What do they do with the tax cuts

[The T]

Now it's said that corp's and individual business owners have something 2.3 trillion sitting on the side doing nothing. Now if they needed more employees wouldn't you think they would have hired them? They make it sound like tax cuts means that MORE people will be hired because now they have more money.

But isn't the truth more like as a business, whom has plenty of excess money, get's to keep more money they will first and foremost spend to retain. So now we have given these corp money to use, which we are being told will some how mean more jobs, but being a person who have dealt with a fortune 500 company I can tell you they didn't hire people they didn't have a need for and they didn't hire people to make others work easier for them.

But what they do is use extra money to entice people to stay or to replace people who aren't getting what done they think they should by hiring someone from another company and firing the other guy.


So tax cuts will do three things as I see it, #1 being increase pay at the top positions, #2 entice people to work for you #3 increase profits to the bottom line.

But as far as hiring for the sake of having another body, I don't see it happening without increased production need of a product. JMH OBSEVATION.

You really have no idea how this whole business things works, do you?

A successful company doesn't just myopically go forward with what it's doing, oblivious to what's happening in the world around it. Those companies that are holding onto a stockpile of cash instead of hiring people and expanding are doing it because they find the current economic situation and government administration too unstable and unreliable to feel safe in making those expenditures and commitments. If, on the other hand, the administration embraced policies - like tax cuts - that indicated that the company would be more likely to be able to honor such commitments in the future, they'd be more willing to make them.

Gee whiz, I guess that sounds really good, do you think that I could get a deal in Vegas where I see the dealers second card before I have to bet on the black jack table, or can I wait till then ball stops on the roulette table.

If they wanted to invest and thought there was a market for their product they would do it. Investing has little to do with being a good guy, and all to do with making money.

Someone needs to pay for the running of govt, so why does it have to be the guys in the middle who get less out of it that are the first to have their money taken away from them.

The first paragraph negates what you say by INTENT.

You should choose your words more wisely.

 

[Avatar4321]

Someone needs to pay for the running of govt, so why does it have to be the guys in the middle who get less out of it that are the first to have their money taken away from them.

You honestly believe that the Federal Government needs to be spending $3.55 trillion plus dollars and that there is no room anywhere in it to cut a single cent? Do you honestly believe that the only way to pay for government is to continue growing it and then increase the burden on the struggling workers?

No man should have to work 4 months to pay off the government. Yet almost anyone who has a job has to.

 

[The T]

Someone needs to pay for the running of govt, so why does it have to be the guys in the middle who get less out of it that are the first to have their money taken away from them.

You honestly believe that the Federal Government needs to be spending $3.55 trillion plus dollars and that there is no room anywhere in it to cut a single cent? Do you honestly believe that the only way to pay for government is to continue growing it and then increase the burden on the struggling workers?

No man should have to work 4 months to pay off the government. Yet almost anyone who has a job has to.

Perhaps the poster intends to presuppose that the unemployed that collect unemployment can keep the tax payments to the FED going? Maybe those On Socialist Security that pay SS taxes for something they already PAID into at the point of a gun?

 

[Avatar4321]

I was right. You really DON'T understand how business works, if you think running one is the same as gambling in Vegas.

No one ever said investing had anything to do with being a "good guy". It DOES, however, have to do with looking at ALL of the relevant circumstances - including the current economic situation and the business-related policies of the government - before making a decision. You don't expand your business when you don't think you're going to be able to sustain that expansion for the long-term.

I have news for you, Spanky: businesses don't really pay taxes. They pass them on to the consumer in their prices. Which means the "guys in the middle" are going to pay for it, anyway. The problem arises when the taxes the business has to pass on get so high that the consumers become unwilling to pay the resulting high prices, which eats into the business's profit margin. Business owners see that coming down the pike - or even possibly coming down the pike - and they start battening down the financial hatches, ie. stockpiling money rather than spending it on expansion.

See my thread in "Economy" titled "They're ALL Greedy SOBs".

You expect him to actually read your thread? That would require humility, which is a desire to learn. He doesn't have it. He thinks he knows everything already. His cup is full of piss and he can't figure out why it doesnt taste good.

