myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
The pope on income re-distribution
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15 ... 17, 18, 19  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3358

PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RR,
In your view which incentives are missing? I do all in house and have not ever felt like the gov. needed to do anything to encourage me in my business model.
If my taxes were cut in half, I wouldn't hire anyone the next day.
I would buy that new custom board I don't need.
I create jobs when I have demand for my products and services.
I do not create jobs for any other reason.
I think most others are the same, as stated in Chandlers excellent post.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 1473

PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

swchandler said:
Quote:
The idea that a low tax rate on capital gains creates jobs is a myth promoted by the Republican party. Over the last decade, it's arguably clear that the Bush tax cuts didn't stimulate the kind of innovation and growth that expands the job market. I'm of the opinion that capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as wage income.


Then why have the Bush tax cuts (for most people) been made permanent if raising taxes stimulates growth?

Quote:
In 2012, during the fiscal cliff, the tax cuts were made permanent for single people making less than $400,000 per year and couples making less than $450,000 per year, and eliminated for everyone else, under the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.


keycocker said:
Quote:
If my taxes were cut in half, I wouldn't hire anyone the next day.


But if the extra income allowed you to expand your business because you couldn't keep up with demand, then jobs may be created. Not all models are the same. It also depends on how much you pay in taxes. Small business - not much so a tax break would not have much of a benefit. Just the opposite for a large business.

I just don't see the job creation coming from the government if they get more tax money, unless it's more federal jobs because of increasing bureaucracy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3358

PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree techno.
The current biz. climate features a lack of demand for consumer products so little need to expand.
That is why big corps are cash heavy right now and not changing much.
Me too.
I object to the mantra that lowering taxes always encourages the economy.
Your explanation seems correct. In other economies that are restrained by expensive loans from meeting high demand there are clear benefits to making capital available from lower tax rates.
Right now the opposite situation seems to me to need a different solution.

I am with the camp who thinks a big infrastructure push could benefit future private economic growth. The need for the growth could come from a big number of construction jobs paychecks, if the infrastructure projects were chosen based on job creation.
This seems to me to be the role of gov. I think the US does infrastructure well but is getting behind.
It can arrange a project based on job creation. Private biz doesn't do this.
Private companies must find a way to minimize payroll, exactly the opposite.
If cap gains tax had been lower recently, those billions in offshore accounts that big corps have would be double billions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14163

PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 said somebody wrote:
if raising taxes stimulates growth?

Sure ... and NASA faked the moon landings. How on EARTH would taking money from productive people, skimming off a fat percentage to fund a bloated government, spending $2 for each $1 in tax revenues, and redistributing what's left* to less- or non-productive people help the economy? We all saw Obama say and repeat to incredulous ABC News debate moderator Gibson that he knows such redistribution will harm the economy but he favors it anyway in the interest of socialism. Obama, of course, substituted the euphemism, "fairness" for "socialism", but that fooled no one. Then, of course, we also saw Obama deny to Bill O'Reilly ... it's on tape and was broadcast worldwide live ... that he favored redistribution.

Which is it, boss?

* Don't people even get the joke? $1 in minus bureaucrat salaries minus $2 out = ultimate bankruptcy or default, which Treasury Secretary Lew says happens on Feb 7, 2014 ... thirteen days away.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5816

PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900,

If you go back and check the record, I was arguing for expiration of all the Bush tax cuts. In my view, going back to the tax rates of the Clinton years was a no brainer, and it would have generated needed revenue to reduce the deficit, and it would have allowed the government to invest in a whole range of important areas into the future. That creates demand that doesn't really exist now.

Most importantly, it wouldn't necessarily increase the current number of government employees. What I think that a lot of folks on the right forget is that when the government invests for the future, it is private business that gets the business. All one has to do is look at our military industrial complex. All military products from the simplest to the most complex have been developed, engineered and manufactured by private business. Similarly, look how much the government has invested in military and civil space instruments over the last 60+ years. The progress that we have sustained from the space industry alone has multiplied exponentially in so many other fields.

The government can invest in education, the medical field, infrastructure, energy industries, water projects, and a myriad of other important areas that push technology and the state of the art in many ways. All of these investments would be awarded to private business. Believe it or not, that means jobs here in the US.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
reinerehlers



Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 982

PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

keycocker wrote:
RR,
In your view which incentives are missing? I do all in house and have not ever felt like the gov. needed to do anything to encourage me in my business model.
If my taxes were cut in half, I wouldn't hire anyone the next day.
I would buy that new custom board I don't need.
I create jobs when I have demand for my products and services.
I do not create jobs for any other reason.
I think most others are the same, as stated in Chandlers excellent post.


