Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 9:41:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2011 19:59:26 GMT -5
Good post TEX: Taxing the rich gains little and it is only a temporary fix at best. A working person contributes to the government every payday. A much more sound approach.
It's pretty simple stuff handyman2 but I get the impression that a lot of liberals just don't see the logic. Not to long ago there was a thread where one (or some) liberals were saying that government hiring would put people to work & get us out of this recession. I didn't explain it at the time because I just didn't believe what they were saying. More government hiring will actually hurt the economy because the government will have to borrow more money to pay them. I found it shocking that they didn't get that. Hell if my son was 14 years old & he didn't see it I would have assumed that he was backward.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2011 20:59:01 GMT -5
How does that fit in with Republicans cutting government workers? Doesn't that reduce the number of taxpayers? All for tax breaks for corporations that aren't really hiring.This seems to be a real hard concept for some people to understand so I'll say it slowly & with great detail. Government workers (in a way) pay no taxes. I'll simplify to explain. Say you pay a government worker $2,000 per month. Now lets say that he gets $500 (number picked at random) per month taken out for taxes for the government to spend (actually throw down a rat hole because they are the government). Yes the guy is actually paying $500 per month in taxes (so he is really paying taxes) but the problem is that while he is paying $500 per month taxes......The government is paying him that $500 in the first place PLUS an extra $1,500 dollars per month. The government loses money on that guy. That's why smaller governments make sense & a country where everyone works for the government can't exist. That's alway why it is much better for people to work in non government businesses. The government doesn't pay their paycheck so they don't lose on every person. Hopes that helps. by that logic, the government should employ no people whatsoever. but that makes no sense whatsoever, unless you are an anarchist. of course, if you look at the administration of business, the same thing can be said. they are not actually contributing to productive value, they are just adding to the cost of things that you buy. for every $1 a business spends on administration, $1 gets added to the cost of goods. so, using Texlogic, we should get rid of all administration in business, and rely exclusively on productive employees. but that doesn't make any sense either. so, we are left with a conundrum: we require administrators in government and industry to organize and perform work that is, essentially, nonproductive. there are two options- you can sit there and whine about it, or you can face reality, and pay for it. conclusion: everybody says they don't want to pay for leaders. but when push comes to shove, they would be lost without them.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 8, 2011 21:06:45 GMT -5
When we get right down to it, nothing accrues to anyone free of charge. If you're to have, you're going to pay. Nobody wants to pay, but everyone wants to have.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2011 21:07:09 GMT -5
Good post TEX: Taxing the rich gains little and it is only a temporary fix at best. A working person contributes to the government every payday. A much more sound approach.It's pretty simple stuff handyman2 but I get the impression that a lot of liberals just don't see the logic. Not to long ago there was a thread where one (or some) liberals were saying that government hiring would put people to work & get us out of this recession. I didn't explain it at the time because I just didn't believe what they were saying. More government hiring will actually hurt the economy because the government will have to borrow more money to pay them. I found it shocking that they didn't get that. i don't get it, either. if i borrow money at 3%, and spend it on labor, nearly 100% of that money will end up right back in the economy. so for $3 in interest, i have given the economy a $100 shot in the arm. and this exact exercise has been repeated over and over and over again by big and governments alike, typically with predictably GOOD short term results. now, if you are saying that the LONG TERM EFFECT will be negative- that remains to be seen. it really depends what that $100 shot in the arm does. in other words, it is not nearly as simple as what you just described. and the fact that "liberals" can see that it is complicated doesn't necessarily mean they are missing your logic- but possibly that you are missing theirs.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2011 21:17:35 GMT -5
When we get right down to it, nothing accrues to anyone free of charge. If you're to have, you're going to pay. Nobody wants to pay, but everyone wants to have. precisely. the role of government is to organize social tasks that are PAINFUL BUT NECESSARY for the good of the people. we elect people who PRESUMABLY have better vision than the rest of us to fulfill those tasks. that is the whole basis of a Republic. but what has happened, over the last 20 years, is that politicians have increasingly pandered to the short term whims of the electorate, and the result is that all of the things they SHOULD be doing are being neglected. it is little wonder that we, most of us, hate our government. they spoil us, and they deserve the same disrespect for it as parents who do the same.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 9:41:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2011 21:23:23 GMT -5
precisely. the role of government is to organize social tasks that are PAINFUL BUT NECESSARY for the good of the people.
