Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs?

Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs?

Yes

20% (5)

No

80% (20)

Total Votes : 25

(last vote on : 4/13/2012 3:38:10 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

SoftBonds -> Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/4/2012 5:41:45 PM)
So here is my "1099 plan," for your consideration. The Bush tax cuts were extended recently, but are still temporary. I'd like to propose that if they are extended again, the cuts only apply to folks who actually create US jobs. I know the Con argument is that all rich people create jobs, they come out with the rainbows that come out of the rich people's arses when they poop. But some folks are skeptical, and it would be easy enough to prove. Corporations and other entities report financial information to their owners and the IRS via the 1099 form. Right now it is Income and certain deductible expenses. It would be easy enough to add a line for "expenses related to employing US taxpayers." Then you figure out a reasonable ratio, and give the rich a tax break based on what they pay towards employing people in the US. It wouldn't be dollar for dollar, obviously, but you could give a 20% break easily enough with the money currently going towards the Bush tax cuts. Plus it would force the Cons to put their money where their mouths are. Rich folks who support US jobs will get a tax cut, and rich folks who play mortgage games or "invest" (aka gamble) in derivatives will not. Oh, and did anyone notice that this will change the "cutting US jobs is good," mantra for our corporations? After all, cutting the tax break for your owners won't look so hot. Heck, opening up a new plant in the US would start to look good for corporations.

PeonForHer -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/4/2012 5:59:21 PM)
Tut. I can't vote. I'd support higher taxes for the rich, regardless of anything.

subrob1967 -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/4/2012 6:07:16 PM)
No

DesideriScuri -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/4/2012 6:31:43 PM)
quote: The Bush tax cuts were extended recently, but are still temporary. I'd like to propose that if they are extended again, the cuts only apply to folks who actually create US jobs. How many US jobs has the average person created?

Hillwilliam -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/4/2012 6:35:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: The Bush tax cuts were extended recently, but are still temporary. I'd like to propose that if they are extended again, the cuts only apply to folks who actually create US jobs. How many US jobs has the average person created? Ive created a few and I'm damn far from rich.

SoftBonds -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/4/2012 6:40:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: The Bush tax cuts were extended recently, but are still temporary. I'd like to propose that if they are extended again, the cuts only apply to folks who actually create US jobs. How many US jobs has the average person created? We are not talking about the average person. I keep hearing folks here and elsewhere saying "the rich create jobs," but without backup. This would not only give the backup, but make sure the tax cuts go to the people who are actually creating jobs. If you are trying to defend tax cuts for derivatives traders or corporations that move jobs to China, by all means do so directly. Otherwise please tell me what you think of the plan as written.

Musicmystery -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/4/2012 6:58:43 PM)
I support repeal of ALL the Bush tax cuts for Everyone. They were dumb then, they are dumb now. No one here ran out and bought a Ferrari with all the money they saved. No one noticed the savings. But in aggregate, it's a huge amount. I wish I could roll back the Bush Wars too. Both legacies, taxes and wars, are going to be anchors around our necks for at least a decade more.

bob35 -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/4/2012 7:16:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: The Bush tax cuts were extended recently, but are still temporary. I'd like to propose that if they are extended again, the cuts only apply to folks who actually create US jobs. How many US jobs has the average person created? We are not talking about the average person. I keep hearing folks here and elsewhere saying "the rich create jobs," but without backup. This would not only give the backup, but make sure the tax cuts go to the people who are actually creating jobs. If you are trying to defend tax cuts for derivatives traders or corporations that move jobs to China, by all means do so directly. Otherwise please tell me what you think of the plan as written. What if creating jobs in China helps save jobs in America?

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/4/2012 7:33:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds So here is my "1099 plan," for your consideration. The Bush tax cuts were extended recently, but are still temporary. I'd like to propose that if they are extended again, the cuts only apply to folks who actually create US jobs. I know the Con argument is that all rich people create jobs, they come out with the rainbows that come out of the rich people's arses when they poop. But some folks are skeptical, and it would be easy enough to prove. Corporations and other entities report financial information to their owners and the IRS via the 1099 form. Right now it is Income and certain deductible expenses. It would be easy enough to add a line for "expenses related to employing US taxpayers." Then you figure out a reasonable ratio, and give the rich a tax break based on what they pay towards employing people in the US. It wouldn't be dollar for dollar, obviously, but you could give a 20% break easily enough with the money currently going towards the Bush tax cuts. Plus it would force the Cons to put their money where their mouths are. Rich folks who support US jobs will get a tax cut, and rich folks who play mortgage games or "invest" (aka gamble) in derivatives will not. Oh, and did anyone notice that this will change the "cutting US jobs is good," mantra for our corporations? After all, cutting the tax break for your owners won't look so hot. Heck, opening up a new plant in the US would start to look good for corporations. I read your whole damn treatise.... It's this simple...there ain't no rich v. poor....it's just a fairness issue. Currently (Hib...help me on this) SSI is paid on a level of "earned" income up to some proscribed level. That's stupid. If you earn income....you should pay. Period. If you earn income....whether it's earned or "unearned"....you should pay (the same rate). Done.

