This is what the republicans tell us over and over. Does anyone have historical evidence that tax breaks for corporations creates a significant amount of jobs and really helps the economy?
|
-
10-03-2011, 10:36 AM #1
-
10-03-2011, 10:43 AM #2
-
10-03-2011, 10:48 AM #3
-
10-03-2011, 10:50 AM #4
-
-
10-03-2011, 10:51 AM #5
-
10-03-2011, 10:56 AM #6
- Join Date: Aug 2009
- Location: Huntersville, North Carolina, United States
- Age: 42
- Posts: 432
- Rep Power: 226
Maybe in some cases, but not all. I know a privately held company that doing very well, but hasn't expanded. The extra profits are lining the wallets of the shareholders, not being used to hire more workers or pass the benefits on to the factory employees. In fact they use workers that are temps-in-name-only to avoid paying benefits.
-
10-03-2011, 10:58 AM #7
It may or may not create jobs, but it may increase federal revenue (see: The Laffer Curve)
Are we talking about a tax cut from 90% to 50%, or a tax cut from 39% to 38%, or a tax credit, or tax code simplification? All of them have different effects. Usually, when liberals talk about removing "tax loopholes" they're referring to removing tax credits, but which ones? Most of them have a good purpose or intention.
-Should we remove the charitable giving tax credit?
-Should we remove the home office tax credit?
-Should we remove the historical building renovation tax credit?
-What about the home mortgage interest deduction tax credit?
-Or the first-time home buyer tax credit?
-Should we remove the tax credit that teachers can take for buying school supplies out-of-pocket?
-Should we remove tax credits (and depreciation schedules, etc) that encourage companies to replace capital equipment more regularly?
Theres no such thing as a free lunch. Obama's plan to close tax loopholes sounds great as a talking point. The reality that this would involve removing the charitable giving tax credit sounds dangerous. Private charities are already overworked and short on donations, taxing gifts to them wouldn't help their situation.
-
10-03-2011, 11:04 AM #8
- Join Date: Feb 2010
- Location: Your Mother's Vagina, Antarctica
- Age: 45
- Posts: 9,880
- Rep Power: 32711
Bush quietly signs corporate tax-cut bill 10/22/2004
“I signed a bill that’s going to help our manufacturers — that will save $77 billion over the next 10 years for the manufacturing sector of America,” Bush said. “That will help keep jobs here.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6307293/...-tax-cut-bill/
-
-
10-03-2011, 11:09 AM #9
-
10-03-2011, 11:14 AM #10
-
10-03-2011, 11:22 AM #11
The cheapest minimum wage laws in Mexico allow workers to for for $3.93 USD per day
Even with China's labor shortages and wage increases, they're making about $1.19 USD per day
The cheapest, unskilled American worker is paid $7.35/ hour. In India you could hire an MBA for about that much.
It's not the taxes, or the regulations, or the red tape, or environmental laws that drives companies away, though those can affect things at the margins. It's primarily a result of wages. $15/hour to a US factory worker vs. $1.19 for a Chinese factory worker is a pretty big gap to overcome, even considering transportation costs.
-
10-03-2011, 11:23 AM #12
Because its hard to prove quantitatively because giving a company money to do as they see fit, how can you measure a job total out of it?
Give a company a tax break, they are more likely to use that money to invest as their labor capacity is probably already currently filled.
It's like me asking you when you get your welfare check, "how many cookies did you make?"
-
-
10-03-2011, 11:25 AM #13
To me is not something that has to be proven, it just makes sense.
If I have more money I will spend more money..... That is a statement that does not need to be proven, its just the natural order of things.
Will 100% of people spend more?? no, but most will, and that is the same with corporations. I just dont understand the thought process of someone who needs such simple concepts "proven" to them.
-
10-03-2011, 11:30 AM #14
- Join Date: Jun 2007
- Location: Florida, United States
- Age: 39
- Posts: 5,136
- Rep Power: 1376
A business is only going to spend money if it thinks it can make money.
In a time when corporations are sitting on record levels of cash, tax cuts aren't going to spur anything but the bottom line. They already have the means to hire and expand, it's just not profitable right now."Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." – John F Kennedy.
-
10-03-2011, 11:34 AM #15
Any corporation sitting on hoards of cash without good reason will piss off its stockholders.
