Countdown to the instantly fixed economy - Day 1

[HybridSquirrel]

And the answer is . . .


I know you guys don't believe it, but dphantom's post really is what true conservatives believe. If your checking account has only $37, perhaps YOU need to work more and spend less. Not G-d, not government, but YOU.

I don't work because I am in school, and no one cares about colleges kids anymore. Since my college is an investment into the future, it would be nice to see a return on the investment (in the form of a government check while I am in school, but that will never happen) But seriously, this wasn't the point I was trying to make early. I was just wondering how they were going to fix the economy and create jobs, and what it seems like is they are assuming people aren't working because there are higher taxes?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Did you figure this all out all by yourself? Isn't that what Bush did and any other 2 party system we had in place? God, you must be some fucking genius!

What's the difference? Between the Two? Absolutely nothing, whatever tool you voted in is going to do the same thing. Keep up with your brilliant thoughts!

Does that mean that the Dems are responsible for the Chinese putting us under with all their mad supercomputers? That was a brilliant thought by someone. Who was that? Oh yeah.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I know you guys don't believe it, but dphantom's post really is what true conservatives believe.

While labeling as heresy the fact that a desire to work hard and be financially successful can only be fulfilled if there is opportunity to do so. Government, by those of sound reason, shall be held only as the opportunity maker of last resort.

 

[pcgeek11]

That would be quite a nice world where the only thing available was $70k+/yr jobs. However, since we're playing make believe, my job would be a $1 million+/yr position where I work from home and nef all day long.

" Yeah, that's different. No way would I work 80 hrs/week for someone else for $70K."

No. You're the one playing make believe. You stated that flatly you wouldn't work for that. Which we both know is false if there was no other choice. Maybe there is no other choice for the OP. There are lots of people that are willing to work for those wages now that thought that they Never would be in that position either. What would you do ... starve.

 

[werepossum]

I don't work because I am in school, and no one cares about colleges kids anymore. Since my college is an investment into the future, it would be nice to see a return on the investment (in the form of a government check while I am in school, but that will never happen) But seriously, this wasn't the point I was trying to make early. I was just wondering how they were going to fix the economy and create jobs, and what it seems like is they are assuming people aren't working because there are higher taxes?

Since it's an investment in YOUR future, why not a surtax on your college expenses for my benefit? That way we can all benefit from your education! You also don't quite understand our two party system. The Republicans are assuming that people aren't working because the Republicans aren't in power.

On a more serious note, the biggest reason companies aren't expanding and rebuilding at the moment is because of the uncertainty. No one knows where corporate taxes will be over the next decade. No one knows what Obamacare will cost them, or what other socialization the Democrats would pass. No one knows what the cost will be for CO2 cap-and-tax. No one knows the cost for Obama's regulatory reform, or other tax reform. These things make it risky for a corporation to spend money, because they don't know how badly they will be hit in the future.

Most money will continue to stay on the sidelines though until the effect of this election is known. Remember the Clinton-era government shut-down? If the Republicans and the Democrats can't come up with a compromise that Obama is willing to sign, then the economy takes another hit until we see which side emerges victorious from the blame wars. If Obama decides to implement the remainder of his agenda via executive orders and agencies rather than move to the center, then the House can't stop him and the economy will likely continue its slow slide as capital continues to flee our country. Either way, how the Republicans intend to fix the economy is probably irrelevant, as they have very little power unless they want to risk the blame wars they lost with Clinton.

And even if the Republicans do leverage their power into an improved economy, neither party yet has a clue how to stop our slide to the bottom from outsourcing - nor do I. Now that Red China has access to all the West's technology, I'm not even sure it's possible to stop the slide. So while the Pubbies may be able to get our economy restarted by stabilizing our political and economic system, our underlying problems will remain and continue worsening.

 

[pcgeek11]

I don't work because I am in school, and no one cares about colleges kids anymore. Since my college is an investment into the future, it would be nice to see a return on the investment (in the form of a government check while I am in school, but that will never happen)

You should be working. School is not a good reason not to work.

The bolded above is what the primary problem with USA is caused by. Why should the taxpayers pay you to go to school? As a taxpayer I would like to hear this.