Sorry djlungrot but you & I couldn't be further apart on the above statement even if we were on different planets in different solar systems. I do not believe that in our Republic that is the role our government was designed to play or should play.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Jul 8, 2011 22:09:07 GMT -5
Except for 2-3 years... under a democrat... we as a country have run a deficit every year since 1960... so i don't know why you think liberal left is the one with the problem? So... we need to add taxpayers, and use THAT (hereto imaginary) tax revenue to pay down debt.... Great... now how does he address the issue of adding taxpayers? Under a Democrat President whose spending was restrained by a GOP Congress. Remember, he wanted the bank busting Hillarycare but the people were like no thank you and brought in Newt and the rest of the gang who helped turn this nation around. Bill gets all the credit but did little of the actual work. It's nice being a liberal.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 9:41:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2011 22:28:23 GMT -5
Under a Democrat President whose spending was restrained by a GOP Congress. Remember, he wanted the bank busting Hillarycare but the people were like no thank you and brought in Newt and the rest of the gang who helped turn this nation around.
You know BOTH sides (Democrats & Republicans) are guilty of cherry picking "facts" that Presidents were responsible for or did. The real fact is that usually no one party controls everything so a wonderful Democrat President might have been the results of the actions of Republicans & a wonderful Republican President might have been the result of Democrats in Congress. To not admit that is to ignore the reality of how our system of government is set up. Just something to think about the next time anyone is saying how wonderful "their" President was.
|
|
mwcpa
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 2,425
|
Post by mwcpa on Jul 9, 2011 5:49:55 GMT -5
"Government workers (in a way) pay no taxes. I'll simplify to explain. Say you pay a government worker $2,000 per month. Now lets say that he gets $500 (number picked at random) per month taken out for taxes for the government to spend (actually throw down a rat hole because they are the government). Yes the guy is actually paying $500 per month in taxes (so he is really paying taxes) but the problem is that while he is paying $500 per month taxes......The government is paying him that $500 in the first place PLUS an extra $1,500 dollars per month. The government loses money on that guy"
I am confused by this..... so are you saying the government workers, like the military, the police person, the fire person, etc., should all work for free (obviously there is waste in the government, just like any organization)? They key is they are working for us, is it now that we do not need police, fire and military staff? Wouldn't that be a perfect utopia.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 9, 2011 8:22:06 GMT -5
The best articulation of the argument against new and higher taxes I've heard yet:
"So you look at all these taxes that are being proposed and here’s what I say: I say we should analyze every single one of them through the lens of job creation, issue No. 1 in America. I want to know which one of these taxes they’re proposing will create jobs. I want to know how many jobs will be created by the planes tax. I want to know how many jobs will be created by the oil company tax that I’ve heard so much about. How many jobs are created by going after the millionaires and billionaires that the president talks about? I want to know! How many jobs do they create?"
Obama should be forced to answer this question. Over and over and over and over again, this should be asked: how many new jobs will higher taxes for the small businesses in America create?
Put it to the people, too: Unemployed? How will raising taxes on employers help you find a job? Employed? Will raising taxes on your employer make your job more or less secure?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 9:41:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2011 8:39:04 GMT -5
I thought jobs weren't being created because of uncertainty about the debt... ergo... if tax increases help to decrease the deficit and/or pay down the debt... that should increase confidence and in result lead to more job creation...
... i mean... that's what i keep hearing...
This is NOT higher taxes for small businesses.... we aren't even at the 250K threshhold right now... which MOST small businesses don't cross... we're currently talking million dollar a year + .... Get a new line...
How did cutting taxes on the employers help create jobs? .... If you give the mass... the common working people more money to spend... that creates more demand... and that creates jobs...
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Jul 9, 2011 8:51:01 GMT -5
It seems many failed math 101. In reality the government is a free loader. Now having said that it is necessary that they serve that roll to a limited point but it should be just that a limited point. we do need an army to maintain our freedoms but we do not need an army that are policemen for the whole world. We need policemen to maintain order and firemen to assist in a time of crises etc. What we don't need is a government that controls every aspect of our lives. We have the responsibility to live and die by our own choices good or bad. The government consumes but produces nothing, creates no wealth so it is a constant drain on the economy and is such a convoluted bureaucracy that is so unmanageable that waste and confusion is it's prime outcome. It creates so many unnecessary subsidies that it hampers creativity that so in reality an industry cannot fail or we are expected to guarantee it's survival. Why must we do that? If a product is not by it's own quality able to stand on it's own two feet then get out of the way and let those who can produce a quality product take the market. Is that not the symbol of free enterprise? The real answer is government needs to abide by our founding fathers original premise of being limited to keeping order and and protecting our freedoms. We can work out the other issues of our lives for ourselves. Americans are not as stupid as the government thinks.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 9, 2011 9:47:04 GMT -5
>>> The real answer is government needs to abide by our founding fathers original premise of being limited to keeping order and and protecting our freedoms. We can work out the other issues of our lives for ourselves. <<< ...here, here... >>> Americans are not as stupid as the government thinks. <<< ...well, the federal effect on educating our young has helped to that end...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 9:41:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 13:13:10 GMT -5
I am confused by this..... so are you saying the government workers, like the military, the police person, the fire person, etc., should all work for free (obviously there is waste in the government, just like any organization)? They key is they are working for us, is it now that we do not need police, fire and military staff? Wouldn't that be a perfect utopia.
mwcpa, no I wasn't saying that they work for free. I was saying that the government couldn't "hire" us out of a recession & debt because expanding the government (making it bigger) makes us go into debt DEEPER (40% of what it's pays people is borrowed). I have heard that exact suggestion for someone on these boards as a way to "get people employed". Employment needs to come from the business sector so that they taxes paid into the government are "profit" rather than "loss" (if they were working from the government).