Stockholders could get a bigger rate of return if a corporation paid out dividends and which would allow dividend recipients to invest it elsewhere because cash sitting around under a mattress does nothing.
-
10-03-2011, 11:46 AM #16
Actually, labor costs are not the only factor, one of the biggest reasons manufacturing is moving overseas is because Americans don't have the skills for growth industries, and because infrastructure is crumbling.
Listen to some top business leaders talk about the situation, they all agree that entitlement reform needs to happen, but investment in the future needs to continue.
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....-back-to-work/
Fact: Not investing in education and infrastructure is probably more anti-business than increasing taxes.When all that says 'it is good' has been debunked, what says 'I want' remains.
- CS Lewis
-
-
10-03-2011, 11:49 AM #17
I don't buy this. The amount of labor that it takes to make the average car in the US is about 8% of the total cost. The savings in overseas labor alone won't increase profit margins that much. It's the savings through the tax incentives we give manufacturers who import their products that motivates them to move overseas.
-
10-03-2011, 11:49 AM #18
-
10-03-2011, 11:57 AM #19
- Join Date: Oct 2003
- Location: New York, United States
- Age: 68
- Posts: 19,925
- Rep Power: 10378
The laffer curve no longer applies because we no longer have a manufacturing base. The entire tax code needs to be dumped and replaced. Capital gains tax for the wealthy and a consumption tax for everyone. Everything else needs to be dumped. Under that system if the company doesn't spend the money THEY GET TAXED! NO LOOP HOLES. Bring the jobs back, expand the company here and hire people, or we send the Brinks truck to your house escorted by M1 Abrams and relieve you of all of that filthy money cluttering up your safe.
-
10-03-2011, 12:02 PM #20
-
-
10-03-2011, 12:09 PM #21
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_309232.html
In a brutal job market, here's a task that might sound easy: Fill jobs in nursing, engineering and energy research that pay $55,000 to $60,000, plus benefits.
Yet even with 15 million people hunting for work, even with the unemployment rate nearing 10 percent, some employers can't find enough qualified people for good-paying career jobs.
Ask Steve Jones, a hospital recruiter in Indianapolis who's struggling to find qualified nurses, pharmacists and MRI technicians. Or Ed Baker, who's looking to hire at a U.S. Energy Department research lab in Richland, Wash., for $60,000 each.
Economists say the main problem is a mismatch between available work and people qualified to do it. Millions of jobs with attractive pay and benefits that once drew legions of workers to the auto industry, construction, Wall Street and other sectors are gone, probably for good. And those who lost those jobs generally lack the right experience for new positions popping up in health care, energy and engineering.
...When all that says 'it is good' has been debunked, what says 'I want' remains.
- CS Lewis
-
10-03-2011, 12:09 PM #22
- Join Date: Oct 2003
- Location: New York, United States
- Age: 68
- Posts: 19,925
- Rep Power: 10378
-
10-03-2011, 12:13 PM #23
-
10-03-2011, 12:17 PM #24
- Join Date: Mar 2007
- Location: North Carolina, United States
- Age: 50
- Posts: 7,746
- Rep Power: 5910
What are the standard of living costs of India and China compared to the U.S.?
I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that American workers aren't worth paying for, even if it means making less profits for these companies overall. How can people spout Patriotism and then support it when jobs get sent overseas causing unemployment here to rise, just because here in America the standard of living is higher? I know that flies in the face of the profit maximization schemes that most companies are governed by these days to try to make as much money for their investors as possible, but taking jobs overseas and relying on other countries for our manufacturing puts us at a disadvantage long term. In fact, the long term consequences of that move are now-term imho. They've started to hit full force.When you get to the top of the mountain, keep climbing
-
-
10-03-2011, 12:18 PM #25
- Join Date: May 2005
- Location: United States
- Age: 43
- Posts: 12,865
- Rep Power: 10724
Give someone a bunch of money and no demand for labor, you won't create many jobs. If you have a large amount of demand for bodies, but not much money, you won't create many jobs.
You need both a demand for labor and the capital to pay that labor. Without both jobs won't be created.Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you. -AW
Somebody kill the f'ing whales.
You can have the sunshine, I will take the moonshine
-
10-03-2011, 12:19 PM #26
-
10-03-2011, 12:24 PM #27
-
10-03-2011, 12:29 PM #28
-
-
10-03-2011, 12:33 PM #29
-
10-03-2011, 12:35 PM #30
Bookmarks