Food for thought on "Redistribution"

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

The potential is certainly there.

I'm reluctant to even discuss politics because of all the lip service. If I say I have faith in a candidate, and said candidate wins, I could easily be eating my words.

...well, I voted FOR Dubbya, twice, actively and openly and happily. There are numerous major things he has done that I can't even begin to imagine him doing had someone told me in 2000 'this is how this guy will govern.'

I find 1,000 Islands to be best for all the crow I've had to eat over this guy.

 

[LateApex]

Isn't that the point?! When you have a business - being profitable to increase the bottom line means you can afford to pay for more things. You can pay your employees & offer them benefits. Maybe even a bonus. Maybe hire more employees. All of which stimulates the economy.

Have you been living in the same country that I have the last 8 years?

So far, the last 8 years, trickle down has meant layoffs, jobs shipped overseas, paycuts, loss of pension, and a bankruptcy. That is all at the same company too, and in the entire industry. The jobs that went over seas are gone for good. The jobs lost to vendors in the US are for 40% less pay, no benefits or insurance, etc...

Oh, I'll tell you what trickle down has accomplished though...upper management and CEO's who get bonuses for finding ways to eliminate jobs, send them overseas, for eliminating pensions, and for cutting wages. Bonuses during bankruptcy. Hey, even the dummies at these lending institutions who just got the $700 billion bailout are taking 10% ($70 billion) to distribute out as a bonus. Gee, I wonder how much will trickle down to those hard working employees.

 

[LateApex]

But McCain has a record of working across the aisle. It doesn't mean the Dems will - but there are some certain things Presidents can do. Plus - Palin is going to be his 1st counsel. I am fairly certain because of her record she's not going to go back on HER word. She'll do whatever she can in her power to make sure they keep their promises.

I'm staying optimistic for now.

That was McCain 2000.

I don't know who this guy is. Maybe the real McCain will show up after the election.

 

[SamSpade]

Have you been living in the same country that I have the last 8 years?

So far, the last 8 years, trickle down has meant layoffs, jobs shipped overseas, paycuts, loss of pension, and a bankruptcy. That is all at the same company too, and in the entire industry. The jobs that went over seas are gone for good. The jobs lost to vendors in the US are for 40% less pay, no benefits or insurance, etc....

You want a list of companies that decided not to go that route?

Just take a short trip through the graveyard. We live in a global economy now. Fact is, there are several BILLION workers overseas that will work for far less than Americans will. You either have them work FOR you or compete against you. Let me repeat that - compete AGAINST you. The obit column for companies that chose not to outsource jobs is growing. You either make running shoes that cost a fortune or make the SAME SHOES overseas and have them compete against OTHER shoes made overseas with cheap labor.

So I guess this means unbelievably high unemployment in the United States, right? 9, 10, 11%? Nope. That would be *France*. It IS high in certain sectors, because when you outsource jobs in manufacturing, you make money in other markets. You adjust. You farm produce, or you ship produce, or you process it, or you sell it, but one way or another, you adjust what your labor force does. We're past a manufacturing economy. The world is replete with low skilled labor to do that. The United States has to continue to adjust to higher skilled labor.

If the loss of jobs were so destructive to our economy, we'd see double digit unemployment, but it ain't happening.

 

[SamSpade]

That was McCain 2000.

I don't know who this guy is. Maybe the real McCain will show up after the election.

Which Obama will we see?

 

[LateApex]

Just take a short trip through the graveyard. We live in a global economy now. Fact is, there are several BILLION workers overseas that will work for far less than Americans will. You either have them work FOR you or compete against you. Let me repeat that - compete AGAINST you. The obit column for companies that chose not to outsource jobs is growing. You either make running shoes that cost a fortune or make the SAME SHOES overseas and have them compete against OTHER shoes made overseas with cheap labor.

That's the problem. The economic policies of the 80's do not work because of globalization.

How is giving these companies even more tax breaks - so that they can outsource - and increase their bottom lines - benefiting US workers?

Giving them tax incentives to KEEP jobs here seems more prudent.

So I guess this means unbelievably high unemployment in the United States, right? 9, 10, 11%? Nope. That would be *France*. It IS high in certain sectors, because when you outsource jobs in manufacturing, you make money in other markets. You adjust. You farm produce, or you ship produce, or you process it, or you sell it, but one way or another, you adjust what your labor force does. We're past a manufacturing economy. The world is replete with low skilled labor to do that. The United States has to continue to adjust to higher skilled labor.

