Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Cut Corporate Taxes to Create Jobs and Grow the Economy

Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 14, 2011, 12:11 a.m. EST by PlasmaStorm (242)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

As many of you know, there was a Republican debate last night 10 / 12 / 2011. The candidates were asked lots of questions about the economy. Some had great answers, and some did not. Business is necessary for prosperity. Corporations must turn profits in order to have prosperity.

I would argue that the answer is obvious, that it is sitting in front of our faces this entire time, but that 1990s thinking has people frozen. We must corporate tax rates. I'm going to talk about why but before I do that, let me talk about why we haven't. Democrats' entire brand name is based on this ludicrous idea that Bill Clinton was personally responsible for the prosperity of the 1990s.

Why is America losing jobs? Because companies are offshoring. Any substantive strategy to minimize this from happening will have to involve cutting corporate tax rates to keep investment in the United States.

Since this is a liberal website, I presume some of you will immediately come up with the idea to simply outlaw offshoring, but that doesn't work either because 1) this will anger the business community and 2) whatever business should have been offshored, we will simply lose out straight to Germany, Japan, and China (this may also jack up inflation). If U.S. companies can't offer a service, someone else will.

The next time you see either Obama + Romney or Obama + Cain etc on television together and they're asked questions, watch what they say. Romney will most likely make statements about encouraging business. Obama will most likely blame business for the state of the economy.

36 Comments

36 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by NoMatter (45) 13 years ago

No jobs will be offered until consumers have enough wealth to grow demand.

[-] 1 points by stray (219) from Philadelphia, PA 13 years ago

Simple, to the point, and dead on bullseye.

[-] 0 points by oceanweed (521) 13 years ago

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: One of the main pillars of Conservative propaganda is that both parties are the same. Nothing they say is further from the truth. It is an insidious lie intended to demoralize progressives, and discourage them from voting. Do not fall for this canard, because if both parties are the same, there is no hope for change, and therefore no reason to vote. The truth is that there is a difference between the parties. A stark difference! One party works for the rich, the other party works for all Americans. One party takes money from the needy to feed the greedy, and the other party takes money from the greedy to feed the needy. One party has plans and policies to create jobs, and the other party has a long list of lame excuses for not doing anything. Liberals want to change things. Conservatives want things to stay the same. There is a difference. One party wants to tax the rich, and the other party wants to tax the poor. One party wants to destroy Unions, and the other party wants to support them. One party supports the Occupation of Wall Street, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to rebuild America, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to provide health care for all, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to regulate Wall Street, and the other party doesn’t. One Party wants to end the wars; the other party wants them to go on forever. There is a difference. One party is Myopic, and the other party is Far Sighted. One party wants to help the Middle Class, and the other party is at war with the Middle Class. One party wants to fire Teachers, and the other party wants to hire them. One party wants to create more jobs in America, and the other party wants to create more jobs in Asia. There is a difference. One party wants to protect pensions, and the other party wants to loot them. One party has a heart, and the other party has Ann Coulter. One party protects the right bear Arms, and the other party protects the right of freedom of assembly. One party believes that the only role for the Government is to provide for the common defense, and the other party believes that the Government should also promote the general Welfare. There is a difference, and anybody that tells you there is no difference between the parties is simply not conversant with reality. In addition, anyone that blames the Democrats for the current state of affairs has no understanding of who controls the Government. One Party has the Presidency, and the other party has the Majority in the House, controls the Senate, has a majority on the Supreme Court, and is responsible for current economic policy. So, if you’re angry, and you want to start a real fight, I submit that we should start a real fight with the Conservatives! America has a Two Party System. One party is clearly on your side, the other party thinks you’re and Anti-American mob. At some point in time you’re going to have to pick one. Choose wisely, your future is at stake

[-] 1 points by Shamus27 (84) 13 years ago

R U Nuts?

[-] 1 points by thomson (2) 13 years ago

when corporate taxes are lowered then the burden on everyone else increases. this is a democracy where the people decide.

[-] 1 points by thomson (2) 13 years ago

when corporate taxes are lowered then the burden on everyone else increases. this is a democracy where the people decide.

[-] 1 points by unended (294) 13 years ago

All we have to do to keep corporate investment in the US is pass a law. Corporations are subservient to the people. We do not have to “lure” them to do anything. We can tell them directly what they must do. This is the people's power.

[-] 1 points by randallburns (211) from Washougal, WA 13 years ago

Look a what Ralph Nader has proposed: a) remove all taxes on incomes less that $100K/year b) start taxing concentrations of assets-basically estates more than $5 Million

www.theamericanconservative.com/2004_06_21/cover.html

That would put more folks back to work than ANYTHING republicans have on the table-or for that matter Obama.

