redistribution of wealth

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: loup garou

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Most people who make over $200,000 voted for Obama.

Country First?

Is that true? If that be the case I wish people here would stop posting on behalf of the rich people in this country. They don't want you speaking for them evidently.

I get tired of hearing the opinions of the plumber Joes of the world who complain about these taxes despite not making anywhere near this amount of money a year.

Just because you someday plan on making $250K a year doesn't make your taxes go up and makes your opinions on tax increases for the rich, moot, especially if they as Ferocious suggested, voted for the guy who was going to increase their taxes.

Beat McCain by 6% in voters making >$200,000. 15% higher than Kerry did.

This really hit home for me a week or so before the election. We were having dinner at my friend's father's house, amidst his six figure wine cellar and Ferrari. He was arguing with another one of my friends -- who is solidly middle class, about why he (friend) was voting McCain. It just didn't make any sense. Here's a guy who is going to be impacted most by "spreading the wealth around" (insert :roll: here), but the guy who was going to benefit from it was voting McCain. Obviously many of the people impacted by Obama's tax plans aren't concerned...why are others? And if I hear one peep of socialism, I swear...

Well, its nice that certain rich people want to help the "poor" by raising taxes. However, why not have these people donate the money themselves rather than forcing everyone to do it via tax hikes?

Just because George Clooney wants to spend some of his money on the poor, it makes no sense for him to force other rich people to.

What happens when a small business owner (or even a large one) wants to create a new product to sell, but cannot hire enough people because the tax rates are too high? Unemployment.

For the rich that have money to burn, let them donate it on their own free will. For the rich that need money to help the economy create jobs, let them keep it and not hamper them by redistributing their money.

well said

Terribly said, actually. It gets tiresome bickering with right-wing ideologues who fail to understand the basic concept of why taxes have a role in a democratic society.

He has too many fallacies to list, such as his false assumption that all the money not taxed is used by the rich for wonderful society-serving uses, creating jobs.

It's too ridiculous to bother correcting his errors - he shows, for example, zero understading that any level of concentration of wealth can cause problems.

The word for today is "budget". For a company, to be exact, for the employee, the more of a "budget" there is the better. Things that make the budget go down are things like operational cost, and taxes. In a bad economy, ESPECIALLY, in a bad economy; the bigger the "budget", the better. More taxes, even if it is a small amount means a smaller "budget".

Today where I work, they leaders that make the decisions based on budget have decided to not renew 80% of the contractors that work here. There are around 300 people who are basically going to be unemployed at the end of the month.

Yes, people.. the word is budget. The more there is the better. The less means more unemployment and layoffs. More taxes means less "budget".. you can do the math.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: eleison
The word for today is "budget". For a company, to be exact, for the employee, the more of a "budget" there is the better. Things that make the budget go down are things like operational cost, and taxes. In a bad economy, ESPECIALLY, in a bad economy; the bigger the "budget", the better. More taxes, even if it is a small amount means a smaller "budget".

Today where I work, they leaders that make the decisions based on budget have decided to not renew 80% of the contractors that work here. There are around 300 people who are basically going to be unemployed at the end of the month.

Yes, people.. the word is budget. The more there is the better. The less means more unemployment and layoffs. More taxes means less "budget".. you can do the math.

Well maybe if there were people out there who are both willing and fiscally able to buy your companies products and services then it wouldn't be an issue. I said it earlier in this thread. Obama's tax increases on companies that make over 250k profit are not going to burden them so much to the point where that alone will cause layoffs or any kind of major budget freeze. If that does occur it is for reasons that have nothing to do with the tax increases which will only act as the straw that broke the camel's back at absolute most and even that will be VERY rare. Another poster stated that it doesn't matter how large of a tax break we give rich businesses and he is right. If the consumers do not have the cash to consume then the businesses don't make sales. If your employer wants to make his company grow then he needs to come up with a much better business plan. From there, the government will be doing what it can through a progressive tax policy so that your consumers will have more money to buy your products/services. After that, it is all about the free market competition to play its role and do what it does best. If your employer is running a great business with great competition on his side then it WILL grow and get much richer under Obama not matter how you slice it. If not then the business will fail or at least downsize. That's the way it works.


