« First « Previous Comments 18 - 57 of 87 Next » Last » Search these comments
Strategist says
WTF. 80% of the workforce is employed by small businesses.
That argues even further against corporate tax breaks for job creation doesn't it?
bob2356 saysStrategist says
WTF. 80% of the workforce is employed by small businesses.
That argues even further against corporate tax breaks for job creation doesn't it?
Not really. When a large company expands production it creates a multiplier effect. A lot of it's work gets subcontracted to small businesses. Workers also spend their money on homes, cars, groceries etc creating lots of jobs for mom and pop stores.
Oh please you and your stupid little games. The country is burning and you play word smith games. Ok dems and corporate republics-you cna see the fury on the sites like breitbart and gateway pundit on that decision. There is a reason that repubs have been through so much churn-because their base has had enough-Trump may , may not deliver- this issuewill not go away and will explode. You keep palying these gamnes-the base is mad at the corporate repubs as much as dems and have been trying to get different type of candidates-the dems do nothing-all you wnat bring in millions of illegals -racist, racist,r acist.
using higher tax rates to force companies to expand will make them move offshore even more. a lot of one sided views in here.
Corporate tax breaks do NOT create jobs
Fresh from today's headlines:
https://www.politicususa.com/2018/08/03/trump-flops-as-jobs-president-as-job-growth-numbers-post-5-year-low.html
"The U.S. economy added a disappointing 157,000 jobs in July, and the unemployment rate fell to 3.9%. This is the slowest job growth in five years, as the numbers fell shot of expectations.
Economists predicted 190,000 jobs, instead the number is 157,000. 157,000 is not good, according to Donald Trump grading President Obama back in December of 2012."
Care to revise that statement?
Not at all. More available jobs than takers. You can't get better numbers than that. No point creating more jobs.
We had bigly tax cuts, quickly followed by a record number of new jobs.
Corporate tax breaks do NOT create jobs
Taxing corporations does not create jobs either.
Actually it does. It encourages investment which typically creates jobs.
So why not just tax corporations at 100% and creates lots of jobs?
I think trolling is against the rules here.
It is. So you going to answer the question?
How do you square your theory that there are more jobs than people with this though:
Strategist saysNot at all. More available jobs than takers. You can't get better numbers than that. No point creating more jobs.
lol--but this is what you said:
Strategist saysWe had bigly tax cuts, quickly followed by a record number of new jobs.
So, now you agree that the tax cuts didn't create jobs. Good.
Simple. The participation rate takes into account those who cannot work. If you cannot work you will not be a job taker.
Where did I say "tax cuts didn't create job
Strategist saysSimple. The participation rate takes into account those who cannot work. If you cannot work you will not be a job taker.
Interesting. So all those people got disabled from 2008 to 2014 and then suddenly the disease stopped? Did we create a new vaccine when I wasn't looking? How do you account for that?
Goran_K saysIt is. So you going to answer the question?
The question is an obvious troll, but I'll play.
If raising tariffs is good for the economy, why not put a 1000% tariff on everything?
If raising tariffs is good for the economy, why not put a 1000% tariff on everything?
Look closely at your participation rate chart. We hit a new low just before the 2016 election. As soon as Trump won, the trend changed for the better.
Strategist saysLook closely at your participation rate chart. We hit a new low just before the 2016 election. As soon as Trump won, the trend changed for the better.
I don't see a trend change at all. I see it flattening out at a low level, A process that started before the 2016 election. I do see a lowest low in mid 2015, but then the next five "highs" of the little gyrations are at about the same level.
A change in trend would show higher highs.
A downward trend that goes to a flat trend, is still a change in trend.
If raising tariffs is good for the economy, why not put a 1000% tariff on everything?
oran did not ask you to "play" He just asked you to answer a very simple question, but you didn't because you couldn't.
The demand would be the same, but the tariff would make it no longer viable to purchase equipment from German companies, that would be replaced by domestic production.
Trump is not using tariffs because "they're good for the economy" he used them as a bargaining tool to gain leverage in negotiations with the EU which obviously worked since there is a new deal between the EU and the United States where the EU gave the US some of the concessions Trump was looking for and the tariffs are now going to disappear.
ook closely at your participation rate chart. We hit a new low just before the 2016 election. As soon as Trump won, the trend changed for the better.
Yes, we created a new vaccine when you weren't looking. It's a not so secret formula called "Trump's Tax Cuts"
Strategist says
A downward trend that goes to a flat trend, is still a change in trend.
Okay, a trend that started in 2015 (or early 2016 depending on how you define it).
And now, even with massive increase in deficit spending (massive increase compared to what it would have been without the tax cuts), we don't see the labor participation rate trending higher.
Obama could claim credit for reducing unemployment. Turning people from unemployed to disabled isn’t a noble deed, however, and this cup and ball magic trick was not explained to the public.
What Obama’s real legacy will show is that he transformed millions of able workers into dependent derelicts, drug addicted and hopeless.
« First « Previous Comments 18 - 57 of 87 Next » Last » Search these comments
https://www.thestreet.com/story/14284462/1/corporate-tax-cuts-promote-ceo-pay-raises-and-stock-buybacks-not-jobs.html
"Researchers looked at 92 publicly-held companies that reported a U.S. profit from 2008 to 2015 and paid a federal income tax of less than 20%, the rate proposed by House Republicans, by exploiting loopholes in the current tax code.
The 92 companies examined saw median job growth of negative 1% over an eight-year period, compared to 6% across the entire U.S. private sector. Moreover, half of those firms eliminated jobs during that time, downsizing by a combined total of 483,000 jobs.
At the same time, average CEO pay among the 92 firms rose by 18%, compared to a 13% increase across the entire S&P 500"
But, cutting corporate tax rates would ABSOLUTELY enrich Trump himself. When the Trumpcucks realize that he cares not for the average American. Everything he does, he does for one reason alone. To enrich himself and his family.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-promised-put-american-workers-142940732.html
is another interesting article detailing how Trump has screwed the American worker but helped his businesses.
#MAGA