Originally Posted by Detox.enD

You may have never been in a hiring position, or run a business, but people don't go 'Hey, we got this money laying around from the lower tax rate, lets go hire someone!' Small business may do that when business isn't good or steady, but the rest of companies (GE) don't.

Companies hire someone when there exists an amount of money they can bring in because of that individuals work that exceeds what it would cost to employ them. The exception to that is overhead, which is a category of jobs that must be filled adequately so that the business can do its other work.

Companies benefit significantly more from a steady tax rate that eliminates unexpected future costs than they do from a tax rate that keeps going up/down. That's not from a hiring perspective, that's from an investment in the future of the company perspective. The government waffling on on how, when and by how much to raise/lower the taxes every year is worse than everyone agreeing to raise the rate and lock it in for the next 5+ years.

Tax rates 'creating jobs' is a completely ridiculous argument pushed by the GOP to support low tax rates.

(all of the above is based on the assumption they don't go crazy and double or triple the tax rate all of the sudden...)

Ok, so is this your round-a-bout excuse for GE hiring overseas but not here at home?

At the end of last year (2010), 54 percent of GE’s 287,000 employees worked outside the U.S. As recently as Dec. 31, 2005, a majority worked in the U.S., according to disclosure reports filed by the company. The portion of the company’s revenue that comes from U.S. sales fell to 47 percent in 2010 from 56 percent in 2005.

GE Joins Intel to Advise Obama as Overseas Holdings Expand - Bloomberg

But hey, I'll be generous here and glad to see you have a glimmer of understanding of why companies hire. Bonus: I'm glad you acknowledge that taxes do have an impact both the bottom line of businesses as well as people. Most lefties think higher taxes solves everything and thats about the extent of their thought process. If you have less disposable income, you do less. But then you contradict yourself by acting if it's some talking point. Who gives a **** what republicans think? This is economics, which taxes are an inherent dynamic that needs to be accounted for. Math still works whether you are a Libertarian, republican, or democrat or whatever else.

On with the show.

Anyway, businesses do hire more workers (such as the linked article above) when the demand calls for it and is profitable for them -which GE has been. Thats indisputable. Furthermore, you have to look at the many factors that are part of economic landscape... everything ranging from political stability and governmental policies to investors to cash flows to determining strategic direction to tactical implementation. An entire host of factors go in to the decision making process, but the bottom line is that if there is profit to be made, they will hire.

So tell me this, are you willing to hire more people if you know your corporate tax rates are going up from say 28% to 40% or more? This affects your bottom line and makes it more difficult to hire additional help because you have less to work with while meeting all of you other obligations. I'll be very clear here: not advocating that businesses shouldnt pay any taxes. So instead of hiring 100 workers to increase production, you can now only afford 80 due to tax increases. That's math and that's how it works.

Caveat: Taxes do not change on a yearly basis. They are usually an election issue and whoever has the power then works on determining whether or not to raise or lower taxes. Example: bush tax reductions.

If you really want to help the economy out, then you close the loopholes and simplify the tax code. That creates ideal conditions for which businesses can thrive, which in turn, hires more help, which broadens the tax base, and results in having more responsible people contributing instead of leaches who have or are becoming accustomed to a lazy lifestyle aided and abetted by a deranged ideology that promotes it.

Glad you agree that Owebomba's policies have contributed significantly to the uncertainty in our current economic morass.

Originally Posted by Walking_Man

when u play brinksmanship politics with the US economy and by extension the global economy this is the price u pay gg

Are you accounting for China purposely suppressing the value of their currency?

Why the **** should we tax corporations at all?

Taxing a company promotes people to take jobs elsewhere, relocate their headquarters, etc.

This is blatantly obvious and is how/why this happens.
Special Report: A little house of secrets on the Great Plains | Reuters

Besides, this among other reasons, is what we have a personal income tax for. Just tax the people who work at the company, like we already do, so you can continue to encourage job growth domestically.

While I would prefer a flat tax, personally, but I can also understand some peoples desire for a progressive tax rate as well.

Originally Posted by JoMo

Nothing to do with that, China has been pushing for this for years for obvious reasons.

im not talking about china wanting something im talking about other country's beginning to question the stability of the US government and their faith in it

35,000 people have enrolled in Obamacare in Washington state...... oh wait.... 31,000 enrolled in medicaid......

Washington Healthplanfinder: more than 35,000 have enrolled in 3 weeks | HealthCare Checkup | Seattle Times

Among those who have enrolled so far, about 31,000 have enrolled in Medicaid coverage, while more than 4,500 have enrolled in private health plans.

pathetic

won't someone please think of the multinational corporations and their effective tax rates

Originally Posted by Cael

won't someone please think of the multinational corporations and their effective tax rates

I wish they would, then maybe people would have jobs.

Job-creation weakens, but unemployment rate down

Payrolls in U.S. Rise Less Than Forecast - Bloomberg


Stock market up though, that means QE will continue and maybe we'll print more, woohoo!!!!

We could stop spending countless Trillions on the failed war on drugs and give everyone free healthcare and free food forever.

Treasury Forced to Issue $1T in New Debt in First 6 Weeks of FY14

Between Oct. 1, 2013, the first day of fiscal 2014, and Nov. 14—which was less than a month after Congress agreed to temporarily suspend the legal limit on the federal debt—the Treasury was forced to issue more than $1 trillion in new debt.