As I also stated earlier:

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Historic public records have proven that even under the most aggressive democratic progressive tax plans the businesses still grew and the rich kept getting richer. Obama's plan is by no means the most aggressive in history so stop blowing smoke.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: eleison
Well, its nice that certain rich people want to help the "poor" by raising taxes. However, why not have these people donate the money themselves rather than forcing everyone to do it via tax hikes?

Because it was their will to make it so by more of them voting for Obama and his "tax hikes?" It's right there in black and white; these people favored Obama and spoke about what they want to do with their money. Unless, of course, you think YOU should be the one to tell them what to do with their money. That sounds a little scarier than the democratic process to me, though.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: eleison
The word for today is "budget". For a company, to be exact, for the employee, the more of a "budget" there is the better. Things that make the budget go down are things like operational cost, and taxes. In a bad economy, ESPECIALLY, in a bad economy; the bigger the "budget", the better. More taxes, even if it is a small amount means a smaller "budget".

Today where I work, they leaders that make the decisions based on budget have decided to not renew 80% of the contractors that work here. There are around 300 people who are basically going to be unemployed at the end of the month.

Yes, people.. the word is budget. The more there is the better. The less means more unemployment and layoffs. More taxes means less "budget".. you can do the math.

Well maybe if there were people out there who are both willing and fiscally able to buy your companies products and services then it wouldn't be an issue. I said it earlier in this thread. Obama's tax increases on companies that make over 250k profit are not going to burden them so much to the point where that alone will cause layoffs or any kind of major budget freeze. If that does occur it is for reasons that have nothing to do with the tax increases which will only act as the straw that broke the camel's back at absolute most and even that will be VERY rare. If your employer wants to make his company grow then he needs to come up with a much better business plan. From there, the government will be doing what it can through a progressive tax policy so that your consumers will have more money to buy your products/services. After that, it is all about the free market competition to play its role and do what it does best.


As I also stated earlier:

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Historic public records have proven that even under the most aggressive democratic progressive tax plans the businesses still grew and the rich kept getting richer. Obama's plan is by no means the most aggressive in history so stop blowing smoke.

Tell that to the 300 people who will be losing their jobs. On the bright spot, most of these people are not wealthy so they will probably be getting tax cuts.....

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: eleison
Tell that to the 300 people who will be losing their jobs. On the bright spot, most of these people are not wealthy so they will probably be getting tax cuts.....

Look, I sympathize with them but what I am trying to explain to you is giving your employer tax cuts or leaving the taxes the way they are under Bush is not going to save their jobs and if it does it will only be VERY temporary. If your employer is cutting it is because they are not making money. Period. That is either due to a bad business or because people are unable to buy his products/services or both. It is not taxes.

If anything, Obama's tax cuts will be coming too late for those 300 people who might still have their jobs if they came earlier.

 

[Rustler]

I wonder how many people here were alive durning the President Carter adminstration....................gas lines, double digit inflation, intrest rates in the teens........................

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: loup garou

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Most people who make over $200,000 voted for Obama.

Country First?

Is that true? If that be the case I wish people here would stop posting on behalf of the rich people in this country. They don't want you speaking for them evidently.

I get tired of hearing the opinions of the plumber Joes of the world who complain about these taxes despite not making anywhere near this amount of money a year.

Just because you someday plan on making $250K a year doesn't make your taxes go up and makes your opinions on tax increases for the rich, moot, especially if they as Ferocious suggested, voted for the guy who was going to increase their taxes.

Beat McCain by 6% in voters making >$200,000. 15% higher than Kerry did.

This really hit home for me a week or so before the election. We were having dinner at my friend's father's house, amidst his six figure wine cellar and Ferrari. He was arguing with another one of my friends -- who is solidly middle class, about why he (friend) was voting McCain. It just didn't make any sense. Here's a guy who is going to be impacted most by "spreading the wealth around" (insert :roll: here), but the guy who was going to benefit from it was voting McCain. Obviously many of the people impacted by Obama's tax plans aren't concerned...why are others? And if I hear one peep of socialism, I swear...

Well, its nice that certain rich people want to help the "poor" by raising taxes. However, why not have these people donate the money themselves rather than forcing everyone to do it via tax hikes?

Just because George Clooney wants to spend some of his money on the poor, it makes no sense for him to force other rich people to.

What happens when a small business owner (or even a large one) wants to create a new product to sell, but cannot hire enough people because the tax rates are too high? Unemployment.

