Most importantly we need to create jobs, increasing taxes helps attain that how?

[uscitizen]

One clue, cutting govenment spending will end many jobs.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I find it interesting you talk about fear of regulation, then use an example that is a demand-side problem. Basically, you confirmed what I've been saying for a while, which is that businesses are not expanding due to low sales and not due to fear of regulations.

I believe both of those factors are tied together at the hip so to speak so were both right.

Actually, no. Unless you can point out a policy Obama has implemented or will soon that will negatively effect demand for your company.

Hidden within the healthcare bill was a regulation that required every transaction over 600 dollars to be followed with a report detailing the transaction. That's nearly every transaction I make.

The public in general fears the future so they sit on their money as well. My receipts have declined over 22% since 2008. And my ability to "cherrypick" the jobs I want to bid or take is completely gone. All because people are afraid to spend money. It is a spiral going down which includes your thoughts as well as mine.

 

[8537]

I'll give you one example of jobs lost because of fear.... I am willing and able to buy another company truck. It's about a 50k investment. I have the money but am scared to death to spend it because I don't feel confident that I will have enough work through the next year to justify the investment.

Now do you consider me one of those evil and greedy business men?

This is progress! A conservative admitting our current situation is a demand problem.

 

[Jarhead]

I find it interesting you talk about fear of regulation, then use an example that is a demand-side problem. Basically, you confirmed what I've been saying for a while, which is that businesses are not expanding due to low sales and not due to fear of regulations.

I believe both of those factors are tied together at the hip so to speak so were both right.

Actually, no. Unless you can point out a policy Obama has implemented or will soon that will negatively effect demand for your company.

I already explained it to you. Seems you opted to ignore the logic of my explanation.
So one last time...

Business plans include two things

1) present revenue
2) anticipated future costs

why?

Becuase it is todays revenue that will fund the future costs.

Now...what do we have today?

Lower revenue and talk of an increase in costs (healthcare, cap and trade, oil pirce increases)

Gives business owners reasoin to NOT do anything right now....

 

[8537]

I believe both of those factors are tied together at the hip so to speak so were both right.

Actually, no. Unless you can point out a policy Obama has implemented or will soon that will negatively effect demand for your company.

Hidden within the healthcare bill was a regulation that required every transaction over 600 dollars to be followed with a report detailing the transaction. That's nearly every transaction I make.

That's been removed.

 

[MikeK]

Please explain to me how raising taxes is going to help create jobs.

Easing taxes and regulations can help to create jobs which in turn will broaden the tax base which will increase revenue.

So again explain the path from raising taxes to jobs for me please.

One very positive way is the way both FDR and Eisenhower did it, which is by creating necessary make-work projects, such as the CCC (Civilian Construction Corps - per FDR), by infrastructure repair and expansion and by highway construction (Eisenhower). These projects created millions of jobs, which fostered and expanded many vibrant industries and in turn generated income tax revenue from the newly employed workers.

Easing taxes does nothing but increase the wealth of the already wealthy and the emerging corporate oligarchy. And contrary to popular opinion, the corporations do not create jobs. People with money to spend is what creates jobs.

What is happening in America today is not very different from what happened in the twenties and thirties, during the "Gilded Age," when the rich got richer, the poor got poorer and the U.S. fell into the Great Depression. FDR brought us out of the Depression by radically raising taxes on the rich, creating jobs for the unemployed and breathing life into the middle class. The result were the boom years from the late 40s to the early 80s, when "Reaganomics" kicked in and the de-regulations began.

The first indication of what was to come was the Savings and Loan debacle and it's been downhill from there. A succession of de-regulation and corrupt legal maneuvering led to the rise of financial institutions which, because of their devious manipulations and schemes, became "too big to fail."

America is presently experiencing a rebirth of the "Robber Baron" era. What must be done to bring ourselves out of it is quite simply the same things FDR did, which is to take back some of the money that was plundered from the People by Congress' corporate cronies, by Wall Street sharpies, by conniving bankers and by fraudulent mortgage lenders-- the new Robber Barons.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I believe both of those factors are tied together at the hip so to speak so were both right.

Actually, no. Unless you can point out a policy Obama has implemented or will soon that will negatively effect demand for your company.

Hidden within the healthcare bill was a regulation that required every transaction over 600 dollars to be followed with a report detailing the transaction. That's nearly every transaction I make.

The public in general fears the future so they sit on their money as well. My receipts have declined over 22% since 2008. And my ability to "cherrypick" the jobs I want to bid or take is completely gone. All because people are afraid to spend money. It is a spiral going down which includes your thoughts as well as mine.

The 1099 reporting requirement you are referring to was repealed. So no worries there.

