Steve Wynn unloads on Obama and explains why there are no jobs.

[BoberFett]

GE is one of the evil tax dodging corps, yes. Just because they support dems doesn't mean I think they should be getting a free ride on taxes.

This whole thread is parrots blaming the other side.

This country is going down in flames while you idiots argue about nothing.

 

[werepossum]

This post is loaded with so much straw I don't even know where to begin. If you look at how I worded my post, you'll see I made no comment about Obama's credibility on business matters. This isn't about Obama's credibility versus Steve Wynn's. This is about Steve Wynn's credibility versus the known evidence of low demand in his market. I am talking about whether we can trust a businessman with a vested pecuniary interest in minimizing regulation when he blames a lack of growth in his business on regulation in a recessionary climate which has hit his locale especially hard. I don't think these kinds of comments can be dismissed out of hand, but I do think the bias of the source must be considered, particularly when the evidence supports another explanation. If Wynn had made this comment in healthy economic times, I'd still harbor some suspicion but would be more inclined to consider its merits.

Fair enough. At some point though we have to choose a path. At that point, it boils down to the Obama method - government is the answer, taxation is the method, and the problem is that we don't have enough government and taxation - and the Wynn method - remove the threat of ruinous government action and businesses will naturally begin to hire.

Our business climate has somewhat bifurcated into businesses funded by government and businesses funding government. The former are afraid to hire because they fear the Republicans will cut off the government largesse. The latter are afraid to hire because they fear the Democrats will use the Executive branch to raise their costs to the point of making future (if not existing) ventures losing propositions. Ironically the one place both types of businesses agree is a safe place to invest is Communist China - arguably the very worst place for them to invest for our country's sake. There are a lot of businesses making good profits that would love to expand into new products and markets, but uncertainty about the future keeps their money sitting in the bank.

 

[Lithium381]

Spidey, I think it's time to go take your lithium.

you called?

 

[werepossum]

you called?

 

[soundforbjt]

Fair enough. At some point though we have to choose a path. At that point, it boils down to the Obama method - government is the answer, taxation is the method, and the problem is that we don't have enough government and taxation - and the Wynn method - remove the threat of ruinous government action and businesses will naturally begin to hire.

Our business climate has somewhat bifurcated into businesses funded by government and businesses funding government. The former are afraid to hire because they fear the Republicans will cut off the government largesse. The latter are afraid to hire because they fear the Democrats will use the Executive branch to raise their costs to the point of making future (if not existing) ventures losing propositions. Ironically the one place both types of businesses agree is a safe place to invest is Communist China - arguably the very worst place for them to invest for our country's sake. There are a lot of businesses making good profits that would love to expand into new products and markets, but uncertainty about the future keeps their money sitting in the bank.

You know why they are sitting on their money? Because they can and it doesn't hurt them. They are holding the middle class hostage and you're supporting them doing it. They are making record profits and see no need to invest. They won't be satisfied until they get what they want and then guess what...they'll find another excuse.

 

[GamingDaemon]

@ayabe

Sounds like you are in favor of a flat tax. I'm in favor of that. Let's abolish the IRS, and create a flat tax. No loop holes. Everyone, including the bottom 50%, pay taxes on what they earn. Our tax revenues would soar.

Now, all we need to do is get you and others like you to cut back on spending. When you say "Government spending also buys products and enables people to pay taxes", Government spending is using money from tax payers to that. You argument is doesn't make any sense. I don't care how many products the government "buys", it is using my tax dollars to buy them. Stop buying things, get rid of the waste in the government, and ultimately cut spending. That means entitlements. Like unemployment. Don't get rid of it, but don't extend it either. When folks are willing to take unemployment becausei t pays as much as the job down the street, and they can sit home and watch T.V., that's bad for the country.

Cut government spending. 'Nuff said.

 

[spidey07]

You know why they are sitting on their money? Because they can and it doesn't hurt them. They are holding the middle class hostage and you're supporting them doing it. They are making record profits and see no need to invest. They won't be satisfied until they get what they want and then guess what...they'll find another excuse.