For the rich that have money to burn, let them donate it on their own free will. For the rich that need money to help the economy create jobs, let them keep it and not hamper them by redistributing their money.

well said

Terribly said, actually. It gets tiresome bickering with right-wing ideologues who fail to understand the basic concept of why taxes have a role in a democratic society.

He has too many fallacies to list, such as his false assumption that all the money not taxed is used by the rich for wonderful society-serving uses, creating jobs.

It's too ridiculous to bother correcting his errors - he shows, for example, zero understading that any level of concentration of wealth can cause problems.

The word for today is "budget". For a company, to be exact, for the employee, the more of a "budget" there is the better. Things that make the budget go down are things like operational cost, and taxes. In a bad economy, ESPECIALLY, in a bad economy; the bigger the "budget", the better. More taxes, even if it is a small amount means a smaller "budget".

Today where I work, they leaders that make the decisions based on budget have decided to not renew 80% of the contractors that work here. There are around 300 people who are basically going to be unemployed at the end of the month.

Yes, people.. the word is budget. The more there is the better. The less means more unemployment and layoffs. More taxes means less "budget".. you can do the math.

I think the belief is that Obama is going to increase corporate taxes. Corporate taxes are levied against profit, not revenue. Basically, what is left after the "budget" will get taxed.

If these 300 people were indeed contractors, then your company was avoiding having to pay FICA, FUTA, and SUI. Ironically, if cutting these contractors loose increases your company's profit, your company just increased its tax burden.

In other words, the real word of the day is "profit." Corporate tax is levied on "profit," not "budget." If your company had to lay off their independent contractors, it's because they lack "revenue." This would not be affected by corporate tax hikes which tax "profit." If "revenue" - "budget" = "negative number," then there is no "profit" for which the government to tax thereby you wouldn't see a hike. The hike only matters when "revenue" - "budget" = "positive number." The "positive number" or "profit" is then taxed. If "revenue" grows too large and the company wants to decrease its tax liability, it could always hire another employee to increase the "budget" and reduce "profit."

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Rustler
I wonder how many people here were alive durning the President Carter adminstration....................gas lines, double digit inflation, intrest rates in the teens........................

Do you have any idea how much our government, our country, our people, and the world economy has change since Carter? How can you possibly come up with an educated and accurate comparison to show that the times and the people are really similar?

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: Rustler
I wonder how many people here were alive durning the President Carter adminstration....................gas lines, double digit inflation, intrest rates in the teens........................

However, he built up the greatest surplus of punctuation the world has ever seen. To this day, conservative posters on AT are spending his dividends.

SERIOUSLY. What is the deal with this style of posting?

 

[Rustler]

It is good to realize that Gross Profit and Net Profit are diffrent numbers....................usually gross profit is reported in the media and demonized.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: BigDH01
I think the belief is that Obama is going to increase corporate taxes. Corporate taxes are levied against profit, not revenue. Basically, what is left after the "budget" will get taxed.

If these 300 people were indeed contractors, then your company was avoiding having to pay FICA, FUTA, and SUI. Ironically, if cutting these contractors loose increases your company's profit, your company just increased its tax burden.

In other words, the real word of the day is "profit." Corporate tax is levied on "profit," not "budget." If your company had to lay off their independent contractors, it's because they lack "revenue." This would not be affected by corporate tax hikes which tax "profit." If "revenue" - "budget" = "negative number," then there is no "profit" for which the government to tax thereby you wouldn't see a hike. The hike only matters when "revenue" - "budget" = "positive number." The "positive number" or "profit" is then taxed. If "revenue" grows too large and the company wants to decrease its tax liability, it could always hire another employee to increase the "budget" and reduce "profit."

That is correct. Obama's tax increases are only on the profits and not the budgets so to speak. The taxes will decrease the rate at which the companies get grow and get richer, but ONLY if you assume that they will not make more sales thanks to the working middle class being able to pay for more of their products and services and thus earning them more profit. There is no one out there that can claim that the middle class are not big spenders either. It will be spent and the best companies that make the best products and offer the best services will be the ones who reap most of the benefits. It's a wonderful thing.

 

[Rustler]

The deal is that I have seen a lot more adminstrations come and go in my life time............I am not spending any dividends and I am just pointing out that the ecomony is in a very percarious state right now it could really go down the toilet....................................

