US deficit crisis: the clock ticks

  • Thread starter Mike Rotch
  • 250 comments
  • 13,330 views
I don't understand what's going on, however in my opinion I think if we collected tax on all the businesses and rich who often skate without paying a dime we'd be in a better spot. A rich person should have to pay the same percentage of taxes as I do, sure they'd pay more but they'd also make more. I'm not going to suggest they should have to pay a higher percentage, however I wouldn't complain if that ended up to be the outcome. The middle class need a break.

Businesses should also have to pay their fair share of taxes too. I'm so sick of hearing how the rich create jobs. If they do, where are they? I believe they create jobs, but only in foreign countries. I get outsourcing but if there are fewer people in America that are employed, that means few people will be able to buy your products. Create jobs here in America and then I might start understand tax breaks for creating jobs.

Oh and lets stop invading third world nations. That would save some pretty decent coin to that we could actually invest in the rebuilding of America.

Honestly I think Warren Buffett had it right:

“I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.”

I blame all politicians for being in this debacle and the pissing contest that is partisan politics. This often leads me to remember a quote by John Adams:

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution. "
 
I don't understand what's going on, however in my opinion I think if we collected tax on all the businesses and rich who often skate without paying a dime we'd be in a better spot. A rich person should have to pay the same percentage of taxes as I do, sure they'd pay more but they'd also make more. I'm not going to suggest they should have to pay a higher percentage, however I wouldn't complain if that ended up to be the outcome. The middle class need a break.

The top 1% of income earners are responsible for 44% of all collected revenue. So yes, they're paying their share. The question, really, is who is rich? The answer, almost always, is someone else.

Businesses should also have to pay their fair share of taxes too. I'm so sick of hearing how the rich create jobs. If they do, where are they?

The business, as an entity, pays taxes just like an individual. So if you own a business you're effectively paying taxes TWICE. And yes, the 'rich' create jobs. Have you ever had or know someone who has had a poor person hire them and pay them a higher wage than what they're earning? No, of course not.

believe they create jobs, but only in foreign countries. I get outsourcing but if there are fewer people in America that are employed, that means few people will be able to buy your products. Create jobs here in America and then I might start understand tax breaks for creating jobs.

Because of onerous taxation and regulation, it's not only cheaper but less risky to do business overseas. Thousands of pages of new regulations come out of DC annually and each new page means more $$$ to continue to do business in the US and hire American workers. My old career (engineering) was off-shored b/c of the new rules & guidelines put on our customers. Those Bendix brakes at the auto store? Made In China...wasn't always that way.

Oh and lets stop invading third world nations. That would save some pretty decent coin to that we could actually invest in the rebuilding of America.

About the only industry that will not be off-shored is the defense industry. Wars make money and protect off-shore assets. Unfortunately, those things are taken into too much consideration when it comes time to send people into harm's way.

Honestly I think Warren Buffett had it right:

“I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.”

Buffet is wrong, the deficit isn't the problem. Look up Milton Friedman and you'll find a man who's right 99.9% of the time. Buffet's quote makes a nice bumper sticker or sound bite though.

I blame all politicians for being in this debacle and the pissing contest that is partisan politics. This often leads me to remember a quote by John Adams:

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution. "

👍

...

Government has too much power and authority over people's decisions & livelihoods. Look up Milton Friedman and you'll find the simple answers to America's problem.
 
“I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.”
Joey, are you suggesting Congress actually get something done? Unfathomable.
 
The top 1% of income earners are responsible for 44% of all collected revenue. So yes, they're paying their share. The question, really, is who is rich? The answer, almost always, is someone else.

If you make over $200k a year as an individual I'd say you're on your way to being wealthy. And yes they pay taxes but how many breaks do they get? More then I would. I don't get the point of tax breaks, it makes the whole income tax thing unfair.

With that said though I don't mind paying taxes.

The business, as an entity, pays taxes just like an individual. So if you own a business you're effectively paying taxes TWICE. And yes, the 'rich' create jobs. Have you ever had or know someone who has had a poor person hire them and pay them a higher wage than what they're earning? No, of course not.

They don't create jobs, they maintain jobs that have already been created. There is a difference. Creating jobs would be happening to support the population growth of the United States, but it's not, if it was people getting out of college would have jobs instead of being left on the side of the road with a huge debt they can't pay off.

And boo-hoo, paying taxes twice. You should, you get a personal income and your company makes a profit. Makes sense to me.

Because of onerous taxation and regulation, it's not only cheaper but less risky to do business overseas. Thousands of pages of new regulations come out of DC annually and each new page means more $$$ to continue to do business in the US and hire American workers. My old career (engineering) was off-shored b/c of the new rules & guidelines put on our customers. Those Bendix brakes at the auto store? Made In China...wasn't always that way.