As for the public's fear of the future, I think you have that wrong. The public has been paying down debts, not saving. And I would think you would agree with me that if there was a way to get consumers spending again, that would fix a lot of problems.

 

[Moonglow]

■Treasury Department figures show that actual corporate income tax revenues fell to $132 billion in 2003, down 36 percent from $207 billion in 2000.
■As a result of these low levels, corporate revenues in 2003 represented only 1.2 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (the basic measure of the size of the economy), the lowest level since 1983, the year in which corporate receipts plummeted to levels last seen in the 1930s.
■Corporate revenues represented only 7.4 percent of all federal tax receipts in 2003. With the exception of 1983, this represents the lowest level on record (these data go back to 1934).

The Decline of Corporate Income Tax Revenues — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


Notice that taxes for corporations have steadily declined and yet they have not produced the jobs that the republicans claim that lower taxes will create.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Please explain to me how raising taxes is going to help create jobs.

Easing taxes and regulations can help to create jobs which in turn will broaden the tax base which will increase revenue.

So again explain the path from raising taxes to jobs for me please.

We have the lowest taxes in 60 years at least and it's not creating jobs.

Now explain how cutting government spending will help create jobs. Explain how cutting, for example, the number of defense contracts the Pentagon spends billions on,

to private businesses in the US,

will create more, instead of fewer, jobs at those businesses.

There is NO job creating path to fiscal responsibility, getting rid of the deficit, balancing the budget, paying down the debt.

None. Period. Austerity hurts. Period. Stop pretending it doesn't.

thats the whole point.
One issue has nothig to do with another.

The debt is one problem
Unemployment is another.

So our goal should be to solve one without having a negative affect on the other.....IF WE CAN.

And that is what the debate should be about.

The real solutions are politically toxic.

Politicians are in charge of finding the real solutions.

Therefore, the chances of finding real solutions are slim

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Please explain to me how raising taxes is going to help create jobs.

Easing taxes and regulations can help to create jobs which in turn will broaden the tax base which will increase revenue.

So again explain the path from raising taxes to jobs for me please.

Raising federal tax rates won't hurt or help jobs. It's one of the smallest considerations for a businesses. All of this talk about the federal tax rate is just political theater and positioning. State taxes do have an impact though, look at how many businesses are fleeing CA.

Do you really want to create jobs nation wide? Ending NAFTA and strengthening the US dollar are probably the best places to start.

 

[Jarhead]

We have the lowest taxes in 60 years at least and it's not creating jobs.

Now explain how cutting government spending will help create jobs. Explain how cutting, for example, the number of defense contracts the Pentagon spends billions on,

to private businesses in the US,

will create more, instead of fewer, jobs at those businesses.

There is NO job creating path to fiscal responsibility, getting rid of the deficit, balancing the budget, paying down the debt.

None. Period. Austerity hurts. Period. Stop pretending it doesn't.

thats the whole point.
One issue has nothig to do with another.

The debt is one problem
Unemployment is another.

So our goal should be to solve one without having a negative affect on the other.....IF WE CAN.

And that is what the debate should be about.

The real solutions are politically toxic.

Politicians are in charge of finding the real solutions.

Therefore, the chances of finding real solutions are slim

absolutely.
And the politicians offer up rhetoric so the peopel can fight it out for them.
I sometimes imagine congress sitting behind a closed door toasting each other and saying "boy do we have a great deal. We do nothing but create problems and let the people fight them out for us....and we get the cushy job, healthcare and pension.....cya in Aruba when we retire!"

 

[Wiseacre]

Too bad all those shovel ready jobs we were told about weren't really shovel ready. It's just like everything else, all concept and no management.

It's been said many times, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. We also have a recession problem, the economy is stagnating and Obama's policies are suffocating any chance of real growth. Great, we get 3% growth in GDP then down below 2%, that ain't no way to convince people to take a chance on a new business or expand an existing one. Ever increasing regulations, higher HC and energy costs, executive branch agencies like the EPA and NLRB enacting policies that kill jobs, and a president that badmouths business from day 1.

You know what'll happen when you raise taxes on the rich? The dems will try to spend it on some redistribution program that won't work. They don't care about debt reduction and reducing the deficits, never have and never will. For them it's all about social democracy, an ever bigger government and safety net that gets them more votes in the next election. To be fair, the GOP went down that road with Bush43, and there are still some repubs in congress who would gladly return to those days. But I'm thinking their days are numbered, and the GOP is not going to repeat the mistakes made earlier in this decade. At least I hope not.

 

[Jarhead]

Actually, no. Unless you can point out a policy Obama has implemented or will soon that will negatively effect demand for your company.

Hidden within the healthcare bill was a regulation that required every transaction over 600 dollars to be followed with a report detailing the transaction. That's nearly every transaction I make.

