Unions vs a business-friendly environment

[Sub-Husker]

Manufacturing jobs have left our shores in droves and it seems we're more concerned about extending unemployment benefits than returning to a more balanced economy that actually expects a little hardwork in exchange for a paycheck.

 

I disagree.

 

People will work hard for a middle class paycheck, not for a poverty level one.

 

Either we rescue the middle class or we don't, and the only way to do so is through a comprihensive stimulus program.

 

That would be paid for by ending our foreign wars and by increasing the taxes on the wealthy.

 

If that makes me a socialist, then hell yeah I'll sign up for that label.

[Sub-Husker]

The wages for most of these jobs are lower out of necessity. How can a US company increase their input cost when they have to compete against labor from other countries that is often multiple times less?

 

Step #1: Decouple the cost of health care from the loaded cost per person.

[strigori]

The wages for most of these jobs are lower out of necessity. How can a US company increase their input cost when they have to compete against labor from other countries that is often multiple times less? I agree that our schools do not stress the trades but there has been a decline in the work ethic. I see it every day. Many people would prefer to collect UE instead of making two to three times as much by actually working for it. To some degree I think our safety net has turned into more of a comfortable blanket.

I'm curious as to what industry you work in. That has not been my experience. I don't know a single person who would rather collect UE than work.

 

Its amazing how CEOs and upper managements claim they need insentives like bonuses and stock options to drive thier performance but the peons should just be happy to have a job and not be living under a bridge. Wages are not 'out of nessecity' that's the propaganda the CEOs and upper management feed you, and you fell for it. They can pay thier employees more, but it means the upper managements can not collect paychecks at 300% or more than that of the workers.

 

People get lazy when they are told they are pay capped. They get lazy when there is no chance for advancement because they don't have a degree, even when they know more about their company and have the skills and ability to do they job. They get lazy when they get denied raises and the company says they can't afford it, then send out a news letter pounding thier chest about how much they just made. Simply, they get lazy when they feel trapped.

[JJ Husker]

I am basing my opinion on the attitude I perceive from the majority of people who come to my company to apply for a job. I would say about 20% of them seem genuinely interested in working and the other 80% are simply fulfilling a requirement. That may not be entirely fair as we have not been hiring for quite awhile and some of those people don't have any of the basic skills we would require. We do steel fabrication, welding, those types of things. What I find discouraging is the amount of people completely disinterested in what jobs we might have to offer but they definitely want your name, a business card etc. so they can tell whoever that they were there to look for a job. We typically pay in the high teens per hour. I know it's not the greatest pay but I do know it can't be any higher in this economy. Management (me) is not taking wheelbarrows of money away. That may be the case in some large corps but I doubt it is the case for the majority of small businesses which supply most of the jobs in this country. The last 2 years have been very bad and it is not looking any better.

[HoustonSker]

You've asked two very different questions and I will attempt to address both.

 

In response to the first question...simplifying and lowering taxes for everyone would be fantastic start. This way, every company plays by the same rules, thus ensuring a level playing field and predictability for businesses. No one company or industry receives particular benefits or is penalized. Think of the all of the 'green energy' companies who receive subsidies and/or tax breaks while other industries, oil and gas for example, are criticized for making 'windfall' profits. This directly plays into the theme of predictability.

 

One of the major complaints against the current administration from business leaders is unpredictability, what new taxes and/or regulations are coming down the pipeline? Businesses have to factor this uncertainty into their business decisions, which includes expansion and hiring. When there's a lot of uncertainty, guess what, businesses don't expand or hire. That's part of the reason why corporations are sitting on so much cash.

 

Concerning regulations...this is a tough one. I appreciate the EPA, the old EPA that cleaned up rivers and lakes. I dislike the new EPA that plays a bit of an activist role, classifying CO2 as a greenhouse gas that must be regulated and the like. A balance must be established and unfortunately if regulations are too strict, cumbersome, costly etc, businesses won't invest. Balance is paramount, and I think it's difficult for the EPA to find that balance because most of whom probably don't have much private sector experience, ie any experience in cost - benefit analysis. That's an assumption I made after reviewing the bios of some EPA adminstrators.

