Seriously, what's wrong with reducing the corporate tax rate to 15% (or less)?

[DCal430]

Yeah, that is because you are insane.

What is wrong with a 25% Subtraction Method VAT, it is paid for by seller/service based on how much income they make. Many countries have 20%+ VATs.

This should be all part of a larger tax reform, that includes an excessive compensation tax, a tax penalty for paying executives too much compensation.

 

[Jhhnn]

I would guess it varies wildly by area. In my area, the local Sheetz is hiring, as is the Rita's shaved ice. One of the grocery stores (Weis I think, not sure) is also hiring. They are all part time, low pay jobs, but they are also normally the realm of the youth.

I cannot speak for other areas (obviously), so I suspect some areas have nothing while other areas have a lot.

Nice dodge. Unsupportable anecdotes are just that. The data completely contradicts what you've offered.

 

[werepossum]

Used to be that way, welcome to the future.

It's not like that anymore, they will take your cash and work as long as they can use you, if they can't they'll shut down and move.

Now, no one wants trade restrictions but when we do all of the buying and they use us to get theyr economy going into hyperspace...

You tell me, big man, what the fuck are we going to do?

Back in my day you worked in the mine or joined the armed forces after school, one in a thousand got a better job, i wan't one in a thousand.

Now you go to school and then you cash your welfare check.....

How the fuck are you supposed to fix that?

Other than trade restrictions and trying to shift government policies to encourage rather than discourage hard work and risk-taking, I don't know what to do. However - life doesn't get any simpler than the concept that if you punish behavior you get less of it and if you reward it you get more of it. That's axiomatic among all humankind.

It worked with the Republicans and the refundable EITC.

I have no problem with the original concept of EITC, that if you're working and making very little then the federal government will forgive some of your payroll taxes, recognizing that you're pulling as much of your weight as you can and you need a little help. I just don't like the fact that you can now get ALL your federal tax plus some of someone else's, in effect placing you on welfare.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Since SCOTUS ruled corporations are people, they should pay at same rates as people, including on foreign income.

Indeed. I want to be taxed only on my "profits"

 

[werepossum]

Indeed. I want to be taxed only on my "profits"

Um, you are, at least by the federal government. You work, and your pay is your profit on which you are then taxed.

 

[LunarRay]

Gee... let's see if I can get absurd to the extreme then throttle back to reality...

How about making all Corporations 'S' Corps and pass the profit to the owners directly via Schedule K1. IOW, There would be no Federal Corporate Tax at all....

I went over to Moonbeam's Planet the other day to observe the Economic Brain Tank (EBT) and was amazed at how well they were doing... They had a really bad recession for awhile with lots of job losses but they fixed that... Ironically, They have an ETC feature in their sole tax system too. What they did was induced their Corporations to hire unemployed folks at 10$ an hour.... Worked great... Most of the new hires were off the unemployment rolls so they were happy like a fat rat in a cheese factory - a big industry there. Come year end they found that none of the new hires paid a bit of tax or social security... what with 20800$ the average Moonite can afford two kidildinks and they do... The Dictator was really pleased... because now these new workers bought stuff and the stuff suppliers hired more people at that $10 per hour so now they've created 10m new jobs... but not one of them pays tax... hmmm, I thought... Not only do they not pay tax but they also get money back from the treasury and all because of the ETC... Everyone is Happy and no one earning under 30000$ a year pays a bit of tax... and that is most of them or about 70% of them... Well, thought I, who does pay tax... and how do they manage to invade the minds of their neighbor planets and what about their debt... who holds that.... valid questions, I thought.
The EBT leader cautioned me on my nosing into governmental affairs but I explained Earthly issues and after he recovered from his laughing fit he said... We don't worry about debt... we declare a debt celebration every ten years and eliminate everyone's debt and the associated 'investment'... and those who have a net investment left over get to offset that against their tax burden during the next ten years... So at the end of the day no one pays taxes on average and we hold the debt... it is paper after all and we use it as toilet paper... and to pick up after the Moongrims... As far as invading goes... we don't really invade... Our neighbors are what we call conservatives and they have defective brains... who only think they're being invaded... we do nothing but let them run about defending their insanity.... It is our favorite pastime...

Amazing, but true... Ask Moonbeam...

