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.
During Clinton we experienced the longest economic boom in history.
Everytime the repubs try trickle down it hurts the economy and our jobs.
there is a chart out on wiki and some other places that lets you see
per president job creation.. its clear the dems create more jobs.
just look at the economic crash we are in right now. Creating billionaires
and choking the middle class into poverty does not help the economy
one bit. I think you knew all this though.
Note nothing happens after 2008 on your chart.
I'll take those $400 bn Bush deficits over the $1.65 trillion deficits given to us by Obama, Pelosi and Reed. I'll also take the booming Reagan economy over the Obama depression.
I don't need a lecture on the past, who did what, who is a Conservative or whatever.
I need just to understand Obama's job creation plan, in regards to:
1) HOW do jobs get created if having an employee will cost companies MORE by taxing companies that cannot afford health insurance for their workers and by increasing taxes/costs to have an employee??
2) HOW do you allow companies to make a profit if you want to take most of whatever (if any) profits they make and how will companies stay in business if their profit margins are too small?? Mind you, Obama's ONLY supposedly capping income tax increases on INDIVIDUALS to $250k or $200k or $150k or $42k... whatever it is this week.... But Obama has set NO CAPS on taxation of businesses, big or small.
3) HOW will US big corporations grow and employ more people if Obama will drive away investors from the US stock market (stock = money for companies) by doubling the capital gains taxes on top of the investor's personal income taxes?
If you can explain that, I will totally understand it and you may even convince me to support Mr. B Hussein Obama.
Otherwise, I will continue to hold on to the fact that more corporate taxes = fewer jobs. That is logic, basic economics and math.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humanoid
Only large businesses will be required to either provide health care, in which case there is no new taxes or contribute to a national policy in much the same they contribute for social security (Your employer contributes around 7% for security, you contribute the other half). Obama will give businesses tax credits for providing health care so in many cases its a wash.
Will this cost businesses a bit of money? In the case of some large businesses (e.g., Wal-mart) that have been relying on tax payer hand outs for their employees it could. When a business doesn't provide health care the tax payers ultimately pay for it. So, the questions is whether tax payers should pay the costs of should the company.
This is not the case. Small businesses are usually pass through entities and are taxed just like individuals. Pass through entities (like partnerships, S corporations, Sole proprietorship) aren't taxed at the business level, just the individual level. So, your question is based on your misunderstanding of the tax code.
Corporate taxes will only change in that loopholes will be closed.
This question begs the question. Did investors flee the stock markets under Clinton? No.
There I answered your question all of which were written with inaccuracies. If you are going to argue against a position you first have to understand the position.
"Obama will give businesses tax credits for providing health care so in many cases its a wash."
Yet big employers and unions have lined up for waivers. Go figure...
"When a business doesn't provide health care the tax payers ultimately pay for it."
Yes, that is a problem, but why is Obamacare with its unconstitutional individual mandate the best solution when so many other possibilities exist which are not at odds with the Constitutiion? It is certainly not because the voters wanted or demanded it. In fact, Democrats paid a dear price at the polls for it in 2010.
Truth is, when you step back and look at the actions of the Democrats apart from their rhetoric, Democrats have no interest in providing health care in an efficient and cost-effective manner. What they do want to do is create political slush funds from which to reward supporters and new regulations from which exemptions and special favors are exchanged for campaign contributions.
Some people let their politics shape their reality. They should learn to let reality shape their politics. Higher taxes spur re-investment in business – this is one explanation for why the U.S. had such growth in the 50's and 60's. But the Grover Norquist Dittoheads out there are incapable of open thought. Like Reagan's budget director lamented, the anti-tax ideology has become more of a religion than an ideology. Religion is a good word for it, since it is a belief system based not on hard facts or on evidence, but on what they HOPE is true.
Did you NOT read what smartypants wrote?
Putting money back into a business and employees improves the company.. increases the work force and increases profits even more and cuts tax down by doing this as all of this can be claimed on tax..... win/win....got it now?
I guess you didn't catch my sarcasm lol...read the first line of that message again.
Can ANYONE explain how higher taxes/burdens on companies will CREATE new jobs?
It doesn't but taxes could be used to solve some problems. Case in point, create multiple levels of business tax rates:
1.) Businesses that have outsourced over 30% of their workforce.
2.) Businesses that have outsourced between 10% and 30% of the workforce.
3.) Businesses that have outsourced less than 10% of their workforce.
4.) Businesses that have none of their work outsourced to foreign countries.
Go with the tax rates you have currently for the over 30% crowd and offer instant graduated tax cuts to the other three groups. Especially the biggest businesses have demonstrated that they have no intention of doing the right thing UNLESS they come out ahead.
The priority that is not being addressed right now is bringing jobs back to the USA. This is one of many ways of using changes in taxes to help.
During Clinton we experienced the longest economic boom in history.
Everytime the repubs try trickle down it hurts the economy and our jobs.
there is a chart out on wiki and some other places that lets you see
per president job creation.. its clear the dems create more jobs.
just look at the economic crash we are in right now. Creating billionaires
and choking the middle class into poverty does not help the economy
one bit. I think you knew all this though.
