• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tax reform issue - I have a question

year2late

year2late

IIJAFM
DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
24,776
Reaction score
22,317
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Alot has been made of the trickle down effect of giving tax breaks to corporations and the rich. I was all for it under Reagan. Didn't pan out though.

But realistically it hasn't worked.

How about this......if the idea is "trickle down" why not allow for near zero tax to those that are really and truly keeping jobs in the US. Allow for certain jobs that can only be done outside of country. But if a major percentage of jobs are given to citizens that are in the US(say 90 percent)...no tax. Make sure a certain amount are full time living wage jobs.

This is a concept...not a real plan.

Would something like this work? How could it be tweeked to give the breaks to the corporations and actual trickle down to re-invigorate the middle class?

Would you pay a bit more for items made in the US knowing it is keeping Americans working legitimate jobs and staying off welfare?
 
year2late said:
Alot has been made of the trickle down effect of giving tax breaks to corporations and the rich. I was all for it under Reagan. Didn't pan out though.

But realistically it hasn't worked.

How about this......if the idea is "trickle down" why not allow for near zero tax to those that are really and truly keeping jobs in the US. Allow for certain jobs that can only be done outside of country. But if a major percentage of jobs are given to citizens that are in the US(say 90 percent)...no tax. Make sure a certain amount are full time living wage jobs.

This is a concept...not a real plan.

Would something like this work? How could it be tweeked to give the breaks to the corporations and actual trickle down to re-invigorate the middle class?

Would you pay a bit more for items made in the US knowing it is keeping Americans working legitimate jobs and staying off welfare?
Click to expand...

In order for that concept to work then the tax savings would have to exceed the increase in labor costs required to get them.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
In order for that concept to work then the tax savings would have to exceed the increase in labor costs required to get them.
Click to expand...

Is there a structure that could make that occur?

Right now we give them tax breaks and expect them to "do the right thing"

They are a corporation. There is only one "right thing". And it frequently has nothing to do with keeping jobs in the US,
 
year2late said:
Alot has been made of the trickle down effect of giving tax breaks to corporations and the rich. I was all for it under Reagan. Didn't pan out though.

But realistically it hasn't worked.

How about this......if the idea is "trickle down" why not allow for near zero tax to those that are really and truly keeping jobs in the US. Allow for certain jobs that can only be done outside of country. But if a major percentage of jobs are given to citizens that are in the US(say 90 percent)...no tax. Make sure a certain amount are full time living wage jobs.

This is a concept...not a real plan.

Would something like this work? How could it be tweeked to give the breaks to the corporations and actual trickle down to re-invigorate the middle class?

Would you pay a bit more for items made in the US knowing it is keeping Americans working legitimate jobs and staying off welfare?
Click to expand...
A lot of low paid workers receive various benefits from the government, in one way or another, to help keep some minimum standard of living. The main problem I see with this idea is that we will be taking money away from tax revenue, which under a Republican government would mean cuts to the same programs that may benefit workers, in exchange for a business to hire some percentage of American workers, and pay some percentage of them a living wage. Who wins in this scenario?

I also bolded the term "legitimate jobs" because I want to know what you meant by that.
 
MrPeanut said:
A lot of low paid workers receive various benefits from the government, in one way or another, to help keep some minimum standard of living. The main problem I see with this idea is that we will be taking money away from tax revenue, which under a Republican government would mean cuts to the same programs that may benefit workers, in exchange for a business to hire some percentage of American workers, and pay some percentage of them a living wage. Who wins in this scenario?
Click to expand...



The current tax plan takes money away from tax revenue without offering anything concrete in return. :shrug

I've mentioned something similar to this type of tax scheme a few times myself. Not with any details, but just the idea of offering tax breaks or credits to incentivize businesses to pay higher wages to their employees. We're already spending that money on welfare and EITC and child tax credits to people that are working. Why not incentivize the employer to pay the employees more and allow them to not be directly dependent on government?
 
I have two obvious specific questions, with this "tax-reduction for the wealthy" theory:

1] If wealthy tax reduction works so well, why have middle and working class wages stagnated since Reagan, and in general job security, quality, and benefits have declined?

2] Why did the recent Bush tax cuts not work?

And of course the biggie in general terms, how does anyone defend the denial of employment being a demand function?
 
Critter7r said:
The current tax plan takes money away from tax revenue without offering anything concrete in return. :shrug

I've mentioned something similar to this type of tax scheme a few times myself. Not with any details, but just the idea of offering tax breaks or credits to incentivize businesses to pay higher wages to their employees. We're already spending that money on welfare and EITC and child tax credits to people that are working. Why not incentivize the employer to pay the employees more and allow them to not be directly dependent on government?
Click to expand...