During that time, according to the Daily Treasury Statement, the Treasury issued $1,014,215,000,000 in new bills, notes, bonds and other securities.

The government needed this $1,014,215,000,000 to cover government obligations and expenses that exceeded the $255,080,000,000 it raked in through tax revenues during the same six-week period.

Where did that combined $1,014,215,000,000 in newly borrowed money and $255,080,000,000 in new tax revenues go?

The lion’s share went to payoff maturing securities the Treasury had sold before and had now come due.

[.....]


(CNSNews.com) - Between Oct. 1, 2013, the first day of fiscal 2014, and Nov. 14—which was less than a month after Congress agreed to temporarily suspend the legal limit on the federal debt—the Treasury was forced to issue more than $1 trillion in new debt.

During that time, according to the Daily Treasury Statement, the Treasury issued $1,014,215,000,000 in new bills, notes, bonds and other securities.

The government needed this $1,014,215,000,000 to cover government obligations and expenses that exceeded the $255,080,000,000 it raked in through tax revenues during the same six-week period.

Where did that combined $1,014,215,000,000 in newly borrowed money and $255,080,000,000 in new tax revenues go?

The lion’s share went to payoff maturing securities the Treasury had sold before and had now come due.

In total, according to the Daily Treasury Statement, the Treasury needed to redeem $879,734,000,000 in maturing debt during the first six weeks of the fiscal 2014.

After that, the government’s biggest expenses were $98.853 billion in Social Security benefits, $77.704 billion in Medicare expenses, $35.304 billion to Defense Department vendors, $34.623 billion for Medicaid, $20.537 billion for the salaries for federal workers (who have now been compensated for the time they missed during the partial shutdown), $20.155 billion for the Department of Education, $13.060 billion for the Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service (which includes the food stamp program), $11.152 billion in Health and Human Services Department grants, $10.648 billion for Housing and Urban Development Department programs, and $9.172 billion to buy insurance for federal employees over and above the $20.537 billion they were paid in salaries.

The Treasury also had $67.234 billion cash on hand at the close of business on Nov. 14--but that was down $21.152 billion from $88.386 billion cash on hand the Treasury had when the fiscal year started Oct. 1.

So, in addition to the $1,014,215,000,000 in new borrowing the Treasury undertook in the first six week of fiscal 2014, it also drew down its cash by $21.152 billion.

When Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew appeared in the Senate Finance Committee on Oct. 10 and called for Congress to increase the legal limit on the federal debt, he lamented that people do not understand that the Treasury needs to constantly borrow new money to meet ongoing expenses and pay off the tremendous volume of old debt that must be redeemed.



“Every week we roll over approximately $100 billion in U.S. bills,” Lew testified. “If U.S. bondholders decided that they wanted to be repaid rather than continuing to roll over their investments, we could unexpectedly dissipate our entire cash balance.”

“There is no plan other than raising the debt limit that permits us to meet all of our obligations,” Lew said later in that hearing.

“Let me start by saying what I think should be obvious: that if we don't have enough cash to pay all our bills, we will be failing to meet our obligations, and under any scenario we will be defaulting on obligations,” said Lew.

“Let me remind everyone,” he said, “principal on the debt is not something we pay out of our cash flow of revenues. Principal on the debt is something that is a function of the markets rolling over.”

Lew’s description of the way the government handles its now-$17-trillion-plus debt mirrors the Securities and Exchange Commission’s definition of a Ponzi scheme.

“A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors,” says the Securities and Exchange Commission’s definition.

“With little or no legitimate earnings, the schemes require a consistent flow of money from new investors to continue,” said the SEC. “Ponzi schemes tend to collapse when it becomes difficult to recruit new investors or when a large number of investors ask to cash out.”

To keep the government in cash during fiscal 2013, which ended on Sept. 30, the Treasury had to sell $8,323,949,000,000 in new debt. The government's single larget expense in fiscal 2013 was paying off $7,546,726,000,000 in debt that matured during the year.

GE doesnt pay taxes
they have a loop hole built into tax law
something like "any such company that headquarters at 1 GE plaza in Connecticut, ****ville shall hereby be exempt from taxes"

it's really that specific

Originally Posted by Goshin

GE doesnt pay taxes
they have a loop hole built into tax law
something like "any such company that headquarters at 1 GE plaza in Connecticut, ****ville shall hereby be exempt from taxes"

it's really that specific

If you saw what happened to bridgeport ct after the huge GE factory shut down it makes sense that the state would lobby for something like that.

Originally Posted by Goshin

GE doesnt pay taxes
they have a loop hole built into tax law
something like "any such company that headquarters at 1 GE plaza in Connecticut, ****ville shall hereby be exempt from taxes"

it's really that specific

if i remember correctly, they are Rockefeller controlled.

Originally Posted by samUwell

if i remember correctly, they are Rockefeller controlled.

And if not Rockefeller ...... Warren Buffet influenced.

Oddly enough......Just like Exxon/Mobil (better known as Standard Oil) is now.

How we go full circle over and over again.

Originally Posted by samUwell

<snip>

Um... Holy **** dude.