 

[HybridSquirrel]

You should be working. School is not a good reason not to work.

The bolded above is what the primary problem with USA is caused by. Why should the taxpayers pay you to go to school? As a taxpayer I would like to hear this.

I don't expect it to happen. I'm sayin it would be nice to see it happen. My cousin in sweeden gets a nice little monthly check for going to a university. Works out pretty well for them. Besides tax payers pay for women who have 10 kids and no job/education whose kids are going to be fuck ups and leeches on society just like their parents. Why not redistribute that wealth to people who aren't fuckups. My ex sister in law is a prime example. Meth head, 3 kids, collects 3k a month welfare. For what? So she can buy more meth? The money is just bejng wasted and would make more sense to give it to people who actually need it. Single moms working 9001 jobs, broke ass college kids who eat ramen, ect. Not meth heads.

 

[dank69]

...

On a more serious note, the biggest reason companies aren't expanding and rebuilding at the moment is because of the uncertainty. No one knows where corporate taxes will be over the next decade. No one knows what Obamacare will cost them, or what other socialization the Democrats would pass. No one knows what the cost will be for CO2 cap-and-tax. No one knows the cost for Obama's regulatory reform, or other tax reform. These things make it risky for a corporation to spend money, because they don't know how badly they will be hit in the future.

Most money will continue to stay on the sidelines though until the effect of this election is known. Remember the Clinton-era government shut-down? If the Republicans and the Democrats can't come up with a compromise that Obama is willing to sign, then the economy takes another hit until we see which side emerges victorious from the blame wars. If Obama decides to implement the remainder of his agenda via executive orders and agencies rather than move to the center, then the House can't stop him and the economy will likely continue its slow slide as capital continues to flee our country. Either way, how the Republicans intend to fix the economy is probably irrelevant, as they have very little power unless they want to risk the blame wars they lost with Clinton.

And even if the Republicans do leverage their power into an improved economy, neither party yet has a clue how to stop our slide to the bottom from outsourcing - nor do I. Now that Red China has access to all the West's technology, I'm not even sure it's possible to stop the slide. So while the Pubbies may be able to get our economy restarted by stabilizing our political and economic system, our underlying problems will remain and continue worsening.

I hate to break it to you, but corporations are expanding and growing and even *gasp* turning huge profits. They just aren't doing it here. They are doing it overseas, as you pointed out in your final paragraph. All this talk about 'job killing taxes' is utter bullshit. You know it. I know it. Anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together knows it. 'Job killing taxes' is just another empty slogan to get sheep that don't know any better to hop aboard.

Oh and one more revelation for you, the economy isn't sliding down the drain anymore. Those evil dems (and even some of the republicans that campaigned on the promise to stop stimulus spending even though they voted for it in the first place) and their evil stimulus have at least stopped the bleeding.

 

[pcgeek11]

I don't expect it to happen. I'm sayin it would be nice to see it happen. My cousin in sweeden gets a nice little monthly check for going to a university. Works out pretty well for them. Besides tax payers pay for women who have 10 kids and no job/education whose kids are going to be fuck ups and leeches on society just like their parents. Why not redistribute that wealth to people who aren't fuckups. My ex sister in law is a prime example. Meth head, 3 kids, collects 3k a month welfare. For what? So she can buy more meth? The money is just bejng wasted and would make more sense to give it to people who actually need it. Single moms working 9001 jobs, broke ass college kids who eat ramen, ect. Not meth heads.

Get some money from your parents, or get a job.

Taxpayers should not support:

Lazy kids going to school.
Whores with 10 kids and no means of support ( job ).
Drug addicts.
Bums.
Single moms etc

 

[IndyColtsFan]

" Yeah, that's different. No way would I work 80 hrs/week for someone else for $70K."

No. You're the one playing make believe. You stated that flatly you wouldn't work for that.

No, I wouldn't, because back here in reality, there are many jobs available in my field even in this poor economy.

At any rate, perhaps you missed my later clarification:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30703615&postcount=82

Which we both know is false if there was no other choice. Maybe there is no other choice for the OP. There are lots of people that are willing to work for those wages now that thought that they Never would be in that position either. What would you do ... starve.