SoftBonds -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/4/2012 8:53:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie I read your whole damn treatise.... It's this simple...there ain't no rich v. poor....it's just a fairness issue. Currently (Hib...help me on this) SSI is paid on a level of "earned" income up to some proscribed level. That's stupid. If you earn income....you should pay. Period. If you earn income....whether it's earned or "unearned"....you should pay (the same rate). Done. I don't disagree with you, but I'm trying to work with the folks on the other side of the aisle. They keep claiming that we need to lower taxes on the rich, even while they pay a lower percentage than working stiffs. BTW, you are correct, folks who earn more than about $110K a year pay SSI only on the first $110K or so a year. Folks who earn 125 million in a year for being CEO of a company that loses money only pay 6.2% of 110K, or less than $7,000 in social security taxes. If they paid the 6.2% of all income, it probably would eliminate the need to raise the retirement age. But looking at my "whole damn treatise," you can hopefully see a clear "put up or shut up," to the Republican claim that the rich are the job creators. I notice that the usual Republicans showed up, voted against, made pointless comments, and then left...

DarkSteven -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 4:31:43 AM)
No. 1. It's not the place of people to directly create jobs. It's the place of companies to do so, responding to the need for more employees to meet increased demand for goods/services. Yeah, the rich can create a few jobs directly (maid, valet, etc.), but that can't sustain an economy. 2. The idea of "job creation" is nebulous. We've already hypothesized that money spent on buying stock and therefore pumping money into companies' equity is valuable enough that proceeds from that are taxed at a lower, cap gains rate. Despite the fact that what is currently holding companies back is lower demand for goods and services (spending) rather than lower investment funds available. (Definitely true at the present. However, some conservatives would argue that as a general thing, investment is more valuable than consumer spending, to which I disagree.) 3. The national debt is huge. The middle class and poor cannot afford to pay it off. Where else to go but the wealthy?

farglebargle -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 4:36:11 AM)
Here's a thought. How about 100% inheritance tax. You earned your fortune, no question. But your KIDS? There's no reason they should become fat and lazy exploiting YOUR productivity or good luck? Is there any more ANTI-CAPITALIST idea than "inherited wealth?" They need to prove themselves by competing on their own merits, not living off of your achievements. Go re-read Atlas Shrugged if you need a primer. Dynastic Wealth if for losers. Notice how none of the important players in Atlas Shrugged actually procreate? None. That's because any real objectivist knows that kids are for losers, because all they do consume resources without any productivity of their own.

Moonhead -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 5:13:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: The Bush tax cuts were extended recently, but are still temporary. I'd like to propose that if they are extended again, the cuts only apply to folks who actually create US jobs. How many US jobs has the average person created? How many jobs have the 1% created in America, rather than (say) China and India? It always strikes me as funny when you see claims that the plutocracy shouldn't be paying taxes because they create employment, despite the fact that they've spent most of the last forty years moving employment out of your country as thoroughly as they can.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 5:50:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: The Bush tax cuts were extended recently, but are still temporary. I'd like to propose that if they are extended again, the cuts only apply to folks who actually create US jobs. How many US jobs has the average person created? A couple million over the last few years. That's the way the economy works.

DomKen -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 6:26:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: The Bush tax cuts were extended recently, but are still temporary. I'd like to propose that if they are extended again, the cuts only apply to folks who actually create US jobs. How many US jobs has the average person created? Assuming average income and wealth? Something like 2 from economic activity alone. You see when people spend money on goods and services they create demand for those goods and services which is supplied by other people working at jobs.

SoftBonds -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 7:07:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven No. 1. It's not the place of people to directly create jobs. It's the place of companies to do so, responding to the need for more employees to meet increased demand for goods/services. Yeah, the rich can create a few jobs directly (maid, valet, etc.), but that can't sustain an economy. 2. The idea of "job creation" is nebulous. We've already hypothesized that money spent on buying stock and therefore pumping money into companies' equity is valuable enough that proceeds from that are taxed at a lower, cap gains rate. Despite the fact that what is currently holding companies back is lower demand for goods and services (spending) rather than lower investment funds available. (Definitely true at the present. However, some conservatives would argue that as a general thing, investment is more valuable than consumer spending, to which I disagree.) 3. The national debt is huge. The middle class and poor cannot afford to pay it off. Where else to go but the wealthy? DarkSteven, I don't think we are disagreeing. What I was proposing was REPLACING the current lower rate for capital gains, which rewards folks who buy a whole lot of things that don't create jobs, with a lower rate ONLY for folks who invest in companies that support US jobs. The Bush tax cuts reduced the Capital Gains rate to 5% for folks who would otherwise pay 15%, and to 15% for all other taxes. Basically, the rich pay less than half. I know this from personal experience, though I also know from experience that at least the AltMin tax cuts into that somewhat. Replacing that with the ability to get out of 50% of your capital gains taxes by proving that your company supports US jobs is a win/win IMHO.

