It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Business's share of taxes at lowest level in decades!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I've seen a few articles that relate to this since Congress passed their latest corporate tax bill. However, Fortune seems to sum it up the best.

I first want to start off by mentioning that business accounted for 40% of the tax revenue for this country after WWII.

Tax revenue from business hasn't been this low since the 60s. However, that was not due to legislation, it was due to declining profits.

The tax rate for corporations, over the last 15 years, has fallen from 26.5% to 17.2%. Guess who gets to make up the difference in tax revenue?

I'm not opposed to lowering taxes for business. Depending on what economic model you choose to follow, it can be good or bad for the economy. However, what I am opposed to is that this reduction in revenue does not raise the wages of the common worker.

Recent studies have shown an increasing trend over the last decade that is very disturbing. Although taxes are going down for companies, there is not a proportional increase in wages for the worker. What this means is that the worker has to make up the difference in lost tax revenue without a proportional increase in income. Therefore, this leaves less income to be used to buy houses, put in savings, or spend on commerce in the economy.

This offers several problems I don't see any lawmakers addressing. It seems as though cutting taxes is a double edged sword.

What do you all think?

For a link to the Fortune article click here:
www.fortune.com...

It is a short article, maybe 500 words or so and has some hoo-hah about Warren Buffet in it too.




posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I agree that lowering taxes to business will help the economy beause it makes posible for business to hire more workers but is not happening.

Now why giving brakes to the rich and wealthy and the american worker does not get a raise in the wages, if bush can give cut in taxes and lower the taxes to businesses and top it with a raise in minimun wages the regular american worker will be a lot better off.

But it does not work like that, see the american hard working the hart of food and bread of our country and the biggest force it still in the low end of the deal.

What a pity.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Yeah, I'm not sure how much this relates directly to the tax cuts done so far under Bush.

I thought his whole idea was that the extra profit business would have would
A: Allow them to hire more people
B: Allow them to reinvest into the business
C: Allow them to pay their employees more

This is very similar to trickle down economics, which as George Carlin put it, Rich people pissing on top of poor people. I don't think trickle worked under Reagan, and I'm not sure if similar movements will accomplish option C.

Some people are being hired, but I can't say where to. I know businesses are reinvesting because productivity is going up, which is an indicator of reinvestment. However, wages haven't seemed to move up in years.

Any economists on here that can shed some light on the economic models that say this should work, or any historical figures that can help in this discussion?



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 03:27 PM
link   

I'm not opposed to lowering taxes for business. Depending on what economic model you choose to follow, it can be good or bad for the economy. However, what I am opposed to is that this reduction in revenue does not raise the wages of the common worker.


Vote for Bush and you'll see corporations' share of taxes go down even further...


I thought his whole idea was that the extra profit business would have would
A: Allow them to hire more people
B: Allow them to reinvest into the business
C: Allow them to pay their employees more


No, it goes towards the CEO's 6th house, on the 18th hole....
The above were simply "what ifs" to get your vote.



Some people are being hired, but I can't say where to.


Yet he's the first president in decades to actually LOSE jobs, hehe...



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 04:20 PM
link   
...since Herbert Hoover to have a net job loss.

This isn't a mud pit discussion though.

I think it is a political/business issue. This goes back further than Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter... something changed in corporate America in the late sixties and early seventies.

Somehow, congress has been passing laws to help "theoretical" reinvestment in business, but instead it seems that companies are just lining their pockets.
What is the limit to the amount of money one can have before it makes no difference if you make a million more a year or not?

Is there an economic scenario where the well runs dry and people run out of money, then companies go bust since there is no extra money consumers can spend on them?

I've never really studied the Great Depression, so I don't know how similar the state of the country is now to how it was then, if it is similar at all.

I just want to know when the normal people attached to reality will be able to earn what they are worth, and not the going rate from 1992.




top topics
 
0

log in

join