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

#51
#51
We have less leverage with the Chinese than most think. It shrinks daily. Their domestic consumption is rising. There will come a day when we are a "nice to have" trade partner for them and not a vital one.
 
#52
#52
sjt18 said:
We have less leverage with the Chinese than most think. It shrinks daily. Their domestic consumption is rising. There will come a day when we are a "nice to have" trade partner for them and not a vital one.
Click to expand...

We could also slow that train by hammering their profitability via artificially increasing their labor costs on exports.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#53
#53
BigPapaVol said:
We could also slow that train by hammering their profitability via artificially increasing their labor costs on exports.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

"Free trade" that does not have a "fair trade" component is ridiculous. IMO, we should have some sort of reciprocal component that imposes a tariff on countries that have very low pay rates or abusive labor practices.

Large volume book publishing has declined sharply in the US. At one time, lead times prevented the Chinese and other Asian companies from accessing that market. That is not true today. In one production model, books are sent to India for desktop work and to China for printing. Large cargo ships with complete binderies deliver the books. They are bound during the 1-2 weeks in transport.

Industries like printing and textiles are looked down on by many today... but they are staple industries. An economy needs them but we have taxed and regulated our way out of them.
 
#54
#54
BigPapaVol said:
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
Click to expand...

I'm still trying to figure out why there isn't more push for a lower flat rate with no loopholes and major push for protectionism. Seems like it would solve many of the problems.

Does some of it have to do with the fact that the higher rates with loopholes results in less taxes being paid than a lower flat rate with no loopholes? I don't know, but jobs are still being shipped overseas which would refute this tin foil hat thought.
 
#55
#55
KiffinKiller said:
People expecting glorious change from Perry will be disappointed. His decisions - like all other politicians' - will be made with special interest in mind.
Click to expand...

Yes. I agree to a certain extent. But my fear right now is I'm going to have to float health coverage on every single employee I have. Only the salary workers, managers and leads, have insurance under me because 99% of my employees are a revolving door and are hourly. Obama has already passed obamacare and none of us are completely sure what it's going to force us to do. Who knows what else he might pass? What if he gets relected and passes something where if I hire someone for one day and they quit or are fired I still have to carry them on my health plan until the find another job. What if he takes the unemployement tax and raises it a percent or 2 percent across the board. what if he makes me have to cover 7% on the employee isntead of 3.5 because I need to pay my fair share? What if he raises the top end of my corp tax and then reduced some of the things I can write off to where I can't drop the number down closer to 50K where I end up at a good tax rate for corp? What if card check actually gets passed and my staff can unionize with 50%? What if he does all that and then raises capital gains and then my personal on top of. What if he gets in and allows unions to be formed with 25%? Some of this stuff might sound crazy but hell this guy scares the crap out of me.

I can see a million scenerios out there that this guy would love to pass and it would seriously hurt me.
 
Last edited:
#56
#56
KiffinKiller said:
People expecting glorious change from Perry will be disappointed. His decisions - like all other politicians' - will be made with special interest in mind.
Click to expand...

Knowing this... and it is a virtually universal truth... what is the right answer? Centralizing more power and control in the gov't because they "scare" us into thinking it is necessary OR... electing people who will shrink the power of the central gov't so that the politicians can't serve special intersts as well... making it less attractive for special interests to buy their favor?

In my mind, the ONLY real solution is to elect people who promise spending cuts and reductions in the size and scope of federal gov't then hold them accountable. If the definition of insanity is doing the same things repeatedly expecting a different result... then it is INSANE to continue to elect politicians who promise us more from gov't.
 
#60
#60
lawgator1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Companies may appear to be holding high amounts of cash, but really companies have been cleaning up their balance sheets, and cash levels are much lower than they were four years ago. They're paying down debt and as a result the BS are less inflated. Prior to the crash, these companies looked like they held huge amounts of assets, when really they weren't offset by equity, they were being held predominantly in debt, and showing the companies in a much better light than they were. When the crash happened, these companies realized how quickly that debt can bite you in the :shaking2:and started cleaning up their balance sheets. The cash levels are down, but the balance sheets are a much better representation of the companies current state.