 

[The T]

Now it's said that corp's and individual business owners have something 2.3 trillion sitting on the side doing nothing. Now if they needed more employees wouldn't you think they would have hired them? They make it sound like tax cuts means that MORE people will be hired because now they have more money.

But isn't the truth more like as a business, whom has plenty of excess money, get's to keep more money they will first and foremost spend to retain. So now we have given these corp money to use, which we are being told will some how mean more jobs, but being a person who have dealt with a fortune 500 company I can tell you they didn't hire people they didn't have a need for and they didn't hire people to make others work easier for them.

But what they do is use extra money to entice people to stay or to replace people who aren't getting what done they think they should by hiring someone from another company and firing the other guy.


So tax cuts will do three things as I see it, #1 being increase pay at the top positions, #2 entice people to work for you #3 increase profits to the bottom line.

But as far as hiring for the sake of having another body, I don't see it happening without increased production need of a product. JMH OBSEVATION.

You really have no idea how this whole business things works, do you?

A successful company doesn't just myopically go forward with what it's doing, oblivious to what's happening in the world around it. Those companies that are holding onto a stockpile of cash instead of hiring people and expanding are doing it because they find the current economic situation and government administration too unstable and unreliable to feel safe in making those expenditures and commitments. If, on the other hand, the administration embraced policies - like tax cuts - that indicated that the company would be more likely to be able to honor such commitments in the future, they'd be more willing to make them.

Gee whiz, I guess that sounds really good, do you think that I could get a deal in Vegas where I see the dealers second card before I have to bet on the black jack table, or can I wait till then ball stops on the roulette table.

If they wanted to invest and thought there was a market for their product they would do it. Investing has little to do with being a good guy, and all to do with making money.

Someone needs to pay for the running of govt, so why does it have to be the guys in the middle who get less out of it that are the first to have their money taken away from them.

The WHOLE FALLACY of your argument is that Gubmint isn't there to MAKE MONEY.

Guess what dipshit?

Your entire argument FAILS to history...

*CONGRATULATIONS*

 

[bucs90]

They do whatever they want with it. It's their money, not yours. Not the G's.

Less confiscation isn't a "tax cut" by the way, it's just less theft. Fucknut.

Exactly.

And I drive through the ghetto every day on the way to work. I see government tax money at work in the gov't housing, gov't school system, welfare, food stamps, etc, etc, etc, and I see what we are getting in return.

I say cut taxes. Because the people getting the taxed money aren't giving us much to be proud of for our investment. At least companies are gonna do something helpful with THEIR OWN MONEY right?

 

[The T]

They do whatever they want with it. It's their money, not yours. Not the G's.

Less confiscation isn't a "tax cut" by the way, it's just less theft. Fucknut.

Whoops!

 

[Londoner]

A successful company doesn't just myopically go forward with what it's doing, oblivious to what's happening in the world around it. Those companies that are holding onto a stockpile of cash instead of hiring people and expanding are doing it because they find the current economic situation and government administration too unstable and unreliable to feel safe in making those expenditures and commitments. If, on the other hand, the administration embraced policies - like tax cuts - that indicated that the company would be more likely to be able to honor such commitments in the future, they'd be more willing to make them.

From 1945-73 the middle class had money to spend. This was the golden era of capitalism.

Why did the average consumer have so much money during the long postwar boom, dominated by Keynesian policies? Answer: government tied middle class compensation to economic growth. The middle class had high wages, benefits, and a dense tapestry of government programs which gave them an affordable cost of living and the economic security to consume -- FYI: this was before the great mega-merger-monopolies of the 80s and 90s, which would eventually price them out of [things like] health care).

Do you know what happens when the middle class has money to spend? Business innovates and adds jobs in order to capture that demand.

