PDA

View Full Version : Obama's "Job Creation" plans


swstout
02-04-2010, 02:00 PM
Tax credits for new hires. Sounds good until you realize that by "Executive Order", only Union Shops are eligible for "Stimulus Funds". That's right, no Government job creation help for Non-Union Small Business.

Just another photo op to cover more fraud.

Demand to hire new employees is at the lowest level in decades. Before anyone is going to hire new employees, they will have to have a demand for their products or services. In other words, if there is no work out there, no one is going to hire someone to do the work.

Washington really needs someone with a "GRASP OF THE OBVIOUS"!!

Steve

SuperiorPower
02-04-2010, 02:40 PM
Tax credits for new hires. Sounds good until you realize that by "Executive Order", only Union Shops are eligible for "Stimulus Funds". That's right, no Government job creation help for Non-Union Small Business.

Just another photo op to cover more fraud.

Demand to hire new employees is at the lowest level in decades. Before anyone is going to hire new employees, they will have to have a demand for their products or services. In other words, if there is no work out there, no one is going to hire someone to do the work.

Washington really needs someone with a "GRASP OF THE OBVIOUS"!!

Steve


VERY TRUE!!! I am so sick about all this right now. I don't even care whether we have Re-troublicans or Dumbacraps in office anymore. They are all basically the same. The truth is hitting the streets about Scott Brown (http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=1190), who is not nearly as conservative in many areas of policy that he had been acclaimed to be.

Lets elect some Constitution Party (http://www.constitutionparty.com/) folks in. They are the REAL Conservatives.

How Lucky It Is for Our Politicians That Americans Do Not Think (http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=1186)

Steve
02-05-2010, 12:44 AM
Before anyone is going to hire new employees, they will have to have a demand for their products or services.
In a situation like this, how does one restart consumer desires for products and services?

SuperiorPower
02-06-2010, 05:02 AM
In a situation like this, how does one restart consumer desires for products and services?

I think it starts out with lowering costs, not proposing to spend more money and proposing legislation that may, if it were to pass, cost every man, woman, and child, their every penny for health insurance and health care.

Let's have the Government reduce their daily, monthly, and yearly liabilities (spend less). This will cause them to require less taxes. When they require less taxes to make ends meet, then we can stop taxing everyone to death. This in return allows the public to keep more in their pocket.

When I, John Q. Public, have more money in my pocket, then I can pay my bills and hopefully have some money left. If I am the typical John Q. Public I will go blow at least a certain amount of that dough. I will eat out more often, I will buy a few more things that I would not have been able to otherwise. Eventually I will be buying new TVs, other electronics, cars, lawn mowers, doing more landscaping in my yard. All of these things create jobs. All of these things will also in affect bring the housing market back up.

Is there more to it than this? Yes, I believe there is but this is a great place to start. The government has been telling everyone else, including the banks that were bailed out, GM and Chrysler, and the general public to watch their expenditures, down size, blah, blah, blah. But yet, they follow none of their own advice. You know what that typically means? It typically means they don't believe their own advice, no matter how good it is. Or as it probably means in this case, they erroneously believe they are above their own advice. They think they are too goo to have to follow their own advice.

I have been saying this a lot, and I will say it again. We need to seriously look at the Constitution Party (http://www.constitutionparty.com/). They believe in truly being fiscally conservative. Including reducing the size and cost of government (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Cost%20of%20Big%20Government).

swstout
02-06-2010, 10:36 AM
In a situation like this, how does one restart consumer desires for products and services?

Before consumer desires for products and services are restarted, consumer confidence has to be restored. Confidence that there will be jobs to produce the income to purchase products and services. Confidence that there will be full-time private sector jobs available. Confidence that if they do end up with a secure job, they will end up with an after tax paycheck that will cover more than just living expenses.

Any job bill from this time on has to address private sector jobs. I must be gone over page by page. If it doesn't create full time, permanent, private sector jobs, that part should be eliminated from the jobs bill. We don't need bigger government and/or more Union jobs!

Charging business more to pay for a jobs bill or a health care bill or any other government spending plan will not work. It won't reduce the taxes of all but the rich as promised. Business and Corporations don't pay taxes! They are tax collectors. In other words, they pass the taxes on to the consumers raising prices, causing inflation, and further facilitating the problem.

Big Government isn't solving the problem, it's causing it!

Steve

Steve
02-07-2010, 05:16 AM
That is very interesting. It becomes quite a situation when you need to lower taxes to stimulate the economy but you can't because of the national debt and all the projects that are out there floating around.

If they lower taxes without any changes, it seems we will simply go deeper into debt. Unless some big changes are made, I don't see how taxes will ever be lowered to do this.

swstout
02-07-2010, 06:46 AM
That is very interesting. It becomes quite a situation when you need to lower taxes to stimulate the economy but you can't because of the national debt and all the projects that are out there floating around.

If they lower taxes without any changes, it seems we will simply go deeper into debt. Unless some big changes are made, I don't see how taxes will ever be lowered to do this.

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates
by Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D. (http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/DanielMitchell.cfm)
WebMemo #327
<TABLE id=idLayout2 class=CS_Layout_Table cellSpacing=0 summary="" cellPadding=5 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=CS_Layout_TR><TD id=idCell2x1x1 class=CS_Layout_TD>There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy’s growth rate improves and living standards increase. Good tax policy has a number of interesting side effects. For instance, history tells us that tax revenues grow and “rich” taxpayers pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed. This means lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden – a consequence that should lead class-warfare politicians to support lower tax rates.
Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are associated with sub par economic performance and stagnant tax revenues. In other words, when politicians attempt to “soak the rich,” the rest of us take a bath. Examining the three major United States episodes of tax rate reductions can prove useful lessons.

1) Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.
The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.
According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:
The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).
According to President John F. Kennedy:
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to “bracket creep,” the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).
According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:
At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.

2) The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced.

The tax cuts of the 1920s
The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.

The Kennedy tax cuts
Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

The Reagan tax cuts
The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

Harmful Spending & Complexity
Lower tax rates are important, but they are not the only critical issue. Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important. And even when looking only at tax policy, tax rates are just one piece of the puzzle. If certain types of income are subject to multiple layers of tax, as occurs in the current system, that problem cannot be solved by low rates. Similarly, a tax system with needless levels of complexity will impose heavy costs on the productive sector of the economy.




</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Steve
02-08-2010, 04:38 AM
With a flat tax it is hard to hide things. I think something like that would work much better.

SuperiorPower
02-08-2010, 01:09 PM
i have always been a supporter of a flat tax. Tennessee does not have a State income tax. They simply have a flat type tax (as I understand it). From my understanding they are better off financially than most states with income taxes.

They way I see it, if you buy a $200,000 car, you should pay accordingly. If you pay $4,000 for a car, you pay accordingly. I think that is fair. I guess there is always the argument that with a flat tax like that, if I earn $500,000 per year (I wish!) but spend only $25,000, the state may feel like it is getting cheated. But eventually I will spend the money I suppose. What good is the money going to do me if I don't spend it? On top of that, most people will spend a considerable % of the money they earn. with all that said, I am a supporter of flat tax....

swstout
02-08-2010, 03:21 PM
i have always been a supporter of a flat tax. Tennessee does not have a State income tax. They simply have a flat type tax (as I understand it). From my understanding they are better off financially than most states with income taxes.

They way I see it, if you buy a $200,000 car, you should pay accordingly. If you pay $4,000 for a car, you pay accordingly. I think that is fair. I guess there is always the argument that with a flat tax like that, if I earn $500,000 per year (I wish!) but spend only $25,000, the state may feel like it is getting cheated. But eventually I will spend the money I suppose. What good is the money going to do me if I don't spend it? On top of that, most people will spend a considerable % of the money they earn. with all that said, I am a supporter of flat tax....

As you pointed out, a flat tax is a spending tax. It's not how much you earn, it's how much you spend.

There are many other points to the value of a flat tax:

People who work "under the table" will be taxed on what they spend
Drug dealers and other criminals don't pay income tax but they will pay a flat tax.
The government will know each month how much they can waste.
A 20% flat tax would deposit more money into the government treasury's than an income tax.
No more IRS.
Your paycheck will be yours.
No Lobbyist.

Why it is fought so hard:


No distribution of wealth.
It would make government smaller.
Special interests - tax attorneys, tax the people and copanys who prepare tax returns and the socalled non-profit businesses.
The government will lose population information (They won't have access to our bank accounts and all the info on your tax form.
Steve

SuperiorPower
02-09-2010, 03:11 AM
As you pointed out, a flat tax is a spending tax. It's not how much you earn, it's how much you spend.

There are many other points to the value of a flat tax:

People who work "under the table" will be taxed on what they spend
Drug dealers and other criminals don't pay income tax but they will pay a flat tax.
The government will know each month how much they can waste.
A 20% flat tax would deposit more money into the government treasury's than an income tax.
No more IRS.
Your paycheck will be yours.
No Lobbyist.

Why it is fought so hard:


No distribution of wealth.
It would make government smaller.
Special interests - tax attorneys, tax the people and copanys who prepare tax returns and the socalled non-profit businesses.
The government will lose population information (They won't have access to our bank accounts and all the info on your tax form.
Steve


You are killing me! Heck, they don't care how much they spend now! They spend twice as much as they have!

Steve
02-09-2010, 05:43 AM
It would be an interesting experiment to see if one state possibly could enact it and then we could see how that state does with a flat tax. Although, would it drive citizens to potentially buy things from outside the state? Would that then negatively effect the performance of the flat tax?

swstout
02-09-2010, 07:58 AM
It would be an interesting experiment to see if one state possibly could enact it and then we could see how that state does with a flat tax. Although, would it drive citizens to potentially buy things from outside the state? Would that then negatively effect the performance of the flat tax?

Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Washington, Wyoming, New Hampshire, and Tennessee have no state income tax. Just state sales taxes which is a form of flat tax. All are doing better than he national average as far as income to their treasury's go.

Citizens buying from outside the state would be offset by people from outside the state coming into the state to make purchases or tourism trade. Again a sales tax or flat tax is paid by everyone based on what they spend not what they report to have earned.

Steve

turfmaster
02-09-2010, 11:16 AM
Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Washington, Wyoming, New Hampshire, and Tennessee have no state income tax. Just state sales taxes which is a form of flat tax. All are doing better than he national average as far as income to their treasury's go.

Citizens buying from outside the state would be offset by people from outside the state coming into the state to make purchases or tourism trade. Again a sales tax or flat tax is paid by everyone based on what they spend not what they report to have earned.

Steve


I think a flat tax on what you earn would still be more fair than the current loophole system. You earn $500,000 you pay 15% you earn $50,000 you pay 15%.