Welcome to PatsFans.com

Tax cuts everyone can like

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsFanInVa, Jun 16, 2011.

  1. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,489
    Likes Received:
    504
    Ratings:
    +1,109 / 16 / -9

    You have to pay for any and all tax cuts, if you're responsible. I have no problem letting one tax cut expire and trading it for another. So here's a thought:

    I hear often how important it is to let the poor beleaguered Corporations -- they with 2 trillion dollars on the balance sheets and nothing to invest in -- have more tax breaks.

    Here's one I'd like to give them: A hefty up-front tax credit when a new American worker is hired (applicable only as a net credit, so you can't just fire guys after a month and get the credit again.)

    Now, when that credit expires, you have the question of whether it's cheaper to do the job elsewhere. But you also have the sunk costs of any equipment, space, etc. you've devoted to your new American worker(s).

    These balances are not one-direction done deals; there still are jobs that you can do in the U.S.

    Instead of a blanket giveaway to a Corporation to "do business here" for free (or cheaper,) why not specify job creation as the cost of that tax giveaway? It doesn't help us much to attract RobotCorp to these shores, so they can have robots build other things.

    That doesn't mean that Corporations will suddenly use people to do what robots can do. It means you attract those businesses that need people in a greater proportion than those that need a tax haven for their robots.

    PFnV
     
  2. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,628
    Likes Received:
    176
    Ratings:
    +473 / 13 / -14

    Tax credits are different than tax cuts. Tax credits generally won't work because it doesn't affect the long term costs (benefits, payroll taxes and regulatory) associated with hiring the employee.
     
  3. IllegalContact

    IllegalContact Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    316
    Ratings:
    +1,026 / 30 / -34

    the only way out of the tax mess that exists is to convert everything to be taxed based on consumption.
     
  4. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,458
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +919 / 7 / -3

    We're past the point of pouring more perfume on the pig. The genuine goal at this point has to be to create a more permanent environment where which businesses want to stay and do business in this country. Giving a business a tax credit for hiring someone is perfume. Would you really hire someone you don't need to gain a tax credit for a fraction of what that unneeded employee is going to cost you? I certainly wouldn't. I think we need long term, forward looking answers to our internal problems.
     
  5. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,489
    Likes Received:
    504
    Ratings:
    +1,109 / 16 / -9

    Don't be silly. There is some break point at which it makes sense to hire here, now. The more you're planning in start-up terms, by the way, the more you look at making it for a few years then reevaluating. But even for an established firm, if your employee would cost you $50K rather than $55K, all in, of course there will be a pool of employers affected for whom the math is better than outsourcing. Badda bing badda boom, you've created a job for 5K instead of the quarter million bucks per job in some other efforts. Sounds like a bargain to me.

    PFnV
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2011
  6. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,458
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +919 / 7 / -3

    As someone who employs people I don't see how giving a $5,000 tax credit would implore me to hire people I don't need. I'm guessing you don't employ people.
     
  7. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,641
    Likes Received:
    175
    Ratings:
    +432 / 8 / -4

    It would cause some additional jobs to be created. There would be employers on the fence about hiring who would pull the trigger, but it would only be those companies who were at the edge, so decreasing the cost slightly gives them the impetus to do it.

    How many jobs is that? No idea. And the cost would be increased by the credits going to employers who were going to hire in the absence of any credits. Again, though, I won't pretend to know how much of an increase that would represent.

    I like the general direction of the idea, though.
     
  8. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,628
    Likes Received:
    176
    Ratings:
    +473 / 13 / -14


    Have you ever had to make a payroll like RW?
     
  9. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,641
    Likes Received:
    175
    Ratings:
    +432 / 8 / -4

    Have you? .
     
  10. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,628
    Likes Received:
    176
    Ratings:
    +473 / 13 / -14


    No, but I am not telling people how easy it is to add jobs in the current environment either.
     
  11. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,641
    Likes Received:
    175
    Ratings:
    +432 / 8 / -4

    No, you're calling him out on something that you have just as little experience in as he (presumably) does.

    And where did he say it was "easy"?
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2011
  12. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,489
    Likes Received:
    504
    Ratings:
    +1,109 / 16 / -9

    And I'm guessing you don't have an overview of all employment scenarios.

