<p>^^ But the problem is, a lot of companies ARE profitable and they’re NOT hiring. They feel there’s not sufficient demand for their products and services to justify adding jobs. That’s why tax cuts need to be aimed at the middle class, not the wealthy. The middle class consumes.</p>
<p>Why are you guys making this a political debate? It isn’t political. It’s not even economic. It’s psychological. </p>
<p>Corporations are sitting on trillions in cash. They’re not shelling it out in compensation to their top executives like some of you have stated in this thread. They are sitting on it, refusing to invest it, just like many consumers are sitting on their own cash, afraid to jump into the stock market.</p>
<p>Corporations dread uncertainty. It’s anathema to them. And what better way to characterize the current political and economic environment than uncertain? Corporations don’t know what’s going to happen to Greece, Ireland, Spain, etc. They don’t know if the U.S. economy is going to dip into another recession. They don’t know what’s going to happen to Obama’s healthcare plan. They don’t know what’s going to happen to the tax structure.</p>
<p>All of these events could have a massive (negative) effect on major U.S. corporations. Would you be eager to deplete your cash reserves if you were so uncertain about the future?</p>
<p>Didn’t think so. This debate has nothing to do with corporate tax rates or compensation. It’s all about fear.</p>
<p>You’ve made the perfect case as to why the so-called “job creators” aren’t job creators after all, and hence there is no need for a tax policy that gives away the store.</p>
<p>(If you want to create immediate spending in the economy, and create jobs, you’d extend unemployment benefits for up to four years, and double them - all the money would be spent domestically.)</p>
<p>Busdriver11…I did not miss your conclusion.</p>
<p>I’m amazed how little the pay is for some pilots.</p>
<p>^Wait, who employs most people? Corporations and business owners. You want to make it more expensive for the employers to employ people?</p>
<p>Extending unemployment benefits is of questionable efficiency in the short-term, and would be horribly inefficient in the long term. The private sector is the engine of organic economic growth, so in a perfect world, it should be free from government regulation. Of course there are market inefficiencies and failures, which do justify government intervention, but if you look through that lens, government’s role is to cultivate–or improve–small aspects of the private sector. It is not the role of government to concern itself with the private sector at large.</p>
<p>The problem with a lot of anti-private sector sentiment is that those people want to enjoy all the benefits of a robust economy driven by the private sector while hamstringing it with taxes and regulations to fund government programs. I’m sorry, but you can’t have both. We previously thought Europe had come close to establishing that balance; however, I think everyone can agree that their current situation proves that they were off the mark.</p>
<p>The choice is simple: prosperity can be driven by a more egalitarian, government-driven model largely characterized by handouts or by a robust, capitalistic private-driven model. The private sector encourages innovation and hard work, while the government disincentivizes both.</p>
<p>The government should continue to unleash the power of the private sector. Fettering it with regulations and higher taxes will only cause more hurt in the long run.</p>
<p>No, I want to repatriate their profits. They gained them off the backs of workers, pocketed all the gains made possible by productivity gains, and restricting income. They had 30 years. The model didn’t work. The private sector has PROVEN it is not the engine of organic growth, even with tax policies that have massively favored them over the past 30 years. </p>
<p>Get profit levels as a percentage of GDP back to where it was 30 years ago (which was hardly the Soviet Union!) Put money into the economy immediately - ALL of which will be immediately spent, resulting in profit INCREASES for domestic producers. It is by far the most efficient way to get the economy moving again.</p>
<p>And, yes, give them tax credits for every domestic job they actually produce. If they are “engines of organic growth”, let them be rewarded for it. Otherwise, it’s just cheap talk.</p>
<p>I heard on radio this morning that only 17% respondents to a survey trust government, lowest in history. Is that related to the topic?</p>
<p>Cutting government in this economy wil hurt corporate profits. </p>
<p>Corporations benefit by deficit spending.</p>
<p>Government is a customer of corporations.</p>
<p>The US government is the worlds largest customer if we balance the budget that equates to a huge drop in what that customer spends. Who picks up the slack. If no one does what happens to the economy.</p>
<p>Darthmouth is right. This is all pyschological, fear based. Corporations are doing the same thing as people are, hoarding their money, cutting back, doing whatever they can to stay profitable. It’s easier to stay profitable keeping the people you have (who are willing to work more hours and be more productive, as they want to stay employed), than to hire more and spend on training and benefits. Unless you’re in the foreclosure or bankruptcy business, who wants to take a chance at expanding now? Seems like when the fear disappears, the economy could skyrocket.</p>
<p>So what is happening with these billions of dollars that some companies are hoarding? Is it their right to invest and use it as they see is most beneficial to their business, or should they be compelled to use it to hire more people? I suppose it’s a matter of whether one thinks that the purpose of business is employ people and give them wages and benefits, or to make a profit. It seems obvious that a company must make a profit in order to stay afloat, and the happy byproduct of that is secure jobs and good wages for the workers.</p>
<p>And what exactly is that mythical evil corporation composed of? Is it the (often) overpaid CEO’s, the stock owners (us) who are getting dividends and share increases? Is it the workers who are getting bonuses and job security? Is it the communities nearby that flourish when a strong business is located nearby?</p>
<p>Perhaps a solution to consider is looking at the plethora of tax breaks that are within the system, leading large companies to have teams of tax lawyers looking for every loophole they can. That make it difficult for small companies to have a chance, but companies like GE to pay nothing, while sucking at the government teat endlessly.</p>
<p>“The US government is the worlds largest customer if we balance the budget that equates to a huge drop in what that customer spends. Who picks up the slack. If no one does what happens to the economy.”</p>
<p>I don’t think people understand this. People who advocate for less government right now, are advocating for less corporate profits. </p>
<p>Many of the largest corporations in the country would be shells of their former selves, if they existed at all…without government spending.</p>
<p>And if Dartmouth is right, then mini is right.</p>
<p>“This is all pyschological, fear based. Corporations are doing the same thing as people are, hoarding their money, cutting back, doing whatever they can to stay profitable.”</p>
<p>If you miss your profits estimates (sometimes artificially set up by analysts), your stock will plummet and analyst downgrades will follow. That is exactly why Dendreon is laying off people… Not because they do not need the hands they hired, but because without “actions” the Strees will not be kind to them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some of us do understand - that’s it isn’t great, but lesser of evils. </p>
<p>It’s the difference between living within your means and on credit. In the short term spending more than you make mitigates hardship in times of trouble. In the long term continuing this behavior isn’t sustainable. </p>
<p>The theory of spending more when times are rough, but paying back when things improve is good on paper because you avoid the rough patches, and you don’t find yourself in a hole. This requires responsible behavior long term; but historically this has been difficult to implement, because “more” when things are rough becomes “even more” when things improve and not “less”.</p>
<p>The business world functions as our bodies do. When it has a virus, it sits on the sidelines until the malady is no longer a threat. When there is a threat, that isn’t the time to run the engines at full capacity. The question is, why is business behaving in this way? What does it perceive as the threat or malady? Why are business people afraid to take risks, to invest and expand?</p>
<p>Howard Schultz just published a letter to America which basically says, let’s stop being afraid and start ACTING as if we are confident (and it will be so). Sure. That’ll work. It’s easy to take a risk in this economy when you are already a billionaire.</p>
<p>Because their customers are broke…</p>
<p>[A</a> Lost Decade for Jobs - BusinessWeek](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?)</p>
<p>This is from a decade of low taxes and low regulations.</p>
<p>"Between May 1999 and May 2009, employment in the private sector sector only rose by 1.1%, by far the lowest 10-year increase in the post-depression period.</p>
<p>It’s impossible to overstate how bad this is. Basically speaking, the private sector job machine has almost completely stalled over the past ten years. Take a look at this chart:"</p>
<p>Dstark, the fact that so many people think like you do is the reason that business people, who understand how the economy really works, are sitting on their hands right now. Keep going with that notion to have more taxes and regulations. No disrespect intended, BTW, but you are so completely ill-advised that it is sad. I am sure you believe you have the right idea, and that is why I intend no disrespect. I truly you believe you must care about this country. You wouldn’t intentionally try to undermine it. That is why I believe you are truly clueless about what makes business tick.</p>
<p>For you to be right, the numbers should back you up…</p>
<p>But they don’t.</p>
<p>The other thing is…this is the United States of America…</p>
<p>This isn’t the United State of Business…</p>
<p>This country should work for …i don’t know… 70, 80, 90 percent of the people…</p>
<p>Not 5 percent or less…</p>
<p>That article I linked was from Business Week/ Bloomberg…not some left wing paper.</p>
<p>“This country should work for …i don’t know… 70, 80, 90 percent of the people…Not 5 percent or less…”</p>
<p>Do you honestly think that this country is only working for 5% or less of the population. What? So do you think it’s only working if you have a bank account of 100 million or more (or whatever it would work out to be). What specifically are the standards that you keep for that?</p>
<p>I look around me, I travel all over the US, and things seem to be working pretty darn well for the vast majority of people. Most people have decent paying jobs (or a few between a family that pay the bills), most have health insurance (though good luck paying for it if you’re self employed), the majority of people are still doing pretty well. Yes, there are too many people underemployed or unemployed, but as a country we are still quite comfortable compared to most others. We’ve been far more stable in the past, but overall people are out there living pretty good. Are things only working out for 5% of your friends, family and co-workers, dstark? I don’t understand your definition.</p>
<p>Dstark you are misinterpreting the data and making it fit your world view, which it does not.</p>
<p>Think, dstark. What happened in 2007 (which was decided in November of 2006)? The anti-business policy changes are what fueled this curve. This is when the onslaught against business began. Increased spending and regulations. Business people becoming afraid to spend and invest. </p>
<p>Simple answer.</p>
<p>You also need to consider the dotcom bust and 9/11. Your picture is not so tidy against all of this information, is it.</p>
<p>January 21, 1989 is when the pro-business climate changed for the worst.</p>
<p>Spideygirl…I don’t know what to say?</p>
<p>What happened?
What happened in 1989?
The economy blew up because of actions people were taking before 2006. The economy was done in 2006. The banks were already toast.</p>
<p>Busdriver11, I don’t know the exact percentages. I’m not gong to argue the exact percentages.</p>
<p>Just look at our health care system compared to other developed countries. Our education system. The net worth of the population
compared to its needs. Our financial system. The job market. The housing market. The way income and wealth have been distributed over the last 30 years. The bond market. </p>
<p>I am not in favor of socialism, too much regulation, or over taxation.</p>