The public in general fears the future so they sit on their money as well. My receipts have declined over 22% since 2008. And my ability to "cherrypick" the jobs I want to bid or take is completely gone. All because people are afraid to spend money. It is a spiral going down which includes your thoughts as well as mine.

The 1099 reporting requirement you are referring to was repealed. So no worries there.

As for the public's fear of the future, I think you have that wrong. The public has been paying down debts, not saving. And I would think you would agree with me that if there was a way to get consumers spending again, that would fix a lot of problems.

yes...that would certainly be a move in the right direction.

However, offering them jobs that are part time or temporary will not get them to spend. It will getr them to save for when their temporary job ends.
Thus why I did not see the stimulus as a smart idea. Those folks who were given a shovel knew that it was only temporary. Now you tell me....if you were unemployed and you got a temporary job...would you go out and buy anything but the bare necessities?

And bear in mind...the bare necessities were already being paid for with unemployment checks

Now before you get into the argument of "but those shovel ready jobs increased manufacturing of the products used in those jobs"...on the most part, they did not. Most manufacturers of non persihable products manufacture for inventory...not demand...it is cost effective to manufacture for inventory....so on the most poart, those products used for shovel ready jobs were already available and thus did not create manufacturing jobs.

And so...the stimulus created temporary jobs...but did not increase prodcutivity oir spending as much as you would think 500 billion should have.

 

[MikeK]

Well your idea about roads and bridges creating jobs is a myth imo. I live in KC. It has a large population with high unemployment. We have major road and bridge projects going on every year including before the downturn. Those projects have had 0 impact on our unemployed.

I failed to mention in an earlier message that National Infrastructure includes more than bridges and highways. The following is excerpted from an article I suggest you read:

(Excerpt)

The American Society of Civil Engineers has released a Report Card for America's Infrastructure, assigning letter grades for the nation's public infrastructure and environment. The ASCE gave the U.S. an average grade of "D," and said it will require more than one trillion dollars and a new national public-private partnership to fix it. The grades were determined by a panel of civil engineering experts who evaluated each category on the basis of condition and performance, capacity, and funding. The worst went to schools, which received an "F." The best grade was given to mass transit, which was rated a "C." Hazardous waste and roads got a "D-"; drinking water and dams a "D"; wastewater a "D "; and bridges, solid waste, and aviation a "C-." By comparison, when the National Council on Public Works Improvement graded the condition of America's infrastructure in 1988, the overall rating was "C."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2648_127/ai_54680883/

(Close)

Just one area in which the U.S. is severely lacking is public transportation.

I don't know how Kansas City compares with New York City, where I was born and raised, but I can tell you that there isn't anywhere in the entire City of New York which cannot be reached by public transportation, i.e., buses and subways, from anywhere else in the City with a minimum of walking. That fact is known to contribute significantly to the City's high employment rate and its thriving business atmosphere.

I don't know if the same can be said for Kansas City. But if it can you may rest assured the same is not true for the rest of America. In fact the lack of adequate public transportation, including the absence of inter-state bullet trains, is a well-known problem which has placed us behind most other developed nations in terms of internal modernization and progress.

Briefly stated, if the highest grade that any single component of our National Infrastructure is 'C', there is serious cause for concern. It means there is a lot of work to be done, which means jobs.

 

[Chris]

Too bad all those shovel ready jobs we were told about weren't really shovel ready. It's just like everything else, all concept and no management.

It's been said many times, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. We also have a recession problem, the economy is stagnating and Obama's policies are suffocating any chance of real growth. Great, we get 3% growth in GDP then down below 2%, that ain't no way to convince people to take a chance on a new business or expand an existing one. Ever increasing regulations, higher HC and energy costs, executive branch agencies like the EPA and NLRB enacting policies that kill jobs, and a president that badmouths business from day 1.

You know what'll happen when you raise taxes on the rich? The dems will try to spend it on some redistribution program that won't work. They don't care about debt reduction and reducing the deficits, never have and never will. For them it's all about social democracy, an ever bigger government and safety net that gets them more votes in the next election. To be fair, the GOP went down that road with Bush43, and there are still some repubs in congress who would gladly return to those days. But I'm thinking their days are numbered, and the GOP is not going to repeat the mistakes made earlier in this decade. At least I hope not.

We have a revenue problem.

Clinton left Bush with a balanced budget.

Bush cut taxes and raised spending on two useless wars.

We need to repeal the Bush tax cuts and stop the military occupations.

 

[Chris]

■Treasury Department figures show that actual corporate income tax revenues fell to $132 billion in 2003, down 36 percent from $207 billion in 2000.
■As a result of these low levels, corporate revenues in 2003 represented only 1.2 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (the basic measure of the size of the economy), the lowest level since 1983, the year in which corporate receipts plummeted to levels last seen in the 1930s.
■Corporate revenues represented only 7.4 percent of all federal tax receipts in 2003. With the exception of 1983, this represents the lowest level on record (these data go back to 1934).

