Modded Mustang Forums banner

21 - 39 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,562 Posts
My point is that corporations and companies don't create jobs simply because they were able to avoid paying taxes or paid less taxes. Any sensible company will only hire more workers because the demand on their product outstrips their production capacity.

Yes, more liquidity affords a company the means to expand but there is no expansion if there is no demand for product beyond the present production capabilities. In the last couple decades whatever liquidity tax breaks given to corps has certainly enabled them to expand......overseas.

Conservative thinking dictates that less taxes paid by these corps and companies will spawn new job offerings but it doesn't make logical sense. Again, no new demand no new jobs. Of course the liberal end thinks that endless spending will wash out at the end of the day but unfettered spending is a recipe for huge defecits but then again this type of thinking isn't reserved solely for liberals. Conservatives are just as wasteful and reckless with spending. The only difference is in the areas that they spend.

John
The idea is that by taking less tax money out of businesses/companies/etc it gives them more money to re-invest into their company. For example, if a small company pays $1000 less in taxes this year, they can use that money to buy a more current computer for one of their employees, which makes his work load more efficient, and presumably costs the company less in computer repairs, which saves the company even more money, that they can again re-invest into themselves.

Short term, no it doesn't create jobs. But it does have them spending more money, which fuels their suppliers/service providers, etc, which could lead to more demand, and more jobs being made down the line.

The short form is, the more discretionary spending money available, the more demand grows. The more demand grows, the more jobs become available, etc.

It's no quick fix, but neither is raising taxes. Raising taxes always results in less tax revenue over time, unless you keep raising the taxes.
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
The idea is that by taking less tax money out of businesses/companies/etc it gives them more money to re-invest into their company. For example, if a small company pays $1000 less in taxes this year, they can use that money to buy a more current computer for one of their employees, which makes his work load more efficient, and presumably costs the company less in computer repairs, which saves the company even more money, that they can again re-invest into themselves.

Short term, no it doesn't create jobs. But it does have them spending more money, which fuels their suppliers/service providers, etc, which could lead to more demand, and more jobs being made down the line.

The short form is, the more discretionary spending money available, the more demand grows. The more demand grows, the more jobs become available, etc.

It's no quick fix, but neither is raising taxes. Raising taxes always results in less tax revenue over time, unless you keep raising the taxes.
I'm not arguing for raising taxes, but we've got plenty of history to show that large companies do not create jobs as their cash flow increases.

Conservatives are always using small companies as examples to show the effects of changes for business taxes, etc. Which is totally fine as small-business owners take the brunt of the ****. Throw some relief to a small company and yes, they may be creating a better situation for their workers and even hiring more of them!

But large companies have shown time and time again that they utilize excess money only for hoarding purposes without giving two shits about workers. And chances are, most of us living in this country are having to work for the big companies.

It's kind of analogous to income inequality. The big dogs get to utilize all the loopholes and laugh off the fines for doing illegal activities while the smaller guys don't have access or funds to utilize those loopholes or scoff at fines.

You can't just brush off wage-stagnation and say the system is working as it should. The data proves that we've had plenty of time to see how this hypothesis works out and it's obviously not working.

Companies saw the fear that 2008 put into the workforce and are utilizing that fear to maximize their short-term profits instead of innovating and creating long-term solutions - and the workers get to fight and claw at one another for the jobs thinking they'll be the next millionaire. It's toxic as **** and it does not work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,562 Posts
Agreed with the above.

That's why I'm against income taxes. There are aspects of the fair tax I don't like, such as the "prebate" so they can tax EVERYTHING, instead of just leaving things like food/clothes tax free. I prefer that we do a use tax. Pay an increased sales tax rate on EVERYTHING, that way everyone pays the tax on everything but person to person sales.
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
Agreed with the above.

