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.
It's also important to clarify who benefits from corporations doing well and the answer is anyone with a 401k, Pension, Bank account, Company stock plans, Anyone who wants to keep their taxes down, etc. Basically everybody has a vested interest in the stock market. These are public companies.
This is definitely true, and I'm not against corporate tax cuts overall. But to the OP's question of whether it will create pay raises... that I don't believe. Doesn't mean there aren't other benefits, some of them more compelling. I think those who benefit will largely be people who are well-to-do to begin with though - people who have a decent 401k, or a pension, or invest in stocks in the first place. My question is whether it would be better for the most amount of people to do individual tax cuts rather than corporate taxes.
Last edited by BicoastalAnn; 09-04-2017 at 09:31 PM..
I'm waiting for Loveshiscountry to call you a liar too 😟.....
Put yourself in their shoes. What would you do?
I've employed people and I've paid them what the going rate was, not less not more. If the government would have refunded all of my tax money I'd still pay the the same rate, only a liar or sucker would say otherwise.
This is definitely true, and I'm not against corporate tax cuts overall. But to the OP's question of whether it will create pay raises... that I don't believe. Doesn't mean there aren't other benefits, some of them more compelling. I think those who benefit will largely be people who are well-to-do to begin with though - people who have a decent 401k, or a pension, or invest in stocks in the first place. My question is whether it would be better for the most amount of people to do individual tax cuts rather than corporate taxes.
Do you believe in supply and demand? If so why wouldn't it apply to labor? If you create massive demand for labor with a short/shrinking supply wouldn't the only way to go be up for wages? You can see this happening at the state level, generally speaking, right now the states with lower corporate taxation have the fastest growing wages/GDP.
Would you call not letting daughters inherit land, titles, and money something else?
Holy **** are you insinuating we should use like Zimbabwe/Cuba tactics of taking land from families? That would create massive capital flight resulting in everyone being poor. BTW, We already have one of the highest inheritance taxes in the world.
Do you believe in supply and demand? If so why wouldn't it apply to labor? If you create massive demand for labor with a short/shrinking supply wouldn't the only way to go be up for wages? You can see this happening at the state level, generally speaking, right now the states with lower corporate taxation have the fastest growing wages/GDP.
How does corporate tax savings create massive labor demand though... you're assuming corporations will always spend that money on headcount growth, instead of other things like say paying down a debt or infrastructure. Or that growth always creates more jobs, instead of investing in a technology that allows you to do more with less people. And the poster a few comments above even says, as an employer, when he gets more money he doesn't overpay people - he pays them the same market rate. That has been my experience as well.
And while I may believe that low corp tax states have fastest wage growth (like going from very low to ok) but the highest taxed states tend to have the highest paying jobs. If not, Wall Street and Silicon Valley would be in MT or something, and there would be no corporations based in any of the coastal cities.
And when you don't have the money it is impossible to expand. Are you getting it yet?
We are talking about large corporations headed by CEO's like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and the Koch brothers. Do you believe Bill Gates lacks the money to start any business that he desires?
The people who actually need money to start businesses are regular Americans. But when democrats try to do things like give small businesses lending aid so they can borrow the money to start/expand a business the republicans stop the laws from passing. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/republi...-lending-bill/
Quote:
The US didn't have a surplus. How in the world does the debt get worse when you have a surplus?
The national debt did not fall/reverse on those years because of things like interest payments on the debt. For example, in 2008 the interest charge on the debt was $253 billion dollars. https://www.thebalance.com/interest-...l-debt-4119024
In 1999 our national debt was $5,656,270,901,615.43
In 2000 our national debt was $5,674,178,209,886.86
From 1999 to 2000 our national debt increased by $18 billion dollars. And even though we had surpluses during those years things like interest payments caused the debt to still rise.
What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).
"Over the past 25 years, the government has gotten used to the fact that Social Security is providing free money to make the rest of the deficit look smaller," said Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
But still "Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted."
"But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased." The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton - FactCheck.org
The real purpose of Fox news/Rush radio/republican soundbites like you repeated above is to distort the facts, hide the truth, and change the subject to avoid the fact that Bill Clinton had surpluses and GW Bush turned those surpluses into huge deficits. And to accomplish that goal republicans do the following,
They say "Clinton never had surpluses because the debt still went up" (when interest payments made the debt go up in those surplus years.)
They say "Clinton stole money from Social Security to get his surpluses" (when every president does the exact same thing.)
They say "deficits don't matter" to make it appear deficits are OK.
Or they change the subject to the debt growth Obama had while in office (when Obama's debt growth was caused by the deficits and wars he inherited from GW Bush.)
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.