Reagan decided that we no longer needed to worry about middle class demand; it was time to take care of the suppliers. His primary policy instruments: tax breaks to the wealthy and deregulation to business. Indeed, if we lighten the load on investors and job creators, we will see an explosion of innovation and jobs. Right after he did it, however, business was quietly green-lighted to start a multi-decade crusade for ultra cheap 3rd world labor (the kind of labor which is so cheap that it has to come from places where citizens have no rights). Yup, you guessed it, America began shipping manufacturing jobs to country's which specialize in tyranny. Madison avenue would create the swoosh (brand), and Asian sweatshops would supply the shirt or the plastic object. The American worker was now officially out of the loop. As for energy, we chose to enrich terrorists rather than pursuing alternatives & conservation (-energy competition was crushed by the newly formed Big Oil/GOP Machine. Reagan dug our grave when he got in bed with Iran, Hussein, and the Mujahideen, thus increasing our funding of terrorist petrol-states (especially Saudi Arabia) ignoring Carter's call for energy independence).

American rhetoric was about freedom, but our lifestyle was sustained by communist China and terrorist Arabia. (Many Americans understood these contradictions - they knew who Reagan was selling weapons to; they saw the terrible alliances being formed. Tragically, Reagan was aided by a coalition voters who didn't have the formal education to resist mass media pundits. These poor souls, bless their hearts, they are terminally fed banal cliches like "Freedom is on the march", not knowing anything about Pinochet or the Shaw of Iran, or who removed Iraq from the list of terrorist nations.)

Regardless, Reagan's war on middle class labor was in fact a New Deal to the wealthy. He helped capital not only by allowing it to take advantage of cheap labor elsewhere, but by busting unions, ending entitlements, and bringing cheap labor to America. (This makes sense. The biggest threat to capital-accumulation is when a politically organized, free, well educated, upwardly mobile, entitlement-fed middle class increases the labor costs of any given supply chain. This is why Reagan sent troops all over the globe: to protect vital markets from being nationalized, which nationalization would threaten America's vastly expanding interest in 3rd world resources. Indeed, American capital was threatened by any departure from the model which supplied American brand makers with dirt cheap labor (and thus higher profit margins, which is the goal of capital). Nike benefits when labor costs less than $1/hr; and labor tends to cost less than $1/hr in brutal human-rights-abusing tyrannies which keep their workers uneducated and politically disenfranchised.

America's rhetoric of Freedom was in stark contrast to the shady back room Iran-Contra-style compromises being made on behalf of the new "capital forward" policy, which was softening global resistance to America's growing need for cheap labor and resources.

So what happened when Reagan brought cheap labor to America? What happened after Reagan created the political environment for lowering benefits, wages, and social programs?

Answer. The middle class had less money to spend. How did Reagan make up for the absence of money in middle class pockets? How did he drive consumption now that consumers no longer got paid enough to consume? (Now that capital began to receive all the benefits of economic growth?) Answer: he changed the financial industry and initiated the greatest credit-expansion in history. Starting in the 80's, Americans received 3 credit card offers a week. America went on a 30 year orgy of debt-based consumption. Morning in America was paid for by Master Card and Visa. And the economy boomed (as the middle class slowly went deeper and deeper into debt... in order to maintain a standard of living promised to them by the trickle down king).

America, drunk on credit, finally broke the bank. We got so desperate for more money, we even turned our homes into ATMs. (Of course you know how the story ends) Consumer demand is at its lowest point in 1/2 a century. The middle class is bankrupt. They lost their jobs, benefits, homes, and affordable education (all so capital could have tax cuts and cheap labor). Welcome to it! Zero demand. To top it off, the days of cheap energy are over. The money and the credit that once drove consumption are gone.

Tax breaks won't fix this. Why? Because when the consumer has no money and no credit, there is no reason to add jobs. There is nothing to capture.

 

[The T]

A successful company doesn't just myopically go forward with what it's doing, oblivious to what's happening in the world around it. Those companies that are holding onto a stockpile of cash instead of hiring people and expanding are doing it because they find the current economic situation and government administration too unstable and unreliable to feel safe in making those expenditures and commitments. If, on the other hand, the administration embraced policies - like tax cuts - that indicated that the company would be more likely to be able to honor such commitments in the future, they'd be more willing to make them.

From 1945-73 the middle class had money to spend. This was the golden era of capitalism.

Why did the average consumer have so much money during the long postwar boom, dominated by Keynesian policies? Because government tied middle class compensation to economic growth. The middle class had high wages, benefits, and a dense tapestry of government programs which gave them the economic security to consume -- FYI: this was before the great mega-merger monopolies of the 80s and 90s, which would eventually price them out of [things like] health care).