 

Lastly, concerning your China question...none. There is little to nothing that Chinese business does that we should strive to emulate, they've built their export market on unskilled, low wage labor. I hope that's not what we want to import back into the US, unless people are willing to work for pennies. I would much prefer a manufacturing base like Germany's...highly skilled industrial workers who create meticulously engineered products.

 

All in all, lowering and simplifying taxes along with reasonable regulations that businesses can understand and build into their decisions in a timely manner would create a much more friendly business environment. We must acknowledge that we are competing against the world and have to be able to attract investment.

1. Do you care about the national debt and the deficit? If we lower taxes for everyone that debt is going to skyrocket.

 

2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That's not according to the EPA . . . that is according to science.

 

The topic in question is how the country can create an environment that is more conducive to business start-up/expansion, not the national debt. However, I will respond.

 

1. Yes, however I think your assertion does not hold much merit. Currently, we have an extremely complex and convoluted corporate tax structure. It is full of subsidies and tax breaks for various industries based on political interference/favoritism/cronyism etc. Thus, we have completely different industries and companies paying different tax rates, largely based on these subsidies and breaks. One company may pay a 35% rate and another, GE for example, pays little to nothing. This creates an uneven playing field and adds costs for every business. If the tax code were to be simplified and all subsidies/tax breaks were eliminated (phased in as to not shock the system), this would streamline business decision making and remove a lot of uncertainty aka attractive and sexy to potential businesses.

 

With that, companies paying above our very high tax rate (35% at the high end) would see their taxes lowered and those companies who benefitted from politically induced subsidies/tax breaks would likely see there taxes rise, thus the overall effect being a wash in terms of federal government tax revenue, hopefully. This also promotes the fabled '"fairness" that particular pols are always pining for. The same rules apply to everyone, at least that's how I interpret "fairness". Additionally, if lower rates attracted more businesses and resulted in increased earnings, higher government revenues could result. Lastly, concerning the debt...we have a major spending problem, not a revenue problem.

 

2. I never said CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas. My issue is the EPA's desire to regulate it as a pollutant, thus inflating costs for businesses and consumers. I could have stated that better, my apologies.

1. I apologize for addressing an effect of lowering taxes on the deficit when the original topic was encouraging business-friendly practices. Unfortunately, these issues are all linked. "Uncertainty" regarding regulations is a canard and the average effective corporate tax rate on Fortune 500 countries is around 18.5%. Considering the record profits that have been made with that taxation level it is difficult to argue that the rate is unduly burdensome.

 

3. Do you think that co2 isn't a pollutant?

 

You’re correct, these topics are interrelated, however for simplicity’s sake; let’s stick with the original topic for now. So…you think that uncertainty posed to businesses via the tax system is a canard? I assume you don’t mean “duck”, but rather BS.

 

You don’t have to believe me, just turn on the TV or read a business article, or better yet…listen to what businessmen are saying…

 

Dan Danner, president of the National Federation of Independent Business, speaking in October 2011, “With the uncertainty and questions they have about taxes and health care and new regulations, they are just not willing to invest," Danner said. "They don't view this as a good time to take their precious money and risk it."

 

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=46&articleid=20111014_46_E1_CUTLIN393755

 

Andrew Liveris, CEO of Dow Chemical, in an interview in February 2011, "Well, I not only have high taxes; I have uncertain taxes," he said. "Right now, I have more regulations coming at me that are not fact-based, not science-based, not data-based. I actually don't even know what my costs are going to be in the next five years. And so I'm sitting back waiting for regulatory reform, and the government, of course, is now engaged on that—health care and the uncertainty around the health-care bill and what's going to end up happening there. Energy policy—we've got lots of uncertainty in the energy policy regimen. I mean, I can keep going, but that's half a dozen."

 

http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/feb2011/ca2011023_063316.htm

 

A recent article in The Economist surveyed Harvard business alumni concerning American business competitiveness. Their number one suggestion…simplify the tax code.