The numbers are coming out the Friday after election. It's not going to be double digits, but I'm sure it will be ugly.

I still don't see how we will be better off economically with McCain.

 

[Larry Gude]

...

Giving them tax incentives to KEEP jobs here seems more prudent.

OK, we can get Bob in China to build a product for $1 an hour. Or, we can hire Ed to do it in South Carolina for $20 an hour AND get a $1,000 bonus from Uncle Barrack!!!

Now, when the production people get together to do next years production and budget planning, which labor idea do you think they will choose?

I'll wait...

 

[LateApex]

OK, we can get Bob in China to build a product for $1 an hour. Or, we can hire Ed to do it in South Carolina for $20 an hour AND get a $1,000 bonus from Uncle Barrack!!!

Bonus? I bet these people will be happy just KEEPING their job rather than it going overseas. Give them tax incentives to keep the jobs here. Give them incentives to be able to pay US workers.

Now, when the production people get together to do next years production and budget planning, which labor idea do you think they will choose?

I'll wait...

I would hope they choose American.

I'm curious why you think the plan under McCain is much better.

I'll wait...

 

[aps45819]

Giving them tax incentives to KEEP jobs here seems more prudent.


I still don't see how we will be better off economically with McCain.

because McCain want to give business the tax breaks you just asked for and obama want to increase the cost of doing business.

 

[This_person]

Maybe 30 years ago...

Yep, historically proven potential. That's right

Not sure about you, but I would think the very rich will still be well off.

And? Because they can provide it with their ability, they should provide it to those in need?

Ah. So more of this trickle down effect that has worked so brilliantly...

The theory works just fine. The application has sucked, because of too much government abuse of taxpayer money

Sure, McCain is "telling" you he will cut taxes, that's fine and dandy. It stimulates the economy, awesome. Guess what, he still wants to spend trillions a year. So just as much if not more spending with less income coming in... The math doesn't make sense.

Well, actually it would be MORE coming in, but, you won't understand that.

Yep he still wants to fund government. Too much, in my opinion. But, I'll take a tax cut for all over who pay over a tax cut for some, increase for others, and significantly increased welfare anyday.

 

[This_person]

How about because it is much more profitable to outsource - thus increasing their bottom line.

Yep, that's what I said. And WHY is it more profitable to outsource? Taxes? Wages? You're making my point

Remember - the wealthier keep getting wealthy. The are always trying to find loopholes to keep more of their money. They are always trying to find ways to not pay taxes.

And, as long as Democrats continue to take more and more taxes, they'll move more and more of their business out of the country. Why stay here when the government incentivises moving away through horrific policies?

 

[This_person]

About as safe as this country will be if McCain keels over and Palin is in charge...

If McCain gets elected we are one heart attack away from real disaster...

While I disagree with you based upon records of the four candidates, I would argue that we don't have to wait for the heart attack for the real disaster should Obama be elected.

 

[This_person]

Giving them tax incentives to KEEP jobs here seems more prudent.

Too bad that's not Obama's plan. Raising taxes on corporations will give them a reason to leave more, not stay more.

 

[LateApex]

Yep, historically proven potential. That's rightAnd? Because they can provide it with their ability, they should provide it to those in need?The theory works just fine. The application has sucked, because of too much government abuse of taxpayer moneyWell, actually it would be MORE coming in, but, you won't understand that.

Yep he still wants to fund government. Too much, in my opinion. But, I'll take a tax cut for all over who pay over a tax cut for some, increase for others, and significantly increased welfare anyday.

No.

I perfectly understand how CUTTING taxes INCREASES revenue. That's elementary. But, I guess you didn't bother to look at my post where we are losing more and more jobs due to globalization. Thus decreasing the actual revenue coming in.

I'm not interested in making the rich - richer. I'm more interested in raising the whole country up so that we can compete in this global economy.

 

[This_person]

No.

I perfectly understand how CUTTING taxes INCREASES revenue. That's elementary. But, I guess you didn't bother to look at my post where we are losing more and more jobs due to globalization. Thus decreasing the actual revenue coming in.

I'm not interested in making the rich - richer. I'm more interested in raising the whole country up so that we can compete in this global economy.

I did read your globalization post.