You don't understand basic business sense obviously. You spend money to make more money.

 

[Fern]

38% of corps are paying NO taxes now, some actually get money back and pay a negative tax. What good will lowering their rates do when the largest aren't paying anything now?

Less regulations= more pollution, more hazards for workers, less quality control for the consumer. Sounds great, doesn't it? if you're the corporation.

If by obstacles you mean "red tape", I may agree with you there.

In this economy we should be surprised that 38% of corps pay no taxes?

Could it be they had no net income?

I'm familiar with GE, or whoever, who actually had net income but wiped out their tax with "green energy" credit. But we know who we can thank for that. I can better understand allowing credits for people who purchase green appliances, not all credits for corporations who simply make them.

Yes, some corporations will be getting money back. You are allowed to carry losses back and deduct them on earlier years' tax returns. This, losses that can be carried back, will happen more often in bad economic years. This tax law (carryback of NOLs) has been around since forever, no one has every claimed it unfair etc.

Fern

 

[Fern]

You know why they are sitting on their money? Because they can and it doesn't hurt them. They are holding the middle class hostage and you're supporting them doing it. They are making record profits and see no need to invest. They won't be satisfied until they get what they want and then guess what...they'll find another excuse.

Business don't ordinarily want to "sit on money". It's a very poor plan. Businesses exist to make as much profit as possible, sitting on money is contrary to their prime objective. Ordinarily they invest it in their business or branch out into new lines of business. That is far more profitable that just sitting on money.

So the question is (or should be) why are businesses taking the unusual step of sitting on money? What is making them deviate from their ordinary behavior?

Fern

 

[soundforbjt]

In this economy we should be surprised that 38% of corps pay no taxes?

Could it be they had no net income?

I'm familiar with GE, or whoever, who actually had net income but wiped out their tax with "green energy" credit. But we know who we can thank for that. I can better understand allowing credits for people who purchase green appliances, not all credits for corporations who simply make them.

Yes, some corporations will be getting money back. You are allowed to carry losses back and deduct them on earlier years' tax returns. This, losses that can be carried back, will happen more often in bad economic years. This tax law (carryback of NOLs) has been around since forever, no one has every claimed it unfair etc.

Fern

IIRC,R. Murdoch got back 6 billion. You can't tell me he's not making any money.

GE was the highest grossing corp one year and paid no taxes. It's just not right.

 

[soundforbjt]

Business don't ordinarily want to "sit on money". It's a very poor plan. Businesses exist to make as much profit as possible, sitting on money is contrary to their prime objective. Ordinarily they invest it in their business or branch out into new lines of business. That is far more profitable that just sitting on money.

So the question is (or should be) why are businesses taking the unusual step of sitting on money? What is making them deviate from their ordinary behavior?

Fern

So they can get want they want politically, less regulations, etc. It's pure greed. I'm not against them making money, but not at the expense of the country's economy and workers.

 

[werepossum]

You know why they are sitting on their money? Because they can and it doesn't hurt them. They are holding the middle class hostage and you're supporting them doing it. They are making record profits and see no need to invest. They won't be satisfied until they get what they want and then guess what...they'll find another excuse.

I don't think you understand why corporations (or individuals) create jobs. It is NOT because people need them, or because they want to create new customers, or because there is some sort of social contract that making a profit obligates them to create jobs with that profit. A job is created when an entity (corporation, government or individual) has capital and a need that the entity cannot or prefers not to fill itself. In some cases that need MUST be filled, but in most cases the need is optional and is based solely on the assumption that using the capital to create that job will return an acceptable increase in the invested capital within an acceptable time period.

A profitable corporation has no inherent need to create another job; it's already making a return on its invested capital. In order to make it practical and attractive for that corporation to create another job, that corporation needs to see a stable business environment so that it sees a reasonable expectation of an increased return on an increased investment. Even the brighter of those on the left understand this; they simply argue that they know better how to spend the money than do those who earned it. They argue that by redistributing the money of others, they can create increased demand that will force businesses to create more jobs to fulfill the increased demand. (Of course, they ignore the fact that there is little incentive to attempt to fulfill the increased demand if government is going to take any profit.)