[-] 1 points by randallburns (211) from Washougal, WA 13 years ago

It might not be enough. One approach to balance trade is what Buffet has proposed: basically an adjustable tarriff. Require any importer of goods to purchase a certificate from someone that has exported a similar amount of goods. This basically means importers will indirectly subsidize exporters until a balance is reached.

This is the kind of thing that must be done if we have countries like China that have essentially a mercantile monetary policy.

Also, what is a bigger factor than offshoring is inshoring-importation of workers via H-1b and similar programs. In singapore, companies pay for those kinds of visas-and they pay quite a bit. Bill Gates doesn't-and has paid massively via campaign donations to get those visas for free-when $20K/year for such visas would be more reasonable start(true multinationals could be given a credit if they hire US workers for work overseas).

We could also raise the minimum wage for any non-citizens employed(say double the minimum wage for US citizens) in the US-which would mean those of us that simply don't have ability to work anywhere legally get first crack at jobs in the US.

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 13 years ago

So that means we should cut the 2% Google pays and give GE even more back in taxes right? I bet that will create more jobs.

[-] 1 points by LincolnCA (160) 13 years ago

Obama + Romney, that's the problem in 2012 we will be voting for either a Democrat doing his best Republican impersonation, or a Republican doing his best Democrat impersonation, either way you cut it you still get Status quo!

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 13 years ago

Exactly, but significant socioeconomic reforms will have to take place before addressing taxes. Many more people will come to your side when you are proactive (for “new” Business & Government solutions), instead of reactive (against “old” Business & Government solutions), which is why what we most immediately need is a comprehensive “new” strategy that implements all our various socioeconomic demands at the same time, regardless of party, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management System of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves; that is, using a Focused Direct Democracy organized according to our current Occupations & Generations. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategically Weighted Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:

http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures

Join

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/

because we need 100,000 “support clicks” at AmericansElect.org to support a Presidential Candidate -- such as any given political opportunist you'd like to draft -- in support of the above bank-focused platform.

Most importantly, remember, as cited in the first link above, that as Bank Owner-Voters in your 1 of 48 "new" Business Investment Groups (or "new" Congressional Committees) you become the "new" Congress replacing the "old" Congress according to your current Occupation & Generation, called a Focused Direct Democracy.

Therefore, any Candidate (or Leader) therein, regardless of party, is a straw man, a puppet; it's the STRATEGY – the sequence of steps – that the people organize themselves under, in Military Internet Formation of their Individual Purchasing & Group Investment Power, that's important. Sequence is key.

Why? Because there are Natural Social Laws – in mathematical sequence – that are just like Natural Physical Laws, such as the Law of Gravity. You must follow those Natural Social Laws or the result will be Injustice, War, etc.

The FIRST step in Natural Social Law is to CONTROL the Banks as Bank Owner-Voters. If you do not, you will inevitably be UNJUSTLY EXPLOITED by the Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government who have a Legitimate Profit Motive, just like you, to do so.

Consequently, you have no choice but to become Candidates (or Leaders) yourselves as Bank Owner-Voters according to your current Occupation & Generation.

So please JOIN the 2nd link, so we can make our support clicks at AmericansElect.org when called for by e-mail from the group in the 2nd link, and then you will see and feel how your goals can be accomplished within the strategy of the 1st link as a “new” Candidate (or Leader) of your Occupation & Generation.

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 13 years ago

Exactly, but significant socioeconomic reforms will have to take place before addressing taxes. Many more people will come to your side when you are proactive (for “new” Business & Government solutions), instead of reactive (against “old” Business & Government solutions), which is why what we most immediately need is a comprehensive “new” strategy that implements all our various socioeconomic demands at the same time, regardless of party, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management System of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves; that is, using a Focused Direct Democracy organized according to our current Occupations & Generations. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategically Weighted Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:

http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures

Join

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/

because we need 100,000 “support clicks” at AmericansElect.org to support a Presidential Candidate -- such as any given political opportunist you'd like to draft -- in support of the above bank-focused platform.

Most importantly, remember, as cited in the first link above, that as Bank Owner-Voters in your 1 of 48 "new" Business Investment Groups (or "new" Congressional Committees) you become the "new" Congress replacing the "old" Congress according to your current Occupation & Generation, called a Focused Direct Democracy.

Therefore, any Candidate (or Leader) therein, regardless of party, is a straw man, a puppet; it's the STRATEGY – the sequence of steps – that the people organize themselves under, in Military Internet Formation of their Individual Purchasing & Group Investment Power, that's important. Sequence is key.