That's why I'm against income taxes. There are aspects of the fair tax I don't like, such as the "prebate" so they can tax EVERYTHING, instead of just leaving things like food/clothes tax free. I prefer that we do a use tax. Pay an increased sales tax rate on EVERYTHING, that way everyone pays the tax on everything but person to person sales.
I mean, we talk about a lot of these issues as if we assume there might be some answer out there that is the best solution (I for sure do it too) even if we don't know what it is. But the reality is that regardless of system, there will always be loopholes figured out or an aspect that is unfair and when it comes to money - that unfairness seems to always weigh heavily on the middle class and below, but yet we're constantly being told that the unfairness is happening to those above!

For a ridiculously over-simplified example in regards your above statement:

Say there is no income tax and some kind of federal sales tax of 25%. Joe makes $30,000 a year and Bob makes $250,000 a year. Joe and Bob both want a Big Mac for $5 coming out to a total of $6.25. That $1.25 hits Joe relatively hard at his measly $576 per week whereas Bob don't give two ****s at how it affects his $4807 per week income. They're effectively paying the same tax rate but the percentage can easily destroy someone of lower income while not even registering on someone with a higher income. Without even touching rent/mortgage, bills, family, medical expenses, etc etc

That's not even taking into account what someone of higher income might figure out as loopholes. Perhaps they make big purchases outside of the United States and have things imported and after all is said and done, their effective tax payment is lower on the sale of whatever item it may be. Whereas someone of lower income would never be able to find the resources to do such a thing.

Every system has a problem. I don't know what the solution is. I'd like to think there is one out there somewhere but :dunno
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
The use tax sounds like a good idea but, again, it favors the wealthy. Yes they buy big ticket items and will pay the tax for it but for the everyday stuff they eat the same amount of food just like us little guys and buy the same amount of clothes just like us little guys. Granted their eats and clothes are more expensive but the difference would be nominal so in the end, the money that they didn't spend and put away would avoid taxes while the little guy living paycheck to paycheck would continue to struggle to make ends meet while the Fed would get less in revenue to help said little guy.

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,562 Posts
The use tax sounds like a good idea but, again, it favors the wealthy. Yes they buy big ticket items and will pay the tax for it but for the everyday stuff they eat the same amount of food just like us little guys and buy the same amount of clothes just like us little guys. Granted their eats and clothes are more expensive but the difference would be nominal so in the end, the money that they didn't spend and put away would avoid taxes while the little guy living paycheck to paycheck would continue to struggle to make ends meet while the Fed would get less in revenue to help said little guy.

John
Did both of you miss the point I made about making food non tax?
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
Agreed with the above.

That's why I'm against income taxes. There are aspects of the fair tax I don't like, such as the "prebate" so they can tax EVERYTHING, instead of just leaving things like food/clothes tax free. I prefer that we do a use tax. Pay an increased sales tax rate on EVERYTHING, that way everyone pays the tax on everything but person to person sales.
Did both of you miss the point I made about making food non tax?
Maybe? The wording may be confusing but I read your statement as everything having a sales tax.

The point still kinda stands. Any thing a person buys will be taxed the same whether you're a billionaire or making minimum wage. As Nova said, yeah maybe the rich buy more expensive stuff, but if both parties buy the same used 2006 Honda Civic, the minimum wage maker is crushed while the billionaire lights an extra few thousand dollars on fire just for a quick chuckle.

There are a few items that a lot of people see as non-necessities and that the poor should cut out of their lives to survive: phones, internet, cars etc. But how does an unemployed poor person get a job without a phone or a computer or internet? How do they get to work without a car? Public transportation? The majority of US cities aren't known for their stellar public transportation, not to mention urban centers are the most expensive areas. These have all essentially become a necessity. Yeah, they could go up to the front door of a McDonalds and apply without internet - but then the same people bitch about them not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and getting a REAL job that's not McDonald's, which then goes back to require these things that so many people see as "luxuries" that the poor need to give up to survive.

No I'm not saying these things need to be free and everyone needs an Obamaphone or some **** - but excessive sales tax replacing an income tax could literally price the poor out of certain necessities while the wealthier continue to be at a huge, and quite frankly, substantially unfair advantage.
 

