▲
0
0
▼

Corporate tax breaks do NOT create jobs


 invite response                
2017 Sep 4, 10:59am   20,514 views  87 comments

by joeyjojojunior   ➕follow (1)   💰tip   ignore  

Can we please put an end to this obvious myth?

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

« First        Comments 14 - 53 of 87       Last »     Search these comments

14   bob2356   2017 Sep 4, 2:02pm  

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?
15   bob2356   2017 Sep 4, 2:11pm  

joeyjojojunior says

Yep, and taxes are on PROFITS.

Actually higher tax rates encourages investment, which actually does create jobs. If you want more jobs, you should be pro-higher corporate tax rates.


Corporate tax breaks are spent on stock buybacks, executive compensation, and stockholder dividends. That's been researched and documented many times.

A worthwhile read would be Flying High: The Story of Boeing and the Rise of the Jetliner Industry by Eugene Rodgers which documents in great detail Boeing's business decisions at various levels of taxation. A 20% tax rate in the 60's would have meant no 747 or 737 which have been the backbone of Boeing's profits and jobs for over 40 years. The decision to invest in the development of these planes was driven by the higher tax rates at the time.
16   lostand confused   2017 Sep 4, 4:15pm  

Yeah right, lets raise taxes and give it to the Gubmnt workers-when is enough enough?? Village managers making 300k a year with full pension at those rates or ya want 500k a year.

In today's globalized world, it is complex. If you had a big business and had to run a factory/establishment here and face all the rules, regulations, equal employment, affirmative action, blah, blah or instead you could just shift the whole thing to China or India-where people work 7 days a week, sleep in the factory, go home 2-3 times a year for holidays and no rules and regulations and then bring the [product back into the US for free with no taxes-what would you do. Even if there is only a 10% difference, you would escape all the regulatory/democrat headaches.

Either reduce regulations and/or start mandating all products shipped to US must meet the regulatory hell we go through. We need new ideas-I am excited by trump's tax overhaul-lets see.
17   HEY YOU   2017 Sep 4, 4:53pm  

Anyone that is for any taxes is a SOCIALIST.
Anyone that is not worth at least a $trillion is a failure.
Go ahead & make excuses for you incompetence.
You are happy with your debt and having to work most of your life
for a pittance compared to America's Rich and you don't want more than what you have.
Nice try.
18   Strategist   2017 Sep 4, 5:36pm  

bob2356 says
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?


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.
19   lostand confused   2017 Sep 4, 6:00pm  

Obama and the dems are like Queen Marie Antoinette of France. When the broken, hopeless people came to him for help, he said go get training-while negotiating the tPP -the you talk about tarriffs.
20   lostand confused   2017 Sep 4, 7:03pm  

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.
21   WatermelonUniversity   2017 Sep 4, 10:00pm  

for most businesses, expanding simply means stealing other businesses' customers. this might be good for those that expand (like Amazon) but it is bad for those that will be out of business. Amazon didn't improve the country's economy. they took revenues from other stores, online and offline.

for companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft, expanding can mean really great new products that the rest of the world wants (what will really grows the economy). but these companies are relatively a small portion of the economy.

using higher tax rates to force companies to expand will make them move offshore even more. a lot of one sided views in here.
22   anonymous   2017 Sep 5, 5:33am  

Trump is Bob Rumson.

"I've known Bob Rumson for years, and I've been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it! We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character."

Only instead of the President's girlfriend, he uses illegal aliens.
23   bob2356   2017 Sep 5, 5:51am  

Strategist says
bob2356 says
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?


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.


Want to show the correlation between corporate tax cuts and corporations expanding production?
24   anonymous   2017 Sep 5, 6:27am  

lostand confused says
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.


There is a reason repubs have been through so much churn

What churn is that?

You mean in the all powerful U.S. Senate? How many of those Republicans Swamp Monsters have been churned? Lolol
25   anonymous   2017 Sep 5, 6:58am  

BorderPatrol says
using higher tax rates to force companies to expand will make them move offshore even more. a lot of one sided views in here.


Higher tax rates don't force expansion--they make investment more financially prudent than stock buybacks or CEO bonuses. As a country, it is preferable for companies to invest in new products/processes rather than hoarding cash.
26   zzyzzx   2017 Sep 5, 7:10am  

So according to OP, all those corporate HQ's moving to Ireland, etc don't create any jobs in Ireland?
27   joeyjojojunior   2017 Sep 5, 7:45am  

You tell us--why don't you post all the jobs that Irish people took
28   anonymous   2017 Sep 5, 8:13am  

I agree that tax rate cut do not directly create jobs.
Fist must be Demand and then Profitability.

What I see from Trump plan and agree, reduction of maximum tax, to make it comparable to other countries is for purposes of:
1. Reduce/eliminate incentives to move entire headquarters to other countries purely for Tax purposes. Years ago that was e.g. "Stanley" to Caribbean and recently "Pfizer" to Ireland. With that action, domestic workers are left with unemployment and foreign a hired. Some corporates with wide business variety don't have that problem e.g. GE because can use many loopholes to reduce tax obligation to "0".
2. Allows bring profit made in other counters back to US and possibly reinvest here, e.g. Apple. Now than have to pay match higher US tax, and hold them back with that decision.
3. Promote rather interstate movement of business, where they can use state tax only as an incentive., e.g. Toyota headquarters recently moving from CA to TX.
29   FortWayne   2018 Aug 3, 9:23am  

Article by 2 digit IQ author who never ran a real business.