Why? Because there are Natural Social Laws – in mathematical sequence – that are just like Natural Physical Laws, such as the Law of Gravity. You must follow those Natural Social Laws or the result will be Injustice, War, etc.

The FIRST step in Natural Social Law is to CONTROL the Banks as Bank Owner-Voters. If you do not, you will inevitably be UNJUSTLY EXPLOITED by the Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government who have a Legitimate Profit Motive, just like you, to do so.

Consequently, you have no choice but to become Candidates (or Leaders) yourselves as Bank Owner-Voters according to your current Occupation & Generation.

So please JOIN the 2nd link, so we can make our support clicks at AmericansElect.org when called for by e-mail from the group in the 2nd link, and then you will see and feel how your goals can be accomplished within the strategy of the 1st link as a “new” Candidate (or Leader) of your Occupation & Generation.

[-] 1 points by TruePatriots (274) from San Diego, CA 13 years ago

No.

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 13 years ago

When you mentioned business being off shored, I was thinking about manufacturing. Right now, fluctuations in maritime energy prices and a bunch of other things are actually leading to a certain number of manufacturing jobs returning to the USA. Still, there is the issue of automation, artificial intelligence and creating small flexible manufacturing facilities, that do not require many, if any workers to operate. No matter what happens with energy price fluctuations or trade with China, demand for US factory work is going to decline. This automation and lack of need for human labor may be an opportunity to use fully automated manufacturing to eliminate or reduce the need for Federal Personal Income Taxes and Corporate Taxes, though I am going to save that for my DBA work at Harvard! lol

[-] 1 points by AnonymousPhantom (13) 13 years ago

They say we have to "work our way out of this depression" just like we did the last one. Work our way out doing WHAT? The bosses sent our jobs overseas.

[-] 1 points by PlasmaStorm (242) 13 years ago

AnonymousPhantom... suppose for a moment that you are unemployed. Suppose. What is going to happen if you don't work your way out of this depression?

[-] 1 points by darkhound (66) 13 years ago

Get an education then.

[-] 1 points by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA 13 years ago

Someone has to be taxed. You propose taxing living, breathing people, instead of corporate "people"?

There is some sense to both ways and I don't have a good argument for either of them (that appears to be what "majority rule" decides). On this forum, most of what I hear about taxing is about taxing the richest entities, not specifically corporations. Some of them get out of paying any tax, which has to be made up for by the rest of the tax payers.

[-] 1 points by PlasmaStorm (242) 13 years ago

This is correct, someone has to be taxed, and what I'm writing about would be an unemployment-reduction strategy rather than a deficit-reduction strategy.

[-] 1 points by anotherone773 (734) from Carlyle, IL 13 years ago

Wait a minute..... you want us to GIVE more money to corporations?

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_welfare/real_tax_rates_plummet.php

When they start paying taxes in the first place, we can consider cutting them.... ok not really. Corporate America is sitting on $2 trillion how much money do they need to have before they create a job? $5 trillion?

Seriously stop trolling with your propaganda. One post your insulting us and the next post you expect us to listen to you.

[-] 1 points by PlasmaStorm (242) 13 years ago

I would correct you. We would not be giving money to corporations. We would be taking less money from corporations. I was a manager at a Fortune 500 company and staffing & scheduling was one of my responsibilities. I can guarantee you on paper that a higher net income would lead directly to the creation of jobs. Payroll budgets are based on net income, so when you raise NI, you raise payroll. When any manager has work for people and you have payroll, you increase hiring.

[-] 1 points by anotherone773 (734) from Carlyle, IL 13 years ago

You didnt read the link did you?

"Twenty-eight corporations enjoyed negative federal income tax rates over the entire 2001-2003 period. These companies, whose pretax U.S. profits totaled $44.9 billion over the three years," - That was out of 275 Fortune 500 companies. 10% had negative income despite having profits for 3 years in a row.

Tell me how far below 0% tax rate would you like them to go. I got it lets stop paying personal income tax to the govt and divide it all between the Fortune 500 companies.

You obviously know nothing about economics or how a business works. Businesses do not create jobs unless a job needs to be created. Increased consumer spending = Increased demand =Increased supply = Increase in jobs. ALL business works this way. No business owner who knows anything about running a business is going to create a job just because he has net income sitting around. He is more than likely going to invest that money in something that is going to make him more money, which isnt going to be jobs, since he doesnt have enough demand to warrant additional labor.

I can almost guarantee you did not work at a F500 company as a manager. If you did i can see why they fired you. You failed high school economic and at least the first year of college economics. Possibly the second.