I see it as they are out to make the largest profit at any cost. Outsourcing only continues to make the already rich, richer, and it shoves out the middle class because they can't get jobs. Poor people will almost always be supported by the government and as more middle class people lose jobs due to outsourcing, they will drift into the poverty level and thus be supported by the government. This mean the rich people are going to support them any way without getting anything in return.

Wouldn't it make more sense just for this companies, you know the ones that claim to be job creators, to just hire Americans? That way they can make money and buy more products to better their life. Sure the wealthy business owners are paying more for their worker but at least they are getting something in return rather then dumping tax dollars to support people who aren't working.

Buffet is wrong, the deficit isn't the problem. Look up Milton Friedman and you'll find a man who's right 99.9% of the time. Buffet's quote makes a nice bumper sticker or sound bite though.

Buffett's idea is one I can support though, if the government can't get the budget and deficit under control, they should all be ineligible for reelection, other even better all fired on the spot. If I was working and I screwed up the budget at and cost my company a huge sum of money, my ass would be to the curb. But no we still vote this monkeys into office.

I have very low tolerance of all politicians. I feel they are all out to screw me over, their political party only identifies in which way they are going to do the screwing over.

Joey, are you suggesting Congress actually get something done? Unfathomable.

I know, it's a hard concept isn't it? Makes you wonder why America works at all to be honest.
 
If you make over $200k a year as an individual I'd say you're on your way to being wealthy. And yes they pay taxes but how many breaks do they get? More then I would. I don't get the point of tax breaks, it makes the whole income tax thing unfair.

With that said though I don't mind paying taxes.

Tax breaks are unfair...in that everyone should be paying the same rate. I DO mind paying taxes as every dollar I pay Cook County and the great state of Illinois is pissed away while I'm just treading water. Would I be better off with lower taxes, lower licensing fees, lower sales taxes, and to stop being nickled and dimed to death at the Sec. of State...oh ya. As it sits, I'm worse off and the county is a toilet.


They don't create jobs, they maintain jobs that have already been created. There is a difference. Creating jobs would be happening to support the population growth of the United States, but it's not, if it was people getting out of college would have jobs instead of being left on the side of the road with a huge debt they can't pay off.

Sure they create jobs, it makes "them" more money while more people are employed, getting raises, and enjoying the perks of a successful company. Unsuccessful company? You're laid off. Dem's the breaks.

The issue I see is sovereign risk. A new law here, new regulation there, and whatnot can completely change the outlook of your company, what products you can and can't produce, and your human resource needs. Instability causes hoarding, especially with banks, as you don't know if you're going to be solvent the next day. I've experienced this too in that the FDIC shut the bank down. Sucks, but dem's the breaks.

And boo-hoo, paying taxes twice. You should, you get a personal income and your company makes a profit. Makes sense to me.

If you're a sole proprietor you're paying twice. If you're an investor taking on risk, you're paying twice. What this does is stifle innovation and growth while the government pisses away the $$$ they do confiscate. No one spends YOUR money better than you do.

I see it as they are out to make the largest profit at any cost. Outsourcing only continues to make the already rich, richer, and it shoves out the middle class because they can't get jobs.

Who's middle class? I'd argue whoever is speaking will say they're middle class. Who's rich? The guy down the street with the nicer car. This is class warfare and a tool of socialism; turning man against man. The fact is we're all Americans no matter what we do for a living or how big our portfolio is.

Do you think it's right for the government to punish and seize private property (money) from wealthy people just b/c they've had success? If so, why would anyone want to become wealthy? Worse yet, when the rich have been soaked enough, they're coming after you.

You used to have to have a million dollars to be called a millionaire. Now it's $200,000? If you own a business and have $200,000+ worth of receipts, chances are you're living "paycheck to paycheck" AND paying taxes twice. If that's the person who deserves to be soaked for all they're worth, this nation is doomed. You'll either be an entertainer of some sort, government employee, or on welfare b/c that's the effect "spreading the wealth" has.

Poor people will almost always be supported by the government and as more middle class people lose jobs due to outsourcing, they will drift into the poverty level and thus be supported by the government. This mean the rich people are going to support them any way without getting anything in return.

Is this a good thing? I think this is terrible and is completely avoidable if and when the government reduces size, power, and spending.

Wouldn't it make more sense just for this companies, you know the ones that claim to be job creators, to just hire Americans? That way they can make money and buy more products to better their life. Sure the wealthy business owners are paying more for their worker but at least they are getting something in return rather then dumping tax dollars to support people who aren't working.

Like people, companies have a will to live. If hiring Americans for American production means that their company will become insolvent, they'll go overseas before 100% of the workforce is laid off, all loans are in default, and investors are out of their investment.

