As a businessman I am here to tell you that this is all nonsense. There is only one reason why business is not expanding today and that is demand. The notion that someone wouldn't expand their business to meet a demand because the tax on their profits might go from 35 percent to 39 percent is silly beyond belief. There is a great deal of uncertainty today over the future and that uncertainty puts a huge dampener on the economy and business plans, but that uncertainty is much more about future demand, rather than future tax rates. We have a lot of problems with our tax structure but it is not that corporations and the wealthy pay too much. The corporate tax rate is too high, but corporations pay too little in tax. We need to eliminate most of the corporate tax exemptions and lower the rate. It should not be a one for one swap as insisted on by the Republicans and the Tea Party. It should result in a net increase in corporate taxes paid. This would have the added benefit of focusing investment where it can make the most money, rather than where it can avoid taxes. On individual taxes there was a graph circulating last week that showed that the very richest people in the country pay federal taxes of just over 18 percent (down from about 30 percent 20 years ago). A typical middle class person, say a household gross income of $100,000, pays more like 28 or 29 percent. That is not an equitable tax structure and an increase in taxes for higher incomes is an essential part of the solution to our long term debt problem. I am in favor of cutting out wasteful programs. I am in favor of bending the curve on Medicare, Medicaid and social security, but the Tea Party would drive us off a cliff.

While I think I follow your reasoning here... your post illustrates as well as any on here the "uncertainty" looming over doing business in the U.S. at this time in our history. The uncertainty arises from an administration that assurred us that households earning less than $250,000 would not see a dime's increase in their taxes, then dropped it to $200,000, then got elected and spent and passed new legislation ensuring that anyone earning anything at all will face increased taxes at some point in our near futures.

 

This is counterbalanced by a party verbally committed to undo everything this administration has done.

 

Regardless of who is right or wrong, "uncertainty" is the prevailing attitude... followed by the certainty of greatly increased taxation, double digit inflation, a shriveled jobs market, and new layers of government regulation to enforce all the hope and change.

 

Are you sincerely saying that as a business person you do not believe you are taxed enough?

 

There is absolutely nothing keeping you from paying more than your current share of the tax burden to support an administration and an ideology you clearly support... and to prove how nonsensical you really believe my opinion is. Lead by example. Show us what true patriotism is.

 

Keep telling everyone it's not the threat of inflated taxes, inflated interest rates on loans, increased enforcement of increased government regulations, increased hostility toward private business and personal success. "These are not the droids you seek" worked for Obi Wan Kenobi... maybe, with enough repetition, "It's not taxes" will work for you guys.

 

In the meantime, businesses aren't investing, spending, hiring... but, "It's not the taxes.... it's not the taxes... it's not the taxes... it's not the taxes... it's not the taxes..."

While I think I follow your reasoning here... your post illustrates as well as any on here the "uncertainty" looming over doing business in the U.S. at this time in our history. The uncertainty arises from an administration that assurred us that households earning less than $250,000 would not see a dime's increase in their taxes, then dropped it to $200,000, then got elected and spent and passed new legislation ensuring that anyone earning anything at all will face increased taxes at some point in our near futures.

 

This is counterbalanced by a party verbally committed to undo everything this administration has done.

 

Regardless of who is right or wrong, "uncertainty" is the prevailing attitude... followed by the certainty of greatly increased taxation, double digit inflation, a shriveled jobs market, and new layers of government regulation to enforce all the hope and change.

 

Are you sincerely saying that as a business person you do not believe you are taxed enough?

 

There is absolutely nothing keeping you from paying more than your current share of the tax burden to support an administration and an ideology you clearly support... and to prove how nonsensical you really believe my opinion is. Lead by example. Show us what true patriotism is.

 

Keep telling everyone it's not the threat of inflated taxes, inflated interest rates on loans, increased enforcement of increased government regulations, increased hostility toward private business and personal success. "These are not the droids you seek" worked for Obi Wan Kenobi... maybe, with enough repetition, "It's not taxes" will work for you guys.

 

In the meantime, businesses aren't investing, spending, hiring... but, "It's not the taxes.... it's not the taxes... it's not the taxes... it's not the taxes... it's not the taxes..."

