Tax breaks for the rich create new jobs? How?

reply to post by Flatfish


I understand and appreciate your thoughtful replies, and agree with some and not with others. Either way, my point is still the same that far too many people are dependent on govt for various facets of their lives, if not the entire thing. The issue is that the spending cannot continue on these programs even if they want to and voters want them to. Again, we spend 60% of our budget on these programs, and borrow 42% of our budget now.

Social security was never meant to be an entire retirement income, it was meant to be a safety-net and supplement. Medicaid and Medicare were also never meant to have this many people on their rolls. The point is very simple; over time, people have become increasingly dependent on govt and we are at a point that regardless of desire it isn't able to continue much longer.

We will be forced into entitlement program cuts just like Europe, and because of mentalities such as your where people feel 'entitled' to these benefits, there will be social unrest, just like in Europe. Taxes increases on the wealthy wouldn't cover the deficit gap we have. Obama and Democrats keep saying its $700 billion, but neglect to mention that figure is over 10 years. Thats $70 billion a year, or 4% of our deficit. The spending can't continue at these levels. And just like in Europe, people will not be happy about it. Its not coincidental that every nation is collapsing under the weight of these programs.

Originally posted by FreeSafety
reply to post by 46ACE

 

I just used 90 as an arbitrary number. Could've said 60, or 70 or any other number and the point would have been just as valid.

As to the 5 guys having a beer- totally different scenario. In that scenario all five are getting an equal part to each other, and of course it should cost each of them the same. A much better scenario to explain what I'm saying is this one. Let's say those five guys all decide to split a bottle of tequila, guy 1 drinks 5% of the bottle, guy two drinks 10%, guy 3 drinks 20%, guy 4 drinks 25% and guy 5 drinks 40%. Now let's say the bottle cost $100 at the bar they're at. Shouldn't guy 5 pay his $40 for what he received, instead of claiming guys 1 and 2 should pay more than their meager shares? Since guy 5 drank 40% of the bottle, he should pay for 40% of the cost. That's all I'm saying. Any number can be inserted there, 90 was just the one I chose in my previous post.

"You guys "always ask if we enjoy the same roadsand ,national security paid for by those taxes etc. which I
found analgous to the community music and warmth of the bar.So I believe my point as abstract as it was was valid.
What is happening to this extra tax money you would squeeze from these hardhearted stones with gold cards and limo's???

Its being wasted and handed to other elite "a holes" by Gheitner and Bernanke.You wan t to impress me get A G holder off his butt and investigat this rape of treasury we see going on instead of playing "get the richman because he's got more.". If we got unlawful transfers returned it would blow away the amount received from busting the constitution and founding ideals wide open.

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
So what I gather from all this back and forth is that tax breaks for the wealthy do help to create jobs. But the people and the companies receiving these tax breaks are investing and spending it to create jobs and businesses overseas (most likely because its cheaper), which rarely helps the United States.

Why are companies investing overseas and outsourcing jobs, and what can be done to fix this? Because if the rich want tax breaks, they need to invest and create jobs in the US, not elsewhere. Otherwise it creates a situation where the people do not witness any productive use of those tax breaks. And if the government wants more money, they need to quit wasting it and spending it irresponsibly by giving the already insanely rich even more wealth, and calling it a "bailout."

And officials wonder why the people aren't happy with the government or the wealthy.

Some actual constructive reform needs to be done. But is such a thing actually achievable without the reform being abused? History says no, government reform will ultimately be abused. So what kind of common ground can be met where something is actually achieved? Not just in theory, but in fact and practice.

You guys aren't going to like it: but; Okay we seem to have come to the point jobs are created but overseas.Why do companies move overseas?
cheaper labor&
cheaper or no taxes.
fewer costly regulations
So if the "new normal" is Americans winding down expectations and working for less money... Is anybody ready to commit to that?
fewer regulations( less govt power)?
and even more tax breaks?
That or we come up with a new model....

reply to post by johnny2127


Did it ever dawn on any of your people to look at the revenue side of this picture. Seriously, the problem is not what we're paying out, it's what we're taking in. The taxes that support these social programs have continually shrunk as more and more american jobs are outsourced overseas and the worker who's taxes used to fund them is no more.

Ask yourself this; What are these corporations who outsource american jobs overseas doing with the money they are saving by not paying S.S. and Medicare taxes in a foreign nation? Or how come companies like NIKE don't try to sell their shoes for $200 per pair in China or Pakistan where they made them? www1.american.edu...

Outsourcing and government subsidies amount to nothing more than modern day slavery and the process is literally robing the american system of the resources necessary to sustain our standard of living.

The real culprit is "Corporate Welfare." It is estimated that for every dollar spent in this country on social welfare programs, three dollars are spent on corporate welfare so if you're going to holler about welfare, let's talk about the head of the snake.

You might want to check out a few of these Boston Globe articles on the subject; www.corporations.org...
www.corporations.org...
www.corporations.org...
www.corporations.org...

Or some of these from the Philadelphia Inquirer;
www.corporations.org...
www.corporations.org...
www.corporations.org...
www.corporations.org...
www.corporations.org...
www.corporations.org...
www.corporations.org...

Like I stated before, prior to my retirement one of the companies that I loaded millions of tons of agricultural products for, namely Archer Daniels Midland, was and probably still is receiving $6.00 ber bushel subsidy for every bushel of corn utilized for ethanol production. So that means that my tax dollars are being used to subsidize the production of a fuel that requires more energy to produce that the fuel actually creates when it's burned while simultaneously causing sharp increases in the price to consumers for everything else made from corn. What do you want to bet that the rocket scientist who came up with this idea was a corporate lobbyist?