·
Pawsitively sexy
Joined
·
10,564 Posts
i was wrong, carry on
**** that.

We can still cut military spending ALONG with hitting entitlement programs. Just saying.

I'm sick of watching us sell arms to both sides of a war, or removing a "hostile" dictator only to see the area become overrun by Islamic extremists, or letting our "partnerships" with other countries be contingent on a 38 billion ****ing dollar commitment. Looking at you, Israel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,562 Posts
Maybe? The wording may be confusing but I read your statement as everything having a sales tax.

The point still kinda stands. Any thing a person buys will be taxed the same whether you're a billionaire or making minimum wage. As Nova said, yeah maybe the rich buy more expensive stuff, but if both parties buy the same used 2006 Honda Civic, the minimum wage maker is crushed while the billionaire lights an extra few thousand dollars on fire just for a quick chuckle.

There are a few items that a lot of people see as non-necessities and that the poor should cut out of their lives to survive: phones, internet, cars etc. But how does an unemployed poor person get a job without a phone or a computer or internet? How do they get to work without a car? Public transportation? The majority of US cities aren't known for their stellar public transportation, not to mention urban centers are the most expensive areas. These have all essentially become a necessity. Yeah, they could go up to the front door of a McDonalds and apply without internet - but then the same people bitch about them not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and getting a REAL job that's not McDonald's, which then goes back to require these things that so many people see as "luxuries" that the poor need to give up to survive.

No I'm not saying these things need to be free and everyone needs an Obamaphone or some **** - but excessive sales tax replacing an income tax could literally price the poor out of certain necessities while the wealthier continue to be at a huge, and quite frankly, substantially unfair advantage.
Good points
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
33,198 Posts
**** that.

We can still cut military spending ALONG with hitting entitlement programs. Just saying.

I'm sick of watching us sell arms to both sides of a war, or removing a "hostile" dictator only to see the area become overrun by Islamic extremists, or letting our "partnerships" with other countries be contingent on a 38 billion ****ing dollar commitment. Looking at you, Israel.
our relationship with israel is so ****ing insane. the money we give them, the things we let them get away with, etc. yet somehow whenever a presidential candidate shows support for israel they're applauded by the masses. that koolaid tho.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,592 Posts
The point still kinda stands. Any thing a person buys will be taxed the same whether you're a billionaire or making minimum wage. As Nova said, yeah maybe the rich buy more expensive stuff, but if both parties buy the same used 2006 Honda Civic, the minimum wage maker is crushed while the billionaire lights an extra few thousand dollars on fire just for a quick chuckle.
I guess that's the fundamental difference in thinking between people. I believe that if the same people buy the same 2006 Honda Civic, they should be paying the same taxes on it regardless of income. Paying the same taxes for the same thing is fair. If there is a billionaire that wants to save his/her money and buy a used 2006 Civic, why should they be punished by paying more taxes? Screw the billionaire, how many millionaires do you know that buy cars that are equal to something someone in poverty buys? That billionaire is going to be buying new Tesla vehicles and paying much more taxes because they consume things that cost more. Even on necessary things like clothes, I don't see billionaires walking around in the same clothes that people like me buy.
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
I guess that's the fundamental difference in thinking between people. I believe that if the same people buy the same 2006 Honda Civic, they should be paying the same taxes on it regardless of income. Paying the same taxes for the same thing is fair. If there is a billionaire that wants to save his/her money and buy a used 2006 Civic, why should they be punished by paying more taxes? Screw the billionaire, how many millionaires do you know that buy cars that are equal to something someone in poverty buys? That billionaire is going to be buying new Tesla vehicles and paying much more taxes because they consume things that cost more. Even on necessary things like clothes, I don't see billionaires walking around in the same clothes that people like me buy.
And I'm not implying that sales taxes should be different between parties. I'm pointing out the issue with that tax idea.

