GOP Rep. Hultgren Won't Explain How Bush Tax Cuts Created Jobs - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31966541]Also, if you do know of a big Progressive economist who came out and said "nah I don't think taxes are a good idea right now", I'd like to see it.[/QUOTE] I didn't say "taxes" aren't a good idea right now, though I don't think they are - you're right, those economists might agree higher taxes are a good idea right now. However, we're talking about a very specific form of taxes. Corporate taxes. Just using "taxes" as a blanket term in this situation is highly deceptive, especially after all that I've just explained. [editline]e[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;31966552]Amute's not the most polite guy, but generally I try to keep a modicum of level-headedness.[/QUOTE] And while I disagree with you at least I try my best to keep it civil, that's because you do the same. Thank you.

[QUOTE=s0beit;31966557]Just using "taxes" as a blanket term in this situation is highly deceptive, especially after all that I've just explained.[/QUOTE] I was a bit vague there, so that's my fault. What Progressive economists are saying that corporate tax increases are a bad idea right now?

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;31965576] And just as individual tax cuts don't create jobs, corporate tax cuts don't create jobs. There is no reason to waste money hiring more people than necessary when the alternative is simply pocketing the extra money. If businesses hire more people, it's because their production and services can no longer keep up with demand. We could abolish corporate taxes tomorrow, but as long as the current employees are meeting demand, they won't waste money hiring more workers. Corporations exist to make money for their owners. Period. The people running them do not give a shit about jobs and will not create more just for the sake of doing so.[/QUOTE] That's why a government needs to have a two pronged method. First is stimulus spending. You should be familiar with this. Stuff like government labor jobs, which give money to otherwise unemployed people. These are temporary jobs, and tend to be incredibly inefficient as far as money-growth is concerned, but it helps to give a temporary boost to demand, since there are now more people with income. The second is lower taxes for low income individuals and corporations. This makes it so individuals have even more disposable income and corporations have extra capital to expand with the sudden growth in demand. When a corporation expands it will create jobs, giving more people income and creating a trend of growth. Once the economy begins growing again, and it begins growing very quickly, you begin to bring taxes back up on corporations to control growth(uncontrolled growth can lead to a very bad recession very fast), and to have a surplus budget and pay back debt. This idea of counter-cyclical spending will ensure that governments keep recessions as short as possible without racking up a huge debt that eats up a huge chunk of our budget with interest payments.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;31966590]That's why a government needs to have a two pronged method. First is stimulus spending. You should be familiar with this. Stuff like government labor jobs, which give money to otherwise unemployed people. These are temporary jobs, and tend to be incredibly inefficient as far as money-growth is concerned, but it helps to give a temporary boost to demand, since there are now more people with income.[/QUOTE] I am a big fan of public works programs, and from what I've heard of that big jobs proposal Obama's presenting in September, that's going to be part of it. However, doing this without some kind of incentive to keep the demand flowing would be foolish, I agree, but I don't think lowering corporate taxes is the way to do that.

also hey I might've believed you sobeit if bush's eight years of low taxes hadn't brought about [url=http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/]the lowest amount of job creation in recent memory[/url] and this is from a News Corp owned website

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31966602]I am a big fan of public works programs, and from what I've heard of that big jobs proposal Obama's presenting in September, that's going to be part of it. However, doing this without some kind of incentive to keep the demand flowing would be foolish, I agree, but I don't think lowering corporate taxes is the way to do that.[/QUOTE] What is the way to do that then? Lowering corporate taxes seems to be the most direct and efficient method of helping to keep demand flowing. From a moral standpoint I would rather corporations pay more taxes, but I think lowering corporate taxes helps society as a whole during the recession. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, sort of thing. [editline]27th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;31966609]also hey I might've believed you sobeit if bush's eight years of low taxes hadn't brought about [url=http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/]the lowest amount of job creation in recent memory[/url] and this is from a News Corp owned website[/QUOTE] Bush tax cuts aren't a great example of proper tax cuts. They were horribly implemented and seemed to be just a way for Bush to give his rich buddies a slap on the back.

[QUOTE=s0beit;31966540]Why bother being nice when people don't pay me the same courtesy.[/QUOTE] I'm interested in how i personally destroyed Capitalism. I was under the impression that history shows it will always and has always failed. And you don't need to be an absolutely arrogant prick in every post. [editline]27th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=s0beit;31966557]I didn't say "taxes" aren't a good idea right now, though I don't think they are - you're right, those economists might agree higher taxes are a good idea right now. However, we're talking about a very specific form of taxes. Corporate taxes. Just using "taxes" as a blanket term in this situation is highly deceptive, especially after all that I've just explained. [editline]e[/editline] And while I disagree with you at least I try my best to keep it civil, that's because you do the same. Thank you.[/QUOTE] I keep it civil YOUR RETARDED wah wah wah