I believe that if corporations want to manufacture their products overseas then let them sell them there too. Nothing will change our current economic situation and our jobs will not return until we demand that all products sold in America be made in America. It's no different than Toyota building plants in America to build cars for sale in America, it's just the right thing to do and if General Motors wants to sell their cars in China, they should build a plant in China. That way every nation has built in protections to preserve their own economic base. I call it the common sense approach.

reply to post by camaro68ss


“And to be able to finance this work for the year the company need to have 5.2 million in the bank!” is a misleading statement, if you have 5.2 million in the bank that would be your capital. In your case 5.2 million is your annual revenue, most likely you only need one or two month operating cash that would be $400K-$800K in the bank. You would need less cash than that in reality, as most businesses have credit arrangement with their banks. So $482K would be 50%-100% return of your investment. After tax at 45% of gross profit, you still get 30%-66% of your investment of $400K-$800K. If you need the whole year’s expenses of cash ready before you can start a business, maybe you should consider doing something else, doing business definitely is not your cup of tea.

People getting tax breaks are most likely not the type of people who create jobs directly. People who create jobs depend on risk/reward analysis not tax breaks. Only investments in primary markets create jobs. People getting tax breaks most likely invest in secondary markets, which affect the welfare of existing jobs mostly. Job creation by investing in secondary markets only can be proven by statistical means.

Does tax breaks for the rich create new jobs? No one can say it will not, but the link between tax breaks for the rich and new jobs is weak. The real question should be asked is can we create more jobs with the amount of tax breaks by not giving to the rich? Anyhow creating jobs is a patriotism issue, the rich should contribute more to the nation.

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by johnny2127

 

Did it ever dawn on any of your people to look at the revenue side of this picture. Seriously, the problem is not what we're paying out, it's what we're taking in. The taxes that support these social programs have continually shrunk as more and more american jobs are outsourced overseas and the worker who's taxes used to fund them is no more.

Ask yourself this; What are these corporations who outsource american jobs overseas doing with the money they are saving by not paying S.S. and Medicare taxes in a foreign nation? Or how come companies like NIKE don't try to sell their shoes for $200 per pair in China or Pakistan where they made them? www1.american.edu...

Outsourcing and government subsidies amount to nothing more than modern day slavery and the process is literally robing the american system of the resources necessary to sustain our standard of living.

The real culprit is "Corporate Welfare." It is estimated that for every dollar spent in this country on social welfare programs, three dollars are spent on corporate welfare so if you're going to holler about welfare, let's talk about the head of the snake.

Actually not true. Revenue is higher now than 10 years ago. Hence its pretty easy to see that spending is the issue. Plus corporate tax rates are the highest in the industrialized world, so if your idea is to tax them more, you can watch even more jobs leave.

Tax Revenue in 2000: $2,025 Trillion
Tax Revenue in 2010: $2.165 Trillion
Tax Revenue Peak in 2007: $2.568 Trillion

Govt Spending in 2000: $1.789 Trillion
Govt Spending in 2010: $3.721 Trillion

SOURCE: Tax Policy Center


Yes, spending has more than doubled. Govt is too bloated. No way around that. Always best to look at the facts before posting assumptions. With your way of thinking, govt should continue on their spending binge and we should more than double taxes. Of course this would only get us to break even, and we wouldn't pay off any of the $14 trillion in debt. Govt is the problem, not the solution.

originally posted by Johnny2127

Actually not true. Revenue is higher now than 10 years ago. Hence its pretty easy to see that spending is the issue. Plus corporate tax rates are the highest in the industrialized world, so if your idea is to tax them more, you can watch even more jobs leave.

Tax Revenue in 2000: $2,025 Trillion
Tax Revenue in 2010: $2.165 Trillion
Tax Revenue Peak in 2007: $2.568 Trillion

Govt Spending in 2000: $1.789 Trillion
Govt Spending in 2010: $3.721 Trillion

SOURCE: Tax Policy Center


Yes, spending has more than doubled. Govt is too bloated. No way around that. Always best to look at the facts before posting assumptions. With your way of thinking, govt should continue on their spending binge and we should more than double taxes. Of course this would only get us to break even, and we wouldn't pay off any of the $14 trillion in debt. Govt is the problem, not the solution.


Response by Flatfish:
I would fully expect a gradual increase in tax revenue if for no other reason than to account for continued population growth, wage increases and inflation in general. The same could be said for a gradual increase of expenditures or liabilities as baby boomers retire etc...

What I do find intriguing is the fact that you utilized government spending data for the years 2000, ( Clinton era spending levels) and 2010, ( 11 yrs. into the illegal Iraq war and in the middle of a desperate attempt to recover from a recession caused by Bush era policies and tax cuts for the ultra rich.)

From the same source cited in your response, you might want to take a look at the chart which reflects corporate income tax as a share of the GDP from 1946 thru 2009. www.taxpolicycenter.org...
You will notice in this graph that in 1952/53, corporate income tax made up approx. 6.2% of the GDP while in 2009, it had fallen to 1% or less.

The Business Insider has 15 very interesting graphs that illustrate quite well, not only the growing gap in wealth distribution in America, but also the growing gap in the distribution of our tax burden. Check it out here; www.businessinsider.com...-gap-between-the-top-1-and-everyone-else-hasnt-been-this-bad -since-the-roaring-twenties-1

You can't "squeeze blood from a turnip" and the same is true when it comes to squeezing taxes from those with no money. Like I've said before, taxes have to be collected from where the money is and not from where it isn't. So I guess, all the ultra wealthy have to do in order to avoid being taxed on their massive wealth is to turn loose of some of it. Problem is, their greed would never allow it.