Sorry if I wasn't clear. To be honest I was kind of shocked at seeing the comment from the other poster because to me it's a pretty obvious thing. I mean who doesn't understand that the government doesn't make any kind of a profit & is always (at least lately) run at a loss.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 9:41:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 13:21:00 GMT -5
How did cutting taxes on the employers help create jobs? ....
I've explained this at least 3 times so.....
Oped since you don't get it. Why don't we reverse the question (which I guess makes more sense to you). Please explain how raising taxes on businesses (any business, it doesn't matter what size) helps them hire more people?
I want to make this real clear what my question is. I'll supply the numbers but you can change them if it helps because I really want to understand your point of view.
Before the tax increase a business makes $100,000 of profit per year.
After the tax increase a business makes $75,000 of profit per year.
So how does making $25,000 LESS profit per year push that business toward hiring more people?
I don't get it & I don't get why you don't get my explanation.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 9:41:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 13:22:59 GMT -5
Americans are not as stupid as the government thinks.Boy could we argue that point for a while. Are we talking about the same America? The one where they sold a million pet rocks & even more Chia Pets? That America?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,513
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 10, 2011 13:35:50 GMT -5
The question asked was not, "What is the theoretical concept of tax cuts to help create jobs?" The question asked was, "How did cutting taxes on the employers help create jobs?" The past decade of data is available for your use.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 10, 2011 13:42:58 GMT -5
precisely. the role of government is to organize social tasks that are PAINFUL BUT NECESSARY for the good of the people.Sorry djlungrot but you & I couldn't be further apart on the above statement even if we were on different planets in different solar systems. I do not believe that in our Republic that is the role our government was designed to play or should play. if not, what is their designed purpose?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 10, 2011 13:43:51 GMT -5
Except for 2-3 years... under a democrat... we as a country have run a deficit every year since 1960... so i don't know why you think liberal left is the one with the problem? So... we need to add taxpayers, and use THAT (hereto imaginary) tax revenue to pay down debt.... Great... now how does he address the issue of adding taxpayers? Under a Democrat President whose spending was restrained by a GOP Congress. Remember, he wanted the bank busting Hillarycare but the people were like no thank you and brought in Newt and the rest of the gang who helped turn this nation around. Bill gets all the credit but did little of the actual work. It's nice being a liberal. Bill was no liberal.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 10, 2011 13:48:30 GMT -5
Put it to the people, too: Unemployed? How will raising taxes on employers help you find a job? Employed? Will raising taxes on your employer make your job more or less secure? it is a red herring argument. taxes are on profits, which are BY DEFINITION money that is left over after it has been used to employ people. the problem, Paul, is that we keep asking the wrong questions. the REAL question is what stimulates job growth- and it is consumer demand for goods and services. so, what can we do to stimulate demand? there are a lot of good answers to that question. very few of them have anything to do with tax loopholes. the loophole question has to do with deficits, which are a separate problem. one that apparently people care about.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 10, 2011 13:50:56 GMT -5
The question asked was not, "What is the theoretical concept of tax cuts to help create jobs?" The question asked was, "How did cutting taxes on the employers help create jobs?" The past decade of data is available for your use. and the answer is, of course, it created the worst 10 year job growth record since the depression.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 10, 2011 13:52:13 GMT -5
How did cutting taxes on the employers help create jobs? .... I've explained this at least 3 times so..... Oped since you don't get it. Less reverse the question (which I guess makes more sense to you). Please explain how raising taxes on businesses (any business, it doesn't matter what size) helps them hire more people? I want to make this real clear what my question is. I'll supply the numbers but you can change them if it helps because I really want to understand your point of view. Before the tax increase a business makes $100,000 of profit per year. After the tax increase a business makes $75,000 of profit per year. So how does making $25,000 LESS profit per year push that business toward hiring more people? I don't get it & I don't get why you don't get my explanation. any business owner that would rather use post tax dollars to hire than pretax ones should go flip burgers for a living.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 9:41:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 15:19:07 GMT -5
The question asked was not, "What is the theoretical concept of tax cuts to help create jobs?" The question asked was, "How did cutting taxes on the employers help create jobs?" The past decade of data is available for your use.
and the answer is, of course, it created the worst 10 year job growth record since the depression.