Do you know what happens when the middle class has money to spend? Business innovates and adds jobs in order to capture that demand.

Reagan decided after decades of taking care middle class demand, it was time to take care of the suppliers. His primary policy instruments: tax breaks to the wealthy and deregulation to business. He told us that this would lead to explosion of jobs. Right after he did it, however,business was green-lighted to start a multi-decade crusade for cheap labor. America began shipping manufacturing jobs to Asian sweatshops. Madison avenue would create the brand, which would then be pasted on plastic objects made in Taiwan. The American worker was now official cut out of the loop. We traded high wage manufacturing jobs for low wage shopping mall jobs.

In essence, Reagan gave a New Deal to the wealthy; he helped capital not only by allowing it to take advantage of cheap labor elsewhere, but by busting unions, ending entitlements, and bringing cheap labor to America. (This makes sense. The biggest threat to capital-accumulation is when a politically organized, free, well educated, upwardly mobile, entitlement-fed middle class increases the labor costs of a particular supply chain. This is why Reagan sent troops all over the globe: to protect vital resource and labor markets from nationalizing and enriching the local population over American transnationals, i.e., American capital was threatened by any move away from the Asian sweatshop model, which model American brand makers relied upon for dirt cheap labor (and thus higher profit margins, which is the only goal of capital). Nike benefits when labor costs $1/hr; and labor tends to cost $1/hr in brutal human-rights-abusing tyrannies which keep their workers uneducated and politically disenfranchised.

Capital likes cheap labor. Therefore, it hates the middle class, which is often pampered with entitlements and political power, thereby making every supply chain more expensive. Capital wants lobbyists in Washington, not hard workers who demand more humane working conditions. This is why Reagan replaced the American worker with lobbyists, so capital could run government through donations and policy pressure.

So what happened when Reagan brought cheap labor to America? What happened after Reagan helped capital lower benefits, wages, and social programs?

Answer. The middle class had less money to spend. How did Reagan make up for the absence of money in middle class pockets? How did he drive consumption now that consumers no longer got paid enough to consume? (Now that capital began to receive all the benefits of economic growth?) Answer: he changed the financial industry and initiated the greatest credit-expansion in history. Starting in the 80's, Americans received 3 credit card offers a week. America went on a 30 year orgy of debt based consumption. Morning in America was paid for by Master Card and Visa. And the economy boomed (as the middle class slowly went deeper and deeper into debt... in order to maintain a disappearing standard of living).

America, drunk on credit, finally broke the bank. We got so desperate for more money, we turned our homes into ATMs. As a result of 30 years of terrible financial policies, the consumer is finally dead. Consumer demand is at its lowest point in 1/2 a century. The middle class is bankrupt. They lost their jobs, homes. social programs, affordable health care, and affordable education. To top it off, the days of cheap energy are over. Their money and their credit are gone, and it's not clear what will bring them back, especially because capital has cut them out of the loop.

Tax breaks won't fix this. Why? Because when the consumer has no money, there is no reason to add jobs. There is nothing to capture.

Automatically DISCOUNTED. Class warfare...Buh-Bye.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

They do whatever they want with it. It's their money, not yours. Not the G's.

Less confiscation isn't a "tax cut" by the way, it's just less theft. Fucknut.

Exactly.

And I drive through the ghetto every day on the way to work. I see government tax money at work in the gov't housing, gov't school system, welfare, food stamps, etc, etc, etc, and I see what we are getting in return.

I say cut taxes. Because the people getting the taxed money aren't giving us much to be proud of for our investment. At least companies are gonna do something helpful with THEIR OWN MONEY right?

One company sure did. Helped a inner city school in Cincinatti go from a 12% graduation rate to one in the upper 90s.

An Unconventional Partnership

But Smith's most unconventional partnership happened outside the classroom. The principal teamed up with Jack Cassidy, the hard-charging CEO of Cincinnati Bell, the city's local phone company.

Cassidy was so inspired by Smith's determination that he put his company's name on the line. He promised free phones and laptops for every student who maintained a 3.3 grade point average. If they fell behind, the students would have to give the electronics back.