Hiring employees is not only risky but very expensive. Payroll tax, liabilities, health insurance, etc just adds up. If businesses can get a break on either how they depreciate durable goods, a tax cut, or being asked to comply with less BS/red tape just to keep their doors open; jobs and better paying jobs will be created.

Government tries again and again to "plan" how people will go about their lives and time and time again just proves Government is stupid. Centralized planning never works.

Buffett's idea is one I can support though, if the government can't get the budget and deficit under control, they should all be ineligible for reelection, other even better all fired on the spot. If I was working and I screwed up the budget at and cost my company a huge sum of money, my ass would be to the curb. But no we still vote this monkeys into office.

Then all the government has to do is change how GDP is calculated, also known as moving the goal posts.

The problem isn't what was spent yesterday (debt), the problem is what is being spent today and into the foreseeable future. The welfare state only ends in everyone being equally miserable.

I have very low tolerance of all politicians. I feel they are all out to screw me over, their political party only identifies in which way they are going to do the screwing over.

That kind of mentality is bad b/c that just means the same freak show will still be in power. Get out & talk to people, vote, campaign for someone who you think represents you and your views. That's your right as an American and if you're fed up; do something about it. It's what the tea party is all about, just a bunch of folks who are fed up.

I know, it's a hard concept isn't it? Makes you wonder why America works at all to be honest.

Yes it does. Good point.

I see the federal government getting into a lot of financing activities now. You see them in the news as "investing in green jobs" or "stimulus spending" or "Chevrolet.com". What the hell has happened? Why is the Dept. of Energy, the EPA, Dept. of Education, and the Dept of XYZ making LOANS TO PRIVATE BUSINESSES AND INDIVIDUALS? Who gave them the authority to pick and choose who gets a loan/grant and who doesn't? I didn't vote for any of them...did you?

And oh boy is there corruption in all of this. Disgusting levels...Mayor Daley levels of corruption & machine politics. It's really sickening when you think about it and come to think of it, I don't blame you if you say they're all bad. I'd just be nice if you and all of us can do something, even something small, to correct this. Get enough people and maybe, just maybe, we can become a representative republic again. As it looks now, I don't know what the hell our country is.
 
If the value of the dollar goes down enough and commodity prices go up high enough I will leave the US....
 
Funny enough, it seems that lobbyists come into play as well. I've read an article about someone named Grover Norquist on derspiegel.de (German).

I guess both parties care much more about losing their faces than the people in their country.
 
Mr. S
Funny enough, it seems that lobbyists come into play as well. I've read an article about someone named Grover Norquist on derspiegel.de (German).

I guess both parties care much more about losing their faces than the people in their country.

Exactly, they don't care who gets screwed by their decisions.. :/
 
Nobody brought up Keynes.

Wikipedia:
Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes and therefore advocates active policy responses by the public sector, including monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle.

Will spending cut, lead to less activity (due to uncertainty about the future) and thus less tax income?

Spending cutting and tax income go hand in hand and it is a difficult balance to hold.

On debt it is clear that you need to be able to handle it, not clear how countries are still convincing (not only the US), not to talk about communes, etc...

Outsourcing does not make all poor people poor, the people in Asia, South America, Africa etc, ... that get a decent life through redistribution of work are winning in this equation. Maybe some group of the world is living on a standard that is not realistic and will have to cut down. (I admit I do not want to do so either).

I'm still wondering how the export deficit plays in this, if you import more then you export you must pay for that somehow. If you would analyse debt owners you will notice that the Chinese have major stakes already in the US, Europe and Africa, it is not a future issue, it is reality...
 
I was reading this thread last night, and coincidentally my grography teacher brought it up today :lol: But economics is something that interests me, mainly because of how little I know.
 
I don't understand what's going on, however in my opinion I think if we collected tax on all the businesses and rich who often skate without paying a dime we'd be in a better spot.
You do realize that many of these businesses pay no taxes because they get incentives as payment for government contracts or to act in a way the government wishes, correct? So, if you make the contracts cash-based and charge them taxes in the end it would still come out even.

For example, GE paid no taxes yet Obama still has their CEO on his economic recovery committee or whatever it is called. Why? Because GE got tax incentives to enact all these fun green initiatives into their products that the Obama Administration wants.

On that same note, since you complained about jobs too, GE got tax incentives to switch their lightbulb manufacturing to CFLs. The problem is that incandescent bulbs were made in the US, CFLs are made over seas. Obama paid GE to ship jobs overseas, so essentially you are paying the salary of some guy in China through your taxes, or our debt money.

That is the kind of crony BS that needs to be stopped before you go hiking taxes on all businesses and the rich, including those who don't play these kinds of games.