If you think government has a moral right to take a corporation's (or individual's) profit because government better knows how to invest it, then you'll have to be content with the economic performance of Cuba or North Korea or Pol Pot's Cambodia or the Soviet Union. Enlightened self interest is what gave the West (and Japan, and South Korea) its prosperity, and that doesn't include creating jobs simply because one is making a profit. Jobs should only be created when productivity can be increased in a manner that increases the creator's capital.

 

[GamingDaemon]

Business don't ordinarily want to "sit on money". It's a very poor plan. Businesses exist to make as much profit as possible, sitting on money is contrary to their prime objective. Ordinarily they invest it in their business or branch out into new lines of business. That is far more profitable that just sitting on money.

So the question is (or should be) why are businesses taking the unusual step of sitting on money? What is making them deviate from their ordinary behavior?

Fern

You are obvioulsy quite learned when it comes to business. People that argue corporations are just sitting on their money to take the middle class hostage are just angry, many times at themselves, and are venting out their frustration. They don't have the facts on their side.

It takes persistence and cold hard facts to persuade them, and only if they are willing to listen...

 

[Fern]

IIRC,R. Murdoch got back 6 billion. You can't tell me he's not making any money.

GE was the highest grossing corp one year and paid no taxes. It's just not right.

Give me a little more info on the R Murdoch thing and I'll look into it.

Yeah, the GE situation annoyed me too.

Fern

 

[Fern]

So they can get want they want politically, less regulations, etc. It's pure greed. I'm not against them making money, but not at the expense of the country's economy and workers.

Corporations get what they want politically, not by sitting on their money, but by making campaign donations and hiring lobbyists.

Need to consider other reasons for their unusual behavior.

Fern

 

[ayabe]

@ayabe

Sounds like you are in favor of a flat tax. I'm in favor of that. Let's abolish the IRS, and create a flat tax. No loop holes. Everyone, including the bottom 50%, pay taxes on what they earn. Our tax revenues would soar.

Now, all we need to do is get you and others like you to cut back on spending. When you say "Government spending also buys products and enables people to pay taxes", Government spending is using money from tax payers to that. You argument is doesn't make any sense. I don't care how many products the government "buys", it is using my tax dollars to buy them. Stop buying things, get rid of the waste in the government, and ultimately cut spending. That means entitlements. Like unemployment. Don't get rid of it, but don't extend it either. When folks are willing to take unemployment becausei t pays as much as the job down the street, and they can sit home and watch T.V., that's bad for the country.

Cut government spending. 'Nuff said.

Sure there is plenty of unnecessary spending everyone agrees on that. But one man's pork is another man's "job creator". So here we are. Where there are clear examples of waste there should be cuts. But the cuts need to be done carefully so we don't accidentally deprive ourselves of net revenue.

Speaking of the IRS, Obama asked for more funding, Congress denied him, so spending will stay at last years levels. If anything we need more funding for the IRS, where's the fairness?

"According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as of the end of fiscal year 2010, the balance of reported unpaid federal taxes was about $330 billion." http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-272

The specter of IRS gestapo agents knocking down your door, is just that a specter. Getting audited is I'm sure a hassle but there are plenty of legitimate targets waiting to get zinged. Even recouping half of that money would go a long ways towards paying down the deficit.

As for taxes in general, they are at 60 year lows as a percentage of GDP, it is necessary that revenues increase in order to realistically lower the deficit, let alone get back to a balance. I do not agree with a flat tax, but the things like the carried interest loophole and the recent gang of six plan, where the top rate is being cut in favor of reductions to several tax deductions that largely benefit the middle class are just criminal.

 

[werepossum]

IIRC,R. Murdoch got back 6 billion. You can't tell me he's not making any money.