 

http://www.economist.com/node/21543169

 

These are a few simple examples of the prevailing attitudes in American business, so don’t tell me uncertainty is a “canard” as if concerns about tax structure are frivolous BS. On a personal level, would potential taxes and regulations change your attitude towards spending or investing? I hope so. It’s incredibly simple to extrapolate this from the individual to a company, and this is the current case in American business.

 

I’m glad you brought up the 18.5% effective rate. If the effective rate is 18.5%, let’s cut the current 35% rate and all subsidies/tax breaks and employ an 18.5% flat rate across all businesses. It would be no different than what we currently have, except tax processes and payments would be streamlined, allowing businesses to concentrate on their operations, expand, and hopefully create a more robust economy. Would you have a problem with that, and why?

 

Lastly, given SubHusker’s original question on how to create a more business friendly environment, I’m interested to hear what you have to say…not merely questioning others’ proposals with simple sentences that lack detail. One of the first things I learned in the office was that if you are going to disagree with someone's idea, you had better have an alternative, otherwise you're not contributing to the conversation. Now is your chance...Carlfense, what do you think would create a more business friendly environment in the United States, and why?

[HoustonSker]

Manufacturing jobs have left our shores in droves and it seems we're more concerned about extending unemployment benefits than returning to a more balanced economy that actually expects a little hardwork in exchange for a paycheck.

 

I disagree.

 

People will work hard for a middle class paycheck, not for a poverty level one.

 

Either we rescue the middle class or we don't, and the only way to do so is through a comprihensive stimulus program.

 

That would be paid for by ending our foreign wars and by increasing the taxes on the wealthy.

 

If that makes me a socialist, then hell yeah I'll sign up for that label.

 

Sub, I agree that the middle class need assisted, but I'm not clear on what your proposed stimulus would entail. We already had a stimulus and well, it didn't turn out too well, or at least it wasn't as effective as advertised.

 

I would argue that if another stimulus was passed, it focus on creating private sector jobs that create wealth, not government jobs except for those involved in improving infrastructure. Ending foreign wars, fantastic. Increasing taxes the wealthy, I'm not sold. I don't like the thought of taking money from a specific group of people and letting the government allocate it as they see fit. If we're to have a stimulus, everyone pays in, rich, middle class, and poor.

 

You're not a socialist, but I don't even think it's a good thing when people start calling for confiscation of someone else's earnings ("the wealthy") because they feel they could make better use of the money. How do you define "wealthy"? Are you talking about income, capital gains, total assets? All are uniquely different in terms of current tax structure.

[carlfense]

You've asked two very different questions and I will attempt to address both.

 

In response to the first question...simplifying and lowering taxes for everyone would be fantastic start. This way, every company plays by the same rules, thus ensuring a level playing field and predictability for businesses. No one company or industry receives particular benefits or is penalized. Think of the all of the 'green energy' companies who receive subsidies and/or tax breaks while other industries, oil and gas for example, are criticized for making 'windfall' profits. This directly plays into the theme of predictability.

 

One of the major complaints against the current administration from business leaders is unpredictability, what new taxes and/or regulations are coming down the pipeline? Businesses have to factor this uncertainty into their business decisions, which includes expansion and hiring. When there's a lot of uncertainty, guess what, businesses don't expand or hire. That's part of the reason why corporations are sitting on so much cash.

 

Concerning regulations...this is a tough one. I appreciate the EPA, the old EPA that cleaned up rivers and lakes. I dislike the new EPA that plays a bit of an activist role, classifying CO2 as a greenhouse gas that must be regulated and the like. A balance must be established and unfortunately if regulations are too strict, cumbersome, costly etc, businesses won't invest. Balance is paramount, and I think it's difficult for the EPA to find that balance because most of whom probably don't have much private sector experience, ie any experience in cost - benefit analysis. That's an assumption I made after reviewing the bios of some EPA adminstrators.