 

[davestar]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: davestar

Originally posted by: eleison
Yea, we are in a recession.. We are losing jobs.. Companies are going bankrupt.. let's tax these companies and these rich business owners even more!!! That will surely make our economy even better.

Yea, the movie stars, the singers, the celebrities.. yea, they want more taxes -- to "help the poor..." However, are they the ones who really create the jobs? Or is it the person running a business and trying to make the budget so he can hire people to launch his product, or to market it or even to manufacture it.

your ideas sound nice in isolation, but if you actually think about how the actual economy functions, you'll realize why supply-side economics have never worked. if the consumers (read: middle class and poor) can't afford to *consume*, then businesses will fail no matter their tax rate.

as an aside, the statutory federal corporate tax rate (35%) has little to do with the real corporate tax rates actual paid. the average rate paid by profitable Fortune 500 companies in 2002-2003 was 17.2%, much lower than other developed nations. hardly the oppressive rates that you'd like to portray.

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.or..._tax_rates_plummet.php

Wow...is there a flip side to this coin? Those are some low numbers but while I am not inclined to disagree with you I am a firm believer in a "his side, her side, and the truth" approach. These companies are complaining? Sad.

i too like to err on the side of caution before deciding my stance. every piece of research that i've encountered, though, has pointed to the effective corporate tax rate decreasing, the tax burden shifting away from corporations and towards individuals, and the percentage of corporate taxes as a share of GDP being at historical lows since Bush came into office.

here's another good source: http://www.cbpp.org/10-16-03tax.htm

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: loup garou

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Most people who make over $200,000 voted for Obama.

Country First?

Is that true? If that be the case I wish people here would stop posting on behalf of the rich people in this country. They don't want you speaking for them evidently.

I get tired of hearing the opinions of the plumber Joes of the world who complain about these taxes despite not making anywhere near this amount of money a year.

Just because you someday plan on making $250K a year doesn't make your taxes go up and makes your opinions on tax increases for the rich, moot, especially if they as Ferocious suggested, voted for the guy who was going to increase their taxes.

Beat McCain by 6% in voters making >$200,000. 15% higher than Kerry did.

This really hit home for me a week or so before the election. We were having dinner at my friend's father's house, amidst his six figure wine cellar and Ferrari. He was arguing with another one of my friends -- who is solidly middle class, about why he (friend) was voting McCain. It just didn't make any sense. Here's a guy who is going to be impacted most by "spreading the wealth around" (insert :roll: here), but the guy who was going to benefit from it was voting McCain. Obviously many of the people impacted by Obama's tax plans aren't concerned...why are others? And if I hear one peep of socialism, I swear...

Well, its nice that certain rich people want to help the "poor" by raising taxes. However, why not have these people donate the money themselves rather than forcing everyone to do it via tax hikes?

Just because George Clooney wants to spend some of his money on the poor, it makes no sense for him to force other rich people to.

What happens when a small business owner (or even a large one) wants to create a new product to sell, but cannot hire enough people because the tax rates are too high? Unemployment.

For the rich that have money to burn, let them donate it on their own free will. For the rich that need money to help the economy create jobs, let them keep it and not hamper them by redistributing their money.

well said

Terribly said, actually. It gets tiresome bickering with right-wing ideologues who fail to understand the basic concept of why taxes have a role in a democratic society.

He has too many fallacies to list, such as his false assumption that all the money not taxed is used by the rich for wonderful society-serving uses, creating jobs.

It's too ridiculous to bother correcting his errors - he shows, for example, zero understading that any level of concentration of wealth can cause problems.

The word for today is "budget". For a company, to be exact, for the employee, the more of a "budget" there is the better. Things that make the budget go down are things like operational cost, and taxes. In a bad economy, ESPECIALLY, in a bad economy; the bigger the "budget", the better. More taxes, even if it is a small amount means a smaller "budget".

Today where I work, they leaders that make the decisions based on budget have decided to not renew 80% of the contractors that work here. There are around 300 people who are basically going to be unemployed at the end of the month.

Yes, people.. the word is budget. The more there is the better. The less means more unemployment and layoffs. More taxes means less "budget".. you can do the math.

I think the belief is that Obama is going to increase corporate taxes. Corporate taxes are levied against profit, not revenue. Basically, what is left after the "budget" will get taxed.

