Would that bother you?
Would that bother you?
It's not a subsidy, it's a tax cut.
Obama's crony capitalism where he gave money to Solyndra and Tesla, are examples of subsidies.
The way to grow business is to cut corporate taxes from 35% to 15% or less, and stand back and watch the boom.
If the taxpayers are keeping these jobs in the country, then the people holding those jobs are paying to keep their own jobs. They're paying in to get paid. Kind of like that Herbalife or Amway Global scheme.
DiscoGary wrote:
It's not a subsidy, it's a tax cut.
Obama's crony capitalism where he gave money to Solyndra and Tesla, are examples of subsidies.
The way to grow business is to cut corporate taxes from 35% to 15% or less, and stand back and watch the boom.
This might be the case, but the deficit will also boom. With less government revenues to balance out the spending you can do the math to see what will happen.
So the question is what is more important, a fiscally sound country or one where everyone works? You can't have both so choose wisely.
Kansas.
Again, duh.
sbeefyk1 wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:It's not a subsidy, it's a tax cut.
Obama's crony capitalism where he gave money to Solyndra and Tesla, are examples of subsidies.
The way to grow business is to cut corporate taxes from 35% to 15% or less, and stand back and watch the boom.
This might be the case, but the deficit will also boom. With less government revenues to balance out the spending you can do the math to see what will happen.
So the question is what is more important, a fiscally sound country or one where everyone works? You can't have both so choose wisely.
The math isn't that simple. You should check into the "Laffer Curve" which explains how reducing tax rates can increase revenue.
The deficit will only grow if spending increases, because taxes revenues will increase dramatically with a reduced tax rate. Reagan cut taxes and tax revenues doubled. The problem is that spending increased faster than revenues.
You can have both, just don't increase spending. Better yet, cut government spending.
4334 wrote:
Would that bother you?
If are an NFL player, are you upset that taxpayers have subsidized your 16 stadiums to the tune of $3 billion. There are only 1,696 players in the NFL so that's a subsidy of $1,768,867 per player. Contrast that to the Carrier deal, where the tax break is 7 million for 700 jobs so that a subsidy of just $10,000 per job.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/taxpayers-nfl-stadiums_us_55f08313e4b002d5c077b8acWould it bother you if you were a twitter employee or investor that your job/investment also benefits from a tax break?
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Companies-avoid-34M-in-city-taxes-thanks-to-6578396.phpWhat about fans of Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon, does it bother you that your companies have been "awarded more than $2 billion in subsidies combined, according to the report "Money Lost to the Cloud: How Data Centers Benefit from State and Local Government Subsidies." "
http://www.techrepublic.com/article/google-microsoft-facebook-apple-and-amazon-get-2b-in-data-center-tax-breaks-economic-benefit-unclear/I guess my point is that the government has been helping pick the winners and losers for a long, long time.
The stadium deals make me the maddest.
4334 wrote:
Would that bother you?
Absolutely it would. But then again, I would never go on public assistance of ANY kind. And it would creep me out that some politicians were ultimately "keeping me."
I also dislike the stadium deals.
4334 wrote:
Would that bother you?
No, not at all! This is a huge win for everyone and proves--definitively--how useful government intervention in buisness / the public sector is very useful and should be continued.
4334 wrote:
Would that bother you?
No. But it would bother me that Carrier is still going to move about 1300 other jobs from two other plants in the state to Mexico.
rojo wrote:
If are an NFL player, are you upset that taxpayers have subsidized your 16 stadiums to the tune of $3 billion.
Thanks for coming up with a much more relatable example.
For some reason, the mods deleted this thread. Mods, do not delete a thread if I post on it.
There is a lot more going on then just the tax break. This one stinks really badly. You can't see it but you know it is there.
DiscoGary wrote:
It's not a subsidy, it's a tax cut.
IMBECILE.
No. Is anyone against government aid when it benefits them?
http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2014/07/OCI_US_FF_Subsidies_Final_Screen.pdfDiscoGary wrote:
It's not a subsidy, it's a tax cut.
Obama's crony capitalism where he gave money to Solyndra and Tesla, are examples of subsidies.
The way to grow business is to cut corporate taxes from 35% to 15% or less, and stand back and watch the boom.
thnaks Obama!
"The math isn't that simple. You should check into the "Laffer Curve" which explains how reducing tax rates can increase revenue."
Actually, YOU should check into the Laffer Curve. It has been widely discredited. Here is one legitimate source, but there are many.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/01/the-new-laffer.html
"The deficit will only grow if spending increases, because taxes revenues will increase dramatically with a reduced tax rate. Reagan cut taxes and tax revenues doubled. The problem is that spending increased faster than revenues."
You should also be aware that every budget passed by the Democrat controlled Congress was LESS than what Big spender Reagan proposed. After all, it was Dick Cheney who said that the Reagan administration proved deficits don't matter.
Just asking for a little intellectual honesty, that's all.
Haha you're so naive. There is no such thing as a public subsidy. Banks subsidize everything. Your tax dollars all go straight to the bank.
DiscoSteve wrote:
"The math isn't that simple. You should check into the "Laffer Curve" which explains how reducing tax rates can increase revenue."
Actually, YOU should check into the Laffer Curve. It has been widely discredited.
No. The Laffer Curve is not widely discredited. Argued about, yes. Discredited, no.
"But I’d argue — and not just because Laffer has been a longtime friend and mentor — that his theory has actually held up pretty well these past 40 years. Perhaps its critics should be called Laffer Curve deniers."
Perhaps the most powerful vindication of the Laffer Curve comes from the many nations around the world that have successfully integrated supply-side economics into their fiscal policies. World Bank statistics reveal that almost every nation — from China to Ireland to Chile — has much lower tax rates today than in the 1970s. The average income tax rate among industrialized nations has fallen from 68 percent to less than 45 percent. The average corporate tax rate has fallen from nearly 50 percent to closer to 25 percent today. Political leaders learned from Reagan that in a globally competitive world, jobs, capital and wealth tend to migrate from high- to low-tax locations.
This vital link between low taxes and jobs has played out within the United States as well. It helps explain why, from 2002 to 2012, Texas — with no income tax — gained 1 million people in domestic migration, while almost 1.5 million more Americans left California, with its 12 percent top tax rate, than moved there.
--https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-laffer-curve-at-40-still-looks-good/2014/12/26/4cded164-853d-11e4-a702-fa31ff4ae98e_story.html