[QUOTE=yawmwen;31966650]What is the way to do that then? Lowering corporate taxes seems to be the most direct and efficient method of helping to keep demand flowing. From a moral standpoint I would rather corporations pay more taxes, but I think lowering corporate taxes helps society as a whole during the recession. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, sort of thing.[/QUOTE] Well how about this: Set up an agency to figure out how much profit corporations are making. If they're making record profits and not hiring anybody, they don't get any tax breaks. If they're making hardly any profit but pledge to do more to hire workers if they get a tax break, then they get a tax break. Kind of inarticulate, but that's the gist of what I'd like to see.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31966566]I was a bit vague there, so that's my fault. What Progressive economists are saying that corporate tax increases are a bad idea right now?[/QUOTE] Robert Reich is one (granted recently he's made comments against tax cuts, not because he believes corporate taxes are good in a healthy economy but because it's a sick economy and he believes the problems lie elsewhere), there's others I'm sure but beside him and Paul Krugman, it's very hard to find a list of economists who proclaim themselves to be liberal or progressive, lol. Below is another very nice article explaining the effects of a corporate income tax from what you might find a favorable perspective. [url]http://dougsaunders.net/2011/04/corporate-tax-abolish-ignatieff-harper-david-cameron/[/url] [editline]e[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;31966609]also hey I might've believed you sobeit if bush's eight years of low taxes hadn't brought about [url=http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/]the lowest amount of job creation in recent memory[/url] and this is from a News Corp owned website[/QUOTE] Yes, because corporate taxes are the be-all-end-all single factor in job creation. In fact, all economics is about corporate taxes now. Thank you, I should have seen this before.

I don't really see how cutting corporate taxes when the society suffers from low consumption is so efficient, either.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31966736]Well how about this: Set up an agency to figure out how much profit corporations are making. If they're making record profits and not hiring anybody, they don't get any tax breaks. If they're making hardly any profit but pledge to do more to hire workers if they get a tax break, then they get a tax break. Kind of inarticulate, but that's the gist of what I'd like to see.[/QUOTE] That might work in theory, but would open itself up to a very big problem. Corporate influence. There is already a huge amount of corporate influence in politics. Corporations spend tons of money influencing politicians, both legally and illegally. This agency would be a hotbed of shady dealing between corporations and government agents, and the whole system would get very convoluted very fast. It would also spend a lot of money. Do you know how many officials you would need to monitor every corporations actions and sanction them for tax breaks? A whole fucking lot. And I'm not talking about little $30k a year secretaries, I'm talking well paid(with benefits), educated, professionals. Then there is the whole problem of bureaucracy, which causes even more money to fall through the cracks going through the system. [editline]27th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Ond kaja;31966804]I don't really see how cutting corporate taxes when the society suffers from low consumption is so efficient, either.[/QUOTE] By increasing consumption through stimulative spending.

[QUOTE=s0beit;31966799] Yes, because corporate taxes are the be-all-end-all single factor in job creation. In fact, all economics is about corporate taxes now. Thank you, I should have seen this before.[/QUOTE] did I just get snubbed how rude and condescending

[QUOTE=yawmwen;31966848]Corporate influence. There is already a huge amount of corporate influence in politics. Corporations spend tons of money influencing politicians, both legally and illegally. This agency would be a hotbed of shady dealing between corporations and government agents, and the whole system would get very convoluted very fast.[/quote] Well it's hard to craft policy around corruption, but blanket tax cuts with no oversight is a poor idea. [QUOTE=yawmwen;31966848]It would also spend a lot of money. Do you know how many officials you would need to monitor every corporations actions and sanction them for tax breaks? A whole fucking lot. And I'm not talking about little $30k a year secretaries, I'm talking well paid(with benefits), educated, professionals. Then there is the whole problem of bureaucracy, which causes even more money to fall through the cracks going through the system.[/QUOTE] Sounds like job creation if you ask me. Yeah they are government jobs, but it'd be nice. Again I think public works programs would do us some good. Roads, bridges, sidewalks, things like that.

I don't believe people who are asking for corporate tax raises are asking for all corporations to be taxed to death. I believe people are asking for the richest companies to sacrifice a little to keep the country going. And sobeit, dude, I like you, but please, cut it out with this arrogant "left wingers are fucking stupid" routine. It's not true and it's just annoying at this point. I understand amute is rude. Still though.

[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;31949680]At least blow jobs don't destroy jobs, which income tax cuts do.[/QUOTE] *COUGHMONICALEWINSKICOUGH*