    Here's the beauty of a cerebral cortex, RW: you can take into account those experiences you have merely witnessed and remembered, or modeled in the abstract, because of language, math, and abstract reasoning capability, and actually understand how things work without having done each of those things.

    You claim to understand how all cases of employment work across society, and beyond that, to claim to understand how all cases of employment work across multiple societies, by your appeal to first-hand experience rather than arguing the idea on its merits.

    But let's tease out your argument:

    You don't think that tax advantages can incentivize the wealthy to create or retain jobs in the U.S. business climate?

    Does that mean that it's a red herring to claim that we can create jobs by cutting taxes, every time I see the GOP and their tea party wing screaming that?

    Is it in fact unimportant to offer tax incentives to prospective employers?

    Forget the $5K figure. Talk to me about $X, with $X being the amount of money an employer receives in a variety of tax gifts at present.

    Now, if you respond with a torrent of complaints about how hard it is to do business in the U.S., I do understand that you are more than likely a small business, rather than a large corporation with good tax lawyers.

    Therefore, you do not, in fact, have systemic knowledge of the category "employment" based on the fact that you have one or more employees.

    Oh, and to answer your question: I currently have no employees for whom I balance the books, because I'm in the public sector.

    In the private sector, I always bought the service rather than the employee, because I did not want to become encumbered by the latter. Can I imagine the case where even at that micro-level, it is worth it to hire the person?

    Oh yeah. Let's say you can take that break once. Let's say you're on that margin of whether it's worth it to keep a guy for a year and let's say you're a micro-business. Let's further speculate you're trying to justify a $25/K per year hire.

    Welp, that's a dead loss of $20K.

    Unless, of course, the value to you/your business of having that employee is in excess of $20K and less than $25K. That's a year to reevaluate - a year during which you funnel that 5K through to a guy who'd otherwise be collecting that and more in unemployment from the gubmit. And it's cost the government nothing, if you make it a revenue-neutral tradeoff with other tax cuts that have been given to corporations which do not create jobs.

    I also quite frankly owned/operated my own biz quite some time ago, and viewed it as self-employment rather than a growing concern. I may do it again, if I get fed up enough w/being the guy that gets beat up for doing public service.

    I'll say this about working for yourself: it's cheaper to do it now than it was then, in terms of the tax burden.

    I'll also say this: the tax burden didn't mean crap. What did mean crap was that there was a functioning economy so you didn't have to scrape the bottom of every barrel looking for crap jobs you wouldn't do on a bet during a boom time.

    Lean times are a bigger problem than the big bad gubmit, and you and I both know that. And if you're on the verge of extinction because the money's just not there do do biz, you're not hiring anybody.

    But if on the other hand you're on the margin of "business is okay and picking up a bit," and "Meh, I'll park this money and play it safe," you on the micro level would also be incentivized to hire that guy.

    The main question is what the hell we're doing trying to incentivize every area of corporate activity with tax giveaways and calls for less and less targeted taxation, when our problem is we want and need domestic jobs -- not a vague "climate" that's supposed to be produced by general tax giveaways to any sufficiently wealthy going concern.

    Again, this has to do w/tax cuts to corporations: Why would they be "good" in general, but naive if they specifically apply to the activity we want (i.e., hiring o Americans,) rather than applying tax cuts to activity we don't want (i.e., giving money to them to hire people elsewhere)?

    PFnV
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2011
  13. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    27,332
    Likes Received:
    201
    Ratings:
    +576 / 6 / -24

    #18 Jersey

    What was your point again?:bricks:


     
  14. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    27,332
    Likes Received:
    201
    Ratings:
    +576 / 6 / -24

    #18 Jersey

    In businesses like yours (construction), this would never work. For large corporations, it might provide "some" help. But how many companies would get a credit when they were planning on hiring all along.

    There would be no way to gauge how many jobs such a credit actually created because companies that planned to hire regardless would still get a credit.
     
