Demand can create jobs. But if that doesn't make economic sense for the business, then all increased demand does is increase prices, leaving the "little guy" ultimately poorer because he's stuck paying more for the same good. So then they increase the taxes on the Rich to give to the Poor. Lather, rinse, repeat. Pretty soon you look like Jimmy Carter.
They may have a need. If their revenues are down and costs are up (which taxes are for all businesses in this country) they will not hire the additional people they need in order to keep their businesses running at a certain profit margain. Why do you think so many jobs have left this country when unions and workers become too expensive? Demand and having the finances to hire those people. You can have all the demand in the world and if the money isn't there to pay the people you want, or need, you aren't going to be able to hire them. Very good. And when the cost for operating that business become too high people are laid off and let go. Taxes on businesses are an operating expense. You are lying to yourself if you believe that taxes do not have an effect on the bottom line.
The big fallacy here is that people believe that corporations pay taxes... They don't. Their employees pay income taxes and any taxes on profits are passed on to their customers/clients in the form of higher fees and prices. Which could, theoretically, decrease demand. When this dynamic is coupled with higher income from the middle class consumers in the form of tax cuts, which theoretically increases demand, the net effect becomes a little more difficult to asses. I'd wager that employers would increase hiring to accomodate increased demand.
My old sig agrees: The logical implication is that taxing businesses of any kind is just a way of concealing the taxes that people are paying, and fooling the gullible into thinking that someone else is bearing the overall burden of our bloated government.
I don't know about selling a home but according to Wikipedia with exemptions the estate tax doesn't kick until it's valued at $2 million so I have no worries there (I don't really believe in inheriting wealth anyway). It's not the middle class though. It's the top 13% of households. They're earning 5x to 14x the median income in this country. I think it's great. Look at all those businesses that were fighting for a piece of those $600 checks. It certainly brought business into my workplace.
Why penalize someone for purchasing with a sales tax? Why penalize someone for owning a home with property tax? Why penalize someone for having a job with income tax? What's your incentive? How about this: would you rather earn $2.9 million a year and pay more in taxes or earn $29,000 a year and pay less?
Then that means they can usually cover costs and it really doesn't matter anyway. If they have more work but less business they need to start looking at streamlining. Let's differentiate between want and need. If you can operate without extra employees you don't need them, you want them. Of course they have an effect. It's just not as simplistic as you portray it.
Ah, but with my background I'm not going to be earning $29,000 a year. (At least not working for someone. If I own my own business, I might. Or I might actually lose money.) So really the question is: Would I rather have a chance to earn a net of $1.3 million--with the possibility of losing everything OR would I rather earn a guaranteed 5-6 figures? That's a bit harder question.
C'mon now. That is an obvious straw-man. When you buy something do they ask you what your income is and charge you a 45% sales tax if your income is over $100,000? Do they charge a significantly higher property tax if you are in a higher income bracket? The reality is, if someone makes $30,000 and doesn't pay tax, someone else makes $50,000 and is taxed $20,000 (so his net is $30,000) and someone else makes $1.5 million and only gets to keep $600,000 and faces a substantial risk of bankruptcy on the way to getting there (and in the future, for that matter), there is definitely a penalty on success. Hell, if I can make the same money mopping the floor at McDonalds as I can busting my ass on some job, working 50-60 hours a week (after shelling out tens of thousands of dollars for a college degree) then there really isn't a lot of incentive to waste all that time money and energy. And there isn't an incentive to do challenging work. You might as well just get a job as a Wal*Mart greeter.
True, but it isn't the only power - the regular concept of taxation still applies. Taxation is the ability to destroy. And certainly it's still used for social engineering. The same can be applied to businesses as it is to the nuclear family. Want alternate energy? Tax traditional oil revenue. It's an adjustable slide. And one of the big reasons I don't shed a tear when a state or locality provides a tax haven for a company. It still generates revenue through the increase in wealth in that area. More wealth in the region, more income, more sales, more tax revenue. It can be a scalpel or a bludgeon. But it's always been the foundation of governance, back to Plato's time.
Some areas charge a property tax rate based on its value. Even if it's just a straight percentage you'll get penalized for improving your property (which has happened to me). Income tax is also bracketed in such a way that everyone pays the same tax rate on the same amount of money no matter how much they ultimately earn, i.e. millionaires and the middle class all pay 10% on the first $8k of income, 15% on the next $24K, etc. Incorporate. Unless you qualify for EIC that won't happen. If you let the tax cuts lapse and revert to the old rates they would keep closer to $1 million. Wow, really? You don't see any quantitative difference between earning $25,000 and $1 million a year because the tax rate is a bit higher?
Well, I suspect we could dosey-doe around this one forever, but I'll take one last stab at it: The other side of the coin is that both the risk and the effort on the $25,000 job is a lot lower. You show up for work at 8:30, work for a couple hours, take your 15 minute break, work a couple more hours, go to lunch, work a couple more hours, another break, and finally a couple more hours before going home. Your biggest risk is that profits are down enough that your boss has to lay you off, and insurance, pay, what time you show up for work--everything--is handled for you. On the other hand, if you're running a business, you've got to hire people. You've got to line up insurance for them. You've got your government paperwork to deal with, contracts, marketing and advertising, production, buildings to lease or buy, distribution, liability if someone slips on the sidewalk in front of your place or one of your delivery drivers gets in an accident. The possiblity that a competitor could undercut your pricing, a new technology could come out and make your product obsolete, or government regulation could make your business no longer profitable. And if any of that happens, you're stuck with employees on payroll, leases, contracts, ads you've already bought, machinery and inventory--all sorts of things the employee doesn't need to worry about. Are you going to say that on top of all that IF you are successful you should get whacked with a significantly higher tax than someone who just shows up and punches the time card? Fuck that. If I'm going to take the risk and do all the work, I want to be able to get the reward for my success, not give it to the government.
So how many of them do you think are turning cartwheels at the idea of giving more than half of it to the State?
I'm pretty much convinced "Ryan" is actually Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. If the Democrats say jump, he says "how high?"
Same old shit from our socialist stand-in asshole (filling in for Cass while she's changing her tampons)
And if the state could spend responsibly and cut non-essential programs, it wouldn't need it! Oh, the brainpower of common sense.
I didn't think it was really funny. I'm a registered Democrat and I don't think like that guy says I do. However, I will give him credit for having the brass ass required to do that on the floor of the House of Representatives. J.
What brass? One will get you ten it was during special orders, the only members present then are the ones with an axe to grind.