If these 300 people were indeed contractors, then your company was avoiding having to pay FICA, FUTA, and SUI. Ironically, if cutting these contractors loose increases your company's profit, your company just increased its tax burden.

In other words, the real word of the day is "profit." Corporate tax is levied on "profit," not "budget." If your company had to lay off their independent contractors, it's because they lack "revenue." This would not be affected by corporate tax hikes which tax "profit." If "revenue" - "budget" = "negative number," then there is no "profit" for which the government to tax thereby you wouldn't see a hike. The hike only matters when "revenue" - "budget" = "positive number." The "positive number" or "profit" is then taxed. If "revenue" grows too large and the company wants to decrease its tax liability, it could always hire another employee to increase the "budget" and reduce "profit."

Ok, and Obama is going to increase corporate taxes. I think even Obama believes that raising the second highest corporate taxes in the world is not a good thing. He's even said it.

Keynesian economics states taht we should lower taxes in a recession and go into deficit spending. A lot of dems go with this, and that's why they advocate for higher tax rates in a boom.

Edited for mistake about capital gains taxes

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: loup garou

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Most people who make over $200,000 voted for Obama.

Country First?

Is that true? If that be the case I wish people here would stop posting on behalf of the rich people in this country. They don't want you speaking for them evidently.

I get tired of hearing the opinions of the plumber Joes of the world who complain about these taxes despite not making anywhere near this amount of money a year.

Just because you someday plan on making $250K a year doesn't make your taxes go up and makes your opinions on tax increases for the rich, moot, especially if they as Ferocious suggested, voted for the guy who was going to increase their taxes.

Beat McCain by 6% in voters making >$200,000. 15% higher than Kerry did.

This really hit home for me a week or so before the election. We were having dinner at my friend's father's house, amidst his six figure wine cellar and Ferrari. He was arguing with another one of my friends -- who is solidly middle class, about why he (friend) was voting McCain. It just didn't make any sense. Here's a guy who is going to be impacted most by "spreading the wealth around" (insert :roll: here), but the guy who was going to benefit from it was voting McCain. Obviously many of the people impacted by Obama's tax plans aren't concerned...why are others? And if I hear one peep of socialism, I swear...

Well, its nice that certain rich people want to help the "poor" by raising taxes. However, why not have these people donate the money themselves rather than forcing everyone to do it via tax hikes?

Just because George Clooney wants to spend some of his money on the poor, it makes no sense for him to force other rich people to.

What happens when a small business owner (or even a large one) wants to create a new product to sell, but cannot hire enough people because the tax rates are too high? Unemployment.

For the rich that have money to burn, let them donate it on their own free will. For the rich that need money to help the economy create jobs, let them keep it and not hamper them by redistributing their money.

well said

Terribly said, actually. It gets tiresome bickering with right-wing ideologues who fail to understand the basic concept of why taxes have a role in a democratic society.

He has too many fallacies to list, such as his false assumption that all the money not taxed is used by the rich for wonderful society-serving uses, creating jobs.

It's too ridiculous to bother correcting his errors - he shows, for example, zero understading that any level of concentration of wealth can cause problems.

The word for today is "budget". For a company, to be exact, for the employee, the more of a "budget" there is the better. Things that make the budget go down are things like operational cost, and taxes. In a bad economy, ESPECIALLY, in a bad economy; the bigger the "budget", the better. More taxes, even if it is a small amount means a smaller "budget".

Today where I work, they leaders that make the decisions based on budget have decided to not renew 80% of the contractors that work here. There are around 300 people who are basically going to be unemployed at the end of the month.

Yes, people.. the word is budget. The more there is the better. The less means more unemployment and layoffs. More taxes means less "budget".. you can do the math.

I think the belief is that Obama is going to increase corporate taxes. Corporate taxes are levied against profit, not revenue. Basically, what is left after the "budget" will get taxed.

If these 300 people were indeed contractors, then your company was avoiding having to pay FICA, FUTA, and SUI. Ironically, if cutting these contractors loose increases your company's profit, your company just increased its tax burden.

In other words, the real word of the day is "profit." Corporate tax is levied on "profit," not "budget." If your company had to lay off their independent contractors, it's because they lack "revenue." This would not be affected by corporate tax hikes which tax "profit." If "revenue" - "budget" = "negative number," then there is no "profit" for which the government to tax thereby you wouldn't see a hike. The hike only matters when "revenue" - "budget" = "positive number." The "positive number" or "profit" is then taxed. If "revenue" grows too large and the company wants to decrease its tax liability, it could always hire another employee to increase the "budget" and reduce "profit."