Except for the social programs that benefit underpaid workers. I agree with your idea of wanting to incentivize businesses to pay better wages, but I disagree with the idea that they would only need a certain percentage of American workers, and then only a certain percentage of those workers would need to be paid a living wage. That's just begging to be gamed.
 
year2late said:
Alot has been made of the trickle down effect of giving tax breaks to corporations and the rich. I was all for it under Reagan. Didn't pan out though.

But realistically it hasn't worked.
Click to expand...

It certainly did pan out and did work when it was done in the Reagan Administration. It worked right up until President Clinton raised taxes again .

How about this......if the idea is "trickle down" why not allow for near zero tax to those that are really and truly keeping jobs in the US. Allow for certain jobs that can only be done outside of country. But if a major percentage of jobs are given to citizens that are in the US(say 90 percent)...no tax. Make sure a certain amount are full time living wage jobs.

This is a concept...not a real plan.

Would something like this work? How could it be tweeked to give the breaks to the corporations and actual trickle down to re-invigorate the middle class?
Click to expand...

Just the corporate tax reduction in the tax reform bill will accomplish that. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. That's why Europe and China are giving us a run for the money.

Would you pay a bit more for items made in the US knowing it is keeping Americans working legitimate jobs and staying off welfare?
Click to expand...

No. I would still expect the US to put out a good product at a competitive price, especially after the tax bill drops the corporate tax rate to a level comparative to the rest of the developed world. The big three US automakers had to learn that lesson in the 1980s the hard way. They put out crappy automobiles with very poor quality control at very uncompetitive prices. They expected congress to enact protectionist laws to ward off outside competition. Japanese competition forced them to clean up their act, put out better cars and stop paying exorbitant salaries for assembly line workers doing tasks that a chimpanzee could be trained to do.
 
MrPeanut said:
Except for the social programs that benefit underpaid workers. I agree with your idea of wanting to incentivize businesses to pay better wages, but I disagree with the idea that they would only need a certain percentage of American workers, and then only a certain percentage of those workers would need to be paid a living wage. That's just begging to be gamed.
Click to expand...
Oddly enough though, and we may not want to admit it, but in the bigger picture farther down the road we're going to have to come to grips with a significant portion of the population being unemployed or underemployed due to technology.

I didn't believe it at first, but now believe it's true. It's a trend that's been occurring for quite a few decades, but has increased sharply in the recent decade or two. I've recently seen two independent studies indicating huge job losses over the next two decades. I believe there's some truth to that.

Check this out:


 
ObamacareFail said:
It certainly did pan out and did work when it was done in the Reagan Administration. It worked right up until President Clinton raised taxes again .

Just the corporate tax reduction in the tax reform bill will accomplish that. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. That's why Europe and China are giving us a run for the money.

No. I would still expect the US to put out a good product at a competitive price, especially after the tax bill drops the corporate tax rate to a level comparative to the rest of the developed world. The big three US automakers had to learn that lesson in the 1980s the hard way. They put out crappy automobiles with very poor quality control at very uncompetitive prices. They expected congress to enact protectionist laws to ward off outside competition. Japanese competition forced them to clean up their act, put out better cars and stop paying exorbitant salaries for assembly line workers doing tasks that a chimpanzee could be trained to do.
Click to expand...

Way to marginalize millions of assembly line workers.

Also, corporate tax reductions are not going to reinvigorate the middle class. The middle class isn't going to see any of that money, because taxes are not a cost. Think about it, is anybody going to work more hours at their 9-5 ONLY because the Federal gov't is collecting 1% less tax from them? No, if they needed the extra 1% before then, they'd have worked the 6 minutes. The same thing applies to corporations. Lower taxes are not going to equal anything except higher returns to shareholders. And don't give me that "everyone's 401(k) is going to increase, then" bull****, because I can't touch my 401(k) for another 20 years.
 
Chomsky said:
Oddly enough though, and we may not want to admit it, but in the bigger picture farther down the road we're going to have to come to grips with a significant portion of the population being unemployed or underemployed due to technology.

I didn't believe it at first, but now believe it's true. It's a trend that's been occurring for quite a few decades, but has increased sharply in the recent decade or two. I've recently seen two independent studies indicating huge job losses over the next two decades. I believe there's some truth to that.
Click to expand...

I think you're right and that's why I support broadening safety nets now so it isn't such a catastrophe when entire occupations start getting replaced. Unfortunately, things like nationalized healthcare and free higher education are still bad words to a lot of Americans. Without those things we are sort of taking ourselves out of the marathon in my opinion.
 
Critter7r said:
Way to marginalize millions of assembly line workers.

