Taxing the Rich does not kill Jobs

[PocketChange]

You are missing my point and perspective...

Individuals do not employ or create jobs. Individuals create and invest in companies that create jobs, products and services.

I am suggesting a tax credit should be given to all companies for us based employees in order to create more jobs and keep money flowing here in the US.

Say for example a Tax credit of $40k is provided for each full time employee. The pass through tax treatment will directly benefit the business owners. They reduce their tax liabilities by $40k, The feds still get taxes based on the bracketed level of the employee. More unemployed go off our welfare roll.

Without a proper incentive to balance the inequalities of offshore labor these jobs will continue to flow overseas. Raising the individual tax rate and providing pass through tax credits is the only way to spur job creation here in the US and not overseas.

Quote from Petsamo:

It's obvious PocketChange is a liberal who has no clue what he's talking about.

Food for thought: http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqindex.cfm?areaID=24

I edited out less significant info.

Small firms:
• Represent 99.7% of all employer firms.
• Generated 65% of net new jobs over the past 17 years.
• Create more than half of the nonfarm private GDP.
• Hire 43% of high tech workers (scientists, engineers, computer programmers, and others).
• Are 52% home-based and 2% franchises.
• Made up 97.5% of all identified exporters and produced 31% of export value in FY 2008.
• Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms.

The smallest firms (fewer than 20 employees) spend 36% more per employee than larger firms to comply with federal regulations. Very small firms spend 4.5 times as much per employee to comply with environmental regulations and 3 times more per employee on tax compliance than their largest counterparts.

You liberals need to get yourselves educated.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from Petsamo:

It's obvious PocketChange is a liberal who has no clue what he's talking about.

Food for thought: http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqindex.cfm?areaID=24

I edited out less significant info.

Small firms:
• Represent 99.7% of all employer firms.
• Generated 65% of net new jobs over the past 17 years.
• Create more than half of the nonfarm private GDP.
• Hire 43% of high tech workers (scientists, engineers, computer programmers, and others).
• Are 52% home-based and 2% franchises.
• Made up 97.5% of all identified exporters and produced 31% of export value in FY 2008.
• Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms.

The smallest firms (fewer than 20 employees) spend 36% more per employee than larger firms to comply with federal regulations. Very small firms spend 4.5 times as much per employee to comply with environmental regulations and 3 times more per employee on tax compliance than their largest counterparts.

You liberals need to get yourselves educated.

And 95% of them have a net income of less than 250K, and damn near all of them are below 1 million in net income. All would have been covered under the proposal that the fascist repubs voted down this morning. The people,(major corporations), they're trying to protect are firing not hiring, closing plants not opening them, moving money and operations overseas and they're doing it because of wages, labor law and environmental law. Taxes ares nearly irrelevant at that level. Big bonus coming for the uber wealthy, all on the backs of the ever shrinking middle class, and ever growing working poor.

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

And 95% of them have a net income of less than 250K, and damn near all of them are below 1 million in net income. All would have been covered under the proposal that the fascist repubs voted down this morning. The people,(major corporations), they're trying to protect are firing not hiring, closing plants not opening them, moving money and operations overseas and they're doing it because of wages, labor law and environmental law. Taxes ares nearly irrelevant at that level. Big bonus coming for the uber wealthy, all on the backs of the ever shrinking middle class, and ever growing working poor.

Let me ask you a simple question. Do you think raising taxes any "anyone" is a solution to any government problem? If you answer yes, explain how to me. If you answer no, then explain to me why you want to do it.

Look, I'm in a very different camp then most people as I agree that simply cutting taxes is not going to create jobs or help the economy. I am against it for constitutional reasons. I am always interested in hearing though why it's good to raise taxes other then the good old class warfare that the left loves to wage. I'm all ears.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Maverick74:

Let me ask you a simple question. Do you think raising taxes any "anyone" is a solution to any government problem? If you answer yes, explain how to me. If you answer no, then explain to me why you want to do it.

Look, I'm in a very different camp then most people as I agree that simply cutting taxes is not going to create jobs or help the economy. I am against it for constitutional reasons. I am always interested in hearing though why it's good to raise taxes other then the good old class warfare that the left loves to wage. I'm all ears.

I think raising taxes to finance a war of national self-defense, where government's problem is that it presently is not holding a surplus and thus does not have the money for that war, is a prime example.

Edit: of course, the Captain's comments were not regarding raising taxes.

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from Ricter:

I think raising taxes to finance a war of national self-defense, where government's problem is that it presently is not holding a surplus and thus does not have the money for that war, is a prime example.

Edit: of course, the Captain's comments were not regarding raising taxes.

But don't you think instead spending 100's of billions on bailing out banks and corporations, instead of giving billions in aid to the middle east, instead of giving billions in subsidies, instead of billions on other wasteful programs, we could use that money for national defense? Just a thought Ricter. I mean there are other ways besides raising taxes. I'm just sayin...

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Maverick74:

But don't you think instead spending 100's of billions on bailing out banks and corporations, instead of giving billions in aid to the middle east, instead of giving billions in subsidies, instead of billions on other wasteful programs, we could use that money for national defense? Just a thought Ricter. I mean there are other ways besides raising taxes. I'm just sayin...

You may be, and probably are, right on several issues, but those get obscured in questions containing "anyone" and "any". My point was a philosophical one, really.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from Maverick74:

Let me ask you a simple question. Do you think raising taxes any "anyone" is a solution to any government problem? If you answer yes, explain how to me. If you answer no, then explain to me why you want to do it.

Look, I'm in a very different camp then most people as I agree that simply cutting taxes is not going to create jobs or help the economy. I am against it for constitutional reasons. I am always interested in hearing though why it's good to raise taxes other then the good old class warfare that the left loves to wage. I'm all ears.

You make a good point, and you have made other good points, in-particular, we don't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem. I agree with all that.
I'm just trying to point out that the mantra from the republicans about these tax breaks creating jobs is bogus. It's also bogus to say that the majority of jobs created will be through small business, and then say big business needs tax breaks to create jobs. Which is it? More bogus than that is to piss and moan about budget problems, and then give tax breaks to people that don't need tax breaks, which then creates budget shortfalls.
For me it's not so much about taxes, we're going to be taxed. It's about who can afford a cut and who can't, least at this moment in time.

 

[MarketMasher]

More like trillions of dollars to bail out the whole friggin' world.

http://bailout.propublica.org/list

Seems like there is plenty of money to go around. Party time!

Those bailouts are billions - but I think the Fed kicked-in some more later on their own for foreign banks...

 

[bugscoe]

The most bogus was listening to the democrats for the last 8-9 years complaining that the Bush tax cuts did nothing for the middle class, were only tax cuts for the rich and caused our deficit to skyrocket.

NOW, all of those arguments have reversed from the democrats.

All this is is bogus political class warfare. Period.

 

[AMT4SWA]

Quote from Maverick74:

It's not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem. For every $1 the government takes in, it will find a way to spend a 1.50. We can raise taxes to 90%. The government will always spend more then it takes in. The tax rate is a moot point.

Fully agree!


But, I would like a FLAT quarterly paid income tax (to include any income....capital gains, wages, salary, inheritance, etc) of 15% (absolutely no deductions....none....period!) and a FLAT corporate tax of 15% of all profits after expenses (allowed expenses determined by new tax regulation for this flat tax).

I would also like payroll taxes cut by 2/3'rds and (medicare means tested with basic financial need requirements) social security turned OFF for all 40 and younger (no more withholding for those who wont get it). Those 40 and younger would have a new FORCED savings plan of 7.5% to 15% of paycheck (their choice on percentage....can be changed quarterly) into private sector investments through investment house of their choice.....Fidelity, Scwabb, etc, etc, etc. 80% of saved funds can ONLY go into most conservative of investment choices (regulated by new tax law) and 20% can go into more risky investments (stocks, gold, ETF's, etc).

All 40 and younger will have the total amount of money previously paid into Social Security deposited into their FORCED savings within a 24 month time period from US government (24 equal payments of total amount owed broken down by 24 payments). All 41 and older are stuck with the old system but can start to contribute 7.5% to 15% of paychecks to new FORCED retirement savings plan. All forced savings plans funds deposited/interest is NOT taxed until used (at 55 or older for retirement or for medical emergency). All funds in FORCED savings plan can be passed on to spouse or children due to death with no inheritance taxes....EVER! All forced savings plan funds can ONLY be disbursed at retirement (55 or older) at a rate of a fraction of the total funds per year (designed to last until a person turns 80). If you retire at 55 you can in the first year ONLY withdraw 1/25th of funds per year;

age 56 - 1/24th of funds per year

age 57 - 1/23rd of funds per year

age 58 - 1/22nd of funds per year

age 59 - 1/21st of funds per year

etc, etc, etc up to the age of 80 graduated scaling. If you retire at 80 you can get access to all your money if you want (force funds to be rationed until age 80 is hit depending on the year you retire). You pay 15% flat tax on withdrawn funds used each year that was deferred in prior years as you payed in.

That is the basics of my plan.....simple flat tax for all and FORCED savings for all. Whatever monies the US government needs to pay back the citizens their social security withholdings they can just print it out of thin air for all I care......they have done that for everyone else!