Going with your scenario, budget and revenue are intrinsically related. Lets say, that x amount of dollars are "budget" for consultants, however, y amount is the expected revenue. Hence, the total "reserve" for consultants is x + y. The total reserve is the amount of money provisioned for the workers. If the tax rate is high, the company would have either tried to get the net profit next to zero by investing in capital -- like new servers or what not, or they can just send it away as dividends; or worse spend it on something that may not make business sense in the long run, but makes prefect sense in the short run. However, once this is money is gone, if y is ever to decrease than, the total reserve would not have a buffer. The company did not save enough profit because they were trying to save on taxes last year to stave of unemployment this year.

If the tax rates were lower, companies would have the option to be more free with their money. Instead of having to let people go, they could use this extra money they saved to keep people employed.

This situation with Obama is that it affects the small business like LLC and partnerships more than the large ones. These create the most jobs. For most of these smaller business, a "budget" actually means what most people perceive as budget. The more these people get taxed, the least likely these companies will be able to or willing to create jobs which in a way will affect revenues of all business regardless if they are big or small.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: eleison

The word for today is "budget". For a company, to be exact, for the employee, the more of a "budget" there is the better. Things that make the budget go down are things like operational cost, and taxes. In a bad economy, ESPECIALLY, in a bad economy; the bigger the "budget", the better. More taxes, even if it is a small amount means a smaller "budget".

Today where I work, they leaders that make the decisions based on budget have decided to not renew 80% of the contractors that work here. There are around 300 people who are basically going to be unemployed at the end of the month.

Yes, people.. the word is budget. The more there is the better. The less means more unemployment and layoffs. More taxes means less "budget".. you can do the math.

It's pretty short sighted to talk about 'budget' only in terms of pretending that lower taxes always is better for everything. You know what else increases budget? Revenue. Revenue that increases with financially healthy customers who can buy your product. Was Henry Ford a communist or a good capitalist when he pushed for higher wages for workers to be able to buy more products from companies like his?

And there's more to the picture than budget, too. You know something that would lower taxes and increase your budget? Killing sick people who need lots of government help.

But it's not really a good idea. Though you may disagree.

There's more to the budget than taxes. It's easy from your myopic view to fixate on taxes and want to whine loudly about paying them. That's a lack of perspective IMO.

Of course we want policies that support a healthy business environment.

That's different than an extreme, abusive 'give business everything it wants and screw everyone else' policy. You may not be able to tell the difference much.

But what I see is a whole lot of lack of appreciation for the 'good of society' and some compromise by many of the right-wingers defending 'corporate profit'.

It's short-sighted not to invest in the society.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: davestar

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: davestar

Originally posted by: eleison
Yea, we are in a recession.. We are losing jobs.. Companies are going bankrupt.. let's tax these companies and these rich business owners even more!!! That will surely make our economy even better.

Yea, the movie stars, the singers, the celebrities.. yea, they want more taxes -- to "help the poor..." However, are they the ones who really create the jobs? Or is it the person running a business and trying to make the budget so he can hire people to launch his product, or to market it or even to manufacture it.

your ideas sound nice in isolation, but if you actually think about how the actual economy functions, you'll realize why supply-side economics have never worked. if the consumers (read: middle class and poor) can't afford to *consume*, then businesses will fail no matter their tax rate.

as an aside, the statutory federal corporate tax rate (35%) has little to do with the real corporate tax rates actual paid. the average rate paid by profitable Fortune 500 companies in 2002-2003 was 17.2%, much lower than other developed nations. hardly the oppressive rates that you'd like to portray.

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.or..._tax_rates_plummet.php

Wow...is there a flip side to this coin? Those are some low numbers but while I am not inclined to disagree with you I am a firm believer in a "his side, her side, and the truth" approach. These companies are complaining? Sad.

i too like to err on the side of caution before deciding my stance. every piece of research that i've encountered, though, has pointed to the effective corporate tax rate decreasing, the tax burden shifting away from corporations and towards individuals, and the percentage of corporate taxes as a share of GDP being at historical lows since Bush came into office.

here's another good source: http://www.cbpp.org/10-16-03tax.htm

Without doing too much research, as the tax burden shifted to the individuals, how did the economy fare? After all, isn't better to have lower corporate tax burden, and higher individual tax burden if most people are employed, verses higher tax burdens for the companies but most people being are unemployed?