 

[Jhhnn]

Other than trade restrictions and trying to shift government policies to encourage rather than discourage hard work and risk-taking, I don't know what to do. However - life doesn't get any simpler than the concept that if you punish behavior you get less of it and if you reward it you get more of it. That's axiomatic among all humankind.

I have no problem with the original concept of EITC, that if you're working and making very little then the federal government will forgive some of your payroll taxes, recognizing that you're pulling as much of your weight as you can and you need a little help. I just don't like the fact that you can now get ALL your federal tax plus some of someone else's, in effect placing you on welfare.

You really don't understand the purpose of EITC, do you? Or how it works, either.

EITC is a subsidy for low pay employers. Really. If it weren't for EITC, they'd have to pay more to get workers, or even worse, workers would organize, demand higher pay. So in order to avoid those unpleasantries, EITC was created.

Instead of paying more, the owners of such outfits make more, and when they do, they buy govt bonds to finance EITC & other programs, having their cake & eating it, too. They make money at both ends of the deal. It's a helluva lot more profitable than paying higher wages & the associated expenses of more SS & unemployment taxes.

They also convince employees that they're the good guys by hooking them up with all the info employees need to get EITC & whatever else they can from the govt. It's a "morale booster" to do so. The fact that EITC benefits also work on a sliding scale wrt # of children helps their underpaid employees worry less about the kids & keep their minds on the job.

And it makes the govt look like the bad guys if benefits are cut, because employee perceptions & expectations have been shifted. They have dual dependency, not just on employers, but govt as well.

It helps starve SS of needed revenues, and actually cuts SS benefits for employees down the road who really should be earning more outright & paying more into the system.

Any time you want to figure out why things are as they are, you need to remember that the Wealthy love US govt bonds. They're the backbone of every great portfolio in this country, so it's in their interest to create deficits to create bond buying opportunities, and also in their interest to profit twice from programs like EITC.

 

[nehalem256]

I have no problem with the original concept of EITC, that if you're working and making very little then the federal government will forgive some of your payroll taxes, recognizing that you're pulling as much of your weight as you can and you need a little help. I just don't like the fact that you can now get ALL your federal tax plus some of someone else's, in effect placing you on welfare.

It is welfare. Calling a pile of crap "special chocolate" doesnt it make it delicious.

The other problem is that it pays you more for having children. Children stopped being a cash-flow generator with the passage of child labor laws.

 

[nehalem256]

Any time you want to figure out why things are as they are, you need to remember that the Wealthy love US govt bonds. They're the backbone of every great portfolio in this country, so it's in their interest to create deficits to create bond buying opportunities, and also in their interest to profit twice from programs like EITC.

Because great portfolios are filled with bonds earning less than 2% interest :hmm:

 

[Jhhnn]

Because great portfolios are filled with bonds earning less than 2% interest :hmm:

I said the backbone, the bedrock, the foundation.

http://www.smartconsumergroup.com/planning3.htm

Govt bonds are basically safe as cash, convertible, & they pay a lot better than passbook savings. They're particularly convenient for the Wealthy, because they're available in large denominations & various maturities.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Um, you are, at least by the federal government. You work, and your pay is your profit on which you are then taxed.

As soon as I get to deduct my food, utilities, clothing, and all the other expenses I incur to be at that job and make that money, then yes, I will be treated the same as corporations.

I can't even deduct commuting costs.

Edit - And I pay tax on my gross at double the rate corporations pay on net.

Note: That's fine by me, but stop lying

 

[cybrsage]

Nice dodge. Unsupportable anecdotes are just that. The data completely contradicts what you've offered.

All you had to actually do was look, and you would see the data supports my claim there are jobs. I was incorrect in saying they are all part time, there is a vast amount of full time jobs as well.

Harrisburg Full Time
http://www.simplyhired.com/a/jobs/list/l-Harrisburg%2C+PA

Harrisburg Part Time
http://www.simplyhired.com/a/jobs/list/q-part-time/l-Harrisburg,+PA/pn-2

York
http://jobs.com/search?where=york pa

Lancaster
http://www.simplyhired.com/a/jobs/list/l-Lancaster,+PA/pn-2


Thanks for allowing me to show you that there are plenty of jobs out there for those who are willing to actually do them. You ready to admit there are jobs in the south central PA area yet?

 

[Budarow2]

I think Obamney refuses to significantly reduce the rate because they're so irrational in that they'd rather think they're punishing the corporations than try to be competitive in the global arena.