 

It isn't the taxes, it's demand. I have been doing this long enought to have gone through the late 70s and early 80s. Then it was taxes, interest rates and inflation that were killing the economy. Prime rate approached 20 percent. What is it now? Inflation was double digit. What is it now? Top marginal tax rate was 70 percent. What is it now? Business would take advantage of the current low interest rates to expand if they had customers to sell to. It isn't taxes, it isn't inflation, it isn't regulation, it is demand. You can repeat the talking points all you want. It doesn't change a thing. We are in a demand recession.

It isn't the taxes, it's demand. I have been doing this long enought to have gone through the late 70s and early 80s. Then it was taxes, interest rates and inflation that were killing the economy. Prime rate approached 20 percent. What is it now? Inflation was double digit. What is it now? Top marginal tax rate was 70 percent. What is it now? Business would take advantage of the current low interest rates to expand if they had customers to sell to. It isn't taxes, it isn't inflation, it isn't regulation, it is demand. You can repeat the talking points all you want. It doesn't change a thing. We are in a demand recession.

Okay... let's cut to the chase.

 

Why in your opinion is "demand' down?

It isn't the taxes, it's demand. I have been doing this long enought to have gone through the late 70s and early 80s. Then it was taxes, interest rates and inflation that were killing the economy. Prime rate approached 20 percent. What is it now? Inflation was double digit. What is it now? Top marginal tax rate was 70 percent. What is it now? Business would take advantage of the current low interest rates to expand if they had customers to sell to. It isn't taxes, it isn't inflation, it isn't regulation, it is demand. You can repeat the talking points all you want. It doesn't change a thing. We are in a demand recession.

On a side note, it is interesting to deduce from this post that - at least from a business perspective - you seem to support the notion that ditching Jimmy Carter for Ronald Reagan was essential to regaining control of "taxes, interest rates and inflation" and by extension, having Reagan in the Whitehouse for eight years was much better for business and our economy than having Carter there four years.

People need to step out of the holes and take a look at the entire world. US and Europe are IN DECLINE while Asia, particularly China, cannot keep up with demand. There is demand, but it is going to China and Asia, why...they are "low cost countries" to use the large company vernacular. They have an abundant labor force used to living at the poverty level with only the benefits provided to them by their communist government, they have a low, 15% income tax rate for profits generated in the country as well as a tax free zone for exports from certain areas. The infrastructure is provided by the government...there are miles and miles of land already developed waiting for investment. The environmental controls are much weaker than Europe and US and investment in technology and the number of engineers graduating each year is exceeding most developed countries except India.

 

If increased taxes and other labor burdens make our local production less competitive then we are hastening the decline. We must cut our cost burden.

Edited August 9, 201115 yr by doomer
sp

On a side note, it is interesting to deduce from this post that - at least from a business perspective - you seem to support the notion that ditching Jimmy Carter for Ronald Reagan was essential to regaining control of "taxes, interest rates and inflation" and by extension, having Reagan in the Whitehouse for eight years was much better for business and our economy than having Carter there four years.

 

I tend to subscribe to the pendulum theory. Sometimes there needs to be a correction. The tax rates and inflation under Carter were not his, he inhertited them. Do you remember wage and price controls under Nixon and WIN (Whip Inflation Now) under Ford? Carter appointee Paul Volker brought in the tight money policies that stopped inflation and allowed interest rates to fall. Reagan brought in the lower tax rates that allowed the capital formation that has kept interest rates low for most of the last thirty years. So it was a combination of the Carter tight money policy and the Reagan tax cuts that allowed us to slay the three headed monster of taxes, interest rates and inflation. Reagan's mistake was the "deficits don't matter" attitude that has lead us to where we are today. It is very doubtful that Carter would have lowered taxes ala Reagan, so on balance Reagan brought in a needed correction. In the late 70s so much of the national income was going to the middle class that capital formation was tough and demand was so high that inflation was the result - along with the shock of high oil prices set by OPEC. More income needed to stay with the high earners to allow more capital formation. The flip side was that if the Carter energy policy had been kept by Reagan we wouldn't be shipping so much money to petro dictators. We are in quite a different situation now. The share of income going to the highest earners is at an historic high. Hence the low inflation, low interest rates, low demand, low growth economy of today. In my opinion the solution to today's situation is to stimulate growth by putting people to work on needed infrastructure projects. I'm talking $200,000,000,000 a year for several years. It should be paid for in part by increased marginal taxes on high incomes, a small rise in the capital gains rate and elimination of a lot of the corporate deductions, coupled with lower marginal corporate rates. There should also be a long term deficit reduction by reforming SS, Medicare and Medicaid and a serious reduction in defense spending.

