- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Messages
- 52,009
- Reaction score
- 33,944
- Location
- The Golden State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Job outsourcing is when a U.S. company decides to leave and pursue production where it is cheaper to hire workers. I will retract my statement about penalites, however incentives need to be given to companies that choose to hire American workers.
They are much lower now. There are also many less loopholes. Back then we didn't have the global market we had today, we were simply more advanced, not to mention much of the world had to recover from WW2 while we came out pretty much on top.
You are using the wrong business model comparison. Lower taxes allow businesses to grow and compete in a global market. As business grows, more jobs are provided, and more stock values rise. Obviously you can't eliminate taxes, but everyone is better off if you are getting revenue from quantity, not rates.
Take Ireland for example, they lowered taxes and had so much economic growth some EU officials asked them to raise the rates so they wouldn't get too far ahead of the neighboring countries.
Optimal rates change, and right now it would be better if that unknown rate was lowered.
and what was revenue when Kennedy made that speech? Revenue is what we are after, after all.
Revenues aren't a function of Rates. They are a function of GDP. You want to increase revenue, you gotta increase GDP.
They are a function of both. If you have the highest GDP imaginable, but your top bracket tax rates are very low, you'll still have a very low intake of revenue.
Job outsourcing is when a U.S. company decides to leave and pursue production where it is cheaper to hire workers. I will retract my statement about penalites, however incentives need to be given to companies that choose to hire American workers.
that is partially true; if you slashed all tax rates in extreme ways, it would be possible to aim for below-the-18.5%-historical-average.
but so far, we haven't come close at all to reaching that tipping point. quite the opposite:
Job outsourcing is when a U.S. company decides to leave and pursue production where it is cheaper to hire workers. I will retract my statement about penalites, however incentives need to be given to companies that choose to hire American workers.
Why punish companies whos job is to make money? If you really want to get to the root of the outsourcing problem, look at corporate taxes and how minimum wage disallows individual workers to bargain with a prospective employer for a wage. Protectionism is a fools errand.
Why punish companies whos job is to make money? If you really want to get to the root of the outsourcing problem, look at corporate taxes and how minimum wage disallows individual workers to bargain with a prospective employer for a wage. Protectionism is a fools errand.
We should eliminate the minimum wage in my opinion.
Personal income tax revenues are also a function of how much personal income people have. When you outsource jobs to other countries, it really doesn't matter what the tax rates may be, all of that income is lost.
When jobs go to illegals who will work for low wages, that money doesn't generate revenues either
When any market forces keep incomes low, that also keeps revenues low. The long term solution is for the average citizen to make more money.
Right now, the trend in wages is downward.
While a business owner, with branch offices in 3 counties, I fought against my state legislators who refused to RAISE the minimum wage. At the time, (1980's) the California minimum wage was around $4.00/hour, only slightly higher than the federal minimum. This was my business' biggest problem.
I would have loved to have had a minimum wage of $20/hour. Then, the callers to my business would have had the money to buy the stuff I was trying to sell.
While a business owner, with branch offices in 3 counties, I fought against my state legislators who refused to RAISE the minimum wage. At the time, (1980's) the California minimum wage was around $4.00/hour, only slightly higher than the federal minimum. This was my business' biggest problem.
I would have loved to have had a minimum wage of $20/hour. Then, the callers to my business would have had the money to buy the stuff I was trying to sell.
It was very discouraging, when asking the callers how much they could give me for a down payment for a membership in my club (a video dating service), only to hear them say "Uh, ten bucks". Or "Uh, fifty bucks" (the minimum down was $250). And why was that ? Because somebody out there is paying them minimum wage, that's why.
Problem with low minimum wages is that is keeps the disposeable income in the community around you, to a level where you can't sell anything. RAISE the minimum wage ! I said it then. I say it now.
PS - let's not forget that many businesses pay their help on a commission only basis (car sales, furniture, etc). For these businesses the low minimum wage is total lost income.
hey bigfoot! let's just raise the minimum wage to $100,000,000 an hour and we can ALL BE RICH!!!
:mrgreen:
gosh, yeah. imagine how much stuff we could buy if we all made 100 mil an hour.
good thing that labor costs aren't part of the price of production, eh? whew, our brilliant plan could really go down the tubes, then.
no, because they would have been unemployed.
And when those employees made 20 bucks an hour, their employer's business would fail and you wouldn't have any customers.
gosh, yeah. imagine how much stuff we could buy if we all made 100 mil an hour.
good thing that labor costs aren't part of the price of production, eh? whew, our brilliant plan could really go down the tubes, then.
No, they would have been employed at higher wages, making it possible for them to go to the stores and buy things, stimulating the economy.
Also, not only would they have been able to buy things, but so would the many more people who would have been employed, as a result of the added income to the businesses from increased sales, creating increased hiring, and more employment.
Hiding behind humor. The first sign that your debate opponent is finding himself without an answer to counter what has just been said to him. Ho hum. OK funny boys. What do you have to say about the disposeable income point ?
no, because if they weren't making $20 an hour, then their labor wasn't worth $20 an hour, which means anyone who hired them at that rate would be operating at a loss and would go out of business.
labor, like everything else, operates according to the laws of supply and demand. if you artificially hike up the price, you see a fall in demand.
no, because prices would have gone up along with wages. Labor, you see, is part of the price of production. If I make tables, and the cost it takes me to have a worker make a table goes up by $400 because now his wage has been artificially raised, then all that has happened is that I now have to raise the price of my table by $400.
they tried what you are suggesting back in the 1930's. It Prolonged The Depression by Seven Years.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?