Providing tax credits to companies that meet certain "standards"' is certainly governmental coercion.
I don't see it as coercion. You see, I see it as a way to make sure we don't out source to Indian labor that can do what we do for cents on the dollar.
You do understand that private enterprises make those decisions based on their projected profits, right? That, then, is what is best for our economy.I don't see it as coercion. You see, I see it as a way to make sure we don't out source to Indian labor that can do what we do for cents on the dollar.
So explain it, since you see it as a feasible idea. What exactly is the incentive he is going to give a company that will be enticing enough for said company to take him up on the offer and not lay someone off?
Another element would offer a one-year tax credit for companies that make new hires or forgo layoffs, which could be worth $40 billion to $50 billion. And the Obama plan also would allow small businesses to write off a broad range expenditures worth up to $250,000 in 2009 and 2010. Currently, the limit is $175,000.
Another provision would award a one-year tax credit costing $40bn-50bn to companies that hire new workers, and would provide other incentives for business investment in new equipment.
They were especially critical of a proposed $3,000 tax credit for companies that hire or retrain workers.
This does need to be bigger, and the person on the bottom is right on here
"If I'm a business person, it's unlikely if you give me a several-thousand-dollar credit that I'm going to hire people if I can't sell the products they're producing," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., a member of the committee.
Well, let's see what I can dig up.
Wall Street Journal
BBC News
Fox News
It looks to be saving business' a good amount of money if they are a large company. But a smaller one might not benefit as much. Oh well, any tax credit is a good tax credit.
You didn't find anything that would convince me.
1) I like how you kept highlighting "40-50BN". That is not per company, but it looks nice to throw it out there.
2) Also, you're not going to see a tax credit big enough to entice someone to add on another salary.
3) And if giving tax credit is so conducive to stimulating production, why not just cut tax rates on businesses?
1) I know that. But nevertheless, 50 billion in tax credits isn't exactly a bad thing.
2) I agree here for the most part. But then again, the credits do add up enough, for a large company to keep a few people on salary.
3) Actually, you'd be surprised at the fact that I agree with that. But, if we are slashing taxes across the board, let's slash taxes on the individuals as well.
So in essence, you have agreed there is no substance to this plan. The economy is sucking wind and this man is a fool. Get ready for a possible train wreck.
A $3,000 tax credit is going to be material to smaller businesses. Small businesses are less likely to be global enterprises. Therefore, many will receive a tax credit simply for the sake of being. Some of those will receive said tax credit and drop into a lower tax bracket. Graduated tax schedules are tools of wealth redistribution.I fail to see how.
I disagree. Please state the idea to me the best that you understand it, his idea.
But, he doesn't know that this tax break isn't big enough. Now, I don't know what his economic advisors told him, but I think they said, "Ok, Mr. President, it's pretty obvious that our jobs in America are getting outsourced. Now, what we can do is offer this tax credit of say............$3000 to every company that keeps it's jobs here, as well as companies that keep people on the payroll that are about to get laid off/fired"
Obama says, "Sounds good, next issue"