My question would be: Since the Democrats started this recession by lowering standards on buying houses to the point where people that couldn't afford them, bought them, & had them repossessed, thus throwing us into a recession. Well since then how much worse would it have been if we didn't have these tax breaks for companies. Would it have been 20% unemployment? More? That would be what I wondered.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 9:41:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 15:46:31 GMT -5
The question asked was, "How did cutting taxes on the employers help create jobs?" The past decade of data is available for your use.
This is kind of like the question about but:
It's an impossible question to answer. It's an "If you hadn't done this what would have happened question" & since you did do that there is no history available as to what happened if you didn't do it.
To me it's a very SIMPLE question that can be answered with common sense by each & every one of us. Ask yourself "Do you spend more money when you have more money or when you have less money? Ex: I have never said "hey I broke even this month so I'm going to go buy a new car (boat, more food, run my A/C unit longer, go out more, etc). Unless your way different than me, you spend more when you have more. That stimulates the economy (at least more than if you were broke). Now can someone here rationalize an example where that would be wrong...sure they can. But the simple truth is that when people have more money they will most likely spend more money & spending money can stimulate the economy. The more people that spend, the more that the economy is stimulated. This is SIMPLE STUFF.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 9:41:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 16:13:22 GMT -5
I guess you don't realize that hiring an employee 'just cause' .... will decrease profits as well?
Ok. The scenario you give me is pre tax increase, the company is going to have 100K after paying taxes... and after the tax increase, they will be paying 25K more, and end up with 75K post tax.
First, I don't know of a situation where that is likely? ... an INCREASE of 25K in taxes is not going to happen on what would have been 100K profits... ?
But I think what you are saying is: If a company has to pay an extra 25K in taxes, what incentive is that to hire a person? ... Well, every time they hire a person (who does not make them money) then that person's salary also eats into profits. ie. why would they just hire a person unless they needed him? Why would they take their 100K profits and use 25K to hire someone... ? When they can have the whole 100K to themselves (assuming your original premise)...
But here is another kicker... if they HIRE the person... that actually counts as an operating expense and LOWERS their taxes... so if its at all benefiical.. it works to hire a person and spend in salary, and decrease taxes that way... IF its beneficial...
It all comes down to this... You hire people because it will make your more money... regardless of taxes... Taxes are never anywhere near 100%... and so taxes are never a part of the equation for me... at least not income taxes... I do sometimes consider payroll taxes in hiring decisions... but I hire people because they are going to make me money... and that is the bottom line... If they make me money... i get MORE regardless of whether or not i pay 22% of it or 29% of it to taxes...
If hiring a person is not going to make me more money... if there is no demand... then why would i hire someone?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 9:41:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 16:20:22 GMT -5
Yes oldtex... the more people spend, the more they stimulate the economy.... but its the bottom 60% that spend most of what they have.... Giving them more to spend has a bigger impact than giving it to the upper 1% ... They buy the bulk of the goods and services which constitute the economy...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 9:41:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 16:42:19 GMT -5
Yes oldtex... the more people spend, the more they stimulate the economy.... but its the bottom 60% that spend most of what they have.... Giving them more to spend has a bigger impact than giving it to the upper 1% ... They buy the bulk of the goods and services which constitute the economy...
Yes, true BUT the upper 40% spend more on non essentials than the lower 60%. Buying rice & beans wouldn't really stimulate the economy the same way as buying a dish washer. That's why stealing from the rich or even middle class hurts the economy.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 9:41:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 16:47:01 GMT -5
Are you under the impression that only the upper 40% own dish washers?
If you want near 100% return to the economy... You do not give more $ to million/billionaires...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 9:41:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 16:49:09 GMT -5
Who is 'stealing' from the middle class.... A good portion of the middle class still gets an eitc.... We are talking about increasing slightly taxes on income in excess of 1 million a year on....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 9:41:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 16:55:39 GMT -5
If hiring a person is not going to make me more money... if there is no demand... then why would i hire someone?
Oped the more money you or a business has...the more options they have. Your lawn business (for example) is steady & making a profit for you. (Profit being more than you need to get by). Maybe you will "invest" that profit in a new business or maybe you can lower your cost & try to expand that business by taking away business from other lawn care companies. Money (cash on hand) gives you those options.
My mother retired from a company that had a great bottom line...they made lots of money (they were in the building trade when it was booming). During her time there (I think about 8 years) they opened 8 or 10 other businesses because they had that cash. Some were successful (& they later sold them off) & some were failures (& they closed them). That did create jobs (even the closed businesses created them short term). Raising taxes on business hurts companies & hurts the economy. It especially hurt companies that have to compete in the world market. I think one could make a strong case of businesses paying zero (0) taxes & collecting taxes only on their workers & product sales.
|
|