Idea for Jobs in USA

[drudixon]

Was looking through the history of corporate taxes, GDP, jobs growth / loss and came to the following conclusion.

If you want jobs in the US, make corporate taxes ZERO, make wholesale goods taxes zero.

Corporate taxes account for 16% of tax receipts, a tiny fraction of the overall budget.

What would result?

Lowers cost of doing business in the US.

Lowers costs of goods solds for items made here and bought here.

Increase liquidity of investments (US investments)

Encourages companies to repatriate foreign profits to the US, instead of being forced to re-invest foreign profits over-seas (if you can get a return on your dollars over seas, why would you bring them back here to be taxed?)

Encourages foreign countries to invest here (they'll get a better return on their money here and won't repatriate their money for the inverse reason as stated above)

Removes governmental cost of auditing tax documents that are thousands of pages long.

Lowers SG+A of companies filing taxes.

Improves margins of costs of goods sold.

Lowers overall cost of goods to the consumer. (think about raw materials are sold and taxed, resulting refined materials / components are taxed again, then finished goods are taxed yet again) What % of the total purchase price of said good is tax?

One issue that the US could have had, but didn't (only because foreign currencies suck balls right now [thank you Greece!] is inflation. Though it's only 2% atm, given the negative currency cashflow of US dollars overseas, is a devaluing of US currency). 0 Corporate taxes would bring a positive cash and slow down the need for US to sell treasuries to China et al. China had to buy our treasuries, and the US had to sell them. For those who don't understand this, it's because it's simple supply and demand. As more dollars expatriate, the less the value of dollars remaining. Consequently, the price of Chinese goods relative to the dollar goes up. By extension, less Chinese goods can be sold. China buys our treasuries to ensure their positive growth rates by normalizing currency markets. By bringing foreign investments here, and goods manufacture here, we can increase the value of the dollar here. 0 corporate taxes also mitigates the stronger currency penalty for investing here for foreign entities.

I'm sure there's a lot more points that could be made. Maybe I'll think of them later. Anyway, my 2 cents.

[paolo59]

Way too simple! Makes too much economic sense!! Would actually work!!! Those are reasons enough for it not to be suported by certain politicians. Where would the 'boogie man" of class warfare and 'us against them' come into the picture? There would be no 'horse to beat' every 4 years! Just economic growth, jobs, and billions more flowing into government coffers from expansion and growth.

[philipj]

Back a few years ago, a group of people wanted to determine the best form of taxation would be best for the USA. They gave a large amount of money to a think tank, no politics involved. Eventually something called the XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX tax plan was issued. Two books were written on the why and how it worked. The sad news is thay dam near no one on this site, your firends and neighbors purchased nor read the books. The first book was on the tax system and how we got to where we are now. It also explained how the new system would be most helpful to the POOR and be a wonder of wonder amounts of money into the tax rolls. Later due to too many lies being told, the second book came out answering very simply to the stupid questions that politicians thought up to confuse the situation.

Is there a plan that works. Yes. Is it fair to every one? Yes.

You voted no.

[drudixon]

Way too simple! Makes too much economic sense!! Would actually work!!! Those are reasons enough for it not to be suported by certain politicians. Where would the 'boogie man" of class warfare and 'us against them' come into the picture? There would be no 'horse to beat' every 4 years! Just economic growth, jobs, and billions more flowing into government coffers from expansion and growth.

There is power in complexity. Security in complexity. By make the system as convoluted as it is, no one can figure out what's actually going on.

Back a few years ago, a group of people wanted to determine the best form of taxation would be best for the USA. They gave a large amount of money to a think tank, no politics involved. Eventually something called the XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX tax plan was issued. Two books were written on the why and how it worked. The sad news is thay dam near no one on this site, your firends and neighbors purchased nor read the books. The first book was on the tax system and how we got to where we are now. It also explained how the new system would be most helpful to the POOR and be a wonder of wonder amounts of money into the tax rolls. Later due to too many lies being told, the second book came out answering very simply to the stupid questions that politicians thought up to confuse the situation.

Is there a plan that works. Yes. Is it fair to every one? Yes.

You voted no.

Link to the books? Can't say I've come across them.

[Mayor_West]

Was looking through the history of corporate taxes, GDP, jobs growth / loss and came to the following conclusion.

If you want jobs in the US, make corporate taxes ZERO, make wholesale goods taxes zero.