Also, corporate tax reductions are not going to reinvigorate the middle class. The middle class isn't going to see any of that money, because taxes are not a cost. Think about it, is anybody going to work more hours at their 9-5 ONLY because the Federal gov't is collecting 1% less tax from them? No, if they needed the extra 1% before then, they'd have worked the 6 minutes. The same thing applies to corporations. Lower taxes are not going to equal anything except higher returns to shareholders. And don't give me that "everyone's 401(k) is going to increase, then" bull****, because I can't touch my 401(k) for another 20 years.
Click to expand...

Your problem is that you liberals see the economy as a zero sum game and do not think out of the box. Corporate taxes are a cost that is passed on to the consumers. Our trading partners have an unfair advantage on us because they have a much smaller corporate income tax. That is also one of the single biggest reasons that our manufacturing companies move out of the country. Lowering our corporate taxes will make us as competitive as we were in the past.
 
ObamacareFail said:
It certainly did pan out and did work when it was done in the Reagan Administration. It worked right up until President Clinton raised taxes again .



Just the corporate tax reduction in the tax reform bill will accomplish that. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. That's why Europe and China are giving us a run for the money.



No. I would still expect the US to put out a good product at a competitive price, especially after the tax bill drops the corporate tax rate to a level comparative to the rest of the developed world. The big three US automakers had to learn that lesson in the 1980s the hard way. They put out crappy automobiles with very poor quality control at very uncompetitive prices. They expected congress to enact protectionist laws to ward off outside competition. Japanese competition forced them to clean up their act, put out better cars and stop paying exorbitant salaries for assembly line workers doing tasks that a chimpanzee could be trained to do.
Click to expand...
To the bolded:

I strongly disagree!

Firstly - the effective American corporate tax rate is a hair below the OECD median. In other words, our rates are competitive with our peers.

Secondly -the reason china and many Asian countries get the jobs, is due to low wages and poor working conditions (though this is changing in China). As long as you can get Philippine labor at 5 bucks a day without bennies or legal protection, why pay Americans a hundred a day with bennies including healthcare and OSHA and other legal protections?

And I'd be careful about using China as an example. China may actually be an example showing communism is the superior economic system. The government, business entities, and workers move in lockstep as a single unit. That's in part why they are now on the cusp of being the world's pre-eminent economic super-power.
 
MrPeanut said:
A lot of low paid workers receive various benefits from the government, in one way or another, to help keep some minimum standard of living. The main problem I see with this idea is that we will be taking money away from tax revenue, which under a Republican government would mean cuts to the same programs that may benefit workers, in exchange for a business to hire some percentage of American workers, and pay some percentage of them a living wage. Who wins in this scenario?

I also bolded the term "legitimate jobs" because I want to know what you meant by that.
Click to expand...

Legitimate jobs? It needs to be steady, not just seasonal employment. Not necessarily full time. But a few hours here and there doesn't count.

The idea is to qualify for this zero tax you would have to show that you are taking people out of poverty and helping them back away from government help.

We pay cheap prices for the crap we buy. I would gladly pay more if I knew the company was actually helping the people in the community.

Like I said...I have no clue how it would work...I just wish the concept would be explored . Standard trickle down just didn't work.
 
MrPeanut said:
I think you're right and that's why I support broadening safety nets now so it isn't such a catastrophe when entire occupations start getting replaced. Unfortunately, things like nationalized healthcare and free higher education are still bad words to a lot of Americans. Without those things we are sort of taking ourselves out of the marathon in my opinion.
Click to expand...
My solution would be:

1] National Healthcare
2] Guaranteed Universal Income

The healthcare could simply be medicaid expansion. The guaranteed income would be small, taking the place of the current entitlement plans. Of necessity, it would be expense neutral with the axing of the entitlements. If it being expense neutral is possible, then it's feasible.

But healthcare is the biggie.
 
Corporations only build more widgets if there is demand for more widgets. Giving tax breaks to people who were already wealthy without the tax break does not increase demand for widgets because ****ing DUH.



"Trickle-down" always was and always is a donor-pleasing lie.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Your problem is that you liberals see the economy as a zero sum game and do not think out of the box. Corporate taxes are a cost that is passed on to the consumers.
Click to expand...

Taxes are not a cost.

Our trading partners have an unfair advantage on us because they have a much smaller corporate income tax.
Click to expand...

Our trading partners have an unfair advantage because their labor costs are 90% less expensive than they are in the US. Labor in China and India are literally almost free. Not quite so much these days as in years past, but still a significant reduction in labor costs. Which actually ARE a cost, unlike taxes, which are NOT a cost.

That is also one of the single biggest reasons that our manufacturing companies move out of the country.
Click to expand...

Your saying so doesn't make it true.