Okay, you question why billionaires should be punished (which I never said they should)? Do you believe people in poverty deserved to be punished? Because that's inherently what would happen in a system like that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,562 Posts
And I'm not implying that sales taxes should be different between parties. I'm pointing out the issue with that tax idea.

Okay, you question why billionaires should be punished (which I never said they should)? Do you believe people in poverty deserved to be punished? Because that's inherently what would happen in a system like that.
Not really, and possibly they would be "punished" (taxed for the rest of us) less.

Every single dollar you earn has been taxed at least three times before you earn it due to our income based tax. Your employer gets taxed on their profits, then they pay you part of that profit, and you get taxed on it, and it doesn't even start there.

So, if we eliminate income tax, and go with a use tax, yes, the initial rate goes up, but it's possibly less than you're getting taxed now. Do some simple things like make food, medication/medical supplies/basic necessities tax free (I'm even good with all clothing being tax free) and then tax everything else, be it cars, houses, stereos, headphones, cell phones, etc,

Your new car taxes will be factored into the loan, same with your house taxes, etc. If you buy a used car, you pay the taxes at the DMV like you do now. Again, no big deal as you'll know the rate and you factor it into the purchase.

No one is getting "punished". Yes, it affects the wealthy less, but again, they tend to buy higher ticket items, so they pay more. Will it hurt a little bit when we plunk down 30K for a new car? Yeah, but it'll be part of the payment, and we'll be ok because we'll be bringing more of our money home.

It doesn't even have to be a huge tax like they're proposing. We have around a 7% sales tax around us. Let's say that the state also drops income tax, and increases the sales tax another 6% to make up or it. Then the feds add on another 5 or 6%. So yeah, we're around 20%, but how much actual tax is taken out of your check as is, that is earning you 0% interest while the state and federal government take a chunk. I'm willing to bet that if they did the sales tax thing, they'd have enough of a reserve after a few years that they might be able to lower the tax rate because it would be on virtually everything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
our relationship with israel is so ****ing insane. the money we give them, the things we let them get away with, etc. yet somehow whenever a presidential candidate shows support for israel they're applauded by the masses. that koolaid tho.
Yup. I get that they are a trusted ally and that's awesome but they take advantage of that relationship by beating the patriot drum whenever anyone starts to question some of their motives.

John
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
I'm not in favor of a national sales tax at all. The idea that people pay an income tax anyway is not true. Romney was criticized for saying that 47% of the population pay no income tax. But that is a true statement. Most of those that do not pay income taxes have jobs but because of exemptions and standard deductions nothing is deducted from their paychecks. Single mothers may not actually have taxes deducted from their paychecks but will still get a refund through the earned income credit. Unless a retiree has significant other income, social security is not subject to income taxes. All of these people will suffer under a national sales tax.

And think about the cultural shock that would ripple through our economy. If someone is buying a $10,000 car then the price tag becomes $12,000. The car is worth only $10,000 the other $2,000 goes to pay taxes. A significant number of the 53% that actually pay income taxes live paycheck to paycheck. I know them. They are family and friends. They can't save the $2,000 for taxes and it is a bit naive to think a bank will lend 20% more than an asset's value, especially to riskier borrowers, just to let the pay the sales tax.

Besides, a national sales tax isn't necessary. We can balance the budget without it. How? Eliminate all corporate subsidies. Eliminate all itemized deductions except work expenses and medical expenses. That includes the mortgage interest deduction. Eliminate the capital gains tax and tax all earnings as ordinary income. Remove the cap on the payroll taxes, social security and medicare, and means test social security payments.

I've said this many times. I'm a fiscal conservative. I believe that government revenues should approximate its spending. The reason I voted for Ross Perot many years ago was because I was tired of tax and spend Democrats, and borrow and spend Republicans. Some taxes have to be increased to pay for spending. We are not going to eliminate social security and medicare so they have to be fixed. One of the most foolish ideas that I've heard from Republicans is privatizing social security. Privatize it with what?