 

Lastly, concerning your China question...none. There is little to nothing that Chinese business does that we should strive to emulate, they've built their export market on unskilled, low wage labor. I hope that's not what we want to import back into the US, unless people are willing to work for pennies. I would much prefer a manufacturing base like Germany's...highly skilled industrial workers who create meticulously engineered products.

 

All in all, lowering and simplifying taxes along with reasonable regulations that businesses can understand and build into their decisions in a timely manner would create a much more friendly business environment. We must acknowledge that we are competing against the world and have to be able to attract investment.

1. Do you care about the national debt and the deficit? If we lower taxes for everyone that debt is going to skyrocket.

 

2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That's not according to the EPA . . . that is according to science.

 

The topic in question is how the country can create an environment that is more conducive to business start-up/expansion, not the national debt. However, I will respond.

 

1. Yes, however I think your assertion does not hold much merit. Currently, we have an extremely complex and convoluted corporate tax structure. It is full of subsidies and tax breaks for various industries based on political interference/favoritism/cronyism etc. Thus, we have completely different industries and companies paying different tax rates, largely based on these subsidies and breaks. One company may pay a 35% rate and another, GE for example, pays little to nothing. This creates an uneven playing field and adds costs for every business. If the tax code were to be simplified and all subsidies/tax breaks were eliminated (phased in as to not shock the system), this would streamline business decision making and remove a lot of uncertainty aka attractive and sexy to potential businesses.

 

With that, companies paying above our very high tax rate (35% at the high end) would see their taxes lowered and those companies who benefitted from politically induced subsidies/tax breaks would likely see there taxes rise, thus the overall effect being a wash in terms of federal government tax revenue, hopefully. This also promotes the fabled '"fairness" that particular pols are always pining for. The same rules apply to everyone, at least that's how I interpret "fairness". Additionally, if lower rates attracted more businesses and resulted in increased earnings, higher government revenues could result. Lastly, concerning the debt...we have a major spending problem, not a revenue problem.

 

2. I never said CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas. My issue is the EPA's desire to regulate it as a pollutant, thus inflating costs for businesses and consumers. I could have stated that better, my apologies.

1. I apologize for addressing an effect of lowering taxes on the deficit when the original topic was encouraging business-friendly practices. Unfortunately, these issues are all linked. "Uncertainty" regarding regulations is a canard and the average effective corporate tax rate on Fortune 500 countries is around 18.5%. Considering the record profits that have been made with that taxation level it is difficult to argue that the rate is unduly burdensome.

 

3. Do you think that co2 isn't a pollutant?

 

You’re correct, these topics are interrelated, however for simplicity’s sake; let’s stick with the original topic for now. So…you think that uncertainty posed to businesses via the tax system is a canard? I assume you don’t mean “duck”, but rather BS.

 

You don’t have to believe me, just turn on the TV or read a business article, or better yet…listen to what businessmen are saying…

 

Dan Danner, president of the National Federation of Independent Business, speaking in October 2011, “With the uncertainty and questions they have about taxes and health care and new regulations, they are just not willing to invest," Danner said. "They don't view this as a good time to take their precious money and risk it."

 

http://www.tulsaworl...E1_CUTLIN393755

 

Andrew Liveris, CEO of Dow Chemical, in an interview in February 2011, "Well, I not only have high taxes; I have uncertain taxes," he said. "Right now, I have more regulations coming at me that are not fact-based, not science-based, not data-based. I actually don't even know what my costs are going to be in the next five years. And so I'm sitting back waiting for regulatory reform, and the government, of course, is now engaged on that—health care and the uncertainty around the health-care bill and what's going to end up happening there. Energy policy—we've got lots of uncertainty in the energy policy regimen. I mean, I can keep going, but that's half a dozen."

 

http://www.businessw...1023_063316.htm

 

A recent article in The Economist surveyed Harvard business alumni concerning American business competitiveness. Their number one suggestion…simplify the tax code.