The thing that makes Obama look stupid is the fact that he loves spending money on the wealthy as well as taxing them more at the same time. What a fucking dolt.

If the government is to keep the corporate tax, then what they ought to do is just have a flat marginal rate of 15% (only on taxable profits, rather than revenue) for all businesses (large and small) and a $250k exemption. That would be a tax reduction for all businesses. Then there should be no credits for anything and no deductions for employee health care (however, all other deductions should remain). Instead, everyone should be allowed to deduct all of their health care expenses.

They shouldn't keep the corporate tax in the first place, but if they have to then they shouldn't use it to screw everyone over as much as they possibly can.

The business tax rate should be 15%, but the top executives should pay a tax rate of ~50%+ on ALL their earnings (i.e., no exceptions for bonuses or stock options).

 

[cybrsage]

The business tax rate should be 15%, but the top executives should pay a tax rate of ~50%+ on ALL their earnings (i.e., no exceptions for bonuses or stock options).

Why do you want them to be taxed at a rate you would never want to pay?

 

[Jhhnn]

All you had to actually do was look, and you would see the data supports my claim there are jobs. I was incorrect in saying they are all part time, there is a vast amount of full time jobs as well.

Harrisburg Full Time
http://www.simplyhired.com/a/jobs/list/l-Harrisburg%2C+PA

Harrisburg Part Time
http://www.simplyhired.com/a/jobs/list/q-part-time/l-Harrisburg,+PA/pn-2

York
http://jobs.com/search?where=york pa

Lancaster
http://www.simplyhired.com/a/jobs/list/l-Lancaster,+PA/pn-2


Thanks for allowing me to show you that there are plenty of jobs out there for those who are willing to actually do them. You ready to admit there are jobs in the south central PA area yet?

Heh, Like I said, anecdote is not data. there are nearly half a million people officially unemployed in Pa, and more who gave up-

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/pennsylvania/

Do your ads show that many jobs? No?

Which means you're just trying to puff some sunshine up everybody's skirts...

 

[cybrsage]

Heh, Like I said, anecdote is not data. there are nearly half a million people officially unemployed in Pa, and more who gave up-

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/pennsylvania/

Do your ads show that many jobs? No?

Which means you're just trying to puff some sunshine up everybody's skirts...

Put your panties back on, there is no puffing. You claim scarity of jobs, I show 9 pages of jobs. You then whine that showing lots of jobs does not mean there are jobs.

Face it, your claim is wrong, there is not a scarcity of jobs. You are saying the wrong thing. There ARE lots of jobs, they simply either require some retraining (learn to drive a truck, TONS of them available) or require people to do things they are unwilling to do (do you want fries with that?).

When people refuse to take menial jobs after losing their good job, they become unemployed. This is what your numbers show, unemployment. They do not show that the help wanted pages I proved are lies.

Try again snookums, this time without pretending that 9 pages of jobs are all lies.

 

[Jhhnn]

Put your panties back on, there is no puffing. You claim scarity of jobs, I show 9 pages of jobs. You then whine that showing lots of jobs does not mean there are jobs.

Face it, your claim is wrong, there is not a scarcity of jobs. You are saying the wrong thing. There ARE lots of jobs, they simply either require some retraining (learn to drive a truck, TONS of them available) or require people to do things they are unwilling to do (do you want fries with that?).

When people refuse to take menial jobs after losing their good job, they become unemployed. This is what your numbers show, unemployment. They do not show that the help wanted pages I proved are lies.

Try again snookums, this time without pretending that 9 pages of jobs are all lies.

9 pages of jobs, half a million officially unemployed in PA. But, of course, there are plenty of jobs, because you can finds some openings.

It's not that the openings are lies, at all, but rather that they simply illustrate some churn in a depressed job market. If every opening were filled tomorrow, there would still be an enormous number of people unemployed, not to mention under employed. It'd barely make a dent in the statistics.

Well, unless you think that Jesus will perform the miracle of the loaves & fishes on the current job market.

 

[nehalem256]

9 pages of jobs, half a million officially unemployed in PA. But, of course, there are plenty of jobs, because you can finds some openings.

It's not that the openings are lies, at all, but rather that they simply illustrate some churn in a depressed job market. If every opening were filled tomorrow, there would still be an enormous number of people unemployed, not to mention under employed. It'd barely make a dent in the statistics.

