a year; but that figure is overshadowed by the governmental expenses of corporate subsidies , bailouts and price supports, estimated to be $350 billion/year.(Gov. Subsidies have reportedly doubled in the last 20 years to 1,800 programs!) Eliminating corporate income taxes and the government's financial support of corporations would theoretically, result in a savings of about $50 billion/yr and businesses would put this money into expansion and jobs resulting in a timely end to unemployment.
Thoroughly moronic. The writer should have more of a clue. Big businesses are flooded with record levels of cash these days, and they're not investing it into business expansion. Why? It's obvious; because there is excess capacity, and consumer demand remains weak. Investing to add more capacity when demand for existing capacity is already weak is not somehow going to make people buy more stuff; it's just going to put businesses into a more dangerous position of potential financial loss. Businesses fundamentally expand when they think there is sufficient demand for their products. That's why the solution to an economic mess as deep as this one is not so easy; businesses don't expand and add jobs until consumers start spending, and consumers don't spend until they feel secure in their jobs.
Thoroughly moronic. The writer clearly has no education in economics. Big businesses are flooded with record levels of cash these days, and they're not investing it into business expansion. Why? It's obvious; because there is excess capacity, and consumer demand remains weak. Investing to add more capacity when demand for existing capacity is already weak is not somehow going to make people buy more stuff; it's just going to put businesses into a more dangerous position of potential financial loss. Businesses fundamentally expand when they think there is sufficient demand for their products.
But if more jobs were created by corporations utilizing the tax savings, then more people would go back to work and then consumer demand would increase as people had more cash to spend. What is the difference if its government money creating the jobs or corporate money creating the jobs? The tax elimination could initially be tied to the requirement to invest it in American Jobs. Of course, this will only appeal to those who prefer free enterprise or capitalism over a more socialistic government. I prefer to save our free market system while getting our economy back on its feet rather than relinquish all control to big government. But we need to get government out of bed with the corporations; i.e., do away with government subsidies.
But if more jobs were created by corporations utilizing the tax savings, then more people would go back to work and then consumer demand would increase as people had more cash to spend. What is the difference if its government money creating the jobs or corporate money creating the jobs? The tax elimination could initially be tied to the requirement to invest it in American Jobs. Of course, this will only appeal to those who prefer free enterprise or capitalism over a more socialistic government. I prefer to save our free market system while getting our economy back on its feet rather than relinquish all control to big government. But we need to get government out of bed with the corporations; i.e., do away with government subsidies.
Why in the world wold corporations utilize the tax savings to "create more jobs", when they're unsure of the outlook for their revenues right now? Corporations do not act out of benevolence; they act out of self interest. Corporations are already sitting on mountains of cash right now - and they're hoarding it for a rainy day. And they have a lot to be concerned about...
So what makes you think that giving them even more cash will suddenly make them start to invest it? It's not gonna work.
The reason the government usually steps in to spend is precisely because businesses in a deep recession are either unwilling or unable to do so.
I know how to lower unemployment....stop paying unemployment. Think about it, people stop getting checks for doing nothing, and then they get off their asses and get a job. Wow...rocketscience. Now lets hear all the liberals chime in about how its not fair and blah blah blah. If i was president i would lower unemployment benefits to one months and after that i would make people pick trash of the side of the highway for $5 bucks/hour. I bet they go get a real job pretty quick.
People like you sound a like a girl who thinks if she puts out more she can get her boyfiriend back.
The reality is that corporations are NO LONGER INVESTING IN AMERICA.
Here is a list of past presidential two term administrations and the rate that real private investment increased on an average yearly basis for their terms:
Eisenhower 1953 - 1960
Average Yearly Increase in Real Fixed Private Investment Per Year: 3.575%
Kennedy-Johnson 1961 - 19i68
Average Yearly Increase in Real Fixed Private Investment Per Year: 5.9000%
Nixon-Ford 1969-1976
Average Yearly Increase in Real Fixed Private Investment Per Year: 3.2125%
Reagan 1981 - 1988
Average Yearly Increase in Real Fixed Private Investment Per Year: 3.7125%
Clinton 1993 - 2000
Average Yearly Increase in Real Fixed Private Investment Per Year: 8.775%
Bush Jr. 2001 - 2008
Average Yearly Increase in Real Fixed Private Investment Per Year: 0.625%
That's right boys and girls the average annual increase in real private fixed investment during the Bush Adiministration was LESS THAN 1% a year.