Corporate taxes account for 16% of tax receipts, a tiny fraction of the overall budget.

What would result?

Lowers cost of doing business in the US.

Lowers costs of goods solds for items made here and bought here.

Increase liquidity of investments (US investments)

Encourages companies to repatriate foreign profits to the US, instead of being forced to re-invest foreign profits over-seas (if you can get a return on your dollars over seas, why would you bring them back here to be taxed?)

Encourages foreign countries to invest here (they'll get a better return on their money here and won't repatriate their money for the inverse reason as stated above)

Removes governmental cost of auditing tax documents that are thousands of pages long.

Lowers SG+A of companies filing taxes.

Improves margins of costs of goods sold.

Lowers overall cost of goods to the consumer. (think about raw materials are sold and taxed, resulting refined materials / components are taxed again, then finished goods are taxed yet again) What % of the total purchase price of said good is tax?

One issue that the US could have had, but didn't (only because foreign currencies suck balls right now [thank you Greece!] is inflation. Though it's only 2% atm, given the negative currency cashflow of US dollars overseas, is a devaluing of US currency). 0 Corporate taxes would bring a positive cash and slow down the need for US to sell treasuries to China et al. China had to buy our treasuries, and the US had to sell them. For those who don't understand this, it's because it's simple supply and demand. As more dollars expatriate, the less the value of dollars remaining. Consequently, the price of Chinese goods relative to the dollar goes up. By extension, less Chinese goods can be sold. China buys our treasuries to ensure their positive growth rates by normalizing currency markets. By bringing foreign investments here, and goods manufacture here, we can increase the value of the dollar here. 0 corporate taxes also mitigates the stronger currency penalty for investing here for foreign entities.

I'm sure there's a lot more points that could be made. Maybe I'll think of them later. Anyway, my 2 cents.

You forgot two more:

Increased Profits

Decreased costs in accounting and taxes.


Part of the problem is not that corporations are taxed, or how much, but that the executive level pay has skyrocketed over the last 12 years and contributed greatly to the recession in 2009. In the last year alone, CEO pay increased a whopping 15%, after increasing 28% the year prior. Eliminating the corporate tax rate might "encourage" job growth, but it might swing the other way toward holding on the increased profit and revenue, not to mention continuing to increase executive pay. It's also no guarantee that these companies will put any of their tax savings into creating new jobs, let alone into their corporate infrastructure.

[mslman71]

Part of the problem is not that corporations are taxed, or how much, but that the executive level pay has skyrocketed over the last 12 years and contributed greatly to the recession in 2009. In the last year alone, CEO pay increased a whopping 15%, after increasing 28% the year prior. Eliminating the corporate tax rate might "encourage" job growth, but it might swing the other way toward holding on the increased profit and revenue, not to mention continuing to increase executive pay. It's also no guarantee that these companies will put any of their tax savings into creating new jobs, let alone into their corporate infrastructure.

I still think appeals to executive pay are more of an appeal to populism than actually being a significant effect in the grand scheme of things. In terms "executive level pay has skyrocketed over the last 12 years and contributed greatly to the recession," I think that's complete hogwash. Of all the execs combined, or more importantly, the diference in their rates of pay, is a drop in the bucket of the total cash being turned over. Less than a drop, or if you prefer, a very very very large bucket. That's as much of a red herring as health insurance profits (relative to the total amount being spent on health care). Nevertheless, if multiple businesses are competing to sell the same product and their costs are dropped uniformly across the boards then I'm guessing at least one of them will flinch first and drop prices regardless of executive pay. Of course I don't know this as it hasn't happened, but I honestly don't care what execs get paid. It's none of my business. Even if I own stock its not my business until I'm on the board. I'm free to buy or cash out at any time.

[Mayor_West]

I still think appeals to executive pay are more of an appeal to populism than actually being a significant effect in the grand scheme of things. In terms "executive level pay has skyrocketed over the last 12 years and contributed greatly to the recession," I think that's complete hogwash. Of all the execs combined, or more importantly, the diference in their rates of pay, is a drop in the bucket of the total cash being turned over. Less than a drop, or if you prefer, a very very very large bucket. That's as much of a red herring as health insurance profits (relative to the total amount being spent on health care). Nevertheless, if multiple businesses are competing to sell the same product and their costs are dropped uniformly across the boards then I'm guessing at least one of them will flinch first and drop prices regardless of executive pay. Of course I don't know this as it hasn't happened, but I honestly don't care what execs get paid. It's none of my business. Even if I own stock its not my business until I'm on the board. I'm free to buy or cash out at any time.

