I’ll re-phrase: We can’t afford to add a lot of government jobs. If there have been recent declines, I’ll grant them. I wonder how many of those are military jobs. Meanwhile, how many bureaucratic jobs have we removed?
And, again, I fail to see the relevance of the corporate tax rate as a percentage of total taxation. I’d like to see taxes – corporate, income, whatever type and at whatever level – kept as low as possible, while maintaining the services that government either performs better than private citizens likely could or which have become so engrained that, unfortunately, our dependence is such that to do away with that service might cause a large disruption. My main point in this thread is that we are losing jobs overseas – and failing to create enough new, good ones – due at least partly to the cost burden that our high corporate tax rate places on entrepreneurs and investors (and it scares off some would-be entrepreneurs and investors). To reduce that burden on the private sector has not (really) been tried in 30 years and I think it’s worth a shot.
We could at least try this before potentially overreaching with tariffs that might make consumers miserable, at least in the short term.
The effect of the busting of American unions can’t be overstated, IMO. Working class people who had some disposable income in their pockets drove the economy for 30 or 40 years. Less money to spend now --> less demand --> fewer jobs. Fewer jobs puts employers in the driver’s seat, which puts further downward pressure on wages.
You don’t know corporations actually pay in income taxes so your argument is not based on facts.
You talked about investment. What is the percentage of public corporations income that is used to buy back their own stock?
If corporations are buying back their own stock, they aren’t investing in their future, right? They aren’t creating jobs in their own companies with their income if they are buying back their stock.
So, what is the percentage of income used to buy back stock?
This is a bigger issue than 300+ illegal immigrants signing up for some program.
I don’t recommend buybacks generally. I tend to think it’s a sign that the company is struggling to find new ideas for positive investment – R&D, jobs, etc. About the only consistent positive of it is that it rewards those shareholders who hold onto their stake in the company.
But – where did that question come from? I had not been talking about buybacks, nor do I favor them generally.
Strictly speaking, companies should reinvest extra cash, but the bulk of that reinvestment should, IMO, be spent on positive moves like those mentioned earlier: R&D, more jobs, more pay. Giving more to charity helps the tax deduction (though the deduction is not going to be nearly as much as the amount donated – it is a net positive for society), helps people, and is generally considered a positive PR move – goodwill.
If you want to throw investors a bone, pay them (or increase an existing…) a dividend. I think, again, that buybacks should be done on a limited basis.
I should have added this to my last post, but it popped into my head after the 15 mins were up:
First, you are talking only about the large corps. A corporate tax cut would also benefit SMBs, most likely far more. (and those on the fence about going into business)
Second, while I disagree with it generally, there’s nothing “wrong” with buying back stock. It might make the corp appear weak, without ideas/vision, etc… but it’s not like it’s thievery.
Third, there’s no guarantee that additional profit would be spent in that manner. And the second someone finally does have a Eureka R&D moment, or that (or something else) leads to labor expansion, well the lower tax burden leaves them with potentially more to invest.
I believe I said in my first post that I am aware the largest corps don’t pay the 35%, not really anywhere near it. They give away too much, they hire lawyers and tax-accountant wizards, and they pay maybe (idunno…) half that. Any corporate tax cut would probably have the least effect on those megacorps. Thankfully, they’re not the only ones capable of creating good jobs.
I do not have a plan for bringing overseas jobs home. We can’t match the low wages, nor should we. We could try to fine them, I suppose, a set fee per foreigner hired. Maybe couple that with a reward once they are 100% American. If tax cuts could impact those overseas jobs, it might take a long time.
Maybe trade restrictions/tariffs, but the risks and issues with those are well known and predictable.