 

[jpeyton]

Anyway, it's water under the bridge now.

Bush's tax cuts WILL expire.

Glory, glory, hallelujah.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I just don't get it. The country is in debt up to eyebrows. And our leaders talk tax cut.

Thats why I didn't vote a bunch of retards selling votes for tax cuts. WE need to raise taxes across the board . According to income braket. Highest gets biggest increase.

I don't get you guys its the love of money that got us to were where at. Corruption everywhere. Yet ya sell your vote on a useless tax cut. Reduce government and raise taxes. Cut social programms . Work to recieve welfare and mandatory tube tieing for welfare types.

This promise of raising the poors standards is a complete lie. Ya can't raise there standards and cut taxes. The only way of raising the poors standards is threw welfare. Most don't want to work for many differant reasons.

In NewYork city whats the welfare benefit for 1 month family of six. MN is the state ya want to come to for welfare. Easy to get. Ya don't even have to be legeal citizan. Very high bennies for the size of state. WE get alot of hispanics. Nice people . But willing to take your jobs for lower wages. BAD BAD.

Its really strange about MN. Is its a DEM state always has been . THats our welfare system at work.

The thing is MN. is a union busting state. That even sends in national guards. SO scabs can take your jobs. I thought democrats were union people . My state is confused.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: eleison
Without doing too much research, as the tax burden shifted to the individuals, how did the economy fare? After all, isn't better to have lower corporate tax burden, and higher individual tax burden if most people are employed, verses higher tax burdens for the companies but most people being are unemployed?

In a thriving economy where the tax codes are not completely FUBAR...you might have more of an argument. But that is not the case here at all. Even when the econ gets better we still have the monstrosity of the tax codes which need tons of updating.

Again though, even under progressive taxation our history shows that people don't lose jobs because of the taxes. The businesses still grow and get richer. You just refuse to believe that, but what you should be doing is looking up some records.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Ok, and Obama is going to increase corporate taxes. I think even Obama believes that raising the second highest corporate taxes in the world is not a good thing. He's even said it.

Keynesian economics states taht we should lower taxes in a recession and go into deficit spending. A lot of dems go with this, and that's why they advocate for higher tax rates in a boom.

Edited for mistake about capital gains taxes

Links posted immediately above your post demonstrate that while our nominal tax rate may be high, our effective tax rate is quite low.

Keynes would probably advocate taxing profit if it meant giving money to consumers to increase demand. While it would be nice to keep corporate taxes low in the process, massive government investment in projects and infrastructure is hard in a time when we're going to be running nearly a trillion dollars in debt this FY.

It may have been possible to both keep taxes low and increase spending were it not for the recent bailouts. I think with those, you can only choose one and I would choose the latter. Keynes, like anything, is good in moderation. You have to use common sense.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: eleison

The word for today is "budget". For a company, to be exact, for the employee, the more of a "budget" there is the better. Things that make the budget go down are things like operational cost, and taxes. In a bad economy, ESPECIALLY, in a bad economy; the bigger the "budget", the better. More taxes, even if it is a small amount means a smaller "budget".

Today where I work, they leaders that make the decisions based on budget have decided to not renew 80% of the contractors that work here. There are around 300 people who are basically going to be unemployed at the end of the month.

Yes, people.. the word is budget. The more there is the better. The less means more unemployment and layoffs. More taxes means less "budget".. you can do the math.

It's pretty short sighted to talk about 'budget' only in terms of pretending that lower taxes always is better for everything. You know what else increases budget? Revenue. Revenue that increases with financially healthy customers who can buy your product. Was Henry Ford a communist or a good capitalist when he pushed for higher wages for workers to be able to buy more products from companies like his?

And there's more to the picture than budget, too. You know something that would lower taxes and increase your budget? Killing sick people who need lots of government help.

But it's not really a good idea. Though you may disagree.

There's more to the budget than taxes. It's easy from your myopic view to fixate on taxes and want to whine loudly about paying them. That's a lack of perspective IMO.

Of course we want policies that support a healthy business environment.

