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.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.