cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Identify the problem to create a solution.

What is the problem?

The government doens't have enough money.

Is it too much spending or is it too little taxing?

 

Either one however requires more tax dollars for the government.  And because government jobs do not increase the amount of money government gets it becomes obvious that creating government jobs doesn't increase the amount of tax dollars that government has.

 

 

24 Replies
Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: Identify the problem to create a solution.

Well, that's the right thing to do if the 'solution' to the 'problem' is to get more people to vote for more pay for more government workers.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: Identify the problem to create a solution.

I think you're making the problem too simplistic.  The big problem is that we've created a nanny state, and we for the most part know how the majority are already going to vote.  This is the biggest reason Ron Paul doesn't even stand a chance.  This is also the reason most of Europe is in trouble.    

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: Identify the problem to create a solution.

The third answer is the best.  If more jobs,(real jobs not government make works) then more taxes are paid AND less government assistance is needed. 

 

The obvious answer is to let private industry work.  Get rid of many of the onerous regulations and laws that send jobs to other countries. 

 

We are now down to 1.75 workers per social security recipient. 

 

"the Social Security board of trustees reported that the federal government’s total revenue from Social Security taxes in 2010—$544.8 billion—was not enough to cover Social Security’s total benefit payments—$577.4 billion."

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

a solution.

I'd be willing to drop the corporate tax rate to something like 15% provided that we get rid of the numerour loopholes that let many corporations get by with paying no taxes. We do indeed have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, with Japan only exceeding us. For instance, Wal Mart pays a full 35% in tax, but GE has paid zero. How is that fair? SOme would pay more tax since they pay zero, but companies like Wal Mart would pay a whole lot less because they are a retail based corporation.

 

The rational for cutting taxes in more than half would be that these companies could use the savings to put people to work, build new capacity and sell more goods, this increasing their profit.

 

Before you go slashing regulations with a blindfold on, you had better look at what that regulation is and if it is indeed a true problem. For instance, dumping heavy metals into lakes and streams may indeed "unbind" the hands of many an industry, but do we really want heavy metals being dumped like they do now in China? I would be real careful what regulations I do away with, but look at what is good for our nation and what is not. I think cutting taxes and making the USA a profitable place to do business is a better idea until you have a real idea what else needs to be changed.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: a solution.

From what I gather, the average corporations pay in is just above 16%.  In order to get a reasonable balance, we need to drop the corporate tax rate from 30+% down to around 22-25%.  Then, get rid of the loopholes.  By doing both of these, the tax revenue goes up.

 

Cutting taxes on companies would probably spur job creation.  However, I doubt many of the jobs created would be here in the U.S.  Gov't Motors now sells more vehicles overseas than in the U.S.  Why would they create more jobs here in the U.S. when they're selling more vehicles overseas? 

 

I agree that we can't slash every regulation with a blindfold on.  However, there are regulations that have and or will significantly stifle jobs here in the U.S.  I just finished reading an article in a magazine sent out by the power company.  It talked about what the EPA rules and reg's actually mean for us the electriciy consumers with regards to the coal fired plants once these rules go into effect in February 2012.  At the minimum, it will cost 10 million for our local plant plus annual operating costs.  If the rules require installation of scrubbers, it could cost 1 billion plus annual operating costs.  It is estimated that once these rules are implemented that we'll lose at least two large industrial companies which will cause many in the region to lose jobs.   

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: Identify the problem to create a solution.

All that I have heard other than a few tax adjustments is building roads and repairing schools. Sure that gives people jobs but the government pays their salaries. How can that help us financially

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: Identify the problem to create a solution.

100% depreciation is extended, too.

 

So if you can afford some more  new equipment, and another new shed and shop, you can help keep the farm equipment workers going , and also the construction industry. All of this ripples through the economy. Not grand measures, and not visonary ones, but maybe the best we can hope for.

 

Obama is not a strong man like Reagan was, and does not have a vision of what America should look like since he has "anti-American" views . Well, at least  according to Michelle Bachman. For who he is, I think he is doing about what we should have feared. Thank God that our fore fathers , in their wisdom, tried to put some checks and balances into place. A president can only steer the ship off course so far during one term.I think Obama would be more at ease in some leftist state as a lifelong bureaucrat rather than trying to fit into being the leader of the free world. I don't think the guy possesses any of the "think outside of the box" skills that are sorely needed right now.

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: a solution.

Same goes for all those fatcats who only pay about 13-14%.  There are many countries who have close or the same rate as we do and 4-5 who have a higher rate than we do but only Japan is a modern industrial country of the 4-5.  How do you explain the Japanese with the highest rate in the world.  They lead the world in just about everything.  Yet the right claims that high corp tax rates impede these companies here.

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: a solution.

I read that same article, I believe.
You left out the part that said it would take at least 5 years to fully implement the rules as suggested, with only 3 years to get it done in.  This would subject the plants to possible heavy fines, or shutdown.

 

One 'problem' I have with the EPA is that they can make any  rules that are 'beneficial', provided that they are 'scientifically attainable'.  The cost of implementing the rule is specifically not to be considered (although you can bet your sweet patoot that it is 'unofficially' considered, because if they get too radical, they will have heck to pay, so to speak).

So, officially, with no spending limits, or concerns about who they shut down, it is no surprise that they are starting to go too far.

 

Now that I said the EPA is starting to go too far, I'm sure I'll be accused of being 'against clean air' or 'for pollution'.  Not the case at all, I just don't want to have to sell the farm, to be able to afford to keep farming, which is exactly where some in the industry will be.