You also act as if the rich aren't covering their fair share. Even with all these issues the top 1% are still paying for almost 40% of the tax revenue, the top 25% paying for over 85%. How much more would you consider to be their fair share? The top 50% pay for about 97% of all tax revenue. How much more would be their fair share?

The better question is, are the lower 50% paying their fair share?

I'm so sick of hearing how the rich create jobs. If they do, where are they?
You can only create jobs where there is a need for them or you won't be in business any longer.

EDIT: Quick clarification that need means the business needs someone to work for them, not that people need the job.

This often leads me to remember a quote by John Adams:

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution. "
Said by the man to participate in the first two-party presidential election.

He also sad:

"In politics the middle way is none at all."
 
You do realize that many of these businesses pay no taxes because they get incentives as payment for government contracts or to act in a way the government wishes, correct? So, if you make the contracts cash-based and charge them taxes in the end it would still come out even.

For example, GE paid no taxes yet Obama still has their CEO on his economic recovery committee or whatever it is called. Why? Because GE got tax incentives to enact all these fun green initiatives into their products that the Obama Administration wants.

On that same note, since you complained about jobs too, GE got tax incentives to switch their lightbulb manufacturing to CFLs. The problem is that incandescent bulbs were made in the US, CFLs are made over seas. Obama paid GE to ship jobs overseas, so essentially you are paying the salary of some guy in China through your taxes, or our debt money.

That is the kind of crony BS that needs to be stopped before you go hiking taxes on all businesses and the rich, including those who don't play these kinds of games.

Oh believe me, I agree with what you're saying here 100%. Cronyism is another huge downfall of our government which has probably been going on since the government started. And this also comes back to the tax breaks companies get, which I disapprove of.

You also act as if the rich aren't covering their fair share. Even with all these issues the top 1% are still paying for almost 40% of the tax revenue, the top 25% paying for over 85%. How much more would you consider to be their fair share? The top 50% pay for about 97% of all tax revenue. How much more would be their fair share?

The better question is, are the lower 50% paying their fair share?

I agree the tax system is screwed up, this is why I favour the flat percentage of your income without all this stupid non-sense of breaks. If everyone had to pay the same percentage, no one could point the finger at anyone else saying they aren't paying enough.

I guess I just get irritated that rich get breaks and the middle class doesn't. If you're already rich you don't need the breaks as you can afford the taxes, middle class people typically can afford it but it means giving up disposable income in which they could buy all the good the companies produce.

You can only create jobs where there is a need for them or you won't be in business any longer.

EDIT: Quick clarification that need means the business needs someone to work for them, not that people need the job.

Without people working there will be no one to buy the products, which in turns means the company has decreased profits, which means more people are out of work and so on downward circle. You can't have one without they other, companies depend on the employees and employees depend on the companies.

This is why I can't understand outsourcing at all. Sure the company makes more money in the short term but in the long run they are hurt because people aren't buying their products since they don't jobs to make money.
 
It's what the tea party is all about, just a bunch of folks who are fed up mental.

I generally agree with your other points though.

I also agree that if American Businesses are going to employ American people, then minimum wage and other costs associated employing workers must drop considerably. That of course, is not going to happen, so outsourcing is the best option.

If the value of the dollar goes down enough and commodity prices go up high enough I will leave the US....

If you are expecting this to happen, then why wait for the dollar to go down in value? You are just loosing money the longer you wait, to the point you may not be able to move at all.
 
The thing with outsourcing is, imagine if a law was passed forcing US companies to hire Americans. Canadian companies would still be outsourcing, and offering their products for far, far cheaper.

The problem is that it's too expensive to hire workers in North America, minimum wage, benefits, holiday pay, insurance, this, that and the other thing, it's not possible to compete on the global market that way.
 
This article just goes to show you that the real problem with Washington is not just Democratic or GDP, it's $$$. Washington is a revolving door between public service, the private sector, and the personal interests of legislators; and it is impossible to get someone into Congress without needing private sector support which then translates into lobbying pressure.

Eric Cantor's glaring conflict of interest
He's the GOP's chief debt ceiling negotiator. He's also invested in a fund that will skyrocket if there's a default
Monday, Jun 27, 2011 20:25 ET

When Eric Cantor shut down debt ceiling negotiations last week, it did more than just rekindle fears that the U.S. government might soon default on its debt obligations -- it also brought him closer to reaping a small financial windfall from his investment in a mutual fund whose performance is directly affected by debt ceiling brinkmanship.

Last year the Wall Street Journal reported that Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House, had between $1,000 and $15,000 invested in ProShares Trust Ultrashort 20+ Year Treasury EFT. The fund aggressively "shorts" long-term U.S. Treasury bonds, meaning that it performs well when U.S. debt is undesirable. (A short is when the trader hopes to profit from the decline in the value of an asset.)

