Tax Reform Isn't A Panacea But It Will Help!

The voters place them in office and the voters can remove them from office when they wish. Problem is no one is in control of the voters and each does whatever they feel like doing so while one voter hates a candidate the next voter will love them. All those programs you mention above have been and will be voted on in Congress and you MUST accept the outcome...win some lose some...

 

Lowering corporate tax-rates is fools-gold. We are told, "That way, companies can invest in new products, new business and therefore new hires". Sounds good, but there's a "catch".

Lowering corporate taxes will only enhance Net Revenues (after tax) and allow Top-Management to enjoy better Incomes. Yes, but only up to a point.

The immediate effect is to afford companies that ability to take a longer view on alternatives that assure future corporate profits. And at the present rate of 35% taxation, there is still plenty left over for investing in new-products or new-markets for existing products.

Reducing corporate taxation is just orthodoxy. Replicants have been crying about taxation each and every year they can. What they do not understand is that corporate taxation funds overall government revenues. And it is the consequence of said revenues that, when , also assures jobs in a great many ways. And its the Defense Industries that profit most given that 54% of our Discretionary Budget goes annually to the DoD, who pay salaries with it but also spends recklessly $100B on an F-15 fighter jet that has become the highest-cost development program in America's history.

My point is this: We are spending more money on military Toys for Our Boys, when we should be investing in their future by offering free Tertiary Educational programs that will allow them fine jobs at decent prices.

And maybe we wont need to import the intelligence necessary to run a high-tech economy from India. I have nothing against the country nor its inhabitants, but I do recognize the fact that our education system is not generating enough competent scholars with the credentials our economy needs.

Which is one helluva lot better and more important than a hundred DoD armaments development programs.

Enough already ...

 

From this post alone it's VERY clear that you have never been involved in a STEM program. My wife is an electrical engineer, and she was one of two whites, and the only woman, in the entire program. Except for the white guy, everyone was an immigrant. Unsurprisingly, the same people who are too lazy to dig ditches for $30/hr are also too lazy to pursue a career in technology.

 

I am a graduate myself of an "engineering program", and long before STEM became a household word (which your comment implies, and we both know is untrue).

Those immigrants got in because they had the necessary credentials (in terms of scholastic achievement). If there are damn few Americans in the STEM program it's the fault of America's postsecondary education - only about 45% of high-school graduates go on to successfully obtain a Tertiary Level degree (and that includes vocational training).

Furthermore, of the four top-subjects leading to a Bachelor's degree, engineering* is the 3rd most favorite at US universities. I figure the problem in the US is the cost of postsecondary degree that is prohibitive. The average American student today graduates with a $35K school debt to repay - which is hardly an incentive for obtaining a degree ...

*From here: 4 Most Popular Disciplines Students Choose for Undergraduate Degrees in the USA

 

100% absurd and liberal, corporations raise prices to cover tax cost just the way they do for any cost. They are tax collectors not tax payers. We pay the corporate tax when we buy their products. We have the tax only to pander to the pure 100% ignorance of liberals!

Thus, it is far better to eliminate the tax and let business concentrate on new products and new jobs rather than dodging taxes. GE for example has 1000 full time tax professionals, a total waste that also goes into the high price we pay!!

 

absurd of course since kids manage to pay for degrees in political science all the time when they have no job prospects afterward. Plus, online degrees are almost free anyway. Georgia Tech now graduates more computer engineers on line than off line.

Off line College costs are sky high now. Imagine if govt paid for kids to go away and party for 4 years?? Absurd!

 

1) you mean F35 not F15 which was developed decades ago
2) easy for you to say since France surrendered to big govt lib Nazis, sent the Jews to concentration camps, and waited for USA military to rescue you
3) if our troops are doing the fighting we'll keep them safe with F35 air superiority over their battle fields!!!

 

Aint nuthin wrong with those increases; because of the benefits realized. All the items you mention are NOT good for the health and the US has the highest rate of obesity of any developed nation. Which suits the medical professions very well indeed, because the US has ALSO the most expensive privatized health-care as well.

As regards total taxation, the US is a country that is better-off than most. In fact, so much better off that even higher taxation would not be a bad thing - if it went to subsidizing the right benefits.

Like free post-secondary education and national health care. We need both to give people:
1) A chance to obtain a decent job at decent pay-scale (in a world that is changed from the Industrial Age into the Information Age) and
2) because the US needs absolutely to reduce its per-capita cost of healthcare that is prohibitively high, in fact, the most onerous cost-wise of any developed nation! (Americans pay $8500 per person whilst in France it is half that much because costs are mandated by the government).

Taxation is too high in America? Infographic showing international total taxation levels:


About WHAT are you complaining ... ?

 

Bravo! Well put!

Either one is part of the solution or part of the problem. And if its the latter, then one would best not to complain. Especially given America's shameful turnout at the polls (compared to other democracies). See here from Pew Research: U.S. trails most developed countries in voter turnout ...

 

Why do people like you make infantile claims that are insupportable by factual evidence ... ?

Definition of "liberal": Noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

Progressives are for far higher taxation of the rich in order to make more fair the distribution of Wealth. (See that corroborating evidence here.) Moreover, progressive voters are for larger state-expenditures but NOT FOR THE DOD, which is OUR GREATEST WASTE OF MONEY TODAY.

So, what expenditures?

A far less costly National Health Care system and free Tertiary Education. Both are key "public investments" in offering 80% of the American public (who do not own most of the Wealth) lives worth living.

My points?:
*We must raise income-taxation levels to a near confiscatory amount from its piddling level of a 20% (for those who know how to manipulate tax-rules). What's that maximum level? It's in the millions of dollars a year, but certainly less than 10 megabucks.
*And we increase inheritance taxation to assure that exaggerated amounts are not handed to family members (and, rather, go to good causes).
*Unlimited accumulation of Wealth by means of Low Taxation simply takes money out of the economy and accords it to select families who put it into "financial investments". History shows that riches are made by the first generation and subsequently lost by the second (or third) generations.
*The exaggerated Wealth should never have occurred in the first place, and taxing it away for expenditure upon "services" (like Free Health Care and free Tertiary-education, and not the DoD) will be a tremendous benefit to all Americans (and not just a select few!)

 

SCHOOLING

Well, yes. Because if "poor people" did not have the piddling sums they get to eat and live, then they'd likely come take them. (Generally, if you look at today's Prison Population, they are mostly males with no high-school degree.

From here:
Educational Attainment -- Percentage of Incarcerated Population
Some High School -- 41.3
GED* -- 23.4
HS Diploma -- 22.6
Post Secondary diploma -- 12.7%
*Definition - General Educational Development or General Education Diploma (GED) tests are a group of four subject tests which, when passed, provide certification that the test taker has United States or Canadian high-school level academic skills.

What can we learn from the above? This:
*The higher the educational skills, the lower the percentage of incarcerated population
*About 65% of the incarcerated population have only "Some High School" or a "GED"

Meaning what? We need absolutely to move more of our youth out of a Secondary-education and into completion of Tertiary-level schooling (Vocational, Associate or Bachelor level degrees).

MINIMUM WAGE

Fourteen percent of our entire population live below the Poverty Threshold, which is defined as an income of $24K for a family of four. The Minimum Wage offers an income of $15K a year, which is about 9K less than the Poverty Threshold.

Reverse calculation: The minimum wage necessary to provide $24K a year to a family of four is $11.50 an hour. Is that too much for a rich nation like the US to afford?

Your BigMac will cost you another 50 cents ...

 

always stunningly liberal and absurdly wrong.Medicare Medicaid Tricare IHS, VA, Community Clinics, Schip, McCarran Ferguson etc etc are not privatized!!!!!!!!!OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Oh yes, and another thing. Those hi-tech Wunderkind flooding in from India - they all went to post-secondary programs that were virtually free, gratis and for nothing.

From here: The Cost of Higher Education in India - excerpt:

We are fools to put up with educational systems that hangs "laureates" on top schools (Hah-vahd, Stohnferd, etc.) when the objective of any national educational-system should be to get as many people as feasible graduating from the highest degree-level possible.

And that clearly means at state-run schools for a significant percentage of the poorer classes. Hillary was right to assume into her program Bernie's idea of subsidized post-secondary degrees for all families with less than the average income. (Maximum two-earners with average individual-incomes of less than $54K à year.)

 

How is $35,000 prohibitive to obtaining a post secondary education? If that is the average debt, and higher education on average doubles one's lifetime earnings, why would $35,000 stop people from making an extra $1,000,000 throughout their lifetimes?

The lie is that a college degree on average does not increase earnings by any measure.

The mean hourly wage for a construction worker is $18.22.

The 25 Percentile of those with Bachelor Degrees do not earn more than the median for high school graduates, meaning that going to college was a complete waste of their time. Instead of reforming secondary education, you want to just push them on, with monumental cost, to tertiary education. As anyone alive who hasn't suffered a traumatic brain injury can tell you, if 1 out of 4 college graduates currently receive no benefit and are worse off than had they not gone to college, that number will only get progressively larger, as well as tuition.

Words are not the same thing as actions. Democrats habitually push for higher regressive taxes-be it sin taxes all across the country, higher sales taxes in California, or higher income and FICA taxes on the working poor at the Federal level. That is the actual policies pushed and enacted by America's liberal party.

I'm not a liar just because you chose to use examples of what you believe to disprove my examples of what all liberal leaning voters and their representatives have actually done.

So why do we need to pay for the tuition of Americans if India is already willing to boost our economy for free?

 

to a liberal any new form of welfare is always right!!

 

Because the primary purpose of any economy is to support the well-being of its constituents. Not that of other nations.

Moreover, you seem ignorant of the fact that the world itself is in the midst of a major change of ages. From the Industrial Age to the Information Age. Which is why America has lost so much of its industrial labor over the past thirty years.

The Information Age requires more astuteness in a higher level of general knowhow that is obtained only in a Tertiary Education. And when said education leaves students with a $35K debt to repay upon completion (as it does in the US), then damn fewer students pursue that degree. Especially those students of the poorer classes. So they remain poor.

That economic logic is a no-brainer ...

 

I got married at 19, and therefore was no longer a dependent. I went to community college for a semester, COMPLETELY free. My status as a "low income student" waived tuition and I got a voucher that covered all my books. It would have continued to my AS, and many of the same programs would have applied at state universities, not to mention that my employer at the time offered generous tuition assistance.

You present no economic logic whatsoever, because all societal pressure is on going to college, and men like me got looked down upon for daring to choose another route. If higher education is truly economically beneficial, government wouldn't have to subsidize it. If the claims made are true, that you invest $35,000 at 18, and walk away with a LIFETIME annual investment return of $24,000 a year, why would anyone not take that deal?

Currently 1 in 4 college graduates earns less than the median wage for a high school graduate, which means that they are drastically worse off than had they not gone to college. If everyone goes to college, that means that half, or three quarters of college graduates will be worse off financially, and why the hell would I want to have my tax dollars going to that?

 

Actually a $35,000 debt is very very trivial over a career that generates $millions. And, if someone does not want even that tiny debt they can do stem education on line for free. Georgia Tech now does more on line than off in certain stem subjects.

The liberal idea that poor people should pay for a tiny elite % to get stem educations is laughable but perfectly liberal.