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31967372]I don't believe people who are asking for corporate tax raises are asking for all corporations to be taxed to death. I believe people are asking for the richest companies to sacrifice a little to keep the country going. [/QUOTE] I don't believe you understand that any higher corporate taxes stifle the economy. In a recession it's not worth it. When our economy begins to get out of the shitter, then yea, it is fine to increase taxes. [QUOTE=Megafanx13;31967121]Well it's hard to craft policy around corruption, but blanket tax cuts with no oversight is a poor idea. [/quote] I'm saying this idea is incredibly susceptible to corruption, there really isn't a way around it. I think blanket cuts would work because if a Corporation doesn't use their money to expand, they are really shooting themselves in the foot because they will become less competitive. [quote]Sounds like job creation if you ask me. Yeah they are government jobs, but it'd be nice.[/quote] It isn't efficient job creation. These are high paid educated jobs, which there really isn't a big shortage of anyways. The jobs that are needed are for uneducated, low income workers. That's why: [quote]Again I think public works programs would do us some good. Roads, bridges, sidewalks, things like that.[/QUOTE] Is a good idea.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;31966590]That's why a government needs to have a two pronged method. First is stimulus spending. You should be familiar with this. Stuff like government labor jobs, which give money to otherwise unemployed people. These are temporary jobs, and tend to be incredibly inefficient as far as money-growth is concerned, but it helps to give a temporary boost to demand, since there are now more people with income. The second is lower taxes for low income individuals and corporations. This makes it so individuals have even more disposable income and corporations have extra capital to expand with the sudden growth in demand. When a corporation expands it will create jobs, giving more people income and creating a trend of growth. Once the economy begins growing again, and it begins growing very quickly, you begin to bring taxes back up on corporations to control growth(uncontrolled growth can lead to a very bad recession very fast), and to have a surplus budget and pay back debt. This idea of counter-cyclical spending will ensure that governments keep recessions as short as possible without racking up a huge debt that eats up a huge chunk of our budget with interest payments.[/QUOTE] Basically, yes, this is what we should be doing. Just handing more money to the upper class doesn't change anything, and handing more money to corporations doesn't change anything if they have no reason to expand and hire more people. The only thing that can get us out of this in less than a decade is a New Deal-esque public works program that actually puts a dent in our unemployment numbers. Until we're back down to a reasonable level, nobody is going to engage in unnecessary spending, and unnecessary spending is what our economy is built on. We really fucked it up in the 90's and 00's. Instead of being prudent and controlling our outrageous growth (especially in housing), we just sat back, cut taxes, and got fat. Chairman Bubbles and his ilk acted with absolutely no concern for what would happen when the housing bubble finally burst, and our leaders didn't want to take the political risk of telling people how risky our mortgage-backed security party was.

Taxes on the rich confuse the fuck out of me. My college instructor used to work for a guy who would just show up and tell him "Hey David, we need to spend $300,000". Why? So he could remain in a certain tax bracket and save money. How much fucking money is he saving by [I]spending[/I] $300K?

Corporate Tax is a tricky issue. On the one hand, decreasing it will see most of the benefit going to the board members and the shareholders. Companies will try and employ the minimum amount of people they can, simply because labour is expensive. Increasing it kinda follows a similiar path. If companies feel they need to make cuts, making people redundant and stretching out your workforce, or bringing in pay cuts are an easy way to save money. Companies expanding does increase jobs, but that's difficult in times of economic troubles. I don't think corporation tax is either a solution or a cause, to be honest.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;31993917]Taxes on the rich confuse the fuck out of me. My college instructor used to work for a guy who would just show up and tell him "Hey David, we need to spend $300,000". Why? So he could remain in a certain tax bracket and save money. How much fucking money is he saving by [I]spending[/I] $300K?[/QUOTE] I don't know, but if taxes are making people spend more money, it's doing something right.

[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;31998755]I don't know, but if taxes are making people spend more money, it's doing something right.[/QUOTE] Rich people need to invest more money into their labor in the forms of more positions, better wages and benefits, not spend $300K on air-conditioning equipment so they can somehow magically save over $300K.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;31993917]Taxes on the rich confuse the fuck out of me. My college instructor used to work for a guy who would just show up and tell him "Hey David, we need to spend $300,000". Why? So he could remain in a certain tax bracket and save money. How much fucking money is he saving by [I]spending[/I] $300K?[/QUOTE] You can spend $300,000 on something you want instead of paying taxes and only getting $150,000 to spend or whatever it is.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;31994252]Corporate Tax is a tricky issue. On the one hand, decreasing it will see most of the benefit going to the board members and the shareholders. Companies will try and employ the minimum amount of people they can, simply because labour is expensive. Increasing it kinda follows a similiar path. If companies feel they need to make cuts, making people redundant and stretching out your workforce, or bringing in pay cuts are an easy way to save money. Companies expanding does increase jobs, but that's difficult in times of economic troubles. I don't think corporation tax is either a solution or a cause, to be honest.[/QUOTE] Why is everyone talking about tax cuts on corporations when this thread is about the Bush tax cuts which only affect people at their home levels?

[QUOTE=Swilly;32037810]Why is everyone talking about tax cuts on corporations when this thread is about the Bush tax cuts which only affect people at their home levels?[/QUOTE] Because the tax cuts were not just on income tax.

[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;32035488]You can spend $300,000 on something you want instead of paying taxes and only getting $150,000 to spend or whatever it is.[/QUOTE] It's not that he even wanted or needed it, he did it just to save money. If you're rich I somewhat doubt that when tax season came around you suddenly remembered "Oh fuck, I have no air-conditioning in my 8-bedroom house! I must remedy this immediately-OH SWEET, that'll put me in a good tax bracket, too! That's DOUBLE AWESOME!"