According to his latest financial disclosure statement, which covers the year 2010 and has been publicly available since this spring, Cantor still has up to $15,000 in the same fund. Contacted by Salon this week, Cantor's office gave no indication that the Virginia Republican, who has played a leading role in the debt ceiling negotiations, has divested himself of these holdings since his last filing. Unless an agreement can be reached, the U.S. could begin defaulting on its debt payments on Aug. 2. If that happens and Cantor is still invested in the fund, the value of his holdings would skyrocket.

"If the debt ceiling isn’t raised, investors would start fleeing U.S. Treasuries," said Matt Koppenheffer, who writes for the investment website the Motley Fool. "Yields would rise, prices would fall, and the Proshares ETF should do very well. It would spike."

The fund hasn't significantly spiked yet because many investors believe Congress will eventually raise the debt ceiling. However, since Cantor abruptly called off debt ceiling negotiations last Thursday, the fund is up 3.3 percent. Even if an agreement is ultimately reached before Aug. 2, the fund could continue to benefit between now and then from the uncertainty. (One tactic some speculators are using is to "trade the debt ceiling debate" -- that is, to place short-term bets on prices as they fluctuate with the news out of Washington.)

Salon's Andrew Leonard calls the debt ceiling negotiations "Washington’s titanic game of chicken," and the longer the game goes on, the more skittish the bond markets will become.

"Cantor's involvement in the fund and negotiations is not ideal," Koppenheffer said. "I don’t think someone negotiating the debt ceiling should be invested in this kind of an ultra-short. We can only guess how much he understands what’s in his portfolio, but you’d think a politician would know better. It looks pretty bad."

Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring noted that U.S. Treasury bonds make up a large portion of the congressman’s pension, and said investment in ProShares ETF serves to balance that investment and to diversify his portfolio. Disclosure forms indicate that Cantor has considerable personal assets, including real estate in Virginia worth up to $1 million, and a number of six- and seven-figure loans to private entities and limited liability companies. So his investment in ProShares ETF represents only a small portion of his overall portfolio -- but that share could grow a little larger just over a month from now.

Jonathan Easley is an editorial fellow at Salon. Follow him on Twitter @joneasley.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/06/27/eric_cantor_conflict_of_interest
 
I guess I just get irritated that rich get breaks and the middle class doesn't. If you're already rich you don't need the breaks as you can afford the taxes, middle class people typically can afford it but it means giving up disposable income in which they could buy all the good the companies produce.
You're right in favoring a flat percentage across the board - that is the only fair way to collect taxes.

But you're wrong about where to cut taxes in times of economic distress. This is a fact: Wealthy owners are the ones who employ everyone else. Poorer people don't own business or employ anybody because they can't afford to. If your filthy rich boss couldn't afford to employ anybody, he wouldn't do it either.

Wealth is the resource by which people with it create things. But they only create things if they can sell things. Why did what's-his-face create Walmart? Not because he saw that people needed inexpensive goods, or needed discounts, or couldn't afford the things they need - he created walmart because he knew he could make a killing by selling at a slightly lower price, thereby increasing sales volume. In the interested of making even more money, he improved the efficiency of his company and expanded across the country. He kept making money, he kept building new stores, he kept lowering prices.

It just so happens that more stores and lower prices benefited everybody. The company employs hundreds of thousands of people and provides goods and services targeted directly at the largest consumer market - middle- and low-income people.

Moral of the story: The more money Sam Walton makes, the more stores he builds in tiny rural country towns, and the more people he employs by the bus load. That is why he should get the tax break, and not you. The more money he makes, the more likely you are to get hired.

Without people working there will be no one to buy the products
This is the logic our government has been following for decades. There is a problem: It doesn't work like that. First, you need demand. Second, you need a sly dog with a thick wallet. Next, you some business loans (startup businesses often operate on deficit spending for a period of time before they become profitable. The difference between them and the government is that they require profit or they fail. They must profit.) Lastly, you need that profit - with profit comes expansion and new hires.

companies depend on the employees and employees depend on the companies.
You're a bit wrong here. You do realize that the products companies sell are sold at a higher price than what they cost to buy/produce, right? That's how they make money. It's impossible for a company to rely solely on their employees to make money - if they did that, the employees salaries would have to be the same as the whole operating costs for the company. Yeah, that just hit you like a ton of bricks. If salaries are 100% of operating costs, then obviously conducting business at all is absolutely impossible.

There must be a larger market to allow a company to operate. Business people know things like this. If the market isn't large enough (good luck finding a Mall of America in some tiny Appalachian mountain village), then business people will simply go elsewhere. This is why place like New York have everything, and Dayton only has some things. The market here is not large enough to keep everything in business.