 

http://www.economist.com/node/21543169

 

These are a few simple examples of the prevailing attitudes in American business, so don’t tell me uncertainty is a “canard” as if concerns about tax structure are frivolous BS. On a personal level, would potential taxes and regulations change your attitude towards spending or investing? I hope so. It’s incredibly simple to extrapolate this from the individual to a company, and this is the current case in American business.

 

I’m glad you brought up the 18.5% effective rate. If the effective rate is 18.5%, let’s cut the current 35% rate and all subsidies/tax breaks and employ an 18.5% flat rate across all businesses. It would be no different than what we currently have, except tax processes and payments would be streamlined, allowing businesses to concentrate on their operations, expand, and hopefully create a more robust economy. Would you have a problem with that, and why?

 

Lastly, given SubHusker’s original question on how to create a more business friendly environment, I’m interested to hear what you have to say…not merely questioning others’ proposals with simple sentences that lack detail. One of the first things I learned in the office was that if you are going to disagree with someone's idea, you had better have an alternative, otherwise you're not contributing to the conversation. Now is your chance...Carlfense, what do you think would create a more business friendly environment in the United States, and why?

Businessmen want fewer regulations and taxes so that they earn more money? Who knew?!

 

I think we could create a more business friendly environment if we worked for 50 cents per day or re-instituted slavery.

 

Edit: I disagree with the premise. I don't think the government needs to bail out businesses with "business-friendly" policies. Corporate profits are the highest proportion of national income in recorded history. Middle-class employment and wages are a far more pressing concern.

[strigori]

Manufacturing jobs have left our shores in droves and it seems we're more concerned about extending unemployment benefits than returning to a more balanced economy that actually expects a little hardwork in exchange for a paycheck.

 

I disagree.

 

People will work hard for a middle class paycheck, not for a poverty level one.

 

Either we rescue the middle class or we don't, and the only way to do so is through a comprihensive stimulus program.

 

That would be paid for by ending our foreign wars and by increasing the taxes on the wealthy.

 

If that makes me a socialist, then hell yeah I'll sign up for that label.

 

Sub, I agree that the middle class need assisted, but I'm not clear on what your proposed stimulus would entail. We already had a stimulus and well, it didn't turn out too well, or at least it wasn't as effective as advertised.

 

I would argue that if another stimulus was passed, it focus on creating private sector jobs that create wealth, not government jobs except for those involved in improving infrastructure. Ending foreign wars, fantastic. Increasing taxes the wealthy, I'm not sold. I don't like the thought of taking money from a specific group of people and letting the government allocate it as they see fit. If we're to have a stimulus, everyone pays in, rich, middle class, and poor.

 

You're not a socialist, but I don't even think it's a good thing when people start calling for confiscation of someone else's earnings ("the wealthy") because they feel they could make better use of the money. How do you define "wealthy"? Are you talking about income, capital gains, total assets? All are uniquely different in terms of current tax structure.

How is it 'confiscation of someone else's earnings' when I want the guy, like Romney, making millions a year to pay the same tax percentage as I do? And I'm talking anything that puts money into your pocket or bank account. Taxing capitol gains differently is simply a kickback to the donors to the politicians, and to many of the politicans themselves. That is what is primarily at issue. "Raising the taxes on the rich" is not an 'attack' or 'class warfare,' its leveling the playing field.

[strigori]

I am basing my opinion on the attitude I perceive from the majority of people who come to my company to apply for a job. I would say about 20% of them seem genuinely interested in working and the other 80% are simply fulfilling a requirement. That may not be entirely fair as we have not been hiring for quite awhile and some of those people don't have any of the basic skills we would require. We do steel fabrication, welding, those types of things. What I find discouraging is the amount of people completely disinterested in what jobs we might have to offer but they definitely want your name, a business card etc. so they can tell whoever that they were there to look for a job. We typically pay in the high teens per hour. I know it's not the greatest pay but I do know it can't be any higher in this economy. Management (me) is not taking wheelbarrows of money away. That may be the case in some large corps but I doubt it is the case for the majority of small businesses which supply most of the jobs in this country. The last 2 years have been very bad and it is not looking any better.

From that description, your company is not the sort I'm talking about. High teens is solid pay, and I'm not going to fault anyone for paying that, especcialy if those are starting wages. I have more familiarity inside the big national corps where there are people making $8 and having lots of upper management making $100k up into the millions per year.

 

I will say though, that if you have not really been hiring, and most other places that pay more than $8 an hour have not been either, I can see why they are using the card for UE. And some of those people might be willing, but lacking the skills.

[HoustonSker]

Carlfense,

 

For medical advice or input, who do you talk to? A medical professional of course. For business advice, guess who are the best people to ask? Come one, I know you can guess this one...businessmen! However, you sound like you're proficient in business so forget what they say. Let's disregard what those in business say, what the hell do they know? Great attitude.

 

Bail out? For Christ's sake man, can you read? My whole premise was absolutely not to "bail out" business, if you care to re-read what I proposed, but I'm sure you won't, you come across as lazy as exhibited in your failure to stay on topic or contribute anything of substance. Simplifying the tax code helps everyone, large and small companies. More middle class jobs/wages are a product of a vibrant economy and I think simplifying the tax code could lead to a more vibrant economy.

[HoustonSker]

Manufacturing jobs have left our shores in droves and it seems we're more concerned about extending unemployment benefits than returning to a more balanced economy that actually expects a little hardwork in exchange for a paycheck.

 

I disagree.

 

People will work hard for a middle class paycheck, not for a poverty level one.

 

Either we rescue the middle class or we don't, and the only way to do so is through a comprihensive stimulus program.

 

That would be paid for by ending our foreign wars and by increasing the taxes on the wealthy.

 

If that makes me a socialist, then hell yeah I'll sign up for that label.

 

Sub, I agree that the middle class need assisted, but I'm not clear on what your proposed stimulus would entail. We already had a stimulus and well, it didn't turn out too well, or at least it wasn't as effective as advertised.

 

I would argue that if another stimulus was passed, it focus on creating private sector jobs that create wealth, not government jobs except for those involved in improving infrastructure. Ending foreign wars, fantastic. Increasing taxes the wealthy, I'm not sold. I don't like the thought of taking money from a specific group of people and letting the government allocate it as they see fit. If we're to have a stimulus, everyone pays in, rich, middle class, and poor.

 

You're not a socialist, but I don't even think it's a good thing when people start calling for confiscation of someone else's earnings ("the wealthy") because they feel they could make better use of the money. How do you define "wealthy"? Are you talking about income, capital gains, total assets? All are uniquely different in terms of current tax structure.

How is it 'confiscation of someone else's earnings' when I want the guy, like Romney, making millions a year to pay the same tax percentage as I do? And I'm talking anything that puts money into your pocket or bank account. Taxing capitol gains differently is simply a kickback to the donors to the politicians, and to many of the politicans themselves. That is what is primarily at issue. "Raising the taxes on the rich" is not an 'attack' or 'class warfare,' its leveling the playing field.

 

My confiscation comment was regarding Sub's proposal that taxes on the wealthy be increased to pay for another stimulus. If you re-read my above comments, you'll notice I'm addressing his two suggestions in the context of another stimulus, ending foreign wars and increasing taxes on the wealthy to pay for a stimulus. Part of his proposal is that we tax Mitt Romney, for example, at a higher rate to pay for what Sub thinks would be a better use of Mitt's earnings, another stimulus. I disagree. Sub still hasn't gotten back to us on what that stimulus would entail.

 

I suggest you do some reading on capital gains and why they are taxed at a lower rate than wage income. It's not due to campaign kickbacks. You should be interested to know that some countries have sub 10% capital gains taxes. You have to first understand and acknowledge the differences in income types to further understand the applicable tax rates. For the purposes of discussion, it's not accurate to dumb everything down to "anything that puts money in your pocket or bank account".

 

I think we should increase taxes on the poor...is that class warfare? If you think it is, then how is that any different from what you have just stated, except in reverse? I agree that the playing field should be leveled. A flatter tax structure for all.