Hogwash? Hardly- if you consider the fact that corporations weren't saddled with contributing such a disproportionate amount of their revenue to executive salary it stands to reason that they'd be less inclined to lay off as many workers. If this isn't such a "significant effect", why has unemployment stalled as CEO pay continues to increase?

Now, I agree that I could care less about what any executive makes. But considering that corporations have shown a consistent predisposition to high rates of pay for their executives, regardless of the cost, I have absolutely zero faith that eliminating (or even lowering) their tax rates will give them any incentive whatsoever to hire more employees.

[drudixon]

You forgot two more:

Increased Profits

Decreased costs in accounting and taxes.


Part of the problem is not that corporations are taxed, or how much, but that the executive level pay has skyrocketed over the last 12 years and contributed greatly to the recession in 2009. In the last year alone, CEO pay increased a whopping 15%, after increasing 28% the year prior. Eliminating the corporate tax rate might "encourage" job growth, but it might swing the other way toward holding on the increased profit and revenue, not to mention continuing to increase executive pay. It's also no guarantee that these companies will put any of their tax savings into creating new jobs, let alone into their corporate infrastructure.

I work for a 100 Billion dollar company. My CEO makes a couple mill a year. That's a drop in the bucket. I don't think that's any issue at all.

[theKurp]

Why would you need to come up with a plan to create more jobs when there's nearly 4 million job openings right now that are unfilled? The problem isn't lack of jobs, the problem is lack of people with the necessary skills to fill the available jobs.

Too many people chasing a dwindling need instead of taking the initiative to acquire the education needed for an evolving job market that require STEM skills.

[drudixon]

Why would you need to come up with a plan to create more jobs when there's nearly 4 million job openings right now that are unfilled? The problem isn't lack of jobs, the problem is lack of people with the necessary skills to fill the available jobs.

Too many people chasing a dwindling need instead of taking the initiative to acquire the education needed for an evolving job market that require STEM skills.

At minimum, it'd take 5-10 years, if everyone started today to gain the skills required for those jobs. I'm talking about jobs that have been lost overseas.

I agree, our workforce isn't evolving to embrace the new skills required today. That said, some people don't have the aptitude to learn how to do the jobs that are available today. We need things for the lesser skilled to do, or we'll keep having to carry them.

[mslman71]

Hogwash? Hardly- if you consider the fact that corporations weren't saddled with contributing such a disproportionate amount of their revenue to executive salary it stands to reason that they'd be less inclined to lay off as many workers. If this isn't such a "significant effect", why has unemployment stalled as CEO pay continues to increase?

Now, I agree that I could care less about what any executive makes. But considering that corporations have shown a consistent predisposition to high rates of pay for their executives, regardless of the cost, I have absolutely zero faith that eliminating (or even lowering) their tax rates will give them any incentive whatsoever to hire more employees.

Yes, hogwash. The numbers don't add up. Say 100 execs making an average difference of 10 million amounts to $1 billion, depending on how you calculate their actual income/compensation. A factor, yeah sure I guess, why not, but significant contribution to the recession in a multi-trillion dollar economy, no. Not significant.

[philipj]

The first book is simply called "The Fair Tax". After it was put together, a US representative from Georgia(?) and a radio host worked hard on spreading the word. Gov Huckabee of Arkansas also championed the plan, and had people throwing spears at him. He was right, but did not get far in the Presidential races, this did not go well with his opponets and the other party. Later a second book "Questions & Answers about the Fair Tax" came out.

The only way to defend the Fair Tax is to understand it. The easy attack is oh so easy to make. Truth is it eliminatges all sales and re-sales taxes until a retail sale occurs. The law on this inbeds the tax and is not added onto any sales price. I dare you to read the first book, and say it does not work. It is that good a law.

You will have a new understanding on just how we got into this tax mess.

[Brackneyc]

That said, some people don't have the aptitude to learn how to do the jobs that are available today. We need things for the lesser skilled to do,

Those jobs exist, but the lesser skilled want to earn what the more skilled earn. We have jobs, and we have people.....what we don't have is a work ethic which is supported by the idea that good things come with time and effort. They want the Big Screen, and they want it NOW.

