Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-16-2011, 09:16 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,423,802 times
Reputation: 27720

Advertisements

Tax them if they move to make them stay ?
And then what ? What if they are moving because they cannot afford to stay ?
The Fedgov needs to fix itself so that companies can start and thrive here in America.
Our economy is now set up so complex that only the big boys can continue playing. I suspect that is exactly what they want.

Below is a story. 800 US jobs will be lost. Labor costs did come into play ($5400 vs $300 monthly salaries) but it was also the lack of Government assistance, bank loans (no one wants to loan to startups), and the red tape of trying to get federal loans. A number of factors combined drove this company to another country where he could get loans and credits and some financial help.
This is solar here...supposedly our future. China has a fastpath to encourage growth and what does the US have....layers and layers of red tape. The article also goes on to say that the other solar company that Obama praised and gave money to have closed plants. First Solar is the only one still doing fine and they offshored to begin with.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/bu...l?ref=business

"But now the company is closing its main American factory, laying off the 800 workers by the end of March and shifting production to a joint venture with a Chinese company in central China. Evergreen cited the much higher government support available in China."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-16-2011, 11:30 AM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,310,529 times
Reputation: 2337
To speculatively answer my own question, maybe the 90% rate worked well in the 50's because America had a captive market.

A captive world market.

And now, China has a captive world market.

Bummer!

How do you fix that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2011, 12:51 PM
 
Location: My little patch of Earth
6,193 posts, read 5,364,922 times
Reputation: 3059
So, pray tell what kind of Utopia will the country of 'ergohead' be?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2011, 05:33 PM
 
352 posts, read 187,029 times
Reputation: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
Of course, this would include all employees of Corporations, too.

Dividend income could be held at a 50% maximum.

Keep non-corporate income taxes at 0%.

This might return some power to the people (Natural Born Persons).

Natural born persons might then have more respect for each other, what with not being treated like meat by the Government.

This could cause a healthy rise in Ma & Pa and other sole proprietorship enterprises.
Please, take the pencil out of your celebellum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2011, 05:39 PM
 
352 posts, read 187,029 times
Reputation: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Driller1 View Post
Did you know most small Mom & Pop businesses are S corp now???

Different Types of Corporations: Advantages/ Disadvantages of Corporations | MoreBusiness.com
Of course he doesn't know. He doesn't know anything except that he has a deep abiding hatred of everthing and everyone successfull.

Is Mom and Pop motors going to build a fuel-efficient vehicle for him? Once you get past the horse-and-buggy level, corporations are essential.

It is amazing what outlandish things failure will drive some people around here say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2011, 09:08 PM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,310,529 times
Reputation: 2337
Next!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2011, 09:37 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
1,065 posts, read 1,755,212 times
Reputation: 476
The unbelievable absurdity of one side of this argument leaves me to believe the poster can not possibly be serious.

Yet I see members of congress and a certain member of the executive branch who I'm afraid may hold somewhat similar beliefs regarding economics.

That turns this thread from laugh out loud funny to truly bone chilling frightening.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2011, 10:05 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
19,004 posts, read 14,180,717 times
Reputation: 16697
I would not Tax Corporations A Maximum Of 90%.
I would cut the Federal budget by 90%.
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 09:12 AM.

© 2005-2024, 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