This is why I can't understand outsourcing at all. Sure the company makes more money in the short term but in the long run they are hurt because people aren't buying their products since they don't jobs to make money.
Funny thing about producing things in other countries - there are people in those countries. They buy things, too. Apparently you can't wrap your head around business because you think it only occurs in America. There is a whole world of opportunities out there - a smart company will produce things where it is cheapest and sell them where it is most profitable. There are gaps here and there - another funny thing about business people is that they like to fill empty gaps because that's where they can make money.
 
But you're wrong about where to cut taxes in times of economic distress. This is a fact: Wealthy owners are the ones who employ everyone else. Poorer people don't own business or employ anybody because they can't afford to. If your filthy rich boss couldn't afford to employ anybody, he wouldn't do it either.

Right wealthy people employ poorer people. I'm not disputing that.

Wealth is the resource by which people with it create things. But they only create things if they can sell things. Why did what's-his-face create Walmart? Not because he saw that people needed inexpensive goods, or needed discounts, or couldn't afford the things they need - he created walmart because he knew he could make a killing by selling at a slightly lower price, thereby increasing sales volume. In the interested of making even more money, he improved the efficiency of his company and expanded across the country. He kept making money, he kept building new stores, he kept lowering prices.

This is where I disagree, I don't see wealthy people creating much of anything any more. Since the economic downturn they have been even more reluctant to do anything with their money other then save it or buy gold. When the economy is good, I agree, they are the ones that create the jobs but when the economy is bad, they don't.

They have the money to take the risk but as far I see it they don't bother taking the initial step.

This is the logic our government has been following for decades. There is a problem: It doesn't work like that. First, you need demand. Second, you need a sly dog with a thick wallet. Next, you some business loans (startup businesses often operate on deficit spending for a period of time before they become profitable. The difference between them and the government is that they require profit or they fail. They must profit.) Lastly, you need that profit - with profit comes expansion and new hires.

If fewer people are working there will be less of a demand, which leads to lower production, which leads to more people losing their job, which leads to less money in the economy, which leads to less of a demand. I agree that's how the system works when the economy is doing well, but now that it isn't, you need something to break the downward spiral.

You're a bit wrong here. You do realize that the products companies sell are sold at a higher price than what they cost to buy/produce, right? That's how they make money. It's impossible for a company to rely solely on their employees to make money - if they did that, the employees salaries would have to be the same as the whole operating costs for the company. Yeah, that just hit you like a ton of bricks. If salaries are 100% of operating costs, then obviously conducting business at all is absolutely impossible.

Without employees though you have no one to produce the goods in the first place, so you have nothing to sell or no service to offer. They both depend on each other for survival, it's why when employees here in Michigan strike at Detroit Axel, it manages to bring a huge company like GM to it's knees. Employees need the company to make a living so they can buy things, but companies need the employees to be able to make those items so they can sell them to turn a profit.

I'm not saying that everything should be equal, but I am saying that you can't have one without the other, or at least one that functions without the other.

Funny thing about producing things in other countries - there are people in those countries. They buy things, too. Apparently you can't wrap your head around business because you think it only occurs in America. There is a whole world of opportunities out there - a smart company will produce things where it is cheapest and sell them where it is most profitable. There are gaps here and there - another funny thing about business people is that they like to fill empty gaps because that's where they can make money.

That doesn't really help America now does it? I know people in other countries buy things but by helping those countries grow the companies in America contribute to the downfall of our own "local" economy. If we want to get back on track I think we need to foster growth in America, not elsewhere.
 
I agree the tax system is screwed up, this is why I favour the flat percentage of your income without all this stupid non-sense of breaks. If everyone had to pay the same percentage, no one could point the finger at anyone else saying they aren't paying enough.

I guess I just get irritated that rich get breaks and the middle class doesn't. If you're already rich you don't need the breaks as you can afford the taxes, middle class people typically can afford it but it means giving up disposable income in which they could buy all the good the companies produce.

Well, you've blocked me so you won't see it, but I should be able to answer your questions here. Rich people do not get tax breaks that are somehow unavailable to the middle class. By contrast, most tax breaks phase out the richer you get. A few years back many people got stimulus checks and assumed that everyone else did.... not the rich. Above a certain income threshold you didn't get a stimulus check (I didn't... never have). Above a certain income threshold you don't get to take student loan deductions, you don't get to take child tax credits, you definitely don't get the earned income tax credit, you don't get to contribute to an IRA, and just in case you found some sort of way to get more of a tax break than people thought you should have, there's the alternative minimum tax, which enables you to take one and only one tax break... your home loan.

I should know, I hit the alternative minimum tax every year. Even my charitable donations aren't deductible.