The Bush Tax cuts DID NOT INCREASE the amount of real fixed private investment by any significant measure. IT SIMPLY ALLOWED INVESTORS AND CORPORATIONS TO INVEST THEIR MONEY IN OTHER COUNTRIES
Also during the Reagan Adminstration real fixed private investment did NOT increase as fast as it did during the Kennedy-Johnson or Clintion Adminstration despite the fact that the Reagan Administration instituted THE BIGGEST TAX CUT in American history.
The things that drive real fixed private investment are significant population growth, entry into new markets and technical and scientific innovation. None of which is happening in the United State now.
When will Conservatives get it? Tax breaks are like sugar highs they make spike the economy for a one or two year period but they DO NOT PROVIDE THE NECESSARY CATALYST FOR LONG TERM GROWTH.
All statistical information derived from data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
The solution, is not more taxes. More taxes doesn't solve the problem. What solves the problem is to withdraw from these ridiculous BIPARTISAN free trade treaties both the parties write up that in the end, cut our Achilles Heel.
The solution, is not more taxes. More taxes doesn't solve the problem. What solves the problem is to withdraw from these ridiculous BIPARTISAN free trade treaties both the parties write up that in the end, cut our Achilles Heel.
In a world where corporations are more powerful than governments ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
Also you can't turn back the clock and put globalism back in the bottle. Nobody complained about globalism when their clothes, TV, computers, cell phones, and other consumer items got cheaper over time. The flip side of globalism is now labor in America competes based price and quality with other countries in the world. The hard reality is AMERICAN LABOR IS NOT PRICE COMPETITIVE WITH OTHER LABOR AROUND THE WORLD.
I just read an article yesterday in the New York Times where Sri Lankan is starting to get outsourced business for accounting. A certified accountant in Sri Lanka has an averages income of about $5,900 a year. A certified accountant in the United States makes about $59,000 a year.There is NO WAY this country can compete with that.
What is going on economically CANNOT BE FIXED WITH CUTTING TAXES. The entire economy is being restructured by the global competition for labor and not just blue collar manufacturing labor. If a job of any type can be transferred to another country at cheaper cost it liable to at risk to be outsourced.
From 1945 to about the mid 1970’s United States took advantage of the fact it and built itself into the premier economic power in the world. In the mid-1970’s the many manufacturing jobs left. Now with the advent of the internet any job that can be outsourced will be outsourced.
Last edited by JazzyTallGuy; 12-01-2010 at 05:09 AM..
Also you can't back the clock and put globalism back in the bottle. Nobody complained about globalism when their clothes, TV, computers, cell phones, and other consumer items got cheaper over time. The flip side of globalism is now labor in America competes based price and quality with other countries in the world. The hard reality is AMERICAN LABOR IS NOT PRICE COMPETITIVE WITH OTHER LABOR AROUND THE WORLD.
I just read an article yesterday in the New York Times where Sri Lankan is starting to get outsourced business for accounting. [b]A certified accountant in Sri Lanka has an averages income of about $5,900 a year. A certified accountant in the United States makes about $59,000 a year.[/B ]There is NO WAY this country can compete with that.
What is going on economically CANNOT BE FIXED WITH CUTTING TAXES. The entire economy is being restructured by the global competition for labor and not just blue collar manufacturing labor. If a job of any type can be transferred to another country at cheaper cost it liable to at risk to be outsourced.
From 1945 to about the mid 1970’s United States took advantage of the fact it and built itself into the premier economic power in the world. In the mid-1970’s the many manufacturing jobs left. Now with the advent of the internet any job that can be outsourced will be outsourced.
I think there will be a reverse push towards quality, rather than low costs. I see daily these two at odds, currently. Especially in the high tech industry (like multi million dollar scientific instrumentation for companies like Dow Chemical)
A friend sent me this article. It talks about the elimination of the corporate income tax as a solution to unemployment. The writer estimates the corporate taxes to bring in $300 billion a year; but that figure is overshadowed by the governmental expenses of corporate subsidies , bailouts and price supports, estimated to be $350 billion/year.(Gov. Subsidies have reportedly doubled in the last 20 years to 1,800 programs!) Eliminating corporate income taxes and the government's financial support of corporations would theoretically, result in a savings of about $50 billion/yr and businesses would put this money into expansion and jobs resulting in a timely end to unemployment.
Eliminating corporate taxes won't do a damn thing since virtually no corporations pay any net income taxes anyway. As you said, they pay $300 billion but get $350 billion in subsidies so they're net up $50 billion.
Eliminating corporate taxes won't do a damn thing since virtually no corporations pay any net income taxes anyway. As you said, they pay $300 billion but get $350 billion in subsidies so they're net up $50 billion.
But what if you eliminate BOTH the taxes AND the subsidies. And make it a condition that they use the tax savings to create AMERICAN jobs? Just thinking...
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.
