Anybody know anything about or participating in Occupy Wall Street? (military, to move)
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 think you are hitting companies with lots of taxes when they purchase things and tons of fees. the only tax loss would be the income tax. that money would have to either be invested in the business or paid out to shareholders. if its paid out to shareholders, its taxed. if its invested in the business, it creates more economic activity. businesses should be engines for economic growth which leads to more jobs and hopefully more jobs staying in america. giving more tax dollars to government doesnt really have an economic benefit when you need things to get better. the more money government has and the more it grows, the less we can grow because they have to take from the private sector. thats why everyone becomes equally poor as you go further into socialism.
if you just want to balance the budget you end up cutting tons of jobs but not creating any improvement in their ability to get jobs in the private sector. sure, welfare benefits are cheaper than government jobs but id rather move them into real private sector jobs. so action needs to be taken to help business. right now, businesses are being hit with all these additional fees in a time where revenues are down. its hurting them and ultimately they are the ones who need to drive a recovery, not government.
i understand the argument you're making. but i disagree with it's economic theory.
what leads to mkore jobs is demand for products and services. what leads to increases in demands for products and services is more money in consumers pockets. reducing the tax liability of corporations would mean taxing more from individuals to cover the lost revenues. as has been happening for the past 30-40 years, an increased burden on the middle class for the expenses of our country continues to reduce their buying power.
businesses being hit with additional fees is not really true. regulations are still relatively low, compared to the past. this belief is just fundamentally not accurate. businesses have cash to invest in the business or pay out to shareholders. they are holding onto it though. but your belief is that if we just give them more cash, we'll start reaping the benefits. sorry, but history has not shown this to be accurate.
i agree with everything you said here (while not advocating the incentive idea, but agreeing in principle with finding ways to encourage investment in usa rather than abroad). "wall street" and business in general is a profit seeking animal that needs proper regulation that allows it to grow but also deters "bad behavior."
when i say they are hit by tons of taxes and fees, im referring to sales taxes when they buy products, payroll taxes when they pay employees, fees for things like unemployment insurance plus a special assessment we are currently being hit with, we are often hit by random assessments and now more than ever because of the government's spending, many businesses pay high energy bills and are taxed on that, etc. etc. some of it is the same stuff as everyone else and some are special for businesses, but they are contributing to government revenues in many ways, and the better they do the more revenue they can contribute.
sales tax when buying products - everyone pays this.
payroll takes when paying employees - everyone pays this.
unemmployment insurance - everyone pays this.
high energy bills? buy solar panels, reduce energy consumption, etc. i see it from inside my company how much money is simply wasted on energy.
those are all standard costs of doing business. and they all come off the bottom line before you pay income taxes on profits.
businesses are contibuting to government revenues in many ways, but less so than in the past. and you want it to be even less.
so i ask you...who in the country should pay taxes to fund the services in the government? remember - forget what you think the government should and shouldn't do - that's a debate for citizens and their representatives to carry out through the legislative process. but once that process has decided "let's do this", who should pay taxes to do "this"?
the argument that not giving them money to be able to do "this" is false and a pipe dream. decisions have already been made, we can make new decisions to not do some things, but that's legislation, not playing with taxes and debt ceilings.
so i ask you...who in the country should pay taxes to fund the services in the government?
well id say my simplified answer would be everyone via a flat income tax across the board with no deductions or loopholes. then user type fees for specific services. businesses exist to get money to people, they will pay taxes via the income to individuals.
you said everyone pays sales taxes, etc. exactly, thats the point. but while an individual may pay gas taxes on one car, a business may pay it on a fleet of cars. so the more activity businesses does, the more revenue government gets (not that i care about government revenue but i see it as a way to cut government spending and balance the budget by shifting more activity to the private sector away from government).
i know we were hit by the below fee. but it doesnt end there and that fee will grow.
well id say my simplified answer would be everyone via a flat income tax across the board with no deductions or loopholes. then user type fees for specific services. businesses exist to get money to people, they will pay taxes via the income to individuals.
you said everyone pays sales taxes, etc. exactly, thats the point. but while an individual may pay gas taxes on one car, a business may pay it on a fleet of cars. so the more activity businesses does, the more revenue government gets (not that i care about government revenue but i see it as a way to cut government spending and balance the budget by shifting more activity to the private sector away from government).
