Ail said:
irstupid said:
Jereel Hunter said:
irstupid said:
Jereel Hunter said:
It's not that simple. Sometimes companies make money hand over fist, but it's not hand over fist enough. Giving rich people, or companies, more leeway to work with does not make them decide to use that extra money to make jobs. It means bigger bonus for the CEO, more money for shareholders, and maybe more employees/higher pay.
|
yes i know they don't create jobs for the sake of creating jobs. They create jobs in order to make MORE MONEY. thats it.
If they are making a crap load of money, but realize if they hire more or open new department, expend so on, that they can make MORE money they will do that.
But that is something that can ONLY be talked about if they have money to spend. When they are not makign money they can't spend money on building a new expansion or stuff even though in the long run it may make them money. They can't take the RISK.
|
But letting them keep more money, and hoping they use it to create jobs is not the way to go. People don't become billionaires being free with their money. A better idea is to have higher taxes, with incentives for job creation. If a company has an obscene profit margin, they should pay taxes on it, unless they can show tangible job growth. For too many of these cases, this tax cut simply serves as a burden to the country so people who don't need it can pocket more money. As someone who is upper middle class, I personally I wouldn't mind paying slightly higher taxes to do my part in righting the country's economic woes, however I feel that those at the bottom should certainly not have to, and those in higher brackets should certainly do their part - though they often don't.
|
here is a simple way to think.
Lets say you own your own business. Now you make 1,000,000 in revenue in one year, ignoring expenses. You have 10 employees you pay 50,000 each. And you pay yourself 100,000. This leaves 400,000 for the year left the business made. Now what is corporate tax rate? probably 35% roughly. so 350,000 of tax. That now means you only have 50,000 of money for the business.
Now simple thinking. If you had 400,000 or 50,000. In which scenerio are you most likely to hire someone new? buy new machinery? expand? ect. And don't forget that buying new equipment or expanding means JOBS for those business that make the equipment or build the expansion, ect.
THere was something on 60 minutes not long ago talking about companies going over seas to austria or something becuase the tax rate is only like 11% there. Many say they would and want to come back to U.S. but the tax is too high to have any incentive to. They are running a business here, they are not charities. regardless how harsh that sounds, that is business. So lowering tax rate could potentially bring back companies and thus MILLIONS of jobs. Not to mentino a lower tax rate could bring companies that were never here here. Hell just look at in the states of america. Copmanies move all the time to different states that have better tax laws.
|
Hate to break the news but your maths are totally wrong..
Corporate taxes are applied on profit, not revenue.. and they don't apply to company internal investments either..
In your scenario the tax would be 35% of 400k, which is 140k, leaving you with 260k of profit.
Now lets say you decide to buy 100k of machinery.
Your 400k of profit go down to 300k.
The tax only applies to the profit after investments not before, so you now pay 35% * 300k = 105k and you are left with 300k-105k = 195k.
So your 100k machine only cost you 65k in the end because the tax does not apply to investments...
Same thing if you decide to hire extra employees, you will deduct their salary from the profit before computing the taxes and they will actually reduce your final taxes...
It's the same in any country, so no the business tax does not reduce investments in hardware or hiring of more people the way you describe it...
What it reduces is the final income, meaning the portion you can redistribute to your investors if you have any.......
|