Well, unless you think that Jesus will perform the miracle of the loaves & fishes on the current job market.

Underemployed is such an abusable term. Is a truck driver with a masters in art history underemployed?

 

[cybrsage]

9 pages of jobs, half a million officially unemployed in PA. But, of course, there are plenty of jobs, because you can finds some openings.

If there are jobs, there are jobs. These are also not for the entire state, but specifically for the cities in which the search was done. I was very clear about that in my post, it is strange you managed to "miss" it.

You claimed a scarcity of jobs and I showed 9 pages of jobs in my local area alone. You are simply wrong, but refuse to admit it.

It's not that the openings are lies, at all, but rather that they simply illustrate some churn in a depressed job market. If every opening were filled tomorrow, there would still be an enormous number of people unemployed, not to mention under employed. It'd barely make a dent in the statistics.

It is the fear of under employment that keeps people away from the many jobs which are out there - that and refusing to retrain for the ones which do exist (again, I point to the large number of truck driver jobs in my area). When unemployment benefits pay more than the new job, only a fool would take the new job.

So we are back to there not being a scarcity of jobs, but rather a scarcity of people willing to do these jobs. Oh, and there will NEVER be enough jobs for all the people. In fact, it is BAD to have enough jobs for everyone. Saying there will always be unemployed people is like saying water is wet and humans live on Earth. While it is true, it is useless information in this discussion.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Underemployed is such an abusable term. Is a truck driver with a masters in art history underemployed?

Not the topic.

Focus on the fact that there are not enough jobs, period.

As for "underemployed", the example would better be served by a teacher or engineer getting a job at WalMart.

 

[nehalem256]

Not the topic.

Focus on the fact that there are not enough jobs, period.

One could just as easily say there is too much labor

In fact it appears we are in a labor bubble.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Does this take into account women starting to work circa 1970?

Too much labor is difficult. If you also compare comparable wages and salaries over the years you will see that even though the average household is earning more, it is because both parents are working.

It has become necessary, if you want to live in a decent space anywhere close to the city (work) then you need two incomes (trust me, we looked...). And by close, I do not mean 15 minutes either....

But during a recession, we have had the problem of less jobs being produced and a steadily rising population.


BTW, why didn't the % go down during the baby boomer era? How could such a massive influx of people into the workforce NOT dip the % participation significantly? We do not have that bubble now, but we are still dipping.

To have a labor force participation rate that was relatively stable for 25 years and have that drop significantly and steadily for the past 4 is more than just a "bubble".

 

[BoberFett]

Chicken and egg...

Did lack of wage increases result in women going to work to keep up or did women going to work results in lower wages due to increase competition for jobs?

Furthermore, did women go to work because they had to in order to survive or because people get greedy and materialistic and wanted more stuff?

 

[Jhhnn]

If there are jobs, there are jobs. These are also not for the entire state, but specifically for the cities in which the search was done. I was very clear about that in my post, it is strange you managed to "miss" it.

You claimed a scarcity of jobs and I showed 9 pages of jobs in my local area alone. You are simply wrong, but refuse to admit it.



It is the fear of under employment that keeps people away from the many jobs which are out there - that and refusing to retrain for the ones which do exist (again, I point to the large number of truck driver jobs in my area). When unemployment benefits pay more than the new job, only a fool would take the new job.

So we are back to there not being a scarcity of jobs, but rather a scarcity of people willing to do these jobs. Oh, and there will NEVER be enough jobs for all the people. In fact, it is BAD to have enough jobs for everyone. Saying there will always be unemployed people is like saying water is wet and humans live on Earth. While it is true, it is useless information in this discussion.

You circle back around to the notion that if there are some jobs, then there are enough jobs, embellish it with the usual attributions. That's utterly false. You arrive there through cherry picking & hasty generalization, always in support of an ideology of failure.

Presented with a thirsty elephant, you offer a bucket of water, claim it's more than enough.

 

[Jhhnn]

Chicken and egg...

Did lack of wage increases result in women going to work to keep up or did women going to work results in lower wages due to increase competition for jobs?

Furthermore, did women go to work because they had to in order to survive or because people get greedy and materialistic and wanted more stuff?

It's the lack of wages, clearly. Even with more & more women working, median family income is decoupled from GDP-

http://lanekenworthy.net/2012/03/11/is-decoupling-real/