i know we were hit by the below fee. but it doesnt end there and that fee will grow.
to which i would respond, show me an advanced economy in which the flat income tax works?
the income to individuals is already taxed, so to replace the taxes you're removing, individuals would need to be taxed more.
cutting revenue to government does not cut spending or balance the budget. you have to make the changes to spending first. that's where the tea party has got it mathmatically incorrect. you need to address the spending issues to even come close to balancing the budget before you discuss lowering taxes any further. so that means continued deficit spending until you can remove the amount NJGOAT referred to before.
Hmmmm...I guess that I will just have to be much more thorough when I read the annual reports from the corporations whose stock I hold. I never noticed any statements indicating that their intention is to function as a social welfare organization, but...clearly, CaptainNJ must be correct about the reason why corporations exist, so I will just have to re-read those annual reports in order to find the truth, as "The Captain" has stated it.
And, when I finish that task, I will write to every historian who documented the era of the Robber Barons and the companies that they ran, and tell those historians that they are mistaken about why those corporations existed, and that they are wrong about the exploits of the Goulds, Vanderbilts, Harrimans, Rockefellers, Swifts, and other corporate leaders of their day. Those guys were just misunderstood!
... then user type fees for specific services ... while an individual may pay gas taxes on one car, a business may pay it on a fleet of cars. so the more activity businesses does, the more revenue government gets ...
And your problem with this system is ........... what?
You state that you want to see "user fees", and yet you seem to have a problem with the reality that a business with a fleet of cars pays gas taxes on the fuel for all of them. It looks to me like that's a good example of a direct user fee. The more miles you put on the roads, the more you pay to support those roads.
Or, do you think that I should carry the burden of paying for the wear and tear that a fleet of corporate cars puts onto our roads?
to which i would respond, show me an advanced economy in which the flat income tax works?
the income to individuals is already taxed, so to replace the taxes you're removing, individuals would need to be taxed more.
cutting revenue to government does not cut spending or balance the budget. you have to make the changes to spending first. that's where the tea party has got it mathmatically incorrect. you need to address the spending issues to even come close to balancing the budget before you discuss lowering taxes any further. so that means continued deficit spending until you can remove the amount NJGOAT referred to before.
Exactly. This is also the problem we have it comes to a lack of compromise. The right led by the Tea Party is saying we have a spending problem. The left is saying we have a revenue problem and wants to rollback the Bush tax cuts. They are both clinging so tightly to their sacred cows that they fail to realize we have BOTH.
Nothing illustrates that better than the last go around on the debt ceiling. Boehner and Obama had both put everything on the table from Social Security reform to tax increases, but the extremes in their party screamed so loud they backed down.
We need to start with cuts, but we can only go so far with that before we need to raise revenue as well. Just look at the numbers. Tell me where you are going to come up with $1.2+ trillion to cut. Then look at revenue and change the mix however you want, but tell me how you are going to come back to a balanced budget and what that impact would be.
to which i would respond, show me an advanced economy in which the flat income tax works?
honestly, i cant list economies where its been attempted. right now, nobody's economy is looking too pretty so something isnt working about what we have now. we currently have a progressive income tax and about $15 trillion in debt, so you would say thats working? of course, you would blame other factors. so if there was flattaxland where they had a flat tax but that economy collapsed, maybe it was other factors. but i cant come up with a successful economy with a flat tax just like i doubt you can think of a failed one off the top of your head.
we spend almost $1 trillion more than we did in 2008. we have gained nothing from that, so knock it back down to that. cut military $200 billion more. there is your $1.2 trillion.
probably a bunch of pot smoking college kids and various other morons that generally show up to these protests. their mommies should tell them its time to come home.
Generalizations and assumptions are...not necessarily accurate.
Earlier today, I was speaking with a friend of mine, and she mentioned that her husband (mid-40s, PhD in Physical Chemistry, employed by...let's just say...a major corporate entity, and earning a very comfortable salary) is going to attend the demonstrations in NYC tomorrow.
As they say...Never assume.
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.
