We have a problem to solve. If you aren't aware, American Corporations just had their best year ever this year. That's right, while we are underemployed, the big players have set themselves up for a tidy 1.69 Trillion Dollars in profit. Depending on who you ask, the unemployment rate hit a low of 3.6% at the end of Clinton's presidency, hovered between 4 and 6% under most of Bush, and leaped to 10.6% under Obama at the worst. Now it's at 9.3%, but it's relevant to note that last month it was at 9%. Heading into the holiday retail rush, unemployment still rose. Graph
So how can this be? We have the best year ever for corps yet we have this highest unemployment rates in my lifetime. Wages to employ the middle class male hasn't moved in my 36 years of life (page 36 of this PDF). So how is it that a company can go from employing people, to losing them, to becoming profitable again yet not looking to employ people back at the same level? I'm suggesting that there is a tax incentive not to.
Corporations are ran by people whom make a very good living. Great news for them. They are also legally obligated to make the most money possible for their share holders. If you have a company that is being taxed at a low level, being ran by someone taxed at a low level (16% was the rate at which the highest earners were taxed on average) whom doesn't have to pay the income tax on services used while working (private jet, lavish dinners, Hotels, vacations) why would they rather hire someone? If they spend more on themselves, they can keep more of their own money and pay themselves in stock which gets taxed as Capital Gains at 15%.
Almost three-quarters of the highest earners’ income was in capital gains and dividends taxed at a 15 percent rate set as part of Bush-backed tax cuts in 2003 Link
An example... if you owned a corporation, or a dozen, and you had a 35 million dollar mansion with plenty of space, but you faced a tax burden, what would prevent you from purchasing another 15 million dollar home next door as your office? Thanks for the write off!
So we've reached a point where we have taxed too little. There is no incentive to hire people over spending the money on yourself. We have to go back and raise taxes on corporations in terms of closing loop holes. We have to raise the taxes on the wealthy because the income disparity has spun out of control in the last 30 years. Even in an economy like this, the rich have found a way to get a hold of our money directly in bailouts. Indirectly in write offs for their Bombadier Challengers. And indirectly by choosing to not hire people, but instead spend on themselves. This is a problem with a 30 year history to look at. Even with Bush tax cuts that supply-siders like claim increases revenues, didn't work. It was five years before revenues went up, hardly relate-able to the tax cut.
Raise taxes in a way that doesn't incentivize job growth at a cost to the people, but increase them in a way that it's a lose lose for the corporations if they don't hire. That million dollar remodel of the office, you can write off $15,000 of it and you are paying the rest on income tax. And if you try to skate, we're taking you and the CFO to jail. Spend a million on salaries and you can write the whole thing off. That's how you incentivize business properly.
Tell the rich that since you get all of your income from Capital Gains, that's now a progressive tax just like income. You have to go back 94 years to find tax rates as low as they are today. Our system of making sure that the rich have a pile of cash in hopes that we'll catch a nickel isn't working. Not for the people, the government, or even effective business.
Many of the rich get it. We have 371 Billionaires in the US. 57 of them are on the Giving Pledge. Stop with the claims that we get more jobs by taxing less. Stop with the claims of more revenues on less taxes. It's all bull.
So how would you raise taxes to create more jobs? I know that there are tons of ways. Let's brainstorm some areas that get abused that need to be addressed.
1) add the extra benefits they get and plus the extra holidays and days off etc
2) yes it its
3) firing of employees....do the math urself figures are in the article
read the article first....another biased rant
i gave u line by line reply to how the author skipped past other info....
So you aren't going to let the class warfare go. I'm going to put up a graph. You point to the place where most Americans say the good old days were and put a #1 on it. Point to the place where one income raised a family and put a #2 on it. Point to the place where rich people were non-existent and put a #3 on it. You show us. I'll provide the data and I don't even need a comment back. Just add three little numbers. No research, you shoot from the hip like you have been.
From what I can tell from a brief perusal, you have two links that state (in essence) "If taxes go up, then taxes will go up!" The first is a comment on how if the Bush tax cuts expire then everyone will pay more taxes. Not exactly a huge surprise, although the details on how much may be new to some. However, how does this relate to the premise of the thread, which is that if taxes are raised then it will spur new job development?
The second link is talking about how if the taxes provisions expire then the US will be ranked higher on the list of countries and their tax rates. Again, not exactly news. If taxes go up, naturally our position on the 'how high are the taxes in various countries' list would go up. Again, how does this relate to the thread topic?
Finally, we have the third link, which compares wages and wage rates between public and private sector jobs. Putting aside things like the line that states "The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.", I ask again, how does this relate to the thread's premise?
there another reply just to make an effin reply.....
if i have extra dollars left in my pocket which i will if taxes don't go up,....i will use it to spend and have fun with family or buy something....which helps the economy
yes it will and businesses will make their decisions.....
not all federal jobs require college degree either....so baseless comment
i said not all federal jobs......some do i understand as they in private sector too
You still did not answer my question. How do any of these links address the proposal that increased taxes will/will not create jobs? That you may or may not have more money in your pocket is irrelevant, the question is whether or not an increase in taxes would generate new jobs.
If you want to argue that not increasing taxes would result in more money to be spent by consumers which would generate more jobs than the tax income would, great. But provide data to support your point and personal anecdotes like the one above are not data.
And this has what to do with effective tax policy and increasing taxes and closing loopholes to create jobs?
tell the truth u want to tax at 55% of any inheritance over just 1 million.....here is ur link since u like them so much
i know the compromise that's why i pointed it out to u......as to what was being asked before the compromise actually happened.....just fyi
ohio newly elected governor wanted to do the same thing but the white house told him either he uses the money or else it will be granted to other state, most likely new york (which was the front runner).....see the other point to that story is that the rail line they are proposing is outdated for 55-70mph trains, which majority people in our states will not use....so it will be a waste, but the federal govt. won't let them use the money for any other project or allocate more money to build speed rail (at least that is the case in ohio) as far as i know
sorry but u should check the speed in europe japan china and compare.....nobody wants to get on a train and take a taxi when they can take an automobile.....and have all the freedom....within the same amount of time....u will not change habits with that attitude....it is just saying like republicans on social issues, in ur face, i can do what i want