Is this on Caye Caulker? Explain what your "in house" means to you. Is that full time (52 weeks X 45 hour week) employees on payroll with source deductions, workman's compensation deductions, etc. etc.? To me, it means all those things. Hiring more people "in house" means more tools, trucks, etc. / expense and guidance / training to do so. This is something I'm not willing necessarily take on, nor am I willing to take on the overhead or debt that might make that necessary. I had the opportunity to expand my business exponentially at one point. I turned it down for just those reasons, plus some others. In hindsight, I made the right decision.

Now let's say I produce widgets and I can sub the whole thing to some company in China without all the hassles, and my responsibility is to just market and sell the widgets, then could you blame me for doing so? An incentive might keep that widget manufacturing "in house"/ "in country", right?

To be honest KC, I'm not really interested in any tax incentives, and I'm pretty adamant about collecting and paying my taxes and not participating in the underground economy. I actually enjoy what I do, and my business model has never been just about money, but about enjoying what I do, and being proud about the services rendered and relationships formed along the way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3358

PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Full time in Canada is 45 hr weeks?
Interesting. In Belize it is 60. 6/10.
I do the deductions for SS.
Workman Comp.and employee health plan not available so we do that and healthcare in house.
We pay all work related and bring in doctors or fly the guy out.
We pay high school costs for those with teenagers.
My truck was electric. My guys walk to work barefoot.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
reinerehlers



Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 982

PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yup 45 hour weeks, but if you have a government or union job it can be as low as 37.5 hours. Now personally, I can't remember the last time I only worked 45 hours. I must be doing something wrong.

Cool! That's the kind of stories I like to hear as opposed to the majority of my competition here which will do just about anything to not pay taxes. You definitely must understand the responsibilities that come with employees, and obviously concern yourself with their well being.

While I don't personally believe in sending jobs overseas I can understand why some would, especially when the primary concern is profit, and satisfying share holders. I can also understand the appeal when it removes the responsibility of manufacturing and dealing with a work force or unions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 1473

PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

swchandler said:
Quote:
If you go back and check the record, I was arguing for expiration of all the Bush tax cuts. In my view, going back to the tax rates of the Clinton years was a no brainer, and it would have generated needed revenue to reduce the deficit, and it would have allowed the government to invest in a whole range of important areas into the future. That creates demand that doesn't really exist now.


I would be fine with this if indeed the money actually went to NEEDED projects and to reducing the deficit. However, I don't think this administration has any interest in reducing the deficit.

From 2011:
Quote:
President Barack Obama asked Congress to adopt a mix of revenue increases and spending cuts to tame the nation's long-term budget deficits, in a combative speech that portrayed Republicans as backing "tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires" while demanding sacrifice from the nation's seniors, poor and the middle class.

The speech, which appeared to leave Republican leaders furious, was Mr. Obama's most substantive step into the debate over the nation's fiscal future, an issue that both parties say is a matter of national security and which is likely to dominate the 2012 elections. Mr. Obama called for Congress to cut deficits by $4 trillion over 12 years and commit to automatic, across-the-board spending cuts and tax increases if an initial target is not met by 2014.


Hot air? Obstructionism? Probably some of both.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5208

PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Techno, spend some time reading the mainstream press. You know, the media that has editors which require fact checking. This is dead wrong:

Quote:
I don't think this administration has any interest in reducing the deficit.


Those pesky facts keep getting in the way of your faith-based perception of reality.

Quote:
Zachary A. Goldfarb and Karen Tumulty, Published: April 5, 2013 E-mail the writers
President Obama will propose a budget next week that embraces a risky strategy of courting Republicans for a grand bargain on the debt while angering Democratic allies with cuts to the nation’s entitlement programs.

White House officials said Friday that Obama’s budget would cut Medicare and Social Security and ask for less tax revenue than he has previously sought. The budget, to be released Wednesday, will fully incorporate the offer Obama made to House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) during December’s “fiscal cliff” talks — which included $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction through spending cuts and tax increases.


The GOP is beholden to a non-elected official, Grover Norquist, who is opposed to all tax increases. Most have signed a pledge, which is absolutely inconsistent with their Constitutional responsibilities, to oppose all tax increases. This has blocked any serious effort at tax reform or reduction of the debt outside of the increased revenue from economic recovery.

For your information, most middle of the road to left Democrats went bananas over Obama's proposal--but he could have pulled it off with a GOP which was once moderate and fiscally responsible--and didn't sign away their responsibilities to Norquist.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15 ... 17, 18, 19  Next
Page 14 of 19

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group