Posted by bad_luck on 6/7/2015 9:23:00 AM (view original):
I know it because the corporate tax rate doesn't impact how expensive it is to hire an employee. Hiring an employee costs X if the corporate tax rate is 1%. Hiring and employee still costs X if the corporate tax rate is 90%.

If you are saying that corporate tax rates impact whether or not a business chooses to exist in the U.S., I absolutely agree. But that wasn't your original argument. Your original argument was that we should cut corporate taxes to encourage companies to hire MORE employees. Which doesn't make sense.

Once again, your ignorance is showing.

Corporate taxes are an expense.  Employee salaries and associated benefits are another expense.

Many companies try to keep expenses flat.  As one expense goes up, they have to try to find ways to cut other expenses to offset.  Conversely, if one expense goes down, they are more open to incurring increases in other expenses as long as they stay within their expense target.

To argue that there is no link between corporate taxes and hiring is ludicrous.  It may not be a direct link, but there definitely is an indirect link.  To argue otherwise is either disingenuous or pure ignorance.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/7/2015 9:23:00 AM (view original):
I know it because the corporate tax rate doesn't impact how expensive it is to hire an employee. Hiring an employee costs X if the corporate tax rate is 1%. Hiring and employee still costs X if the corporate tax rate is 90%.

If you are saying that corporate tax rates impact whether or not a business chooses to exist in the U.S., I absolutely agree. But that wasn't your original argument. Your original argument was that we should cut corporate taxes to encourage companies to hire MORE employees. Which doesn't make sense.

My argument ... To refresh your memory.

"I'd have like to seen a big drop in corporate tax rates to accomplish this [high quality job growth]... Invite companies like Toyota and Honda to refurbish out factories, hire our workers, and make/assemble more products in the USA..... Invite companies like apple, google, etc to bring much of the trillions in offshore accounts back to the USA."

Yep. Toyota and Honda already employ US workers. How many they employ is based on US demand for their cars, not the corporate tax rate.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/7/2015 10:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/7/2015 9:23:00 AM (view original):
I know it because the corporate tax rate doesn't impact how expensive it is to hire an employee. Hiring an employee costs X if the corporate tax rate is 1%. Hiring and employee still costs X if the corporate tax rate is 90%.

If you are saying that corporate tax rates impact whether or not a business chooses to exist in the U.S., I absolutely agree. But that wasn't your original argument. Your original argument was that we should cut corporate taxes to encourage companies to hire MORE employees. Which doesn't make sense.

Once again, your ignorance is showing.

Corporate taxes are an expense.  Employee salaries and associated benefits are another expense.

Many companies try to keep expenses flat.  As one expense goes up, they have to try to find ways to cut other expenses to offset.  Conversely, if one expense goes down, they are more open to incurring increases in other expenses as long as they stay within their expense target.

To argue that there is no link between corporate taxes and hiring is ludicrous.  It may not be a direct link, but there definitely is an indirect link.  To argue otherwise is either disingenuous or pure ignorance.

You don't get it either. Corporate income tax is different from other expenses. It only applies to net taxable income. Expenses like payroll and rent reduce the amount owed in taxes.

It's like arguing that businesses won't rent office space because the corporate tax rate is too high. It doesn't make sense. Companies rent (or hire) what they need and the more they spend, the less they pay in taxes.

Or it's like arguing that an individual will save less in their 401k if the income tax rate goes up. It's the opposite, they save more to reduce their tax bill.

3 strikes

YER OUT!

BL is a retard.  Arguing with him makes you dumber.

A business works on the bottom line.  The bottom line comes when all the numbers are in.   About the only thing he has right is that a company won't hire if the demand isn't there. 

Posted by bad_luck on 6/7/2015 6:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/7/2015 10:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/7/2015 9:23:00 AM (view original):
I know it because the corporate tax rate doesn't impact how expensive it is to hire an employee. Hiring an employee costs X if the corporate tax rate is 1%. Hiring and employee still costs X if the corporate tax rate is 90%.