People need to understand that we STILL had a national debt under Clinton. It wasn't like the debt was paid off. The ONLY president ever to do that was Andrew Jackson. I'm sure the surplus was just money that was planned on being spent that wasn't actually spent. I'm sure they used CREATIVE FINANCE to come up with that figure.
Can ANYONE explain how higher taxes/burdens on companies will CREATE new jobs?
The Obama tax increases on companies is still a big mystery to me. He says they will create new jobs, which makes 0 sense.
Let's look at the Obama "strategy" for job creation:
1. Raise taxes on a company (large, medium, or small), effectively increasing cost to have an employee and increasing the cost of running a business.
2. You penalize companies for making a profit, which is the point of a business. No profit = no need for workers.
3. Then you fine any employer who doesn't pay for health insurance for the workers, giving the companies even more of a reason to fire some workers to cut costs.
4. Then you add on unionization of almost every segment of society, creating even more burdensome costs for companies. Take a look at the US automakers, who are constantly needing help from Uncle Sam because Unions keep ripping them off.
5. Then you "remove tax breaks for companies sending jobs overseas", but then these same companies (who cannot afford Obama's taxes and increased operating costs due to his social obligations), will close even their corporate offices in the US, move overseas, where they will pay $0 US income taxes (the whole company, manufacturer and corporate goes overseas where the IRS has no taxing authority)!
6. Then to top it all off, you double the captial gains taxes on everyone, so that you send out a message to those wnating to invest in US companies and business: "hey IF you make any money in the US markets and IF the US Dollar has any value, and IF you decide to invest in US companies through the stock market, I will take 30% of the profits + personal income taxes, which would take 70% of your profits. IF you can make any money".
7. Finally, if that wasn't enough, Obama will jack up the US income taxes so much, even the owner of the Miami Dolphins has his team up for sale because he is afraid Obama COULD win and he would lose everything in taxes. The owner of the Dolphis is selling the team and moving his cash overseas, away from Obama (IF he wins) and liberal Congressional Dems.
So.... HOW do jobs get created if having an employee will cost companies MORE??
How do you allow companies to make a profit if you want to take whatever profits they make??
How will US big corporations grow and employ more people if Obama will drive away investors in the stock market (stock = money for companies).
Bush lowered their taxes and they shipped the jobs overseas instead of creating them here, and are currently earning record profits, so there is no reason not to be hiring. I'm in favor of raising their taxes to the levels of the Reagan years (or above) so long as that situation stands. Lower them again when they prove that they are creating jobs, and lower them according to how many jobs they create. If they choose to move on to another country, it's not like we lost anything since they are not contributing to the well being of the country anyway.
I don't understand why so many people are worried about corporations. It's not like the love is returned.
Because we will need more Gestapo types, like the IRS thugs, to enforce those taxes. Then we might need more prisons to house those "animals" who actually believe that they should keep what they earn. There are some jobs right there.
" You penalize companies for making a profit, which is the point of a business. No profit = no need for workers."
Unless it is a corporation, the COMPANY is not taxed: it is the company's OWNER or OWNERS – the guys that rake in all the profit – who are taxed after their business expenses have been deducted from their gross income. Most companies do not pay taxes –*their owners do. State B&O tax is an exception. We're talkin' federal here. Make their personal income tax high enough, and they'll be more inclined to take their profit and put it right back into the business in order to avoid paying taxes. And that creates jobs while they get to keep control of their own money. It works (as it did in the 50's and 60's), but you have to DO it (raise their taxes) first in order to create that incentive. There is absolutely NO incentive for any business person to expand or hire at this time of such low consumer demand.
And taxes are not a penalty. I'm so sick and tired of this ragged old argument. Taxes are the cost of admission into the United States Marketplace or Workforce. It is the cover charge in order to enjoy the show. The tax rates in the U.S. are the lowest they've been in decades, and far lower than most other western industrialized nations.
With the added revenue of higher taxes, by the way, the government might actually then be able to take on some infrastructure projects that we've been putting off for a couple of decades. That creates jobs, thus creating consumers, thus creating consumer demand and more taxpayers. "But smartypants29, those are government jobs" (as if they don't count). Well, my answer to that is that a few of them are government jobs, but nearly all of the money for these projects gets poured right back into the private sector in the form of government contracts. Contracts to build bridges and tunnels and schools and light rail and high speed rail and wind farms and solar generating facilities. Those are businesses that profit from the work. The government doesn't do the building – it just oversees the projects and funds them. And in the end, we as a country remain competitive in the global marketplace by having improved infrastructure. There is so much win-win potential in all this that I think it is a crime that RepubliCONS are so adamantly against it. But, of course, "taxes are bad, m'kay."
Location: Moose Jaw, in between the Moose's butt and nose.
5,152 posts, read 8,528,010 times
Reputation: 2038
These companies will be less likely to use the extra money to fund their mansions, vacation homes in Aspen and private county club memberships and instead, but the money into the company and hire more.....that's what these companies did before Reagan came down with the trickle down bullcrap.
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.
Then we might need more prisons to house those "animals" who actually believe that they should keep what they earn. 