[strigori]

Carlfense,

 

For medical advice or input, who do you talk to? A medical professional of course. For business advice, guess who are the best people to ask? Come one, I know you can guess this one...businessmen! However, you sound like you're proficient in business so forget what they say. Let's disregard what those in business say, what the hell do they know? Great attitude.

 

Bail out? For Christ's sake man, can you read? My whole premise was absolutely not to "bail out" business, if you care to re-read what I proposed, but I'm sure you won't, you come across as lazy as exhibited in your failure to stay on topic or contribute anything of substance. Simplifying the tax code helps everyone, large and small companies. More middle class jobs/wages are a product of a vibrant economy and I think simplifying the tax code could lead to a more vibrant economy.

Horrible example man. Do you really want to belive everything a commision payed salesman tells you? Thats what happens when you ask a 'businessman' for advice. Most of them will give the advice that makes them more money, not nessicarily what is best for the nation. And in many cases the 'businessmen' are just 'investors' and it is not the same thing. And what is good for investors and speculators is often not what is good for most people.

[strigori]

Manufacturing jobs have left our shores in droves and it seems we're more concerned about extending unemployment benefits than returning to a more balanced economy that actually expects a little hardwork in exchange for a paycheck.

 

I disagree.

 

People will work hard for a middle class paycheck, not for a poverty level one.

 

Either we rescue the middle class or we don't, and the only way to do so is through a comprihensive stimulus program.

 

That would be paid for by ending our foreign wars and by increasing the taxes on the wealthy.

 

If that makes me a socialist, then hell yeah I'll sign up for that label.

 

Sub, I agree that the middle class need assisted, but I'm not clear on what your proposed stimulus would entail. We already had a stimulus and well, it didn't turn out too well, or at least it wasn't as effective as advertised.

 

I would argue that if another stimulus was passed, it focus on creating private sector jobs that create wealth, not government jobs except for those involved in improving infrastructure. Ending foreign wars, fantastic. Increasing taxes the wealthy, I'm not sold. I don't like the thought of taking money from a specific group of people and letting the government allocate it as they see fit. If we're to have a stimulus, everyone pays in, rich, middle class, and poor.

 

You're not a socialist, but I don't even think it's a good thing when people start calling for confiscation of someone else's earnings ("the wealthy") because they feel they could make better use of the money. How do you define "wealthy"? Are you talking about income, capital gains, total assets? All are uniquely different in terms of current tax structure.

How is it 'confiscation of someone else's earnings' when I want the guy, like Romney, making millions a year to pay the same tax percentage as I do? And I'm talking anything that puts money into your pocket or bank account. Taxing capitol gains differently is simply a kickback to the donors to the politicians, and to many of the politicans themselves. That is what is primarily at issue. "Raising the taxes on the rich" is not an 'attack' or 'class warfare,' its leveling the playing field.

 

My confiscation comment was regarding Sub's proposal that taxes on the wealthy be increased to pay for another stimulus. If you re-read my above comments, you'll notice I'm addressing his two suggestions in the context of another stimulus, ending foreign wars and increasing taxes on the wealthy to pay for a stimulus. Part of his proposal is that we tax Mitt Romney, for example, at a higher rate to pay for what Sub thinks would be a better use of Mitt's earnings, another stimulus. I disagree. Sub still hasn't gotten back to us on what that stimulus would entail.

 

I suggest you do some reading on capital gains and why they are taxed at a lower rate than wage income. It's not due to campaign kickbacks. You should be interested to know that some countries have sub 10% capital gains taxes. You have to first understand and acknowledge the differences in income types to further understand the applicable tax rates. For the purposes of discussion, it's not accurate to dumb everything down to "anything that puts money in your pocket or bank account".

 

I think we should increase taxes on the poor...is that class warfare? If you think it is, then how is that any different from what you have just stated, except in reverse? I agree that the playing field should be leveled. A flatter tax structure for all.