If you are saying that corporate tax rates impact whether or not a business chooses to exist in the U.S., I absolutely agree. But that wasn't your original argument. Your original argument was that we should cut corporate taxes to encourage companies to hire MORE employees. Which doesn't make sense.

Once again, your ignorance is showing.

Corporate taxes are an expense.  Employee salaries and associated benefits are another expense.

Many companies try to keep expenses flat.  As one expense goes up, they have to try to find ways to cut other expenses to offset.  Conversely, if one expense goes down, they are more open to incurring increases in other expenses as long as they stay within their expense target.

To argue that there is no link between corporate taxes and hiring is ludicrous.  It may not be a direct link, but there definitely is an indirect link.  To argue otherwise is either disingenuous or pure ignorance.

You don't get it either. Corporate income tax is different from other expenses. It only applies to net taxable income. Expenses like payroll and rent reduce the amount owed in taxes.

It's like arguing that businesses won't rent office space because the corporate tax rate is too high. It doesn't make sense. Companies rent (or hire) what they need and the more they spend, the less they pay in taxes.

You are not wrong about how taxes are applied... You are wrong about there being no correlation to job growth/decline. For instance - Illinois has to offer HUGE tax breaks every time a company (Sears, CME, Walgreen's) wants to close up shop and move to another state. If Illinois does not reduce the corporate tax rate these companies leave reducing employment in Illinois. Companies move to favorable business environments... taxes are a big part of that environment... and wherever they move jobs are created, wherever they leave jobs are lost. It happens on the state level, it happens on an international level.

BP (based in London) gets HUGE tax breaks to do business in the USA. Why do we give them tax breaks if it does not influence their decision making process?

Tax inversion has been in the news for over 30 years. Companies relocating headquarters abroad. There's over $2 trillion in corporate money overseas. Corporate taxes are the only reason for this. More money kept here in the US allows for more development and expansion.... Which leads to more jobs.

Corporate taxes are obviously not the only thing that incentivises foreign investment in the US but they do play a role. On the other hand demand is not the only thing that influences how many jobs are created either but it plays a big role. The thing you are missing is that demand does not dictate WHERE those jobs are created... which is why we need to make the US a more favorable place for foreign investment imo

How would you incentivise foreign investment to the US? Lower employee wages? Deregulate?

"For instance - Illinois has to offer HUGE tax breaks every time a company (Sears, CME, Walgreen's) wants to close up shop and move to another state. If Illinois does not reduce the corporate tax rate these companies leave reducing employment in Illinois."

Apples and oranges. Sears etc. are not creating jobs. They are moving jobs from one place to another.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/7/2015 7:28:00 PM (view original):
"For instance - Illinois has to offer HUGE tax breaks every time a company (Sears, CME, Walgreen's) wants to close up shop and move to another state. If Illinois does not reduce the corporate tax rate these companies leave reducing employment in Illinois."

Apples and oranges. Sears etc. are not creating jobs. They are moving jobs from one place to another.

Sears is creating jobs for the state they are in.... Now apply that same concept internationally.... Apples to apples. If for example airbus moved a factory from Europe to the US they would be creating high quality jobs in the US.

So, tough **** on those people losing their jobs in Illinois?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/7/2015 7:56:00 PM (view original):
So, tough **** on those people losing their jobs in Illinois?

That's my sentiment. The state needs to get its **** together. Taxing more and more is not working.

Boeing moved from WA to SC to get away from unions.  Good for SC, not so much for WA.

Posted by moy23 on 6/7/2015 7:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/7/2015 7:28:00 PM (view original):
"For instance - Illinois has to offer HUGE tax breaks every time a company (Sears, CME, Walgreen's) wants to close up shop and move to another state. If Illinois does not reduce the corporate tax rate these companies leave reducing employment in Illinois."

Apples and oranges. Sears etc. are not creating jobs. They are moving jobs from one place to another.

Sears is creating jobs for the state they are in.... Now apply that same concept internationally.... Apples to apples. If for example airbus moved a factory from Europe to the US they would be creating high quality jobs in the US.

Airbus does do some manufacturing in the U.S. And in France where the corporate tax rate is almost the same as it is in the U.S.

And it isn't apples to apples.