Honestly, it would depend on my family situation. If I were single with no responsibilities, I'd be less inclined to work myself to death and would find another way. If I had a family and I TRULY had no choice, I'd take it but explore other options as soon as possible.

 

[werepossum]

I hate to break it to you, but corporations are expanding and growing and even *gasp* turning huge profits. They just aren't doing it here. They are doing it overseas, as you pointed out in your final paragraph. All this talk about 'job killing taxes' is utter bullshit. You know it. I know it. Anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together knows it. 'Job killing taxes' is just another empty slogan to get sheep that don't know any better to hop aboard.

Oh and one more revelation for you, the economy isn't sliding down the drain anymore. Those evil dems (and even some of the republicans that campaigned on the promise to stop stimulus spending even though they voted for it in the first place) and their evil stimulus have at least stopped the bleeding.

And you see no possible connection between our own high taxes and punitive restrictions and corporations choosing to invest in more business-friendly places? M'kay . . .

Someone here told the story of choosing Washington state over California due to the latter's 10% income tax. This is only sensible, yet when it comes to corporations - who have no family ties, no friends they'll regret leaving, no preference for bikini-warm winters or accessible skiing or nice beaches - leftists somehow think taxes are irrelevant. That completely astounds me.

 

[HybridSquirrel]

Get some money from your parents, or get a job.

Taxpayers should not support:

Lazy kids going to school.
Whores with 10 kids and no means of support ( job ).
Drug addicts.
Bums.
Single moms etc

I am not saying I need the money. I was saying it would be nice if they took all the money away from all those fuckheads who milk the system and give it to someone who would eventually become useful in society. You are already getting taxed for it anyway.

 

[pcgeek11]

No, I wouldn't, because back here in reality, there are many jobs available in my field even in this poor economy.

At any rate, perhaps you missed my later clarification:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30703615&postcount=82




Honestly, it would depend on my family situation. If I were single with no responsibilities, I'd be less inclined to work myself to death and would find another way. If I had a family and I TRULY had no choice, I'd take it but explore other options as soon as possible.

Yes I did miss the clarification... How ever just because there are many jobs now in your field in your area does not mean there always will be.

The second part of your post is a more realistic answer and is true for anybody. I just wanted to say that when you say " there is No Way that you would ... " it isn't a realistic ideal. It may be his only choice verses living in a cardboard box.

 

[pcgeek11]

I am not saying I need the money. I was saying it would be nice if they took all the money away from all those fuckheads who milk the system and give it to someone who would eventually become useful in society. You are already getting taxed for it anyway.

I'm saying that there are better places to spend it verses giving it to useless "fuckheads" and or lazy kids going to school that may or may not become useful and productive.

See?

 

[HybridSquirrel]

I'm saying that there are better places to spend it verses giving it to useless "fuckheads" and or lazy kids going to school that may or may not become useful and productive.

See?

True they can use it for other things, but they are already spending it on people, so why not just change the demographic getting the money.


Anyway that wasn't the point of me posting in this thread.

 

[dank69]

And you see no possible connection between our own high taxes and punitive restrictions and corporations choosing to invest in more business-friendly places? M'kay . . .

Someone here told the story of choosing Washington state over California due to the latter's 10% income tax. This is only sensible, yet when it comes to corporations - who have no family ties, no friends they'll regret leaving, no preference for bikini-warm winters or accessible skiing or nice beaches - leftists somehow think taxes are irrelevant. That completely astounds me.

Choosing an area with 0% tax over an area with 40% tax will save the corporation 40 cents on the dollar (for profits only) while choosing an area where an engineer is paid $1/hr vs. one where an engineer is paid $50/hr will save the company 98 cents on the dollar on labor expenses (most likely a much greater proportion of revenue than profits). You tell me, what is really the motivating factor?

(Keep in mind these are just rough arbitrary numbers to illustrate a point)

 

[Acanthus]

And you see no possible connection between our own high taxes and punitive restrictions and corporations choosing to invest in more business-friendly places? M'kay . . .