truckinslave -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 7:37:00 AM)
The future will not be the past. The future will be different, and we need different paradigms. Your plan is in no way disagreeable to me save the obvious flaw: it gives more money to the government. I want to give more money to the people. For a host of reasons that devolve into one ( namely: "labor-saving devices" is an accurate term; just wait until the robots get here) it is clear to me (and, possible, very few others lol) that the future holds more and more and more products with fewer and fewer and far fewer hours of labor invested in them. In other words: more goodies, fewer jobs. My solution as a way to ease us into this socialist Heaven (or hell or whatever) is to redefine full-time employment by, say, two hours per year for the next ten years while increasing the hourly minimum wage by 10% per year. This might keep the number of jobs available at a steady level in spite of increases in productivity and also mean a shrinking of executive compensation (which is truly insane). We could and I think should also look at the elimination of golden parachutes, excessive benefits, and treat all forms of executive compensation as taxable income. I've also toyed with the thought of limiting the total compensation of, say, the top 5% of the highest earners in a company to the same total dollar amount as... the lowest 50%? Some formula. It could even be affected by the total number of employees in the company (sort of like a poker tournament lol). My idea is to try to come up with something creative that spreads the money around without giving it to the government. They already have too large a share of GDP.

DomKen -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 7:41:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave The future will not be the past. The future will be different, and we need different paradigms. Your plan is in no way disagreeable to me save the obvious flaw: it gives more money to the government. I want to give more money to the people. For a host of reasons that devolve into one ( namely: "labor-saving devices" is an accurate term; just wait until the robots get here) it is clear to me (and, possible, very few others lol) that the future holds more and more and more products with fewer and fewer and far fewer hours of labor invested in them. In other words: more goodies, fewer jobs. My solution as a way to ease us into this socialist Heaven (or hell or whatever) is to redefine full-time employment by, say, two hours per year for the next ten years while increasing the hourly minimum wage by 10% per year. This might keep the number of jobs available at a steady level in spite of increases in productivity and also mean a shrinking of executive compensation (which is truly insane). We could and I think should also look at the elimination of golden parachutes, excessive benefits, and treat all forms of executive compensation as taxable income. I've also toyed with the thought of limiting the total compensation of, say, the top 5% of the highest earners in a company to the same total dollar amount as... the lowest 50%? Some formula. It could even be affected by the total number of employees in the company (sort of like a poker tournament lol). My idea is to try to come up with something creative that spreads the money around without giving it to the government. They already have too large a share of GDP. Who are you and what have you done with truckinslave?

SoftBonds -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 7:48:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave The future will not be the past. The future will be different, and we need different paradigms. Your plan is in no way disagreeable to me save the obvious flaw: it gives more money to the government. I want to give more money to the people. For a host of reasons that devolve into one ( namely: "labor-saving devices" is an accurate term; just wait until the robots get here) it is clear to me (and, possible, very few others lol) that the future holds more and more and more products with fewer and fewer and far fewer hours of labor invested in them. In other words: more goodies, fewer jobs. My solution as a way to ease us into this socialist Heaven (or hell or whatever) is to redefine full-time employment by, say, two hours per year for the next ten years while increasing the hourly minimum wage by 10% per year. This might keep the number of jobs available at a steady level in spite of increases in productivity and also mean a shrinking of executive compensation (which is truly insane). We could and I think should also look at the elimination of golden parachutes, excessive benefits, and treat all forms of executive compensation as taxable income. I've also toyed with the thought of limiting the total compensation of, say, the top 5% of the highest earners in a company to the same total dollar amount as... the lowest 50%? Some formula. It could even be affected by the total number of employees in the company (sort of like a poker tournament lol). My idea is to try to come up with something creative that spreads the money around without giving it to the government. They already have too large a share of GDP. Where did my point that this plan is revenue neutral (replaces the bush tax cuts with an equal amount of tax cuts that only go to folks who create US jobs) get lost? Other than that I agree with you 100%. Heck, here is my plan regarding executive compensation, increasing the compensation of any employee to a level above what the US President receives in pay, and every increase after that, requires positive affirmation by 50% of shareholders. Note, this isn't "getting 50% of share votes cast," this is "getting 50% of share votes available." If you can't convince your shareholders to vote for more pay, you don't get more pay. At one point CalPers led a charge to hold corporate CEO's pay to reasonable levels, but then Arnold became Govinator and changed that.

Moonhead -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 8:01:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: The Bush tax cuts were extended recently, but are still temporary. I'd like to propose that if they are extended again, the cuts only apply to folks who actually create US jobs. How many US jobs has the average person created? Assuming average income and wealth? Something like 2 from economic activity alone. You see when people spend money on goods and services they create demand for those goods and services which is supplied by other people working at jobs. However when the goods are manufactured out of the country, that doesn't do the American jobs market any favours, does it?

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625