[BillReilly]

Here's a little bit of arithmetic. We measure a nation's economy (GDP) by adding up the amount of money the people spend (Consumption) plus that which they save (Investment) plus what the government takes and redistributes (Government) plus the net of foreign trade (Exports minus Imports). That's expressed as GDP = C + I + G + (x - i).

Pretty simple. The voters have decided to do whatever is necessary to increase the "G" in our formula. After all, what could possibly go wrong?

[litljay]

I don't normally comment on these posts as there's always more to the story....however, we've effectively taken the fight out of the dog...

[chrifive916]

This would be a great way to do just that. Unfortunately our country has decided (by choosing Romney/Obama as the two options) that big government and high taxes are the way forward.

The Fair Tax book is a good book, and while not perfect, it still represents a far better version of taxation than the current system. The simplicity is a huge reason why it is fought by both Democrats and Republicans. It hurts special interest lobbyists big time, and right now they control who gets elected.

[drudixon]

The first book is simply called "The Fair Tax". After it was put together, a US representative from Georgia(?) and a radio host worked hard on spreading the word. Gov Huckabee of Arkansas also championed the plan, and had people throwing spears at him. He was right, but did not get far in the Presidential races, this did not go well with his opponets and the other party. Later a second book "Questions & Answers about the Fair Tax" came out.

The only way to defend the Fair Tax is to understand it. The easy attack is oh so easy to make. Truth is it eliminatges all sales and re-sales taxes until a retail sale occurs. The law on this inbeds the tax and is not added onto any sales price. I dare you to read the first book, and say it does not work. It is that good a law.

You will have a new understanding on just how we got into this tax mess.

Huckabee's Bible beating is what kept him from going far. The radio host is Neil Bortz. He's an independent who typically dogs hard on both parties. Smart guy really, but sometimes his show rambles so I have a hard time listening to him. As to which rep, I'm not sure, though I can be 100% positive it wasn't Cynthia McKinney.

[philipj]

Huckabee's Bible beating is what kept him from going far. The radio host is Neil Bortz. He's an independent who typically dogs hard on both parties. Smart guy really, but sometimes his show rambles so I have a hard time listening to him. As to which rep, I'm not sure, though I can be 100% positive it wasn't Cynthia McKinney.

Correct on Neil Boortz. I intentionally did not name him as he is very easy to dislike. People who dislike him too often do not like his stand on The Fair Tax. The US Representative's name escapes me, however I believe he was also from Georgia.

Re Huckabee's Bible beating. If you search & read "George Washington's second farewell letter to Americans" you will find that the USA/Colonies were designed to be Christian, so as to mintain ethics and trust. The Freedom of religion was intended to keep out the Anglican Church. The Colonists were aware that the Anglican Church wanted to become the religion of the Colonies, and then re-merge the Colonies back to England. Yes, I do realize that most people never knew this, never read the 'why's" of how all this me about. Huckabee was following George Washington and the founders of the USA. This is one of those if you do not know history you will repeat it, and self destroy.

[drudixon]

Correct on Neil Boortz. I intentionally did not name him as he is very easy to dislike. People who dislike him too often do not like his stand on The Fair Tax. The US Representative's name escapes me, however I believe he was also from Georgia.

Re Huckabee's Bible beating. If you search & read "George Washington's second farewell letter to Americans" you will find that the USA/Colonies were designed to be Christian, so as to mintain ethics and trust. The Freedom of religion was intended to keep out the Anglican Church. The Colonists were aware that the Anglican Church wanted to become the religion of the Colonies, and then re-merge the Colonies back to England. Yes, I do realize that most people never knew this, never read the 'why's" of how all this me about. Huckabee was following George Washington and the founders of the USA. This is one of those if you do not know history you will repeat it, and self destroy.

Our founding fathers werent christian tho.

[philipj]

Our founding fathers werent christian tho.

We can all be happy that he wrote "Of all dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality as indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, and who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of duties of men and citizens." President Washington continued on to make sure that we never lost sight of the value of our religion and it's beliefs. Yes they did design this to be a Christian country.

[drudixon]

We can all be happy that he wrote "Of all dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality as indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, and who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of duties of men and citizens." President Washington continued on to make sure that we never lost sight of the value of our religion and it's beliefs. Yes they did design this to be a Christian country.

Ur missing their point. They wanted the freedom to be deists. Not going to speculate on their mason ties...