Why can't all full time jobs pay a living wage? (IT job, openings)
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.
Ummm... do you have any PROOF that land would be worthless, because that's normally a pretty tall claim... Sure, it might have been overvalued, but to claim it is "worth nothing" is rather groundless.
Even by your own definition, propping up corporate profits via taxpayer expenses on safety nets for poverty-wage workers is still corporate welfare.
As for the rest, corporations have no shortage of loopholes that let them avoid paying much of anything:
I don't think we should feel sorry for them, particularly with the lack of job creation, and if we are going to give out tax breaks and corporate welfare, it should be to encourage job creation in the US, not to encourage accounting games and other wealth-hoarding silliness.
The reason some companies don't pay federal taxes is tax breaks for them. The problem with the US tax structure is they have to give out tax breaks to keep companies in the US as rest of the developed world, Canada and Europe, have significantly lower tax rates. That is why Walgreens might move their corporate HQ to Europe as they are getting squeezed by the federal 35% and 11% state rates. Now I won't be surprised if the state and government gives them a break to match Europe.
Here is my solution, lower the rates to be competitive on a global scale, and then cut the breaks as most companies decisions are tied to finances. Unilever moved their US corporate teams to Switzerland because of a tax break, not because they want mountains over being near NYC. I don't care if you are liberal or conservative, but the nickel and dime crap in the US is driving companies and people away.
My apologies - I should have been more clear why I posted that. It wasn't about the taxes specifically, but to negate the idea that corporations are basically shouldering huge burdens with nothing in their favor as some seem to believe. As you said, corporations pay plenty of taxes, even if some avoid it on the Federal level, as do individuals, even if they also avoid it on the Federal level. My contention is just that corporations are not uniquely lacking in benefits - they get plenty of tax breaks. The problem, at least in their case, is that the breaks should be more targeted at job growth vs. just pocketing more cash, IMHO.
The reason some companies don't pay federal taxes is tax breaks for them. The problem with the US tax structure is they have to give out tax breaks to keep companies in the US as rest of the developed world, Canada and Europe, have significantly lower tax rates. That is why Walgreens might move their corporate HQ to Europe as they are getting squeezed by the federal 35% and 11% state rates. Now I won't be surprised if the state and government gives them a break to match Europe.
Here is my solution, lower the rates to be competitive on a global scale, and then cut the breaks as most companies decisions are tied to finances. Unilever moved their US corporate teams to Switzerland because of a tax break, not because they want mountains over being near NYC. I don't care if you are liberal or conservative, but the nickel and dime crap in the US is driving companies and people away.
I would agree with this. Part of the whole problem is that, on paper at least, the US has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world.
This is why we see all the loopholes and lobbyists pushing for them, and states giving "tax breaks" to corporations to build stuff or keep/move operations.
If we moved to a more simple tax system, we'd eliminate the need for many lobbyists. We'd also free up resources that were spent on armies of accountants and lawyers to navigate tax law. This falls under the "Broken Window Fallacy."
The Founding Fathers would also be considered "communists" by today's far-right wing extremist crowd. For one thing, they supported a government by the people and for the people - which is now somehow considered "communism," as is any form of government not by the corporations and for the corporations.
Anarchist maybe, but communists? No!
In true communism there is no corporations, all is owned collectively by the state on behalf of the population. What we have devolved to is a central government with a quasi-mercantile economic sytem sometimes refered to as "crony capitalism."
But I agree, outside of Hamilton, the founders would be shocked by today's central government with it's concentrated and centralized powers.
In true communism there is no corporations, all is owned collectively by the state on behalf of the population. What we have devolved to is a central government with a quasi-mercantile economic sytem sometimes refered to as "crony capitalism."
But I agree, outside of Hamilton, the founders would be shocked by today's central government with it's concentrated and centralized powers.
I think that is because like many liberals, they are idealists. Even the Federalists were but at least they saw the forest from the trees in just 220 years. Socialism is an idealistic economy that rarely lasts because it swings between capitalism or communism. If we are talking partial socialism like we see in Europe, it seems to be working. However we see people use the slippery slope idea with say social healthcare. Even Obamacare which is a social-capitalist idea is railed against because it is "backdoor socialism."
It's the supply and demand of your skills and education level, in a free market economy.
Except that the few who soak up government employment set the "free market" wages with their bloated public salaries for doing essentially very little.
Except that the few who soak up government employment set the "free market" wages with their bloated public salaries for doing essentially very little.
Ah, the old "government employees do nothing" line! I haven't heard that canard in a while.
It's completely untrue, but go ahead - believe if it you wish. I assume you have evidence that government employees "do very little" - evidence aside from "I worked at this place once in the government, and everyone was lazy but me..."
40 hours of time on the job each week is meaningless. What value did you add to the service or product? You get paid from the value you add. If you have no clue about your value add you are probably worth minimum wage where your brain doesn't have to engage to do your job. Talk to your government about the cost of living they are the ones driving it up
Ridiculous that anyone working at least 40 hours a week still can't afford food, shelter, and other necessities.
No, it's normal if you are just starting out. Get an education, learn a trade. Then you might qualify for a "living wage". Until then, get some roommates.
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.
