U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-11-2010, 05:30 PM
 
21 posts, read 53,709 times
Reputation: 29

Advertisements

This just came to me so sorry in advance if there are misspelling, grammar, unfinished ideas, etc.

I was just thinking about taxes and the "rich"/businesses, and "trickle-down wealth." One thing occurred to me, and I'm not sure if there are any problems with it so here you go:

If we had a high tax rate for the "rich"(whatever), but had deductions that businesses could take based on the number of employees they have, the wages of those employees, % paid into healthcare for the employees, etc.

Basically that if you are a good employer and create good jobs for more people that you would get more deductions from the government for creating a good workplace and setting the stage for a better economy. The IRS would be losing revenue from the business income taxes, but would (hopefully, theoretically) be made up for in taxes from the income to each employee. This would help more people to have jobs, spend money, and help the economy by producing more working individuals.

On the other hand, if you are an individual providing no jobs but making huge amounts of wealth the higher rate would apply. This would provide an incentive for those people to hire employees, maybe start a business.

Any thoughts?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-11-2010, 07:28 PM
 
Location: Columbus
4,878 posts, read 4,320,292 times
Reputation: 1448
Quote:
Originally Posted by onyxflame1 View Post
This just came to me so sorry in advance if there are misspelling, grammar, unfinished ideas, etc.

I was just thinking about taxes and the "rich"/businesses, and "trickle-down wealth." One thing occurred to me, and I'm not sure if there are any problems with it so here you go:

If we had a high tax rate for the "rich"(whatever), but had deductions that businesses could take based on the number of employees they have, the wages of those employees, % paid into healthcare for the employees, etc.

Basically that if you are a good employer and create good jobs for more people that you would get more deductions from the government for creating a good workplace and setting the stage for a better economy. The IRS would be losing revenue from the business income taxes, but would (hopefully, theoretically) be made up for in taxes from the income to each employee. This would help more people to have jobs, spend money, and help the economy by producing more working individuals.

On the other hand, if you are an individual providing no jobs but making huge amounts of wealth the higher rate would apply. This would provide an incentive for those people to hire employees, maybe start a business.

Any thoughts?

Employers do not create jobs to get tax breaks. They create jobs when they need someone to do something productive to make the business better. That is it.

No one is going to provide a job for no reason. Obama and his economic gurus offered employers a $3,000 tax break for hiring new employees. It did no good. No one is going to hire someone to "save" $3000 in taxes unless they already needed someone to do the job.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2010, 07:51 PM
 
Location: Land of debt and Corruption
7,545 posts, read 7,988,509 times
Reputation: 2886
We need to return America to a place where it fosters business growth. There is such animosity between the government and corporate America. Is there any wonder why so many businesses are shipping out of this country and establishing themselves in friendlier environments? Who is the ultimate loser? The business who moves overseas and lowers their tax burden or the unemployed people left behind when the businesses continue to leave?

We should just do away with corporate taxes altogether. Businesses would be clamoring to come here, UE would drop, more working people would be paying taxes, and everyone is happy.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2010, 08:19 PM
 
69,364 posts, read 61,419,731 times
Reputation: 9381
Quote:
Originally Posted by onyxflame1 View Post
If we had a high tax rate for the "rich"(whatever), but had deductions that businesses could take based on the number of employees they have, the wages of those employees, % paid into healthcare for the employees, etc.
Businesses already receive tax cuts for all of these things. It reduces their net profit thereby lowers their tax obligations
Quote:
Originally Posted by onyxflame1 View Post
Basically that if you are a good employer and create good jobs for more people that you would get more deductions from the government for creating a good workplace and setting the stage for a better economy.
It wouldnt create a better economy.. Simply employing people for the sake of employing doesnt boost the economy, it simply moves where the money gets spent. Instead of the business spending and investing, the consumer is.. Either situation results in the same money being spent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onyxflame1 View Post
The IRS would be losing revenue from the business income taxes, but would (hopefully, theoretically) be made up for in taxes from the income to each employee.
Hence the numerous proposals to make companies tax exempt, thereby passing the profits onto the business owner who would then pay income taxes.. But liberals hate this idea because they see it as a get out of jail free card for businesses, even though you just displayed how its not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onyxflame1 View Post
On the other hand, if you are an individual providing no jobs but making huge amounts of wealth the higher rate would apply. This would provide an incentive for those people to hire employees, maybe start a business.

Any thoughts?
Thats how it is now..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2010, 09:00 PM
 
10,162 posts, read 9,592,823 times
Reputation: 9230
Quote:
Originally Posted by onyxflame1 View Post

If we had a high tax rate for the "rich"(whatever), but had deductions that businesses could take based on the number of employees they have, the wages of those employees, % paid into healthcare for the employees, etc.
Taxing someone who has a small business and makes $250,000.01 and higher (because that's the low end of "rich") more, why would that person want to hire someone/create a job to the tune of 10's of thousands of dollars and lose money out of their back pocket to pay the new hire salary to get a few thousand bucks back in a corporate deduction? Especially if you don't NEED to hire anyone?

Quote:
Basically that if you are a good employer and create good jobs for more people that you would get more deductions from the government for creating a good workplace and setting the stage for a better economy. The IRS would be losing revenue from the business income taxes, but would (hopefully, theoretically) be made up for in taxes from the income to each employee. This would help more people to have jobs, spend money, and help the economy by producing more working individuals.
I can only speak from a small business point of view, and when I say small business, I mean family run and "kind of" a mom & pop shop. I'm a good employer. But I'm not going to pay ridiculous salaries for working a cash register and stocking shelves, let alone create more jobs when there is no need. There is a reason the only day in a year my business is closed is never.

Quote:
On the other hand, if you are an individual providing no jobs but making huge amounts of wealth the higher rate would apply. This would provide an incentive for those people to hire employees, maybe start a business.
Why should someone who runs a business out of their home, and doesn't need any employees, yet qualifies as "rich" have to be taxed at a higher rate or be forced to create a job for someone to save being taxed even higher?

Quote:
Any thoughts?
Yes. My thought is that businesses are all different. They are all run differently, provide a different service, can have revenues from $500K to $100B and higher. Some businesses NEED skilled labor and have to pay for it, some need their employees to keep their sticky fingers to themselves.

You (not you personally, idiots like Obama) can't pigeon hole everyone who is supposedly "rich" and owns a business/works for one /runs one and assume they're all in the same situation. So how is that going to be decided?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:52 PM.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top