I'm not interested in making the rich richer either. I'm interested in keeping the country employed.

Incentivize leaving the US, and you'll do a great job of raising the whole country up - but that country will be India.

You do not help the country by providing tax breaks for the middle class, increased entitlement to the poor, all at the cost of the wealthy and businesses. you raise the whole country up by incentivizing business to give those willing to work meaningful employment. When you drive the companies and the wealthy people behind them out of the country (or out of the desire to increase their wealth through further investment), you destroy those you're trying to help.

 

[LateApex]

Yep, that's what I said. And WHY is it more profitable to outsource? Taxes? Wages?

It's more profitable because of the tax provision known as "deferral."

Why stay here when the government incentivises moving away through horrific policies?

Exactly. You just made my point.

 

[aps45819]

It's more profitable because of the tax provision known as "deferral."



Exactly. You just made my point.

yet you continue to want tax increases

 

[LateApex]

I did read your globalization post.

I'm not interested in making the rich richer either. I'm interested in keeping the country employed.

Incentivize leaving the US, and you'll do a great job of raising the whole country up - but that country will be India.

You do not help the country by providing tax breaks for the middle class, increased entitlement to the poor, all at the cost of the wealthy and businesses. you raise the whole country up by incentivizing business to give those willing to work meaningful employment. When you drive the companies and the wealthy people behind them out of the country (or out of the desire to increase their wealth through further investment), you destroy those you're trying to help.

I don't know where you got that under Obama's plan there are incentives to move businesses overseas. That's something you have to figure out.

Obama wants to get rid of tax breaks and credits for businesses that ship jobs offshore, but also is dangling a carrot proposing two-year tax breaks for companies that create jobs in the U.S.

“I’ve proposed a new American jobs tax credit for each new employee that companies hire here in the United States over the next two years,” Obama said on the campaign trail in Virginia. “And I’ll stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. We need policies that grow our economy from the bottom up, so that every American, everywhere, has the chance to get ahead. Not just the person who owns the factory, but the men and women who work on its floor.”

How does cutting taxes for the middle class - WHICH INCREASES revenue - not helpful for the economy? Afterall - the middle class is the work force in America.

 

[LateApex]

yet you continue to want tax increases

For those that move business offshore.

Are you not getting that?

 

[SamSpade]

That's the problem. The economic policies of the 80's do not work because of globalization.

How is giving these companies even more tax breaks - so that they can outsource - and increase their bottom lines - benefiting US workers?

I'm not following you. Most tax incentives I have ever seen do exactly that - provide jobs for Americans. More specifically, provide jobs for Americans in specific locations. I think I've only ever heard of about four or five different categories for corporations, from energy efficiency, ADA access, historic preservation, beautification projects and starting businesses in deprived areas (or hiring minorities in any area). You provide tax breaks because you want to give them a reason to do something they're not likely to do on their own - like hire costly Americans when cheap labor is available elsewhere.

Bear in mind what I said before - have them work for you, or compete against you. Try to remember not every corporation is American, or hires Americans. SONY is just as likely to outsource as Microsoft. Nike is American; Reebok is not. If one outsources labor and the other doesn't, who's going to win?

You make it sound like corporate tax breaks are straight government handouts. They're not.

Giving them tax incentives to KEEP jobs here seems more prudent.

That's usually what they do.

The numbers are coming out the Friday after election. It's not going to be double digits, but I'm sure it will be ugly.

Believe it or not, economists used to say for years that the optimal unemployment number was about 5%. It's what they used to call "full employment". Others give it a range of about 4 to 6.5%. Too much employment gives rise to inflation, because the labor pool is too limited for companies to give and pull their personnel. Full employment is when a stable market reaches equilibrium.

Some economists believe a 3% unemployment rate is achievable long term. No one's ever done it, and probably can't. Jobs die and get re-created. Believe it or not, we "lose" about 7 million jobs EVERY quarter - all the time. We create somewhere around the same amount - EVERY quarter. The numbers people discuss are the NET values - the increases or decreases (well, unless you're a politician and you want to dazzle people with BS). It is NORMAL for jobs to be created and lost, like cells in a body.

So if it's around 6%, I could give a rat's ass. It's gloomier, but it's not bad. In France, it's usually around 8% and unemployment for those 25 and under is usually around 25%. THAT is awful. Ours is never that bad.