I know this is off the main topic, but this whole notion of companies holding higher cash amounts is mostly not true (I know there's always exceptions, I'm not dumb)
 
#61
#61
This is the problem - Im not arguing to keep Obama - I want him out too - I just don't think Perry is the answer.
 
#62
#62
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...

As per the OP title, no. Numerous studies across many countries and many eras have shown this is absolutely not the case. Taxes don't destroy jobs. The notion that taxes destroy jobs is Fox News Moo for lack of a better phrase. Taxes generally create better jobs than equivalents in the private sector.

I've seen a darker side to you, LG, on the football board now though.
 
#63
#63
utgibbs said:
As per the OP title, no. Numerous studies across many countries and many eras have shown this is absolutely not the case. Taxes don't destroy jobs. The notion that taxes destroy jobs is Fox News Moo for lack of a better phrase. Taxes generally create better jobs than equivalents in the private sector
Click to expand...

you don't see the irony here, do you? probably not, since I don't think you're capable of reasoning beyond that of an idiot savant with stage 4 Alzheimer's.
 
#64
#64
utgibbs said:
As per the OP title, no. Numerous studies across many countries and many eras have shown this is absolutely not the case. Taxes don't destroy jobs. The notion that taxes destroy jobs is Fox News Moo for lack of a better phrase. Taxes generally create better jobs than equivalents in the private sector.

I've seen a darker side to you, LG, on the football board now though.
Click to expand...


I couldn't hold myself back on some of what I was reading over there. Seriously, have this many UT fans completely lost their grip on reality?

In years past, going into the UF game, there was always at least some optimism, but tempered with reality check and a bit of deflation afterwards. But this year, folks were just out of control pregame, and ridiculously despondent after.
 
#65
#65
KiffinKiller said:
This is the problem - Im not arguing to keep Obama - I want him out too - I just don't think Perry is the answer.
Click to expand...

After watching last night's debate for awhile, I agree with you.

The most qualified person on either side is still Newt but he has been demonized (some of it deserved) to the point that it would be difficult for him to win. I would however love to see him in debate with Obama. In those two men you have representatives not only from different ends of the political spectrum... but also a stark contrast in understanding of the issues and the world. Even if you do not agree with him, Newt knows the issues and has a logically deduced position that he's willing to stand by.

The guy who made up the most ground with me is Huntsman. Though he holds some positions I disagree with, I like his presentation. He seems to have clarity on economic issues and what he would like to do.

Perry definitely lost ground with me. Romney still cannot get my vote.
 
#66
#66
lawgator1 said:
I couldn't hold myself back on some of what I was reading over there. Seriously, have this many UT fans completely lost their grip on reality?

In years past, going into the UF game, there was always at least some optimism, but tempered with reality check and a bit of deflation afterwards. But this year, folks were just out of control pregame, and ridiculously despondent after.
Click to expand...

If it had been Rainey instead of Hunter... we'd be talking a completely different scenario. Those two guys dictated the gameplans for the opposing DC's. Rainey destroyed UT. Hunter would have been open all day. He was double covered on the play he got hurt on... and still had plenty of room to catch the ball.
 
#67
#67
utgibbs said:
As per the OP title, no. Numerous studies across many countries and many eras have shown this is absolutely not the case. Taxes don't destroy jobs. The notion that taxes destroy jobs is Fox News Moo for lack of a better phrase. Taxes generally create better jobs than equivalents in the private sector.

I've seen a darker side to you, LG, on the football board now though.
Click to expand...

Liberalism is a combination of people who cannot apply mathematics and those willing to lie to them. I suspect (if you aren't a fraud) that you are in the latter group.... which I guess just makes you a different kind of fraud.

What is a "better" job? Better paying? Only by purely arbitrary means are gov't jobs better since they DO NOT have a true market value greater than private sector jobs. They are artificially inflated.