The Decline of Corporate Income Tax Revenues — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


Notice that taxes for corporations have steadily declined and yet they have not produced the jobs that the republicans claim that lower taxes will create.

That's because more and more wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

When 400 people control half the wealth in America, the economy is being starved to death by the wealthy.

 

[Jarhead]

■Treasury Department figures show that actual corporate income tax revenues fell to $132 billion in 2003, down 36 percent from $207 billion in 2000.
■As a result of these low levels, corporate revenues in 2003 represented only 1.2 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (the basic measure of the size of the economy), the lowest level since 1983, the year in which corporate receipts plummeted to levels last seen in the 1930s.
■Corporate revenues represented only 7.4 percent of all federal tax receipts in 2003. With the exception of 1983, this represents the lowest level on record (these data go back to 1934).

The Decline of Corporate Income Tax Revenues — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


Notice that taxes for corporations have steadily declined and yet they have not produced the jobs that the republicans claim that lower taxes will create.

That's because more and more wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

When 400 people control half the wealth in America, the economy is being starved to death by the wealthy.

Why do you say it that way?
I say 400 people (of which I am not one of) have made the right decisions to have earned a heck of a lot of money. They do not affect prices seeing as prices are not set by the demand of only 400 people in a country of 300 million.....
So that being said, the money they earn and the money they have has absolutely no affect on me.
However...it DOES affect the jealous.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Too bad all those shovel ready jobs we were told about weren't really shovel ready. It's just like everything else, all concept and no management.

It's been said many times, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. We also have a recession problem, the economy is stagnating and Obama's policies are suffocating any chance of real growth. Great, we get 3% growth in GDP then down below 2%, that ain't no way to convince people to take a chance on a new business or expand an existing one. Ever increasing regulations, higher HC and energy costs, executive branch agencies like the EPA and NLRB enacting policies that kill jobs, and a president that badmouths business from day 1.

You know what'll happen when you raise taxes on the rich? The dems will try to spend it on some redistribution program that won't work. They don't care about debt reduction and reducing the deficits, never have and never will. For them it's all about social democracy, an ever bigger government and safety net that gets them more votes in the next election. To be fair, the GOP went down that road with Bush43, and there are still some repubs in congress who would gladly return to those days. But I'm thinking their days are numbered, and the GOP is not going to repeat the mistakes made earlier in this decade. At least I hope not.

We have a revenue problem.

Clinton left Bush with a balanced budget.

Bush cut taxes and raised spending on two useless wars.

We need to repeal the Bush tax cuts and stop the military occupations.

Clinton did not.. he ran a deficit EVERY year he was in office. He left a $5.8 trillion deficit.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

■Treasury Department figures show that actual corporate income tax revenues fell to $132 billion in 2003, down 36 percent from $207 billion in 2000.
■As a result of these low levels, corporate revenues in 2003 represented only 1.2 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (the basic measure of the size of the economy), the lowest level since 1983, the year in which corporate receipts plummeted to levels last seen in the 1930s.
■Corporate revenues represented only 7.4 percent of all federal tax receipts in 2003. With the exception of 1983, this represents the lowest level on record (these data go back to 1934).

The Decline of Corporate Income Tax Revenues — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


Notice that taxes for corporations have steadily declined and yet they have not produced the jobs that the republicans claim that lower taxes will create.

That's because more and more wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

When 400 people control half the wealth in America, the economy is being starved to death by the wealthy.

Here's the agenda, per their website, of the people that wrote the opinion piece you cite:

The Center conducts research and analysis to help shape public debates over proposed budget and tax policies and to help ensure that policymakers consider the needs of low-income families and individuals in these debates. We also develop policy options to alleviate poverty.

In addition, the Center examines the short- and long-term impacts of proposed policies on the health of the economy and the soundness of federal and state budgets. Among the issues we explore are whether federal and state governments are fiscally sound and have sufficient revenue to address critical priorities, both for low-income populations and for the nation as a whole.

Over the past 30 years, the Center has gained a reputation for producing materials that are balanced, authoritative, accessible to non-specialists, and responsive to issues facing the country. Our materials are used by policymakers and non-profit organizations across the political spectrum, and by journalists from a wide variety of TV, radio, print, and online outlets.

 

[Urkie]

Clinton did not.. he ran a deficit EVERY year he was in office. He left a $5.8 trillion deficit.

Yeah and Bush almost doubled that to $10.7 trillion when he left office.

Clinton reduced the public debt of the US. You can deny that all you want but that's a fact. The gross debt continued to increase because the US government had more obligations to pay for.