Great, after 6 years of this hugely successful government, how many folks are relying on food stamps?
Kansas Tax Cut Hasn't Created “tens of thousands of jobs.”
- Thread starter tay
- Start date
the next question is 57% of what?
the answer ________________________________________
Google is your best friend.
the answer ________________________________________
Google is your best friend.
Forget the children.....what about the tortoises?
5 million or so. Twice as many as when BHO took office.
I see, so basically twice as many people are destitute under 6 years of the current administration.
Does that qualify as a raging success?
Walmart and the Walton family are the single largest beneficiaries of the food stamp programme.
They rely on them to get their yachts and houses all over the world while paying their employees so little they can't feed themselves.
You best stop blaming the government and put the blame where it belongs.
The biggest success has been the net gain of a whopping 34,000 jobs since January 2009. Whoo-hoo! That's some economic recovery.
That's Huge!... Colossal!... The Apex of success!!!
Why, that translates into just over 6,000 new jobs a year!
Certainly, this is a banner day for the Democrats... A real resume builder that will get them elected for another term
The real question is: Why are they opting to make things there rather than domestically?
Maybe part of that decision has to do with a massive discord between the tax rates in the USA /Canada and rates elsewhere?
Could also be that in China they can pay their labour $2/day instead of $20/hour.
Absolutely!
On the other hand, companies like big capital funds, insurance companies offshore their operations because of the tax rate differential between jurisdictions.
Combined Fed and State/Prov tax rates in Canada (for example) can be over 50% (Quebec) and lows like 39% in AB..... By virtue of going to Cyprus, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, etc. these companies can pay 10%.
When your profits are in the billions, each single % equals 10s of millions... By simple virtue of not being in Que (or a high tax jurisdiction), that company's bottom line goes up by 100s of millions.
There will always be those groups that avoid taxes, but when major companies like Haliburton do it, it says that they have hit the wall in being gouged.
Right, like this thread. It's a commonly held belief that reducing taxes will increase employment because everyone is presumed by a subset of economists to want to spend all of their money. Kansas tried and failed to achieve the results they expected given that common belief. The real world isn't idealized like that.
At the same time, lowering corporate taxes in a jurisdiction where the tax rates are already competitive, it's diminishing returns. How many more businesses are going to move in, when it was already a competitive business environment in the first place, versus the revenue lost from the tax cuts? That revenue could be far better spent on infrastructure that will increase investments.
Some how something doesn't make sense to me. How can lowering taxes result in no employment gains? And how does high taxes increase employment? This just doesn't make sense to me. There has to be more to it than what is being portrayed. It's simply not logical. Why would any business relocate to a "higher" tax state as opposed to a lower one?
There is more to this than simply tax cuts. There must be something else at work here. Besides "income tax" being cut, what else is involved that isn't being reported? Are there certain regulatory rules or property rules or other issues that determine whether a business will re-locate there? I know that Texas has been particularly successful in drawing business from California which is a very highly taxed state.
Something is fishy here and, again, I can't take what this article says at face value.
JMHO
There is more to this than simply tax cuts. There must be something else at work here. Besides "income tax" being cut, what else is involved that isn't being reported? Are there certain regulatory rules or property rules or other issues that determine whether a business will re-locate there? I know that Texas has been particularly successful in drawing business from California which is a very highly taxed state.
Something is fishy here and, again, I can't take what this article says at face value.
JMHO
There are fiscal and qualitative reasons, because taxes aren't the only expense on the ledger and there are other factors to consider. Sometimes it's because the cost of transporting goods gets too expensive. Other times it could have something to do with quality manufacturing or skilled labour pools. On the quality aspect, a recent survey of Canadian manufacturing firms found that businesses here will be looking less to China and India when sourcing inputs for their businesses.
I mean if you take your question to the extreme, if they only cared about tax rates, then countries like Iraq would be a great destination, their 15% rate is favourable compared to Canada's 26.5%. For obvious reasons Iraq isn't a great place to move your business.
If the government would let me keep more of my earnings, I won't be increasing my spending. I will be paying off debt more quickly, and putting more in my savings. Not really big economic multipliers. Considering the fiscal troubles of the past half decade+, I wouldn't be surprised if others were more careful with any extra money they take home.
Yup but doing business in low or no tax regimes leads to other potential problems .
Such as is my shop going to be blown up ?
Are my goods going to be confiscated ?
Can I get my product to market ?
P. S .
Will anyone buy product manufactured in that no or low tax regime ?