I'm not proposing they pay a 50% tax or anything, I want them to pay the same percentage as I do. In order to pay an equal percentage, you have to raise taxes on people who are undertaxed. And a flat tax would have to include all forms of income, including capitol gains, otherwise all it is is a massive tax break for the ultra wealthy again. The flat tax option proposed by Newt has 0% capitol gains tax, meaning mister Romney would pay 0% taxes. Guess now much more taxes that means I get to pay, and others like me, to make up the shortfall.

 

Crack open a history book. Until the about the last decade the capitol gains tax was 28% or higher. And investing DOES NOT CREATE JOBS. Thats not how it works. Investing isnt hurting right now, Are people pulling money out of the stock market? Nope. Is the economy still crap? Yep. And maybe you should take you own advice and listen to the world's most successful investor, Warren Buffet, who says it needs to be raised. This is a consumer based economy now. Until people spend more money, the economy stays as is. So we enter a viscious cycle where the businessmen wont give raises, or hire until more people buy stuff, and people can't buy stuff as they have no money.

 

My kickback statement stands. Who influences elections the most? Big money. How often does the candidate with much less money win the election? So who owns the ears of the politicans? Big money. Who benefits the most from lower capitol gains? Big money. I do not belive in coincidence.

[HoustonSker]

Carlfense,

 

For medical advice or input, who do you talk to? A medical professional of course. For business advice, guess who are the best people to ask? Come one, I know you can guess this one...businessmen! However, you sound like you're proficient in business so forget what they say. Let's disregard what those in business say, what the hell do they know? Great attitude.

 

Bail out? For Christ's sake man, can you read? My whole premise was absolutely not to "bail out" business, if you care to re-read what I proposed, but I'm sure you won't, you come across as lazy as exhibited in your failure to stay on topic or contribute anything of substance. Simplifying the tax code helps everyone, large and small companies. More middle class jobs/wages are a product of a vibrant economy and I think simplifying the tax code could lead to a more vibrant economy.

Horrible example man. Do you really want to belive everything a commision payed salesman tells you? Thats what happens when you ask a 'businessman' for advice. Most of them will give the advice that makes them more money, not nessicarily what is best for the nation. And in many cases the 'businessmen' are just 'investors' and it is not the same thing. And what is good for investors and speculators is often not what is good for most people.

 

Stig...if you had bothered to read the above thread between Carl and myself, maybe you did, if so, read it again. You should have noticed I quote multiple prominent business leaders, certainly not salespersons or investors. The comparison is laughable in my opinion. Let's assume you have a business and want advice, who do you ask? I hope you wouldn't ask Carlfense.

 

Stig, who should we listen to for advice on creating a more friendly business environment? Please enlighten me.

 

 

Lastly, since I'm not and English teacher, you can take my advice...you need to practice your spelling.

[carlfense]

Carlfense,

 

For medical advice or input, who do you talk to? A medical professional of course. For business advice, guess who are the best people to ask? Come one, I know you can guess this one...businessmen! However, you sound like you're proficient in business so forget what they say. Let's disregard what those in business say, what the hell do they know? Great attitude.

 

Bail out? For Christ's sake man, can you read? My whole premise was absolutely not to "bail out" business, if you care to re-read what I proposed, but I'm sure you won't, you come across as lazy as exhibited in your failure to stay on topic or contribute anything of substance. Simplifying the tax code helps everyone, large and small companies. More middle class jobs/wages are a product of a vibrant economy and I think simplifying the tax code could lead to a more vibrant economy.

Sure . . . and I'd trust a fox about the best way to protect a chicken house. Business goal number one: maximize profits. It's not about what is good for the U.S., the environment, or the employees. If those interests align with the maximization of profits then we're good. If they conflict . . . well . . . it's not the profits that will take the hit. (FWIW . . . I'm not against profits or business. Heck . . . I dabble in a bit of both.)

 

I'm not against simplifying the tax code. I don't know where you are getting that. Did my corporate profits fact touch a nerve? Perhaps you could try some of that reading comprehension that you are prattling on about.

 

<insert something about laziness/illiteracy/lack of substance/shoddy analogy>

 

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.