When the democrats rail against people who aren't paying their fair share, they're entirely talking about capital gains, which are taxed at a lower percentage than income. If you make most of your money through capital gains, you're not paying a great deal in taxes. On the otherhand, do we really want to tax capital gains as income? It would be a huge disincentive to invest... and such a thing would be very counterproductive.
 
Well, you've blocked me so you won't see it, but I should be able to answer your questions here. Rich people do not get tax breaks that are somehow unavailable to the middle class. By contrast, most tax breaks phase out the richer you get. A few years back many people got stimulus checks and assumed that everyone else did.... not the rich. Above a certain income threshold you didn't get a stimulus check (I didn't... never have). Above a certain income threshold you don't get to take student loan deductions, you don't get to take child tax credits, you definitely don't get the earned income tax credit, you don't get to contribute to an IRA, and just in case you found some sort of way to get more of a tax break than people thought you should have, there's the alternative minimum tax, which enables you to take one and only one tax break... your home loan.

I should know, I hit the alternative minimum tax every year. Even my charitable donations aren't deductible.

When the democrats rail against people who aren't paying their fair share, they're entirely talking about capital gains, which are taxed at a lower percentage than income. If you make most of your money through capital gains, you're not paying a great deal in taxes. On the otherhand, do we really want to tax capital gains as income? It would be a huge disincentive to invest... and such a thing would be very counterproductive.

If I quote it, it becomes readable.

Except I think I am on his ignore list too. :indiff:

----

I don't understand why people want to keep production in the country when it reduces a companies ability to be competitive. This might make sense if a country blocked imports and didn't export but it otherwise makes a company uncompetitive in its home and foreign markets.

The notion that you should employ people within your own country to give them the money to buy your products doesn't make sense. You can make a product in your country even if your fellow countrymen cannot afford that product, you can sell it in other countries instead. China has been doing this very successfully for the last few decades. Trying to make everything in your own country for your own country works well for local business but on a large scale, is very uncompetitive...and uncompetitive companies is much worse for a country than outsourcing labour.
 
For a government that's supposed to be for the people, of the people and by the people, the people sure don't have much control over their own fate or the fate of the country !
 
testorz
For a government that's supposed to be for the people, of the people and by the people, the people sure don't have much control over their own fate or the fate of the country !

Much. Try any........
 
Demand creates jobs, not rich people ;)

If there is enough demand for a product, then companies will run the numbers on a cost-benefit analysis and go into debt if they will come out ahead in the long term.

Come on guys, ECON 201 here.
 
The problem is two groups there shouldnt be a democrate or republican side it should just be the congress and the people who work for them
 
Supply creates demand broe.
I have a supply of poop in my toilet. Where is the demand? There is none. There will be none.

Even a tiny hint of demand can lead to somebody supplying it. Maybe one person wants a new Lancia Stratos, so Lancia supplies them one. Then the supply might make the mouths drool off everyone and their mother.

But if I set a bag of moldy Nutter Butters on the shelf next to the good ones, you can bet that I'm not going to fire up a new market segment of moldy-peanut-butter-loving customers.

Demand creates jobs, not rich people ;)

If there is enough demand for a product, then companies will run the numbers on a cost-benefit analysis and go into debt if they will come out ahead in the long term.

Come on guys, ECON 201 here.
Demand doesn't create anything. Demand simply entices the creators to create.

But hey, I'm being picky. :P

Basic economic principles seem fairly common sense to me. I don't understand how anybody else can't understand them.
 
Well, you've blocked me so you won't see it, but I should be able to answer your questions here. Rich people do not get tax breaks that are somehow unavailable to the middle class. By contrast, most tax breaks phase out the richer you get. A few years back many people got stimulus checks and assumed that everyone else did.... not the rich. Above a certain income threshold you didn't get a stimulus check (I didn't... never have). Above a certain income threshold you don't get to take student loan deductions, you don't get to take child tax credits, you definitely don't get the earned income tax credit, you don't get to contribute to an IRA, and just in case you found some sort of way to get more of a tax break than people thought you should have, there's the alternative minimum tax, which enables you to take one and only one tax break... your home loan.

I should know, I hit the alternative minimum tax every year. Even my charitable donations aren't deductible.

When the democrats rail against people who aren't paying their fair share, they're entirely talking about capital gains, which are taxed at a lower percentage than income. If you make most of your money through capital gains, you're not paying a great deal in taxes. On the otherhand, do we really want to tax capital gains as income? It would be a huge disincentive to invest... and such a thing would be very counterproductive.

If I quote it, it becomes readable.

Except I think I am on his ignore list too. :indiff:

----

I don't understand why people want to keep production in the country when it reduces a companies ability to be competitive. This might make sense if a country blocked imports and didn't export but it otherwise makes a company uncompetitive in its home and foreign markets.