  15. BSR

    BSR In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,039
    Likes Received:
    27
    Ratings:
    +122 / 0 / -1

    I think the main problem with your plan is that I suspect a large portion of the tax breaks will be given out to companies that were going to hire the workers anyway. So you are giving away money to corporations where there is no additional job creation. The worst part about it is that there is no way to tell how much job creation the program really created although the overall numbers will look impressive and create great soundbites. That is probably the worst combination.

    In essence this is done a bit more creatively and efficiently when feds/states give individualized tax credits/funding to corporations to build plants/keep workers in country. These are done on an individualized case by case basis but are unfortunately often demonized as "corporate welfare". However more and more these days, politicians will back those policies that create the best soundbite with less risk for egg on their face and are easy to explain.
     
  16. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,628
    Likes Received:
    176
    Ratings:
    +473 / 13 / -14




    Good point that is what we saw with the credits with cash for clunkers and the home buyer credits both of which didn't work in the long run and wasted a lot of $$$$
     
  17. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,458
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +919 / 7 / -3

    Man you love to type. You know, typing alot doesn't make a person seem any more, or less intelligent. Making a point in as few words as possible sometimes does though.

    I stopped at the bolded. I just don't have the time to waste to read the rest.

    You don't think that tax advantages can incentivize the wealthy to create or retain jobs in the U.S. business climate?

    No where did I say that, and this isn't about the "wealthy". It's about keeping jobs inside the country. Maybe if you read a little more closely, and wrote a little less, you'd have noticed that. My point was specific to the idea that $5k in the form of a tax credit would somehow drive businesses to hire people and keep jobs in the country. It won't. Businesses consider real costs when hiring or making expenditures. If I need another employee or two (nevermind 200), I have to consider the total cost associated with hiring someone. That means wages, matching payroll taxes, compensation insurance, benefits like health & retirement, training, equipment, etc. Giving me a $5k tax credit, even for a couple of years, isn't going to push me to hire someone I don't need, or permanently implant myself in an environment that will cost me more than it would elsewhere. Fidelity leaving Massachusetts is a good example of that. We need structural, more permanent, long term policies put in place if we're looking to keep & attract business to stay inside our borders. Gimmicks are bandaids and perfume. Gimmicks = RomneyCare.
     
  18. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,628
    Likes Received:
    176
    Ratings:
    +473 / 13 / -14




    Well said.
     
  19. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,458
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +919 / 7 / -3

    So it's not just me who felt that way.

    I'm in real estate as well. Last month we had a foreign company come take a look at one of our commerical properties. Big, big company from England. They loved the space, but problematic to them was the high property taxes in this city, and the fact that they, because of what they produce, use tens of thousands of gallons of water per day and we're an MWRA based city. For those of you outside of this region, our water bills are usually 4-5 times higher than everyone else. The water bills are outrageous. We apparently pay for the harbor clean up, among other things. So while my 1 family, 2 bedroom house (MWRA) pays $100-120 in water each month, my buddy in one of the neighboring towns a few miles from me pays $70 on his 2-family every 3 months (non-MWRA). Now while this is more micro compared to a state, or country's business environment, the base point remains. A business will look at the long term ramifications of doing business in a specific region, and even if they like the area in question, they will go elsewhere if the environment is not friendly.

    I think in terms of outsourced jobs, a little more protectionalism is needed. What that "protectionalism" entails is up for discussion. It could be a combination of tax breaks, or tariffs of some kind. It might include a not so free trade agreement with the plethora of countries we've allowed manufacturing jobs to export to. Slashing corporate taxes might help. I think it's an open discussion on what would work, or what should be done. The one thing I'm sure of is that there isn't a silver bullet that will solve our problems. I think anything done will have to be comprehensive, which is clearly stating the obvious.
     
  20. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    14,641
    Likes Received:
    177
    Ratings:
    +457 / 4 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    The term "pay for tax cuts" drives me up a wall.

    It's about revenues. Tax cuts can generate revenues. Tax increase can decrease revenues. You don't have to tax someone else to cut taxes. Kennedy proved it, Reagan proved it, and even W proved it (his admin allow too much spending).

    We get enough revenues and everyone who pays taxes are taxed enough. It's the spending that's the problem. Grandma is not going to be thrown off a cliff,the cliff will collapse into the sea if we don't cut spending. There will be no cliff to throw grandma off.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>