Note to you: The 12% graduation rate for DECADES, was our tax dollars at work. The upper 90 percentile this school is getting now came with big corporate generosity and community involvement.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Now it's said that corp's and individual business owners have something 2.3 trillion sitting on the side doing nothing. Now if they needed more employees wouldn't you think they would have hired them? They make it sound like tax cuts means that MORE people will be hired because now they have more money.

But isn't the truth more like as a business, whom has plenty of excess money, get's to keep more money they will first and foremost spend to retain. So now we have given these corp money to use, which we are being told will some how mean more jobs, but being a person who have dealt with a fortune 500 company I can tell you they didn't hire people they didn't have a need for and they didn't hire people to make others work easier for them.

But what they do is use extra money to entice people to stay or to replace people who aren't getting what done they think they should by hiring someone from another company and firing the other guy.


So tax cuts will do three things as I see it, #1 being increase pay at the top positions, #2 entice people to work for you #3 increase profits to the bottom line.

But as far as hiring for the sake of having another body, I don't see it happening without increased production need of a product. JMH OBSEVATION.

The company I work for spends $4B annually on R&D. I think it is safe to say that some of these tax cuts for businesses will be used in a similar fashion. Adddional R&D $ could lead to new jobs. Time will tell.

The ONLY thing that leads to new jobs is an increase in demand.

The ONLY way to increase demand is to increase the spending power of those who BUY stuff in the market place - and the more buyers with money, the better.

Funneling more and more resources into the hands of fewer and fewer buyers decreases demand: How many Trucks Built Ford Tough can the Vanderbilt Family possibly need? Certainly fewer than would be needed by 300 million Americans with middle class incomes.

This isn't rocket science. Demand FAIR taxes NOW!

 

[AVG-JOE]

Now it's said that corp's and individual business owners have something 2.3 trillion sitting on the side doing nothing. Now if they needed more employees wouldn't you think they would have hired them? They make it sound like tax cuts means that MORE people will be hired because now they have more money.

But isn't the truth more like as a business, whom has plenty of excess money, get's to keep more money they will first and foremost spend to retain. So now we have given these corp money to use, which we are being told will some how mean more jobs, but being a person who have dealt with a fortune 500 company I can tell you they didn't hire people they didn't have a need for and they didn't hire people to make others work easier for them.

But what they do is use extra money to entice people to stay or to replace people who aren't getting what done they think they should by hiring someone from another company and firing the other guy.


So tax cuts will do three things as I see it, #1 being increase pay at the top positions, #2 entice people to work for you #3 increase profits to the bottom line.

But as far as hiring for the sake of having another body, I don't see it happening without increased production need of a product. JMH OBSEVATION.

You really have no idea how this whole business things works, do you?

A successful company doesn't just myopically go forward with what it's doing, oblivious to what's happening in the world around it. Those companies that are holding onto a stockpile of cash instead of hiring people and expanding are doing it because they find the current economic situation and government administration too unstable and unreliable to feel safe in making those expenditures and commitments. If, on the other hand, the administration embraced policies - like tax cuts - that indicated that the company would be more likely to be able to honor such commitments in the future, they'd be more willing to make them.

This is a good point - the sooner we adopt a simple and fair tax code and start budgeting for more than two or three weeks at a time, the sooner capitalists and entrepreneurs alike will feel comfortable investing in production.

Bear in mind though, if the American Market is filled with folks hanging on by their fingernails, the money will remain in the Caymans, and increasing production of goods that few buyers can afford will continue to be pointless.

Demand drives employment. Government can't create jobs and rich people won't create jobs unless there's a proven demand by a market with enough disposable income to afford the goods produced.

Demand a FAIR and SIMPLE tax code NOW!

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Demand a FAIR and SIMPLE tax code NOW!

The problem isn't so much the tax code as it is, the revenue projections. These are always too rosy.... and these are what the budget is based on. So that, at the end of the year when the actual revenue for that year is in, it falls way short of the projections - and you have more deficit! You're going to have this whether you change the tax code or not, until we get a version of Gramm-Rudmann back, which had automatic cuts during the year, if actual revenue wasn't meeting projections.

Our debt problems started when Gramm-Rudmann and line-item veto were thrown out by the courts. We need them back.... Current court makeup will probably affirm these now.

This is why I say the GOP isn't really serious about fiscal responsibility, for if they were they would be introducing and voting on such bills.

 

[editec]

I herard the amount is more like $4 TRILLION, but what's a trillion or so between friends?

These companies aren't investing because they know the demand isn't there to justify the investment.

Can't blame them, really.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Someone needs to pay for the running of govt, so why does it have to be the guys in the middle who get less out of it that are the first to have their money taken away from them.

You honestly believe that the Federal Government needs to be spending $3.55 trillion plus dollars and that there is no room anywhere in it to cut a single cent? Do you honestly believe that the only way to pay for government is to continue growing it and then increase the burden on the struggling workers?

No man should have to work 4 months to pay off the government. Yet almost anyone who has a job has to.

The problem is that no two men (or women) work the same amount of time to help support the infrastructure and security We demand.

Don't get me wrong - the spending side NEEDS to be addressed. Everything from SSI payments to Congressional staff expenditures to Foreign Military adventures needs to be on the chopping block... Spending needs to be addressed.

That being said, even if spending were cut to -0-, we'd still have the most complicated tax code in history and one that's less fair would require a monarch or conservative dick-tater at the helm for 40 years. Our market will NEVER run at peak efficiency until the tax code is revamped from the ground up.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

The first candidate who steals Carville's old line for Billy Clinton, and changes it up a little, is going to get traction:

"It's the spending, stupid!"

Will resonate.

 

[ba1614]

I herard the amount is more like $4 TRILLION, but what's a trillion or so between friends?

These companies aren't investing because they know the demand isn't there to justify the investment.

Can't blame them, really.

That, and the way this administration is going you'll have to look after a new hire for the rest of their life.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Demand a FAIR and SIMPLE tax code NOW!

The problem isn't so much the tax code as it is, the revenue projections. These are always too rosy.... and these are what the budget is based on. So that, at the end of the year when the actual revenue for that year is in, it falls way short of the projections - and you have more deficit! You're going to have this whether you change the tax code or not, until we get a version of Gramm-Rudmann back, which had automatic cuts during the year, if actual revenue wasn't meeting projections.

Our debt problems started when Gramm-Rudmann and line-item veto were thrown out by the courts. We need them back.... Current court makeup will probably affirm these now.

This is why I say the GOP isn't really serious about fiscal responsibility, for if they were they would be introducing and voting on such bills.

It's time to demand a fair and simple tax code - the simpler the code, the more likely the estimates and projections will be based on reality - and it's time to demand a return to PAYGO.

If PAYGO had not expired just prior to GW Bush's administration, we wouldn't be in this mess. Not that it's all Bush's fault - he just happened to be POTUS when it expired and the political candy store opened up.

PAYGO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Demand a FAIR and SIMPLE tax code NOW!

The problem isn't so much the tax code as it is, the revenue projections. These are always too rosy.... and these are what the budget is based on. So that, at the end of the year when the actual revenue for that year is in, it falls way short of the projections - and you have more deficit! You're going to have this whether you change the tax code or not, until we get a version of Gramm-Rudmann back, which had automatic cuts during the year, if actual revenue wasn't meeting projections.

Our debt problems started when Gramm-Rudmann and line-item veto were thrown out by the courts. We need them back.... Current court makeup will probably affirm these now.

This is why I say the GOP isn't really serious about fiscal responsibility, for if they were they would be introducing and voting on such bills.

It's time to demand a fair and simple tax code - the simpler the code, the more likely the estimates and projections will be based on reality - and it's time to demand a return to PAYGO.

If PAYGO had not expired just prior to GW Bush's administration, we wouldn't be in this mess. Not that it's all Bush's fault - he just happened to be POTUS when it expired and the political candy store opened up.

PAYGO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We have PAYGO still, Pelosi's version, and of course it just doesn't have any teeth. Didn't ever have any either, until Newt and company came in.

Again, this is why I don't believe the current GOP House leadership is serious about fiscal responsibility. We need a PAYGO that's a actual law, not just a loose "house rule" and we need G-R and line-item veto back, or we are NEVER going to get a halter on spending.