This is why liberals can’t be taken seriously.
30   Strategist   2018 Aug 3, 9:27am  

joeyjojojunior says
Corporate tax breaks do NOT create jobs


Hey Joey,
Guess what? We had bigly tax cuts, quickly followed by a record number of new jobs.
Are you ready to vote for Trump now?
31   LeonDurham   2018 Aug 3, 9:32am  

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?
32   FuckTheMainstreamMedia   2018 Aug 3, 9:41am  

How is (and citing the article itself) unemployment reduction rate supposed to continue at the same high levels as it approaches zero?

Btw a highly biased opinion piece is not “todays headlines”.
33   Strategist   2018 Aug 3, 9:42am  

LeonDurham says
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.
What we need to do is kick the fat asses of welfare queens to do some work. Someone posted an article here just yesterday stating avocado pickers can make $400 per day. Sadly, the only thing welfare queens are willing to pick is the next Twinkies that look good.
34   LeonDurham   2018 Aug 3, 9:51am  

Strategist says
Not 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 says
We 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.

How do you square your theory that there are more jobs than people with this though:

35   Onvacation   2018 Aug 3, 9:56am  

joeyjojojunior says
Corporate tax breaks do NOT create jobs

Taxing corporations does not create jobs either.
36   LeonDurham   2018 Aug 3, 9:58am  

Onvacation says
Taxing corporations does not create jobs either.


Actually it does. It encourages investment which typically creates jobs.
37   Goran_K   2018 Aug 3, 9:58am  

LeonDurham says
Actually it does. It encourages investment which typically creates jobs.


So why not just tax corporations at 100% and create lots of jobs?
38   LeonDurham   2018 Aug 3, 9:59am  

Goran_K says


So why not just tax corporations at 100% and creates lots of jobs?


I think trolling is against the rules here.
39   Goran_K   2018 Aug 3, 10:01am  

LeonDurham says
I think trolling is against the rules here.


It is. So you going to answer the question?
40   LeonDurham   2018 Aug 3, 10:04am  

Goran_K says
It 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?
41   Strategist   2018 Aug 3, 10:06am  

LeonDurham says
How do you square your theory that there are more jobs than people with this though:


Simple. The participation rate takes into account those who cannot work. If you cannot work you will not be a job taker.



LeonDurham says
Strategist says
Not 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 says
We 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.

Where did I say "tax cuts didn't create jobs." I said we don't need to create more jobs. Even tough we do create more jobs.
42   LeonDurham   2018 Aug 3, 10:09am  

Strategist says
Simple. 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?

LeonDurham says
Where did I say "tax cuts didn't create job


You didn't. The data did.
43   Strategist   2018 Aug 3, 10:15am  

LeonDurham says
Strategist says
Simple. 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?


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.
Yes, we created a new vaccine when you weren't looking. It's a not so secret formula called "Trump's Tax Cuts"
44   Strategist   2018 Aug 3, 10:23am  

LeonDurham says
Goran_K says
It 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?


Goran did not ask you to "play" He just asked you to answer a very simple question, but you didn't because you couldn't.
Raising tariffs is not good for any county, which is why Trump wants ALL tariffs eliminated by all our trading partners. Temporarily raising Tariffs is a good negotiating tactic that forces the other side to the negotiating table.
45   Goran_K   2018 Aug 3, 10:38am  

LeonDurham says
If raising tariffs is good for the economy, why not put a 1000% tariff on everything?


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.

See? That's how you answer a question. One which I was not afraid to answer because I'm not trolling.

You on the other hand...
46   marcus   2018 Aug 3, 10:55am  

Strategist says
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.


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.
47   Strategist   2018 Aug 3, 12:04pm  

marcus says
Strategist says
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.


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.
48   marcus   2018 Aug 3, 12:08pm  

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.
49   Shaman   2018 Aug 3, 12:16pm  

The disability system is being massively abused. Plenty of able bodied people are registered as disabled when they are nothing of the sort. This kind of corruption was actively encouraged during Obama’s reign of terror. Mostly because disabled people may be struck from the ranks of the unemployed, thus driving that number down to territory where 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.

Not what most of us were hoping for when 0 offered us “hope and change.”
51   MisdemeanorRebel   2018 Aug 3, 1:02pm  

LeonDurham says
If raising tariffs is good for the economy, why not put a 1000% tariff on everything?


If you applied that to Seimans and Bose Radio, yeah, it could create a shitton of medical equipment and audio research, design, and manufacturing jobs.

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.
52   LeonDurham   2018 Aug 3, 1:07pm  

Strategist says
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.


lol--you're kidding, right? He asked a very trollish, meme like question.

I thought the answer was fairly obvious. The way our tax structure gives breaks to capital investment encourages more investment as taxes are raised. Obviously, if you go to the extreme limit, then other problems are encountered.
53   MisdemeanorRebel   2018 Aug 3, 1:13pm  

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says
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.


This is proven by the histories of Central America vs. the Asian Tigers.

The former were run by rich mine and plantation owners who had no protective tariffs and imported all their finished and luxury goods from Europe for much of their first part of existence. Hence no industry developed, and no middle class, and weak taxation, infrastructure, and economy.

The latter tariffed the fuck out of imported finished goods and made everything at home, and then for export.

The UK also. The "Invisible Hand" of Tariffs on Linen brought the Textile Industry to England, and then the Industrial Revolution happened because England had captured the Textile market with Protectionist Mercantilism.

« First        Comments 14 - 53 of 87       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions   gaiste