That's different than an extreme, abusive 'give business everything it wants and screw everyone else' policy. You may not be able to tell the difference much.

But what I see is a whole lot of lack of appreciation for the 'good of society' and some compromise by many of the right-wingers defending 'corporate profit'.

It's short-sighted not to invest in the society.

Redistribution of wealth is not the way, my friend... Henry Ford was allowed to build a company that employed countless number of people. Henry Ford was given the freedom to run his company and create jobs. At the end of the day, the government did not force Henry ford to "share the wealth". That's what makes American great. People work hard to achieve there dreams and the government tries to stay out of it.

 

[davestar]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: eleison

The word for today is "budget". For a company, to be exact, for the employee, the more of a "budget" there is the better. Things that make the budget go down are things like operational cost, and taxes. In a bad economy, ESPECIALLY, in a bad economy; the bigger the "budget", the better. More taxes, even if it is a small amount means a smaller "budget".

Today where I work, they leaders that make the decisions based on budget have decided to not renew 80% of the contractors that work here. There are around 300 people who are basically going to be unemployed at the end of the month.

Yes, people.. the word is budget. The more there is the better. The less means more unemployment and layoffs. More taxes means less "budget".. you can do the math.

It's pretty short sighted to talk about 'budget' only in terms of pretending that lower taxes always is better for everything. You know what else increases budget? Revenue. Revenue that increases with financially healthy customers who can buy your product. Was Henry Ford a communist or a good capitalist when he pushed for higher wages for workers to be able to buy more products from companies like his?

And there's more to the picture than budget, too. You know something that would lower taxes and increase your budget? Killing sick people who need lots of government help.

But it's not really a good idea. Though you may disagree.

There's more to the budget than taxes. It's easy from your myopic view to fixate on taxes and want to whine loudly about paying them. That's a lack of perspective IMO.

Of course we want policies that support a healthy business environment.

That's different than an extreme, abusive 'give business everything it wants and screw everyone else' policy. You may not be able to tell the difference much.

But what I see is a whole lot of lack of appreciation for the 'good of society' and some compromise by many of the right-wingers defending 'corporate profit'.

It's short-sighted not to invest in the society.

Redistribution of wealth is not the way, my friend... Henry Ford was allowed to build a company that employed countless number of people. Henry Ford was given the freedom to run his company and create jobs. At the end of the day, the government did not force Henry ford to "share the wealth". That's what makes American great. People work hard to achieve there dreams and the government tries to stay out of it.

once the right-wing lets go of the misconception that "redistribution of wealth" must ONLY mean hard-working Amuricans paying for welfare queens, maybe the US can have a real, honest debate about tax policy.

did you ever think that the phrase "redistributing the wealth" is applicable to giving the rich a substantial tax break? only that we're taking money from the poor and middle class and sending it upstream.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: davestar

Originally posted by: eleison
Redistribution of wealth is not the way, my friend... Henry Ford was allowed to build a company that employed countless number of people. Henry Ford was given the freedom to run his company and create jobs. At the end of the day, the government did not force Henry ford to "share the wealth". That's what makes American great. People work hard to achieve there dreams and the government tries to stay out of it.

once the right-wing lets go of the misconception that "redistribution of wealth" must ONLY mean hard-working Amuricans paying for welfare queens, maybe the US can have a real, honest debate about tax policy.

did you ever think that the phrase "redistributing the wealth" is applicable to giving the rich a substantial tax break? only that we're taking money from the poor and middle class and sending it upstream.

Exactly. That phrase is very much a two way street. Corporate welfare anyone?

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: eleison
Without doing too much research, as the tax burden shifted to the individuals, how did the economy fare? After all, isn't better to have lower corporate tax burden, and higher individual tax burden if most people are employed, verses higher tax burdens for the companies but most people being are unemployed?

In a thriving economy where the tax codes are not completely FUBAR...you might have more of an argument. But that is not the case here at all. Even when the econ gets better we still have the monstrosity of the tax codes which need tons of updating.

Again though, even under progressive taxation our history shows that people don't lose jobs because of the taxes. The businesses still grow and get richer. You just refuse to believe that, but what you should be doing is looking up some records.

NO friend those jobs are out sourced. To be honest I don't care about the rest of the world. We got wounds to lick and healing to do . If the world countries want us. They can apply for statehood and follow the rules. Or they can rote in hell.