France wants to slap the rich with 75% super tax

Wait a minute...you wouldn't be suggesting that trickle down doesn't work, would you?

 

stated rate and effective rate is very different. next argument

 

No. Of course not. Trickle down is the most awesome of the awesome.

A zebra was born on Jupiter today at 2:58 am local time too.

 

This. And if they hire at a piss poor rate and workers get the shaft in the process..oh well!

Didn't malarkey Romney do just that?

 

What I'm saying is that companies must stay competitive. So you provide incentives like the city of Austin did, they offered an $8 million tax break if Apple setup a facility there and hired people from that area. They also put a requirement that a certain percentage of the jobs must be for "low-income" people. Ultimately, they estimate that Apple will bring 3600 jobs averaging $53,000-$74,000 over 10 years. Cities and state governments get it, but this concept goes right over the head of the federal government...and apparently a few people on this thread. Now imagine what would happen if the federal government offered tax incentives to hire American workers?? I guess we'll never know right. Let's all stay content to go to the White House bread line and get our daily rations.

 

Companies must create jobs to create more money. As companies are successful, this brings out more competition. This forces companies to invest, open up new locations, hire people, etc. If they don't the competition will run them out of business. That is what allows the economy to grow...competition amongst businesses.

Also, "trickle down" economics is a political term to make the actual theory of "supply side" economics sound bad. Economist Thomas Sowell has written that the actual path of money in a private enterprise economy is quite the opposite of that claimed by people who refer to the trickle-down theory. He noted that money invested in new business ventures is first paid out to employees, suppliers, and contractors. Only some time later, if the business is profitable, does money return to the business owners.

 

So again explain record prpfits and cadh return yet little investment even though taxes are lowest in history. What tax rate would make them happy? 0? Maybe we should pay yhrm oh wait we do with fricking subsidies

 

I've explained this concept like 30 times on here. Companies that are multi-national corporations do business all over the world, so their profits don't just come from the US. Just between 70 of our largest companies like Microsoft, GE, Apple have about $1.7 trillion sitting overseas because they don't want to bring it over to the US so the government can take it. So what's happening is that the federal government is taxing them 35% immediately. Companies will still have to pay taxes in state/local governments, pay payroll taxes, pay salaries for their 100,000 employees, pay for facilities, pay for bills in every single location. How would you expect them to hire more employees on top of all this?

Instead certain state & local governments like Texas have been working with companies to offer tax breaks. The GDP of Texas grew in 2011 an impressive $36.8 billion, more than the real GDP of five states. This corresponds with the state’s rapidly-growing population, which increased 1.67% from 2010 to 2011 to surpassing New York and become the second-largest state by population in the country. Growth in Texas GDP likely helped cut the state’s unemployment rate from 8.2% to 7.9%, as the trade, transportation, and utilities companies have added 51,100 jobs and mining companies added another 29,800 jobs.

 

That still makes no sense to me. They were multinational corps when ot was a tax base of 39% and econony thrived. It just seems like a hostage situation to me but I guess we will all soon see

 

The spike in jobs in Texas since 2010 has been mainly due the rise in public sector/government jobs, not the private sector.
Texas also has the highest percentage of workers who earn at or below the minimum wage.

 

Hey a job is job whether you can live on it or not feel me lol

 

Even though I want the rich to be taxed hard but,not hard enough for them to defect to another country.

 

I'm not saying there haven't been public sector jobs. Of course there is...Obama is throwing billions at public sector. But in order to make the economy grow again we need the private sector to grow. The only real way to help that happen is to offer tax breaks and place the requirement that jobs must be here in the United States. How is that not a smart and fair way to help?

 

You can have a higher tax rate when the economy is booming. If you have 23 million people unemployed, you might have to try something different.

 

What are you talking about unemployment was 7.5% in 92 when clinton took office and 4.2% when he left office under the same tax plan
Also it was 9.7% during the Reagan years and he raised taxes 11 times and the rate went back down to 5.8 when the first Bush took office. So apparently raising taxes works

 

Clinton was fortunate to be President during the technology boom where we created an enormous amount of Fortune 500 companies. Like I said, you can afford to raise taxes in a good economy. You can't raise taxes in a bad economy. Clinton was also aware that he had to cut spending; something that he has repeatedly told Obama. But he has no interest in cutting spending. Tax rates must be adjusted based on circumstances with the US economy, not political belief.

 

But the unemployment situation was bad in both cases I mentioned and they both raised taxes when unemployment was high not once it lowered.

 

No, Reagan inherited a bad employment situation. He took unemployment from 10.6% to 5.3%. The Clinton economy benefited from low energy prices and the information technology revolution. Clinton also tackled deficit reduction and free trade, which encouraged Wall Street. Unemployment dropped. There was a lot of corporate, government and consumer borrowing, Sicilia said, because people felt good about the economy. So because Clinton embraced traditional conservative views on the economy, he was successful in growing the economy despite raising taxes.

 

Hold on didnt Obama inherit a very similar problem and has yet raise taxes yet unemployment has gone from 10.1 to 7.8. And before you cite that when he took office the rate was lower remember the unemployment bomb had already rxploded in 08 and the body count wasnt done being tallied until 2009

 

Obama inherited a bad situation like Reagan, but the results are much different. The difference between 8.1% unemployment and 5.3% unemployment is millions of lives. My point is that Obama believes he can stimulate the economy back to life and that is not possible. The government is not able to do what private industry can do.