And with most pension plans going to 401Ks I'm just not sure we need to incentivize capital investment anymore. Why should the money people make trading paper be taxed at lower rates than money people make manufacturing and selling products?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,592 Posts
Do you believe people in poverty deserved to be punished? Because that's inherently what would happen in a system like that.
They would be punished just like everyone else for their consumption. They want to buy a 50" flat screen TV, they get "punished" (taxed) just like when a billionaire buys that same 50" flat screen TV. I also don't view it as a bad thing either. "Punishing" people in poverty for buying luxuries they cannot afford forces them to save money instead of spending it. So no I don't feel that punishing people and giving giving them incentive to save is bad at all. Now you can take that statement, twist the words, and run it to whatever extreme you want. But I feel the premise of what I'm saying is pretty obvious.
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
They would be punished just like everyone else for their consumption. They want to buy a 50" flat screen TV, they get "punished" (taxed) just like when a billionaire buys that same 50" flat screen TV. I also don't view it as a bad thing either. "Punishing" people in poverty for buying luxuries they cannot afford forces them to save money instead of spending it. So no I don't feel that punishing people and giving giving them incentive to save is bad at all. Now you can take that statement, twist the words, and run it to whatever extreme you want. But I feel the premise of what I'm saying is pretty obvious.
I mean, I don't have to twist your words and take them to an extreme. You did that already assuming that people in poverty trying to survive paycheck to paycheck put priority on buying 50" TV's. Do you have a statistic to show this behavior is common? There are thousands of examples we could dive into that aren't pure "luxuries" that would lead to the same effect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,592 Posts
I mean, I don't have to twist your words and take them to an extreme. You did that already assuming that people in poverty trying to survive paycheck to paycheck put priority on buying 50" TV's. Do you have a statistic to show this behavior is common? There are thousands of examples we could dive into that aren't pure "luxuries" that would lead to the same effect.
I mean, I could walk through the low income and government assistance housing in our town and take pictures through windows. But I was simply using it as an example like your Civic. If you cannot look past the example and see the point, there's nothing further to discuss as you're getting caught up on semantics of an example and not discussing the core of the idea.
 

·
Pawsitively sexy
Joined
·
10,564 Posts
I'm not in favor of a national sales tax at all. The idea that people pay an income tax anyway is not true. Romney was criticized for saying that 47% of the population pay no income tax. But that is a true statement. Most of those that do not pay income taxes have jobs but because of exemptions and standard deductions nothing is deducted from their paychecks. Single mothers may not actually have taxes deducted from their paychecks but will still get a refund through the earned income credit. Unless a retiree has significant other income, social security is not subject to income taxes. All of these people will suffer under a national sales tax.

And think about the cultural shock that would ripple through our economy. If someone is buying a $10,000 car then the price tag becomes $12,000. The car is worth only $10,000 the other $2,000 goes to pay taxes. A significant number of the 53% that actually pay income taxes live paycheck to paycheck. I know them. They are family and friends. They can't save the $2,000 for taxes and it is a bit naive to think a bank will lend 20% more than an asset's value, especially to riskier borrowers, just to let the pay the sales tax.

Besides, a national sales tax isn't necessary. We can balance the budget without it. How? Eliminate all corporate subsidies. Eliminate all itemized deductions except work expenses and medical expenses. That includes the mortgage interest deduction. Eliminate the capital gains tax and tax all earnings as ordinary income. Remove the cap on the payroll taxes, social security and medicare, and means test social security payments.

I've said this many times. I'm a fiscal conservative. I believe that government revenues should approximate its spending. The reason I voted for Ross Perot many years ago was because I was tired of tax and spend Democrats, and borrow and spend Republicans. Some taxes have to be increased to pay for spending. We are not going to eliminate social security and medicare so they have to be fixed. One of the most foolish ideas that I've heard from Republicans is privatizing social security. Privatize it with what?

And with most pension plans going to 401Ks I'm just not sure we need to incentivize capital investment anymore. Why should the money people make trading paper be taxed at lower rates than money people make manufacturing and selling products?
 
21 - 39 of 39 Posts
Top