However, "better" has to have a contribution component and not just a "what's in it for me" component.

Tell you what. Let's let gov't hire everyone for one of those non-wealth producing jobs... and see how much better the economy is. Or better yet, you need to hire people to do nothing but pass paychecks out to people who sit around your place doing no work. Then employ some people to supervise and regulate the work that isn't being done. Then hire some people to provide medical care for those who are doing nothing. Don't worry about producing an actual product with value... if you have all that other activity then surely your company will do just fine.

Yes. Every gov't job created for the sole purpose of transferring wealth from a productive enterprise to a non-productive one destroys jobs... and makes that gov't job unsustainable.

Here's a simple proof: Take the seeds for whatever it is that you grow and feed them to the birds instead of planting them.... then let us know how long it is before you can neither grow plants OR FEED THE BIRDS. The vast majority of gov't jobs consume wealth... they do not create it.
 
Last edited:
#68
#68
sjt again with the line that all liberals are either stupid or have been lied to? With those kinds of sweeping and insulting generalizations, you're gettin' in to gsvol territory, sir.
 
#69
#69
lawgator1 said:
sjt again with the line that all liberals are either stupid or have been lied to? With those kinds of sweeping and insulting generalizations, you're gettin' in to gsvol territory, sir.
Click to expand...

remember all TP members are racist (whether they know it or not)
 
#70
#70
KiffinKiller said:
What makes you think he isn't Big govt?
Click to expand...

Generic argument and not one specifically supporting Perry.

As I said in a different thread, he lost significant ground with me last night. I no longer think he wins the nomination much less the election.
 
#71
#71
lawgator1 said:
sjt again with the line that all liberals are either stupid or have been lied to? With those kinds of sweeping and insulting generalizations, you're gettin' in to gsvol territory, sir.
Click to expand...

Good point. He left out the whiny emotional element that retards all reasoning capacity.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#72
#72
lawgator1 said:
sjt again with the line that all liberals are either stupid or have been lied to? With those kinds of sweeping and insulting generalizations, you're gettin' in to gsvol territory, sir.
Click to expand...

Didn't use the word stupid. Everyone is ignorant in some way or another... and our ignorance can always be used against us or to manipulate us. I did say that the Progressive elites lie to people to manipulate them. I stand by that argument. Statists... those believing that society can only work if power is vested in a central authority... must ALWAYS use the ignorance and fear of people to manipulate them. What program have liberals EVER proposed or passed that does not depend on one of these two things or both? Why do you think they never want to let a crisis go to waste? Because when people are scared they'll agree to things that they wouldn't while in a rational state of mind. Those programs by necessity take personal responsibility away and personal freedom with it.

When you have an actual argument that disproves what I am saying feel free to present it. You have evaded the simple math that you cannot pay increasing masses of people to contribute nothing to the economy by continually raising taxes on those making some of the largest contributions to the economy. That IS what you have supported... and Obama has pursused as policy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#73
#73
I guess in the end I'd much rather debate specific policies than try to back-asswards critique a proposal based on trying to generalize their point of view off of the kooks who happen to fall on their side of the line.

I mean, I'd rather debate Perry's view on illegal immigration juxtaposed against Santorum's than simply say that Santorum's position is ipso facto terrible since Sarah Palin is also a Republican.

Too much of that going on by both sides of the aisle, imo.
 
#74
#74
lawgator1 said:
I guess in the end I'd much rather debate specific policies than try to back-asswards critique a proposal based on trying to generalize their point of view off of the kooks who happen to fall on their side of the line.
Click to expand...
We are debating policy and how support for those policies is ginned up.

What you and Obama propose simply does not work.... mathematically. It CAN however work politically if people are confused enough to be unable to discern that the numbers and ideas do not add up.

Too much of that going on by both sides of the aisle, imo.
Click to expand...

Pot.... meet kettle.
 
#75
#75
Perry's true colors showed in the debate. He's been getting a lot of positive media attention for no reason - reminds me of someone.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top