Someone here told the story of choosing Washington state over California due to the latter's 10% income tax. This is only sensible, yet when it comes to corporations - who have no family ties, no friends they'll regret leaving, no preference for bikini-warm winters or accessible skiing or nice beaches - leftists somehow think taxes are irrelevant. That completely astounds me.

Taxes come out of profit, not revenue.

No corporation will be driven out of business by taxes.

The main reason we are losing jobs is cheap labor overseas in impoverished nations. There is literally no debating that. It has nothing to do with taxes. Most of the tax money is actually funneled through Ireland when a corporation is trying to tax dodge.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Choosing an area with 0% tax over an area with 40% tax will save the corporation 40 cents on the dollar (for profits only) while choosing an area where an engineer is paid $1/hr vs. one where an engineer is paid $50/hr will save the company 98 cents on the dollar on labor expenses (most likely a much greater proportion of revenue than profits). You tell me, what is really the motivating factor?

(Keep in mind these are just rough arbitrary numbers to illustrate a point)

What is the percentage of $50 an hour labor compared to the place which doesn't exist where highly trained engineers get a buck an hour?

 

[werepossum]

Taxes come out of profit, not revenue.

No corporation will be driven out of business by taxes.

The main reason we are losing jobs is cheap labor overseas in impoverished nations. There is literally no debating that. It has nothing to do with taxes. Most of the tax money is actually funneled through Ireland when a corporation is trying to tax dodge.

I can only believe that you have no idea why businesses exist, so I'll explain. Businesses exist to make money; this is called profit. Some person or persons invest his or their assets in an attempt to increase those assets. If too much of that profit is taken away, the business becomes not worth the risk to those assets. And when it comes to corporations, taking too much of those profits leaves the corporation unable to expand. This leads either to takeovers from other companies because people don't generally want to buy stock in companies that don't make money, which makes their stock prices low and makes it easier and more profitable for other companies to take them over, or to a lack of competitiveness which slowly erodes the company's ability to compete. If the former, then those workers are largely out of luck as the purchasing company will move production to a lower cost area. If the latter, the company dies a slower death, but it still dies.

Taking too much of those profits also makes the company less likely to survive hard times, because it is unable to build the assets it needs to survive hard times.

 

[werepossum]

I am not saying I need the money. I was saying it would be nice if they took all the money away from all those fuckheads who milk the system and give it to someone who would eventually become useful in society. You are already getting taxed for it anyway.

Why not just leave it with those who are already useful in society? If I am being robbed, I do not want to be robbed by a better class of thief, I want to not be robbed.

 

[werepossum]

Choosing an area with 0% tax over an area with 40% tax will save the corporation 40 cents on the dollar (for profits only) while choosing an area where an engineer is paid $1/hr vs. one where an engineer is paid $50/hr will save the company 98 cents on the dollar on labor expenses (most likely a much greater proportion of revenue than profits). You tell me, what is really the motivating factor?

(Keep in mind these are just rough arbitrary numbers to illustrate a point)

Both these things are legitimate (although as Hayabusa Rider pointed out, the land of $1 engineers does not exist) but you miss the point. Obviously the USA cannot control labor rates across the world, so American companies face the same choices of labor costs as do companies in any other country. Lower labor costs are always a big factor, whether that means moving a New Jersey factory to Mississippi, or Mexico, or China. But high taxes also drive up labor rates. If I have a business in an area where I have to pay 50% of my profits in taxes, my rates will be accordingly higher than a similar business in an area taking 10% of profits. This is true for all businesses, else it would not be worth the time to run them. If I am a worker in an area where I have to pay 50% of my wages in taxes, then I must charge more for my labor than if I lived in an area that took only 10% of my wages in taxes. If I cannot command that premium, then it makes no sense for me to continue living there, assuming I can move to a place with similar amenities where I can enjoy a nicer lifestyle for that same labor. That is why everything costs more in high tax areas; there are no free rides.

Individuals have family ties and friends. Small business have the same, plus a local clientele that would have to be built back up. But as businesses get larger, these things increasingly become non-issues. If I sell widgets all over the world, it makes little difference if my headquarters is in my home town, or in the adjacent state, or across the country, or even in another country. High taxes tend to drive out the larger companies even more so than the smaller companies and individuals.