[-] 1 points by quadrawack (280) 13 years ago

I would go further. If anyone ever examines the tax code, they'll noticed that it's biased towards entrepreneurs and businesses. Higher taxes forces people to DROP their income levels to go to a lower tax bracket by investing money into business expansion, real or commercial estate, or startups. You don't get taxed when you invest. You do get taxed when you cash out. That's why the economic boom during the 90's occurred while Clinton had higher tax levels than we do now. Bush cut taxes, but for ten years we did not have measurable actual economic growth. We had a BUBBLE in housing prices, but a bubble is not sustained economic growth. That's also why they hire personnel, because now there's business investment to expand into other markets, improve capacities, etc.

Cutting taxes only let's people sit their cash around collecting interest. Why bother working to find investment opportunities to invest when you can just let it sit and collect interest? That's the whole point of the tax code.

[-] 1 points by PlasmaStorm (242) 13 years ago

Obama and co. have been out there saying this, but any intro-level finance course will show otherwise. The average taxable income the wealthy is 30 percent, much much higher than the rate for everyone else.

[-] 1 points by quadrawack (280) 13 years ago

Funny.

So did Reagan.

Here ya go.

http://youtu.be/cgbJ-Fs1ikA

[-] 1 points by anotherone773 (734) from Carlyle, IL 13 years ago

And from the recent reports i have read its been doing some hefty collecting.

[-] 1 points by PlasmaStorm (242) 13 years ago

You haven't argued with my main premise, that cutting corporate tax rates would encourage companies to keep their investments in the United States and it would be a key ingredient in a strategy to minimize offshoring.

The wikipedia article on corporate tax rates is decent. The Fortune 500 companies you have mentioned are quite good with finding deductions... such as offshoring.

[-] 1 points by anotherone773 (734) from Carlyle, IL 13 years ago

No actually history has shown it doesnt. The more we cut corporate taxes the more outsourcing they do. Where have you been for the last two decades?

[-] 1 points by PlasmaStorm (242) 13 years ago

What I'm describing is a real-world strategy to reduce offshoring by cutting corporate taxes. Consider that America has the highest standards of living and (likewise) some of the highest per capita costs in the world. It costs more to hire an American than to hire someone in India, so we can't compete with India on the basis of wage rates. We can and must compete with them on the basis of corporate taxes. And no, I'm not nearly as pessimistic as you on this issue.

[-] 1 points by quadrawack (280) 13 years ago

You're trying to compete with low wage nations on low wage jobs terms? Sorry, not gonna happen. You can cut corporate taxes to the bone as was done in Michigan, and it won't do a thing. You want more jobs? What kinds of jobs? 10 hours a day working in a textile factory job? Or would you prefer a high end manufacturing job? Because we still have the market cornered on high end manufacturing. That's why our exports TO China of high end equipment has been growing hand over fist the last ten years. Although, say good bye to that with this recent tariff action.

You want more jobs? Invest in new technologies. Modify the tax code so that corporations who invest in new tech, startup, new industries get their breaks. Invest in startups and entrepreneurs. Trying to compete for low skilled, low wage jobs against a low wage nation is stupid. No corporate tax break will fix that. Invest in worker re-education. We need more manufacturing in the CNC arena. Yet there's a shortage. Even AT paying 0 taxes, which GE is doing, they STILL outsource most of their low end stuff out of the nation.

Eventually the free market will equalize, which is happening now. Chinese workers are demanding higher wages and are unionizing. They look like the USA back in the 1890-1920. That's already sending some jobs back, although I question if a person really wants to sit at a sewing machine 10 hours a day doing low end work.

In short, if you put tax code to force the corporation to invest in the future, you'll have your jobs. If you just cut it, and they already are using their own means to pay zero taxes, it won't make a difference. We have some of the best minds in this country. We attract the best minds from all over, including from China and India. Keep them here. 50-60% of all startups in Silicon Valley are from Chinese and Indian engineers and scientists. Startups create the new jobs, the REAL jobs, the RARE jobs that are tough to outsource. That's what you want.

[-] 1 points by ComplexMissy (291) 13 years ago

Interesting points, thank you. But I think this gets to the root of the problem a bit better--> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX1N3opw5eI

And this presents a goal to work toward: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIMy0QBSQWo

[-] 1 points by PlasmaStorm (242) 13 years ago

A resource based economy does not have liquidity. I have to agree on a price of how many sheep do I want to sell in exchange for my happy meal at McDonald's.

[-] 1 points by ComplexMissy (291) 13 years ago

Liquidity would not even be part of the process. Most things that we understand about the monetary system would not even apply.

[-] 1 points by PlasmaStorm (242) 13 years ago

And how am I going to buy my happy meal at McDonald's without cash?