Lowering our corporate taxes will make us as competitive as we were in the past.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean back when corporate tax rates were HIGHER??
 
year2late said:
Legitimate jobs? It needs to be steady, not just seasonal employment. Not necessarily full time. But a few hours here and there doesn't count.

The idea is to qualify for this zero tax you would have to show that you are taking people out of poverty and helping them back away from government help.

We pay cheap prices for the crap we buy. I would gladly pay more if I knew the company was actually helping the people in the community.

Like I said...I have no clue how it would work...I just wish the concept would be explored . Standard trickle down just didn't work.
Click to expand...

I agree, it's all well and good to pay dirt cheap prices for things, but if you don't get paid enough to pay your rent it is a little pointless. I'm not sure if your idea would work, but I think we agree on what we want the outcome to be.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Just the corporate tax reduction in the tax reform bill will accomplish that. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. That's why Europe and China are giving us a run for the money.
Click to expand...

You are speaking about the nominal corporate tax rate as if it is the effective corporate tax rate. That is either a very stupid or a very dishonest thing to do.


The effective tax rate is what matters and if someone needs to be told why this is the case, they should just not bother trying to post about the subject.
 
Chomsky said:
To the bolded:

I strongly disagree!

Firstly - the effective American corporate tax rate is a hair below the OECD median. In other words, our rates are competitive with our peers.

Secondly -the reason china and many Asian countries get the jobs, is due to low wages and poor working conditions (though this is changing in China). As long as you can get Philippine labor at 5 bucks a day without bennies or legal protection, why pay Americans a hundred a day with bennies including healthcare and OSHA and other legal protections?

And I'd be careful about using China as an example. China may actually be an example showing communism is the superior economic system. The government, business entities, and workers move in lockstep as a single unit. That's in part why they are now on the cusp of being the world's pre-eminent economic super-power.
Click to expand...

We will have to disagree. I'll just comment on the last statement about China. it is not proving communism as a superior economic system as it is not running it's economy based on communism. The Chinese economy started taking off when it let capitalism get it's foot in the door in about 1978.
 
MrPeanut said:
I agree, it's all well and good to pay dirt cheap prices for things, but if you don't get paid enough to pay your rent it is a little pointless. I'm not sure if your idea would work, but I think we agree on what we want the outcome to be.
Click to expand...

I guess pragmatically I understand that the only thing the corporation cares about is their financial bottom line. What is their incentive to take a massive tax cut and "do good". There should be some incentive.
 
ObamacareFail said:
It certainly did pan out and did work when it was done in the Reagan Administration. It worked right up until President Clinton raised taxes again .
Click to expand...

Why did you fail to mention George "read my lips" Bush?


Just curious.
 
year2late said:
Alot has been made of the trickle down effect of giving tax breaks to corporations and the rich. I was all for it under Reagan. Didn't pan out though.

But realistically it hasn't worked.

How about this......if the idea is "trickle down" why not allow for near zero tax to those that are really and truly keeping jobs in the US. Allow for certain jobs that can only be done outside of country. But if a major percentage of jobs are given to citizens that are in the US(say 90 percent)...no tax. Make sure a certain amount are full time living wage jobs.

This is a concept...not a real plan.

Would something like this work? How could it be tweeked to give the breaks to the corporations and actual trickle down to re-invigorate the middle class?

Would you pay a bit more for items made in the US knowing it is keeping Americans working legitimate jobs and staying off welfare?
Click to expand...
My opinion on the subject is that we eliminate the income tax for everyone and impliment a national sales tax, AKA Pass the FAIRtax | FAIRtax

This would benefit our economy in a multitude of ways but in terms of your question. It would make American corporations the least taxed in the world. It would be profitable for foreign based companies to come here and export their goods elsewhere and create lots of jobs. It would also discourage foreign competition on our soil because they would still pay their home country taxes and their customers would be required to pay our sales tax. This would give domestic production a big advantage.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Chomsky said:
Oddly enough though, and we may not want to admit it, but in the bigger picture farther down the road we're going to have to come to grips with a significant portion of the population being unemployed or underemployed due to technology.

I didn't believe it at first, but now believe it's true. It's a trend that's been occurring for quite a few decades, but has increased sharply in the recent decade or two. I've recently seen two independent studies indicating huge job losses over the next two decades. I believe there's some truth to that.

Check this out:


Click to expand...
I don't buy that at all. Technology creates as many jobs as it eliminates. The real challenge is preparing today's youths for tomorrow's tasks

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
year2late said:
Why did you fail to mention George "read my lips" Bush?


Just curious.
Click to expand...

I fault him as well, however the significant raise in taxes came with Clinton. His breaking that "no new taxes" pledge was one of the reasons he was not re-elected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom