Would increased taxes on the wealthy and big business REALLY cost jobs?

#26
#26
about those record high corporate profits

FedEx cuts fiscal year forecast on slowing growth - Yahoo! Finance

- FedEx Corp. cut its earnings expectations for the fiscal year ending in May due to slowing global economic growth.

The outlook from the world's second biggest package delivery company may add to growing investor concern about the strength of the worldwide economy. It comes a day after the Federal Reserve gave a gloomy forecast for the U.S. economy.
Click to expand...

When consumers and businesses are concerned about the strength of the economy, they tend to choose slower shipping options -- like switching from overnight express service to slower ground shipping -- to save money. It's the same move many made during the recession.
Click to expand...

You know what would really get growth going... Raising Taxes!

The only companies with record profits are those evil giants Apple and Google. Since FDX earnings marks the start of earning season, we will see about those "record profits" that you claim every industry is having. Take a look at those evil banks, all down 50% this summer. Feels a lot like 2008 again

So whats Obamas focus next week, since last week was jobs, this week it taxes, whats in store for us next week?
 
#27
#27
lawgator1 said:
How can this be so if corporate profits are at record highs and the top income earners have been doing so well in the last 3-5 years? They aren't investing any of that into the economy now.
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton says "Yes". In a very indirect and subtle way, he also says Obama has no clue about what he's doing:

Ex-President Clinton to Newsmax: Raising Taxes Won't Work

I never... ever.... thought I'd be wishing to say the words President Hillary until experiencing Obama.
 
#28
#28
rjd970 said:
You wouldn't think, but if the republicans don't drop this rhetoric about SS and Medicare they won't vote for them either. Not defending the programs, just how the Rs are selling their ideas. This and vaccinations (among all things) will be Perry's ultimate downfall.
Click to expand...

In spite of what LG thinks... and the left generally, the GOP could be pushing the envelope only to drop back to a safer position during the general election. Perry has made noise and been criticized. If he becomes the nominee, he can still present a reasonable plan to change both programs over the next 25 years that assures current and near beneficiaries that they will not be hurt.
 
#29
#29
People expecting glorious change from Perry will be disappointed. His decisions - like all other politicians' - will be made with special interest in mind.
 
#31
#31
RespectTradition said:
Since money sitting in a bank account makes nothing, especially when inflation is higher than interest rates, you have to ask yourself why? Why are the corps sitting on money? They are in the profit business and money sitting in an account doesn't make profits. Maybe there is more to the story and your question is too simplistic and doesn't address the issues.
Click to expand...



One theory I have seen on that is that, because of what happened in 2007, a premium has been placed on large corporations carrying huge amounts of cash in reserves as a sign of stability. The stock market is rewarding companies for not investing.

Because CEOs and fund managers on Wall Street make their personal bonuses much more based on stock price than they do on actual performance, there is an enormous and perverse incentive to them to avoid spending any cash. Growth, in other words, is not good.
 
#32
#32
that's pretty much wrong and they can actually take a hit for holding too much cash. Businesses expanded way too fast a few years ago and spent money without thinking. Those same people learned their lesson and are now being cautious, especially in a questionable economy. Expansion is happening but at a very slow pace.
 
#33
#33
utvolpj said:
that's pretty much wrong and they can actually take a hit for holding too much cash. Businesses expanded way too fast a few years ago and spent money without thinking. Those same people learned their lesson and are now being cautious, especially in a questionable economy. Expansion is happening but at a very slow pace.
Click to expand...


That brings me back to my original question, then.

The GOP claims that tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations are necessary because the reason that the wealthy and corporations aren't hiring is that they don't have the cash to do so. but they do have tons of cash, now.

Imo, the reason they are not hiring is that they have no confidence in sustained demand. So, again imo, the key to reinvigorating this economy is to spur demand.

That can be done one of three ways -- 1) government spending; 2) tax breaks for the middle class; and 3) looser credit.

No one is in the mood for #1. Tried it and it had very limited success. #2 could be done, but the fight will be over how high up the ladder to go with breaks. I say tax breaks for households under $250,000, but that's as high as it goes. # 3, not sure what the government can do on that score.
 
#34
#34
lawgator1 said:
That brings me back to my original question, then.

The GOP claims that tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations are necessary because the reason that the wealthy and corporations aren't hiring is that they don't have the cash to do so. but they do have tons of cash, now.
Click to expand...
NO. That is NOT the argument. Is your bias simply so strong that you cannot see this or are you intentionally distorting?

NO ONE.... denies there is capital on the sideline. NO ONE.

The reason, and I have explained this to you in the most simple terms, that businesses WILL not put that capital in to play is the artificial risk created by the things being done by the Obama admin on multiple fronts.

Imo, the reason they are not hiring is that they have no confidence in sustained demand. So, again imo, the key to reinvigorating this economy is to spur demand.
Click to expand...
Not at all. They have no confidence that the money they put into play to answer demand won't be taxed or regulated to such an extent that it yields no return.

From the very start, Obama expressed antagonism toward the private sector. He has continued to do so. His admin has pursued policies that raise costs and risks.

That can be done one of three ways -- 1) government spending; 2) tax breaks for the middle class; and 3) looser credit.
Click to expand...
ALL of those things have failed... because they and now you are trying to solve the wrong problem.

No one is in the mood for #1. Tried it and it had very limited success. #2 could be done, but the fight will be over how high up the ladder to go with breaks. I say tax breaks for households under $250,000, but that's as high as it goes. # 3, not sure what the government can do on that score.
Click to expand...

OR... they could do what worked in the early '60's... the 80's.... and the early '00's. Put in place permanent tax breaks with safeguards against having them undone. Constrain regulations and regulatory zeal. In short, stablize and reduce the "unknowns" that businesses must deal with to employ capital.
 
#35
#35
lawgator1 said:
That brings me back to my original question, then.

The GOP claims that tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations are necessary because the reason that the wealthy and corporations aren't hiring is that they don't have the cash to do so. but they do have tons of cash, now.

Imo, the reason they are not hiring is that they have no confidence in sustained demand. So, again imo, the key to reinvigorating this economy is to spur demand.

That can be done one of three ways -- 1) government spending; 2) tax breaks for the middle class; and 3) looser credit.

No one is in the mood for #1. Tried it and it had very limited success. #2 could be done, but the fight will be over how high up the ladder to go with breaks. I say tax breaks for households under $250,000, but that's as high as it goes. # 3, not sure what the government can do on that score.
Click to expand...

#4- Get the nincompoop out of the oval office. Will have a biggere effect than anything you want to dream up
 
#36
#36
theFallGuy said:
and taxing them more is going to do what to get them to invest in jobs? Taxing them is a lame excuse for Obama to have a reason to take more money to spend on more idiotic things like he's been doing. You know, give more out to his Solyndra-like friends.
Click to expand...

Corporate taxes are already at close to all time lows and jobs have went overseas.
 
#39
#39
rjd970 said:
What corp actually pays 35%?
Click to expand...

wasn't the question I answered. But who cares what it truly is when I can move my corp HQ to a nice, little Swiss town and save tens of millions of dollars every year? Why would that move not make sense, especially when the WH is not business friendly?
 
#41
#41
utvolpj said:
wasn't the question I answered. But who cares what it truly is when I can move my corp HQ to a nice, little Swiss town and save tens of millions of dollars every year? Why would that move not make sense, especially when the WH is not business friendly?
Click to expand...

OK, but when somebody says corp rates are low, one side can quote listed rates, and the other can quote what is actually paid.

I don't know, the more I look into this, the more I see the BS being spewed by both sides of this issue, and this includes reasons for moving jobs overseas.
 
#43
#43
rjd970 said:
OK, but when somebody says corp rates are low, one side can quote listed rates, and the other can quote what is actually paid.

I don't know, the more I look into this, the more I see the BS being spewed by both sides of this issue, and this includes reasons for moving jobs overseas.
Click to expand...

tell me why a corp should stay in the US when it's cheaper all over the globe? What is their motivation to give money to an inept gov't when they could be returning it back to the corp or investors?
 
#44
#44
rjd970 said:
Cool, what did GE pay last year?
Click to expand...

That has NOTHING to do with tax rates. If the rates were doubled, GE would use cronyism to pay less.

IF we are going to continue to tax production rather than consumption then corporate taxes need to be very, very simple- Maybe .5% to 1% of gross revenues with no deductions or write offs.
 
#45
#45
utvolpj said:
tell me why a corp should stay in the US when it's cheaper all over the globe? What is their motivation to give money to an inept gov't when they could be returning it back to the corp or investors?
Click to expand...

Given the unfair playing field with China and trade agreements, currency manipulation, etc...at exactly what rate would it have to be here in order for it to make sense to keep jobs here?
 
#46
#46
sjt18 said:
That has NOTHING to do with tax rates. If the rates were doubled, GE would use cronyism to pay less.

IF we are going to continue to tax production rather than consumption then corporate taxes need to be very, very simple- Maybe .5% to 1% of gross revenues with no deductions or write offs.
Click to expand...
Exactly. For the large outfits tied heavily to political players, the problem is the loopholes and programs rather than rate. For Mom & Pop, the rate is a hammer and the vast, vast majority pays it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#47
#47
BigPapaVol said:
Exactly. For the large outfits tied heavily to political players, the problem is the loopholes and programs rather than rate. For Mom & Pop, the rate is a hammer and the vast, vast majority pays it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Agreed it is a rate/deduction problem at root, but my main issue is I don't know that the last 4 words of your post are true as it stands today.
 
#48
#48
rjd970 said:
Agreed it is a rate/deduction problem at root, but my main issue is I don't know that the last 4 words of your post are true as it stands today.
Click to expand...
All the ones I know, including mine, pay it. There are some real estate deductions and massive losses haw changed it a little of late, but we pay a stout percentage every year.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#49
#49
rjd970 said:
Given the unfair playing field with China and trade agreements, currency manipulation, etc...at exactly what rate would it have to be here in order for it to make sense to keep jobs here?
Click to expand...

in the US? Just not going to happen for lots of reasons
 
#50
#50
utvolpj said:
in the US? Just not going to happen for lots of reasons
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean we shouldn't at least start visiting the idea of protectionism to some degree. Would change the leverage we have over places like China manipulating its currency.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top