The notion that you should employ people within your own country to give them the money to buy your products doesn't make sense. You can make a product in your country even if your fellow countrymen cannot afford that product, you can sell it in other countries instead. China has been doing this very successfully for the last few decades. Trying to make everything in your own country for your own country works well for local business but on a large scale, is very uncompetitive...and uncompetitive companies is much worse for a country than outsourcing labour.
Then I will quote it too.

Danoff, I hope you like to pay your taxes. I regret to inform you that, six months into this year, I have paid a total of $14.05 in federal income tax. And that was from just two pay checks! None of the others have been taxed. As for all my other taxes, don't worry, I'll get back probably 10 times them all combined come next tax season.

Such a boon to the economy I am, with all my tax breaks. Hail me and all I have accomplished, for I and millions like me will be the saviors of this economy as we sit on our couches and watch Fox News...drink a beer...pay our bills on time. One day I hope to be in your position, Danoff, and unwillingly take 5 or 20 less fortunate strangers under my wing and help them pay for those couches, that beer, and the DirecTV.
 
Last edited:
I guess I just get irritated that rich get breaks and the middle class doesn't.
I get lots of tax breaks, and I am not rich. I'm barely middle class. Let me see, a tax credit for being married, a tax credit for having a child, no taxes paid on income that goes from my paycheck toward health insurance, no taxes paid on income that goes from my paycheck to my 401k. And those are just off the top of my head. Oh, and there is the fact that I probably pay 10% less in income than someone like Danoff in income taxes.

Without people working there will be no one to buy the products, which in turns means the company has decreased profits, which means more people are out of work and so on downward circle. You can't have one without they other, companies depend on the employees and employees depend on the companies.
It isn't quite that simple. You cannot just hire people to make a product that isn't being purchased. It is why you will see people looking at consumer buying habits to then try to predict unemployment. First, you have to have consumer demand, because 85%-90% of the people do have jobs. When those people feel it is safe to spend frivolously again then there will be a business need to hire more people.

Your rationale would say that if we just paid people to dig holes and fill them back in every day we could get this economy going again. It was the same math Obama used for his stimulus plan. You have a definite example of how it doesn't work. You cannot pay people to do a job that doesn't need to be done and rebuild an economy. There is no net gain in the economy that way.
The product of the work has zero value, so all you did was waste money. The result of that is, if done by a business, you either go out of business or fire these people before it gets to that point. If you are a government you have just wasted a trillion dollars.

You also assume that humans will act more like animals. Give them money and they will spend it, but the truth is that people will save it until they feel safe to spend it. So, even if you gave them jobs and money you are not guaranteeing growth in spending, thus the job growth will have to be slow to be effective. That was another thing that Obama found out with stimulus checks. More of it was put into savings than was spent.


This is why I can't understand outsourcing at all. Sure the company makes more money in the short term but in the long run they are hurt because people aren't buying their products since they don't jobs to make money.
First, I agree that outsourcing is a bad idea, from firsthand experience. Quality and efficiency is decreased.

That said, the math you are doing on how it affects the business assumes that the company only has sales in the US. Chances actually are that when you are outsourcing you have or intend to have an international presence. It doesn't matter whether you pay someone in the US or India, they are both spending some of that money to buy stuff from you. It's a globalized world now.

I don't see wealthy people creating much of anything any more. Since the economic downturn they have been even more reluctant to do anything with their money other then save it or buy gold.
What kind of phone do you have? Seen any cars on the market using a powerhouse that is new to the mass produced market? Looking to buy any new portable gaming consoles this year? Need a tablet? Have you seen a 3D TV yet? Did you know you can get a prescription pain reliever in a nasal spray or that a new form of oxycodone is out that can't be abused just by crushing or dissolving it? And did you know a private company is asking NASA for permission to test a capsule's ability to rendezvous and dock with the ISS?

If we want to get back on track I think we need to foster growth in America, not elsewhere.
It is much more complex than that though. There are things we want to do in America to save those jobs but we are not the most efficient place to do it or something about our society makes us not the best people to do it. Some things are better to have done in Asia, while some things are better when done in the US. Trying to compete with that trend is a great thing, but it is not unpatriotic to admit we can't do it.

And I am not saying that focusing on local is bad. I'm going to the farmer's market in the morning because local produce is good. But sometimes local isn't the best place to do something. I go out of town to see movies, I own a German car, I'm using a Japanese laptop, and most of my furniture is as cheap as it was because it was made in China or Hong Kong.
 
Remember, bros, retraining unemployed manufacturing workers for an information based economy is probably classified as "socialism". It's a trap!
 
Back