The Popularity Of Tax Cuts

Not necessarily. If an investor's money goes into an American Corporation that outsources its labor to China and India, and then sells us the products that are manufactured there, no one benefits except the corporation and the investor (and the Chinese and Indian workers who have the jobs).

It's amazing how our culture idolizes and embraces the investors, like they're so much better than the rest of us 'cause they have money. They don't DO anything, except write checks. It must be rough getting cramps in your hand from writing checks out all day.

Then there's the CEO's who get paid big bucks for moving people and resources around on the map like chess pieces. They don't DO anything real either, yet somehow our corporations find disproportionate value in leadership, because hey, the decisions they make are REALLY important right? And they make an obscene salary whether or not they perform.

 

I think you're assuming that business are just factories that push goods out the door and nobody has to actually do much, especially the fat cat bosses. Its a bit more complicated than that.

Also, companies that outsource are bringing cheaper goods to YOU. YOU have more money to spend on something else, YOU are richer.

 

Not at all. I've been part of the corporate machinery as a professional for the better part of 20 years now, and I know that being a corporate exec is not all it's cracked up to be. It's a shitty job, not a job I'd want. The decision making process is stressful 'cause you're always stepping on someone's toes. They should be compensated liberally for that. I just think they get disproportionately compensated for what they do in America, and the interests they serve are those of the investors, not of the people who work for them. They should put a salary cap on CEO's, like they have in Japan, where the highest salary can only be X times the lowest salary, to encourage prosperity across the board. A CEO should also be compensated relative to results. If they screw up, they shouldn't get paid.

It doesn't make me richer if I don't have a job to earn the money to pay for it.

 

not spending as much on a product you need makes you richer by default.

 

True, but there's more to the cost of a product than what you spend on it.

 

Exactly.

Peace and love

 

Lets face facts, we need some form of government. This government needs to provide services for its citizens. The more people a country has, the more services it needs to provide. These services cost money, the money has to come from somewhere, taxes are the most efficient way of providing that money. Some of these services you might not want to pay for, thats too bad, we all have to pay for things we don't want. You may not want to pay for educating other peoples children, thats fine, I don't think we need 1200 nuclear weapons when all it takes is a couple hundred to kill every living person on earth. Fact is, we both benefit from both of those services. Everyone should have to pay their fair share even corporations.

I would go so far as to say, especially corporations, after all they consume more resources and receive more benefits than individual people do. Corporations also get a bigger say in our political system through campaign contributions, PAC's and lobbyists. It is only fair they pay for the benefits they receive.

As for "Supply side economics" or "Voodoo economics", it has been tried three times now and it has never worked, it always ends up producing a deficit and has never increased federal revenues. Something that has never been tried is "Demand side economics". Instead of cutting taxes on wealthy people and corporations, eliminate taxes altogether for those making less than 100K a year. When wealthy people have extra money, it disappears into tax shelters and investments that rarely do anything but make more money for them. When middle class and working poor have more money, they use it to buy necessities (food, clothing, medical services), buy houses and cars, save for their children's education and their own retirement. These things benefit society and boost the economy.

 

Why not just learn to do for yourself?

Corporation don't pay taxes, they add the taxes into the cost of their goods or services.

This go back to the consumer. If they didn't want the product the corporation wouldn't produce it. Corporation just don't make something because they can.

Federal revenues need to be lower. The goverment is extremly out of control with spending.

When wealthy people have money they invest in evil corporations, which in turn hire more people.

 

So your saying I should pave the highway between my house and my job ?

You think corporations will lower their prices if their taxes were lowered ? That has not been the case in the last 7 years. Price of housing, food, medical services and energy have all substantially increases in spite of their taxes having been lowered.

And your point is what ? This statement in no way abolishes a corporations responsibility to pay for services they are consuming.

No argument there. But the problem is deciding what has to go. Withdrawing troops from Iraq would save 200 Billion a year, I would certainly like to see that but you and I both know its not going to happen. Some people want to see Social Security and Medicare eliminated, I don't, I like those programs. This goes back to, "We all have to pay for government services we don't like". The best we can hope for is limited growth, a balanced budget and a small surplus to carry our country through the rough times. I would point out, this is the postion we were in on January 19th 2001.

Again, for the last 7 years that has not shown to be true. The job growth rate in this country has been stagnate, barely keeping up with the population growth. Further, wages of those jobs have been stagnate as well, barely keeping up with inflation. That money is obviously not going to labor.

 

This true but costs of fuel and other things have contributed to the rise in prices. If it costs more to ship it, if you raise the minimum wage and it cost more to make it, then it is going to cost the consumer more as well. I challenge you to find their profit margins and see if they continually go up.

 

Indeed, though I would submit that wages and job growth haven't been stagnant, they've declined in real terms, and I'm not even comparing them to inflation and population growth. It just goes along with the antisocial Repiglican agenda of siphoning wealth from the many to benefit the few. Trickle down economics will never work because the powerful and greedy will always shut the flow off upstream.

Or to rephrase this, "We all should get the opportunity to cash in on the benefits that we paid for."

Now there's an idea.

Thank you, I've been trying to say this all along!

 

You mean like Exxon?

 

Profits at Exxon Mobil surged 36 percent in 2006. The pharmaceutical industry added 8 billion dollars to their profit margin in 2006, Pfizer alone increased their profits by an astounding 73%. The Health Insurance industry also reported record profits in 2006. My guess is 2007 will be very similar. None of these industries passed their tax saving on to their customers, and they are not the only ones.

 

They why doesn't someone start a similar company and undercut them on prices??

Pharmaceutical companies spend (in my opinion) a lot of unwarranted money on advertisement and getting Drs to put people on pills they may not need. They also spend a lot of money on research and development of new types of medicines.

As for Exxon, as much as i nor anyone else agrees with it, there is a high demand for oil and people will pay it. Is it greedy? no doubt. is it fair? no. But that is the way it is.

I do however think in the long run things like Exxon will end up (not on purpose) opening up the market on alternative fuels to compete for a piece of the huge fuel pie.

Can you find the profit margin for those yrs you mentioned? i would be interested to see how much more per dollar they make than in previous yrs.

 

Listen, I am not saying corporations don't deserve to make a profit. I am not saying we should punish the wealthy for being successful. All I am saying is, supply side economics does not work, it never has and it never will. When you cut taxes on the wealthy, they pocket the money. When you cut taxes on the middle class and the working poor, they spend the money on things that matter. The wealthy do not have a demand for money, they have enough already, they don't need it. The middle class and the working poor do have a demand for money, they need it for survival. Thats why I think demand side economics is a more sustainable model for the long term health of our economy.

Edit
It took me 5 minutes on Google to fine the profit margins of various industries. The information is out there for all to see.

 

Profit Margin
2005 2004 2003 2002 2001
Exxon 10.07% 8.70% 9.07% 5.70% 7.34%
Microsoft 30.80% 22.17% 23.40% 27.77% 29.04%
Merck 21.96% 25.34% 30.37% 33.54% 33.10%
Hershey 10.19% 13.05% 10.59% 9.81% 5.00%


http://www.seic.com/advisors/documents/Big_Bad_Oil.pdf

The con of your economic theory is taxing the wealthly more will force them to either
- increase prices even more to offset costs
- cut jobs to offset cost
- outsouce even more to cut costs

Then it will not matter if you are taxing the middle and lower classes less because there will be higher unemployment.

I do agree putting more money into peoples hands is the way to spur economic growth, i thinkt he area we differ is to which group you put the money. the ones buying or the ones producing.

There is no perfect solution, each theory has pros and cons.

EDIT: I would also argue the wealthy spend money on luxery items, services and things that spur growth while the middle and lower class spend on necessitys. If a rich person pays to get his grass cut, pays for a new car, pays for a vacations, that all creates service or luxery jobs that the middle class or lower class simply can not create.

The wealthy with more money can (if they choose to) invest in things, give to charity, things of that nature.

Not all wealthy people hoard all of their money. Many of the buildings you on school campuses, hospitals, and other areas were created by cheritable donations by wealthy people.

 

This is true. Unfortunately, these "luxury jobs" (AKA service jobs) you speak of, like gardeners, landscapers, waiters/waitresses, servants/nannys, etc. are low paying, yet I will agree the demand for these jobs is growing. Meanwhile, the demand for skilled labor and manufacturing, and high tech jobs like engineering is shrinking. Soo, after busting my ass for six years to earn a graduate degree, and then paying my dues in the "real world," I now face the very real possibility that I may be permanently displaced from the work force before I retire, if the current trend continues. No problem, I'll just go to work for some rich asshole pulling weeds.

All I can say is,
You want fries with that?

 

a very extreme way to look at it, but we are and will continue to move away from a manufacturing economy. We simply cant produce here for as cheap as we can in other countries.

Pulling weeds or cooking fries would be the very bottom of the totem poll. you can learn a trade pretty cheap and quick, become a tile man which makes good money. Specialty shops have a very good niche these days.

You could go as far as open up a repair shop, sell trailers to transport these machines, import these machines, etc. When broken down, there are many jobs that become available aside from low end lawn care.

EDIT: with a few thousand dollars you could open up your own lawn care business fairly easy, here in GA i know people who put themselves through college or worked a 2nd job doing it, making pretty decent money.

 

I am not saying we should tax the wealthy into oblivion, I am by no means suggesting a 90% or even a 60% top income tax rate. All I am saying is they should pay their fair share and if you are going to give anyone a tax break, it should be those who need that money the most. If that means that Micheal Dell can only buy 1 Lear jet next year, but a couple of million low income families get to keep more of their paychecks, then I am all for that. Frankly I don't understand why anyone would oppose eliminating taxes on the middle class and the working poor.

 

Their "fair share" would be the same rate as everyone else, it would be more dollars because they make more dollars but it would be the same rate, how is paying more to recieve the same services as everyone else(roads, schools, defense, police) considered "fair share"? they are paying more than their fair share.

imagine you make 10.00 an hour and your twin makes 7.00 an hour, you both sit down for an identical meal at restaurant. at the end of the meal you are charged 40% (4.00) what your hourly wage is and he is charged 20% (1.40) of what his hourly wage is because the staff knows you make more money than he does. Are they cutting him a break or are they punishing you? If you are both paying for the same meal and he's already paying less money for the meal than you are (at 40% you would pay 4.00 and he would pay 2.80, at 20% you would pay 2.00 and he would pay 1.40) why should he get a break or you be punished? isn't it more fair for the restaurant to either charge a flat rate per meal or everyone at the same rate? And if you had a choice of which restaraunt to patronage why would you want to go to one that charges you a higher rate based on how much money you make(progressive income tax) instead of at the same rate as everyone else(flat rate income tax) or the same amount per meal(sales/consumption tax)? if you had a choice (like businesses do) you would stop rewarding that restaurant and go frequent another instead. and why would your twin feel the need to make 10.00 an hour instead of 7.00 an hour if the difference between the two is negated by the policies of the places he spends his money?

And no one i know is opposed to cutting taxes for the working and middle classes, they oppose cutting taxes for the working class by raising them on the middle and upper classes. building wealth shouldn't be punished it should be encouraged. Cut taxes, but do it across the board.