Weena wrote:
So people who invested and continue to invest in any company aren't employing people?
Deindustrialization. Most of the money atm is in various forms of speculation and capitalizing on existing infrastructure. This is also why Verizon and Comcast suck.
Weena wrote:
The people who invest in Google, Apple, Pepsi, etc are paying payroll and expansion. People don't invest for no return, and often not even for small return, especially when taxes threaten chances of getting a return. Greater risks have to be met with greater rewards, and the taxes on corporations (unless you're GE or other green energies) cuts into investors returns.
Again, they're just sitting on the money or speculating in non-productive ways. Hence the jobless recovery. More of what doesn't work won't help.
Weena wrote:
Our corporate tax rate is higher than most other equally developed countries. Which also causes another thing that cuts into employment - outsourcing.
No for three reasons:
1. US corporate income taxes are not higher than those of the EU (our only real competitor so far as corporate HQing goes).
2. The US is still a better business environment than most nations for many reasons, first amongst them lower corruption, friendly legislation, stable government, rule of law, and no real concern of nationalization. You doubt this, go look at China, Russia, India or the EU.
3. Outsourcing and corporate income tax have no correlation because corporate income tax is calculated based on where corporations are based and not where they employ. This is also why corporations want it cut (because then they'll owe the government literally nothing, while enjoying every benefit it provides them that makes their businesses profitable) and this is also why we have a "jobless recovery".
Weena wrote:
1 - We aren't an anarchy. The purpose of our government is to protect minorities from the majority. It doesn't matter if there is 1 guy with 70% of all capital in the country. It doesn't give the rest of us the right to soak him.
It's not "soaking". These people enjoy what they have because of what the nation is. The rich will be rich and have what they want regardless if their taxes go up to what they were 30 or 50 years ago.
Weena wrote:
2 - Taking every cent the rich have still won't pay off much of our deficit. The top 10% of earners are already paying 71% of income tax.
Strawman. No one is saying we should proscribe the rich. Also, the super-rich don't pay income tax because they have no income. Their earnings come from capital gains and non-cash benefits.
Weena wrote:
The poor have never enjoyed greater prosperity either. How many poor people in the US go without running water, electricity, some food and a roof over their head? Only in America do the 'poor' have tendency to be overweight.
Foreclosures, jobless recovery...? That's a product of technology, and the real "trickle-down", which is the sheer ambient material abundance in this country.
Weena wrote:
Maybe that is because the tide that raised the rich people also raised the poor? Why do think Mexican's rush over here? I mean besides the entitlements we like giving illegal aliens? Because their poor wash their clothes on river rocks.
It hasn't raised the poor. Again, jobless recovery. Either way, it's academic because the wealthy are living it up like never before and will continue to even if there's a marginal increase in their taxes.
What entitlements do we give illegal aliens? Those immigrants come here because there are jobs...provided by the wealthy. You talk about those entitlements but who really benefits? The wealthy.
Weena wrote:
The government should not have bailed out anybody. That was a gross abomination of free markets. The companies should have been left to fail. They would have sold their assets, many employees would have been absorbed by competitors and the market would have been stronger for it.
Corporate America will fight government action tooth and nail but their tune changes when it's in their immediate favor. They want all the benefits but want to pay none of the costs. Hence raising their obligations is entirely fair.
Weena wrote:
How would the US getting it's financial house in order damage our interests? What obligations are set in stone? Entitlements? The things that are going to go are, well... shimp on treadmills.
You can't just close the military, or the justice or regulatory system, or cancel Social Security, for a day. It just doesn't work that way. Our government's responsibilities are not broad compared to most other civilized countries (again, the EU, PRC), and they exist for a reason.
How would they damage our interests? Simply put: it makes the US look bad, and that WILL result in companies and individuals not coming here to set up shop. A bad rep will keep opportunities away - a marginally higher tax rate still lower than the EU will not.