GE was the highest grossing corp one year and paid no taxes. It's just not right.

Three things. First, corporations don't really pay taxes. That money is simply a cost that is added to the consumers' cost, or taken from stockholders' dividends or stock growth, or a combination of the two.

Second, most of us agree that it is to our benefit to keep as much work in America as possible. Allowing American corporations to carry past losses to use against future profits is one effective way to keep those corporations from failing in bad times, or else dropping so low in value (stock price) that foreign competitors snap them up.

Third, at least theoretically, some of the reason that GE paid no income taxes is that it received credits for things that our society (at least as represented by our elected lawmakers) find desirable, such as research into/production of clean alternative energy such as solar panels and windmills, and production of more energy efficient appliances. I'm not a fan of General Electric, which moves the vast majority of its production offshore as a matter of policy, but I do realize that it is playing by the rules that we as a society have set up and is thereby creating what we think is a better society. No doubt these credits are heavily slanted by the lobbyists, but we get at least SOME benefit from them. We can certainly discuss at what point we should stop rewarding corporations for doing something and merely mandating them, but the concept at least of allowing tax breaks in return for corporations investing in something with a perceived social benefit is valid.

Solar panels for instance - most people can see the value in generating clean power at the point of use, but without tax breaks and even direct subsidies there are none which at present are cost efficient. Thus we subsidize solar panel manufacturers, researchers, and consumers, which drives progress which hopefully will result in breakthroughs that make solar panels economically feasible.

 

[spidey07]

Oh look. Another CEO telling us what most business folks already know - Obama is bad for the economy and his policies are crippling business.

Home Depot Co-Founder: Obama Is Choking Recovery
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAna...5/Marcus-Home-Truths-On-Jobs.aspx?src=HPLNews

IBD : What's the single biggest impediment to job growth today?
Bernie Marcus: Marcus: The U.S. government. Having built a small business into a big one, I can tell you that today the impediments that the government imposes are impossible to deal with. Home Depot would never have succeeded if we'd tried to start it today. Every day you see rules and regulations from a group of Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a business. And I mean every day. It's become stifling.

If you're a small businessman, the only way to deal with it is to work harder, put in more hours, and let people go. When you consider that something like 70% of the American people work for small businesses, you are talking about a big economic impact.

IBD : Why don't more businesses speak out?

Marcus: They are frightened to death — frightened that they will have the IRS or SEC on them. In my 50 years in business, I have never seen executives of major companies who were more intimidated by an administration.

 

[nyker96]

But I mean, if Republican policies of hands off on the housing bubble, allowing wall street to use mortgage debt papers as a trading instrument, allowing companies like Lehman Brothers to borrow 33x their cash reserve etc. are so successful and these policies are so good for the business why the market crashed? I mean allowing business do all these things don't necessarily turn out to be good for business is it? I mean republican policies may be more pro business but is it good for the economy and the market?

Of course, if business has reservation about obama's policies, I think white house should find a way to clarify its positions and work with the businesses. But to assume pro business automatically means good for economy isn't correct. Look at Clinton years. And when Bush was president, there was few doubt his pro businesses stance look at what happened to our economy then.

And for the previous poster, the SEC is on these wall street firms because it was their greed and irresponsible handling of investor's money that led to the market crash of 2008. They are investigated due to popular pressure.

The 2008 crash led to more strict enforcement of SEC rules and creation of new rules for the protection of the market, so we don't suffer another crash like 2008:

Regulatory action in the credit crunch

The SEC announced on September 17, 2008, strict new rules to prohibit all forms of "naked short selling" as a measure to reduce volatility in turbulent markets.[19][20]

The SEC investigated into cases involving individuals attempting to manipulate the market by passing false rumors about certain financial institutions. The commission has also investigated into trading irregularities and abusive short selling practices. Hedge fund managers, broker-dealers, and institutional investors were also asked to disclose under oath, certain information pertaining to their positions in credit default swaps. The commission also brought about the largest settlements in the history of the SEC (approximately $51 billion in all) on behalf of investors who purchased auction rate securities from six different financial institutions.

 

[Lithium381]

I don't think you understand why corporations (or individuals) create jobs. It is NOT because people need them, or because they want to create new customers, or because there is some sort of social contract that making a profit obligates them to create jobs with that profit. A job is created when an entity (corporation, government or individual) has capital and a need that the entity cannot or prefers not to fill itself. In some cases that need MUST be filled, but in most cases the need is optional and is based solely on the assumption that using the capital to create that job will return an acceptable increase in the invested capital within an acceptable time period.

A profitable corporation has no inherent need to create another job; it's already making a return on its invested capital. In order to make it practical and attractive for that corporation to create another job, that corporation needs to see a stable business environment so that it sees a reasonable expectation of an increased return on an increased investment. Even the brighter of those on the left understand this; they simply argue that they know better how to spend the money than do those who earned it. They argue that by redistributing the money of others, they can create increased demand that will force businesses to create more jobs to fulfill the increased demand. (Of course, they ignore the fact that there is little incentive to attempt to fulfill the increased demand if government is going to take any profit.)

If you think government has a moral right to take a corporation's (or individual's) profit because government better knows how to invest it, then you'll have to be content with the economic performance of Cuba or North Korea or Pol Pot's Cambodia or the Soviet Union. Enlightened self interest is what gave the West (and Japan, and South Korea) its prosperity, and that doesn't include creating jobs simply because one is making a profit. Jobs should only be created when productivity can be increased in a manner that increases the creator's capital.

well said.

companies will not hire because the economic conditions are not right. fewer people working = less tax collected.

<obama scratching head> I don't get it, we raised taxes to 80% but we're generating less revenue

 

[ayabe]

well said.

companies will not hire because the economic conditions are not right. fewer people working = less tax collected.

<obama scratching head> I don't get it, we raised taxes to 80% but we're generating less revenue

Taxes are at historic lows, no one is raising any tax rate to 80%.

"In 2004, the corporate lobby got together and major employers like Cisco and Apple and GE begged congress to give them a “one-time” tax holiday, arguing that they would use the savings to create jobs. Congress, shamefully, relented, and a tax holiday was declared. Now companies paid about 5 percent in taxes, instead of 35-40 percent.

Money streamed back into America. But the companies did not use the savings to create jobs. Instead, they mostly just turned it into executive bonuses and ate the extra cash."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/holiday-in-scambodia-20110720

It's the same song and dance over and over, just give us X and we'll create Y number of jobs - only it never pans out. Too much is never enough and there will ALWAYS be some impediment, if we could just get this one regulation removed, the well would overflow as never before!

I'm tired of this game, aren't you?

 

[theeedude]

well said.

companies will not hire because the economic conditions are not right. fewer people working = less tax collected.

<obama scratching head> I don't get it, we raised taxes to 80% but we're generating less revenue

Salaries are tax deductible to the corporations.

 

[ProfJohn]

But I mean, if Republican policies of hands off on the housing bubble, allowing wall street to use mortgage debt papers as a trading instrument, allowing companies like Lehman Brothers to borrow 33x their cash reserve etc. are so successful and these policies are so good for the business why the market crashed? I mean allowing business do all these things don't necessarily turn out to be good for business is it? I mean republican policies may be more pro business but is it good for the economy and the market?

I suggest you re-study the housing crash so you can learn that government policies led to its creation.

Not the lack of government, but too much government. Specifically the GSE's that poured money into housing and helped to remove the risk associated with investing in it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Salaries are tax deductible to the corporations.

No they are not.

They are expenses that are removed before you get to the income line from which taxes are determined.

If they were deductible companies would hire as many people as it took to reduce their tax rate to 0%

 

[theeedude]

No they are not.

They are expenses that are removed before you get to the income line from which taxes are determined.

If they were deductible companies would hire as many people as it took to reduce their tax rate to 0%

Expenses are tax deductible for businesses.