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.  

 

 

Views: 149

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

next time think off all the people that get tax breaks from producing 4 or 5 children 

Again, no response to the meat of the matter. Just a deflection.

doone u are trying to pollute this discussion by bombardment of these graphs. let us discuss in our own words every issue at hand 

forget the government data, just use the cranial capacity of evolution.

we started with corporations and came to welfare moms, where u just picked to compare welfare moms with national budget, obviously it would seem crazy to compare, doone they are one source we should be advocating to if u can have kids does not mean u need to have kids.  

u say baseless. i see a kid beside u in the picture and i assume u have a job here is the difference between ur data and the real life.......u pay the taxes and u pay for ur health coverage, she doesn't..... u be responsible and have kids when u know u can support them they don't, because they can depend on welfare to support them. u save for college and still get screwed when applications are checked why not them why they get extra grants.....why do they get free child care to go to college when my spouse doesn't.....why college subsidies when my wife doesn't.....just because we planned....

.forget the data live in real life.......go to a social worker and ask what they see or even simpler go to a pharmacy and listen what they tell u......why is acne medications not covered under ur insurance but is covered under welfare and why u are made to pay for brand names more but brand name medications are covered under welfare.....

why should i feel bad for being judicious about my deicsion of having kids at a certain point in my life and not a welfare mom?

 

read #4....applies to u

here is a canadian explaining the tax-cuts.....and other school of thought and how it puts more money in every body's pocket

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2010/12/07/explain.it.to....

we have kept the treasury rates at almost zero for a long time, it hasn't had any affect . trying to prop up business with giving them almost free money will not have any affect if the businesses don't get any orders to fill from the consumers and the consumers won't have any money to spend if u raise the taxes. 

(Unemployment insurance, welfare money, is all spent because these people have nothing. That helps the economy by increasing demand and helping the manufacturing sector.)

"if you live in china or india it for sure does"....

(The rich save their money). "maybe we need to learn from them and boost our savings. the national savings rate is the among the lowest in the world. just google how much percentage a chinese or indian middle class family puts away for a rainy day in their savings."

(More stimulus spending on the infrastructure puts people back to work by creating jobs that can't be outsourced.)   " that only creates limited jobs in a limited area for a limited period of time not a long term policy, it would be just a bandaid over a large open wound, we tried it in ohio and around the country with shovel ready projects, didn't work."

 

i am aware of the increase in the last 3 years why were the same people not saving at the same rate earlier????

this article again for example says high yield savings account and they are talking of is petty 2% yield from big banks. 2 years ago it was easy to get 4%.  u can find better yeilds than that at local banks. for example over 3% interest on a checking account. just google kasasa and u will find a local bank in our area called the farmer's citizens bank with that yield.

 

remember a few years when every got a 1500 or 1600 dollar check (not sure of the exact amount) it went mostly to companies like walmart, which import mostly from china or india.....that was the first point.

environmental protections......again it depends on the consumer and u can choose what u buy and in turn help companies that do good for the environment.....think patagonia or the north face......oompha website for kids toys....klean kanteen for bottles etc.....

infrastructure spending.....they are talking in ohio of having rail road built connecting cincinnati columbus and cleveland.....which is a good idea but what the government is advocating is again the old technology of 60-75mph trains which is outdated and nobody will use....so just throwing money is also not an option....if u want to build a rail system go high speed rail the technology that will last and people will be excited to use as it cuts down on travel time tremendously.....

 

what is your definition of rich.....the $250,000 per household....?????

where do u think all the money for research of renewable resources comes from......the government or the people who are investing.....

and u tell me how is that taxing the rich little bit more is going to help this country????? 

how much tax should they pay if a household makes $250,000 a year....meaning fedreal, state, city, housing etc....break it down for me.....if a nurse goes to anesthesiology to improve her career or becomes a certified nurse practitioner or a pharmacist or a banker etc. who all make close to 100,000 a year, are they all rich, even when they have the more than a house payment in student loans.....when should they start a life....or should they not reap the benefits of their hard labor....

Raising taxes will only create jobs if the revenue is spent in a way that employs people. For example, infrastructure projects or unemployment benefits. Just raising taxes without cutting them elsewhere or increasing spending will only lead to job losses. However, raising some taxes will have more effect than raising others - raising taxes on very high incomes, for example, will have only very modest negative effects, that would easily be offset by not having to raise taxes later on middle-income earners.

RSS

© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service