Jereel Hunter said:
Well, what you are saying is nice, in theory. Lets look a little closer. (this is of course, all simplified as well) Taking into account the way corporations are actually taxed, as mentioned previously, they would be paying $140,000, not $350,000, and assuming the company's founder both works for the company pulling that 100k salary, and also made his company public, so there are shareholders (he also being one, with a large stake) The founder could take and invest the $400,000 into the company, buying new equipment, hiring new people, expending the $400,000 on growing the business. This created jobs and is great for the economy and nearly eliminates what the company needs to pay in taxes. This in turn allows the company to grow, boosting revenue and profit, and causing it's stock price to rise, making additional money for the shareholders. He makes a small additional profit on the rise of stock prices. He could also decide to spent the money on company retreats,an expensive company vehicle etc, get the exact same taxes because the company is posting minimal profit, while essentially spending a large portion on deductible things that benefit only himself (or himself and other execs). The point is, though it gives them more money to play with, it gives a taxbreak "to create jobs" without guaranteeing any jobs are created. If creating jobs is the reason for a tax cut, there should be a way to control that. Some companies, this tax cut is just "new company jet for the execs, business as usual for employees." I have no problem with companies having extra leeway to hire - I DO have a problem with essentially handing these companies a bunch of money back with a "well, hope you do something that helps the economy, rather than yourselves!" |
yes they can be selfish as you said in company picnics or in jets, but does not this company picnic hire catererors? or how about the company that makes teh jet, do they not ahve employees to pay? if no one is buying jets tehy go out of business. or the people who fly the jet for him, or stewardes, ect.
i mean hell look at those insane billionaires that have yachts that are like 300 yards or something rediculous. they have hundreds of people working on that yacht.
even teh most selfish looking things in the end do serve a purpose. one rich person spending is equal to a vast number of normal people like us spending. Do you think us going and buying a $15 dvd is going to save the economy and put people to work? hell no, as one we are nothing. no amount of spending could i do that would put a dent in anything. i coudl go as far into debt as i could and spend every penny i have and it still would not create one job. us normal/poor people need to ALL act. meanwhile a millionair/billionaire can do some pointless selfish spending and be beneficial to many.
also in regards to company picnic or anything that goes to employees, any business class will tell you that happier employees perform better. a better performing company sells more and so on. so these selfish employee picnics do serve a purpose.