.

 

 

I agree in your theory but do you think they will take that extra and invest or pocket it?

Invest in some way, no doubt about it. Especially if you give additional incentives to companies for invest/expansion/job creation.

I tend to subscribe to the pendulum theory. Sometimes there needs to be a correction. The tax rates and inflation under Carter were not his, he inhertited them. Do you remember wage and price controls under Nixon and WIN (Whip Inflation Now) under Ford? Carter appointee Paul Volker brought in the tight money policies that stopped inflation and allowed interest rates to fall. Reagan brought in the lower tax rates that allowed the capital formation that has kept interest rates low for most of the last thirty years. So it was a combination of the Carter tight money policy and the Reagan tax cuts that allowed us to slay the three headed monster of taxes, interest rates and inflation. Reagan's mistake was the "deficits don't matter" attitude that has lead us to where we are today. It is very doubtful that Carter would have lowered taxes ala Reagan, so on balance Reagan brought in a needed correction. In the late 70s so much of the national income was going to the middle class that capital formation was tough and demand was so high that inflation was the result - along with the shock of high oil prices set by OPEC. More income needed to stay with the high earners to allow more capital formation. The flip side was that if the Carter energy policy had been kept by Reagan we wouldn't be shipping so much money to petro dictators. We are in quite a different situation now. The share of income going to the highest earners is at an historic high. Hence the low inflation, low interest rates, low demand, low growth economy of today. In my opinion the solution to today's situation is to stimulate growth by putting people to work on needed infrastructure projects. I'm talking $200,000,000,000 a year for several years. It should be paid for in part by increased marginal taxes on high incomes, a small rise in the capital gains rate and elimination of a lot of the corporate deductions, coupled with lower marginal corporate rates. There should also be a long term deficit reduction by reforming SS, Medicare and Medicaid and a serious reduction in defense spending.

 

Private sector jobs are what is needed. Not more public sector jobs. The government cannot spend us out of a recession.

 

I don't claim to have all the answers but I look at the places that are thriving like Singapore.

http://www.rikvin.com/taxation/singapore-corporate-tax-rates/

I think corporate tax rates should be lowered and deductions beyond expenses pretty much taken away, with the exception of tax credits for creating jobs. Which is very similar to what they are doing.

If I ran the TP I would disassociate myself from Michelle Bachmann. She has a long history of holding her hand out of for govt money for both her district and her family. Her history does not support her rhetoric.

I'd also move away from her because she either lied recently or simply is not smart enough to understand the issue of the debt ceiling. You cannot go out and say that Congress gave President Obama a $2.4T check and that's why the markets went down.

[7QUOTE=Clyde;4120209]I'd also move away from her because she either lied recently or simply is not smart enough to understand the issue of the debt ceiling. You cannot go out and say that Congress gave President Obama a $2.4T check and that's why the markets went down.

 

I don't think she has a chance. Of the current candidate pool, it's a two-horse between Mitt & Perry.

If I ran the TP I would disassociate myself from Michelle Bachmann. She has a long history of holding her hand out of for govt money for both her district and her family. Her history does not support her rhetoric.

 

I simply don't want a president that scares me when I look at them. :eek:

 

And then scares me more when they open their mouth. :scared:

I simply don't want a president that scares me when I look at them. :eek:

 

And then scares me more when they open their mouth. :scared:

 

That happens to almost half the voters every election.

That happens to almost half the voters every election.

 

True. But, at least I'm not scared to start with. :lol: