Are we looking at America's economy wrong?

I sometimes wonder if we are still looking at America as a nation of small business owners when we should be looking at it as a nation of large corporation employees and craft our policies thusly.

 

You are looking at a country that is slowly strangling itself by permitting the largest conglomerates to legally avoid paying taxes.

 

I'll have you know...this is a nation of small businesses! Small business is what makes this country run! Small businesses are what creates jobs! Taxing small businesses hurts us all! Small businesses owners are the American Dream!

Huh? Only about 4/10 people work for small businesses? And we define "small businesses" as those that employ less than FIVE HUNDRED PEOPLE???

Geezums batman! My father works for a "small business" then...and the company is worth close to $1 billion!!!


So, yeah, the whole notion of "small business" generating things in this country USED to be true. Today, the mega business is king. They make policy, they elect politicians, they control the government. and they often do this so taht they can pay $8.50 an hour.

 

Who is a conglomerate? What human/humans pay the conglomerate tax?

 

If you can't differentiate between a conglomerate and a person, it's no wonder the US is in such a parlous state.

 

Common Einstein, define a conglomerate. Who are the humans invovled?

 

I think it's you who needs to do that.

 

How could we be strangling ourselves when - for the longest time - Corporations didn't pay any taxes at all?

 

Really...? You sure about that?

The top few percent on the income level pay over 50% of the nations taxes.

Maybe we should make the top 1% on the income bracket pay 99% of taxes...that would be fair right? Those evil nasty rich people should give away all their hard-earned money to poor lazy people.

 

That is the point I am making. And they still don't.

The US wouldn't be in such difficulty with it's deficit if those corporations paid taxes on profits instead of claiming taxpayers money through legally permitted loopholes.

 

The US wouldn't be in such difficulty if the Government didn't deficit spend, and waste so much on so much which is unnecessary.

 

You can't put the blame on any one government for that. It has been going on for years.

It's still a fact that billions of dollars that could go into treasury funds - don't.

 

With pleasure. It is you, me, the workers, the customers and the investors(big and small). There is no boogie monster to tax.

So next time you want to tax a corporation or conglomerate, slap that tax right on yourself.

 

Yet another bald faced lie that business has perpetrated on the weak minded. I research corporations pretty much 6 days a week. Trust me, there is a "boogie monster" to tax.

 

Without any economic common sense you cannot understand why taxing corps is a tax on you.

Essentially, taxes are just another cost of doing business. They factor in to the overall cost equation. Prices, wages and profits to investors are after the fact.

There is no human monster to slay. You can only tax people directly through incomes and capital gains. Corporate taxes are nothing more than an inflation tax on the dollar, they affect everyone involved.

You can either accept the truth or continue to live in fairytale land.

 

I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*). Thank God I don't live in your country.

I live in Canada where the economy is in reasonable shape compared to yours BECAUSE the man in the street and Corporations pay taxes and we still prosper - something that goes so far over your head that it would reach Mars before you had the slightest inkling of what is needed to remove a $14 billion deficit.

 

Technically both.
But people often overlook that large businesses are a big portion of created demand for small businesses (a big business hires a bunch of people in an area, creating the need for service industries; a big business has needs for suppliers, supporting more small suppliers).

What are you expecting the difference in policy to specifically be, Daarcand?
I do think there is a problem with states and nations competing too much to get investment from a relatively small number of large businesses. Unregulated, this will lead to reduction in quality of life and environmental protection, more taxpayer subsidy of public goods that specifically aid businesses and for business externalities (likely specific businesses), more collapses as companies uproot to go to a better offer...
But regulation is a sticky matter where a lot can go wrong or have perverse outcomes.
Do you have any ideas on how to adapt?

 

Make the billion a trillion. Why be let off for 1000 times less than the actual figure.

 

Complete misrepresentation. A misrepresentation that I am getting increasingly tired of.

Here:



The reason why the top few percent pay over 50% of income taxes is because they earn over 50% of income. Even if it was just a flat-tax, the top 20% would still pay 59.1% of taxes.

 

Then I guess the 75% of Americans without a secondary education better get on the ball and start educating because all these big evil corporations that do all the hiring don't need menial laborers.

 

75% of Americans don't have a secondary education? Where does that statistic come from? If it is true it most (*)(*)(*)(*)ing of the system.

 

That number is certainly not correct.

 

I didn't think it was but I am still interested in seeing how it was fabricated (or not). I am giving him the benefit of the doubt until he can or can't produce the goods.

 

I think maybe here:

http://www.phonydiploma.com/what-percent-of-people-have-a-college-degree.aspx

52% of Americans have some type of college education but only 27% have a degree, according to this website.

 

If 52% of Americans have some college education then it follows that at least 52% have secondary level education (unless everyone skips for some reason).

What I find out is the drop-out rate is amazing. If those figures are correct then the drop out rate is almost 50%.

Here the 'shockingly high' drop-out rates here:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfmheyidgbmh/rss2/

"ALMOST one-in-three students at a Dublin college dropped out before reaching second-year — shocking new figures reveal.

Institute of Technology Tallaght’s services courses (such as tourism, hospitality, sports and leisure courses) saw less than half of students progress to second year.

It is one of 11 institutes (IoTs) where less than four-in-five entrants made it beyond first year, while computer science programmes at six IoTs saw at least one-third of first years dropping out.

The Higher Education Authority (HEA) figures show that 22% of those who started all courses at IoTs in 2007 never made it to second year. In sharp contrast, an average dropout rate of just 9% was recorded in the universities — the lowest was 8% at Trinity College Dublin — and between 3% and 5% failed to progress beyond their first year at teacher-training colleges.

The HEA study also shows that almost one-in-six students leave all third-level courses before second year, with lower Leaving Certificate performance being the strongest link to early dropout. However, factors such as social background — which already discriminates against students from poorer families — also impact strongly, while men are slightly more likely to drop out than women.

HEA chief executive Tom Boland stressed that, while the universities may see more students complete courses, many of the IoTs are doing very well with the cohort of students they cater for.

"Many of them have a lot more males and people from working-class backgrounds, and also tend to admit students with lower Leaving Certificate points, so, in some cases, they may be doing better to keep them, even if the numbers are smaller," he said.

With engineering programmes in the IoTs also found to have high dropout rates — 21% to 34% except for 7% at IT Tralee — the data raises further questions about the suitability of students selected for entry to the high-stakes courses aimed at boosting Ireland’s knowledge economy.

Royal Irish Academy president Nicholas Canny said it is essential the students’ interest be ignited and sustained by exposure to the best teachers and researchers in science, technology and engineering in the critical first year of college.

Dr Vincent Tinto, an expert on third-level retention from Syracuse University in New York, told a conference in Dublin that students are more likely to succeed in environments that expect them to succeed and where they are regularly assessed. He outlined measures taken by US colleges, including strong financial, academic and social supports.

"They do so in a variety of ways from summer bridge programmes that help students make the transition to the first year of university, freshman seminars and academic support programmes, to mentoring, counselling and advising services," Dr Tinto said.

Many US colleges use early-warning systems to identify poor performance in early exams and urge students to use resources on campus — to address problems before it is too late."

EDIT: I realise that the article I have provided only account for the first to second year dropouts so the total number of dropouts is probably much higher.