Hope for Youth?

[paullud]

Just so you know, I don't blame McDonalds for creating this situation. They're cashing in but they didn't create the situation. But this is the situation we're in. It's the gilded age all over again. I heard the other day that the average age of a fast food worker in this country is 29.

So you're saying despite these low wage jobs people keep don't try to get out of them even though they could have had a paid for education and moved on.

Maybe it's time to rethink the whole sucking up to rich people phenomenon we've seen in this country for the last 3 decades. If they want tax breaks they should earn them. If they want to be called "Job Creators" they need to create good paying jobs in America.

Actually there has been a war on rich people for decades and they have been viewed as being evil.

Wouldn't you like to see a robust manufacturing base right here in America? Imagine all that freight.

So your idea is to push the wages up for people that do nothing and make it more comfortable for them to be idiots? That would be really bad because you hurt the purchasing power of the middle class and force wages up for those manufacturing jobs that are quickly exported. We have already seen this happen numerous times so we already know what will happen.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[davekc]

Just so you know, I don't blame McDonalds for creating this situation. They're cashing in but they didn't create the situation. But this is the situation we're in. It's the gilded age all over again. I heard the other day that the average age of a fast food worker in this country is 29.

Maybe it's time to rethink the whole sucking up to rich people phenomenon we've seen in this country for the last 3 decades. If they want tax breaks they should earn them. If they want to be called "Job Creators" they need to create good paying jobs in America.

Wouldn't you like to see a robust manufacturing base right here in America? Imagine all that freight.

Thirty years ago you could use that thinking. We are now in a global economy so the US can't price itself out of the market. Have to realize that many of the largest investors that "create jobs" are foreign investors. They want tax breaks to come here. Give them none, and they go somewhere else that will. On a global scale, the US has just about the highest corporate tax compared to other countries. Our wages are also some of the highest.
Business is in no rush to come to this country to pay more when they don't have to. Taxes, regulations and unions keep them out. Look at the auto industry. Even as of this month, we are opening factories all over Mexico and elsewhere.

 

[WanderngFool]

Thirty years ago you could use that thinking. We are now in a global economy so the US can't price itself out of the market. Have to realize that many of the largest investors that "create jobs" are foreign investors. They want tax breaks to come here. Give them none, and they go somewhere else that will. On a global scale, the US has just about the highest corporate tax compared to other countries. Our wages are also some of the highest.
Business is in no rush to come to this country to pay more when they don't have to. Taxes, regulations and unions keep them out. Look at the auto industry. Even as of this month, we are opening factories all over Mexico and elsewhere.

If what you say is true then the net result of the enormous tax breaks we've been giving the rich for the last 30 have accomplished nothing and I would agree.

Maybe those auto factories would be located here if we created the right incentives. It's been done before. Other countries do it all the time.

 

[davekc]

If what you say is true then the net result of the enormous tax breaks we've been giving the rich for the last 30 have accomplished nothing and I would agree.

Maybe those auto factories would be located here if we created the right incentives. It's been done before. Other countries do it all the time.

No....not true. It is those tax breaks that have brought Volvo, Volkwagan,Mercedes, Daimler,Toyota, Hyundai, Nissan and the list goes on. But you do notice the effects of unions on these places.
I would say it has worked. Take those jobs away and see what you have.
On a side note, what "incentives" would bring business here?
"Other" countries offer lower taxes, free land, and cheaper labor.
I would love to hear your answer.

 

[WanderngFool]

No....not true. It is those tax breaks that have brought Volvo, Volkwagan,Mercedes, Daimler,Toyota, Hyundai, Nissan and the list goes on. But you do notice the effects of unions on these places.
I would say it has worked. Take those jobs away and see what you have.
On a side note, what "incentives" would bring business here?
"Other" countries offer lower taxes, free land, and cheaper labor.
I would love to hear your answer.

Conversations like these end up all over the place very quickly. Now we're into foreign corporations coming here and unions and free land and cheaper labor.

Any time you'd like to talk about any of that stuff I'd be glad to oblige, largely because I'd be sure to learn a thing or two.

My point about offering incentives to the rich for providing jobs is that I see people on the right actually believing the nonsense about "Job Creators" and when I'm in my truck I see so many boarded up buildings. Is it such a preposterous notion that they should create jobs here instead of in China?

Why not find a way to incentivize them? Tax policy does this all the time.

And just so we're on the same page here. You do agree that Americans in the highest tax brackets pay less in taxes as a percentage of earnings, capitol gains etc than they did, say 30 years ago and that the middle class has gotten hosed?

 

[davekc]

Conversations like these end up all over the place very quickly. Now we're into foreign corporations coming here and unions and free land and cheaper labor.

Any time you'd like to talk about any of that stuff I'd be glad to oblige, largely because I'd be sure to learn a thing or two.

My point about offering incentives to the rich for providing jobs is that I see people on the right actually believing the nonsense about "Job Creators" and when I'm in my truck I see so many boarded up buildings. Is it such a preposterous notion that they should create jobs here instead of in China?

Why not find a way to incentivize them? Tax policy does this all the time.

And just so we're on the same page here. You do agree that Americans in the highest tax brackets pay less in taxes as a percentage of earnings, capitol gains etc than they did, say 30 years ago and that the middle class has gotten hosed?

But you are against giving tax breaks to business. Can't have it both ways.
As far as taxes, for a variety of reasons, that "47 percent" are getting benefits from the government. The top ten percent or "the rich" foot the bill. As a percentage, the rich pay far more taxes than the average joe. In fact the top 50 percent pay almost all of it based on earnings.
Here you go.
National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?

 

[WanderngFool]

But you are against giving tax breaks to business. Can't have it both ways.
As far as taxes, for a variety of reasons, that "47 percent" are getting benefits from the government. The top ten percent or "the rich" foot the bill. As a percentage, the rich pay far more taxes than the average joe. In fact the top 50 percent pay almost all of it based on earnings.
Here you go.
National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?

When did I say I was against tax breaks for business? I'm in business and I enjoy being able to write expenses off and I enjoy a per diem tax break and mortgage interest tax break and so on.

I'm just making the observation that we don't demand "bang for the buck" from the rich and we should. And not only that, look at how quickly someone is demonized (not by you, but it is common practice) for even suggesting that as a nation we should get something in return for the tax breaks we give to the rich. The Job Creators should create jobs or stop calling themselves something that they are not.

I found your tax charts interesting buy they don't go back very far and they don't really compare where we are to where we were.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/30/us/tax-burden.html?ref=us&_r=0

 

[davekc]

When did I say I was against tax breaks for business? I'm in business and I enjoy being able to write expenses off and I enjoy a per diem tax break and mortgage interest tax break and so on.

I'm just making the observation that we don't demand "bang for the buck" from the rich and we should. And not only that, look at how quickly someone is demonized (not by you, but it is common practice) for even suggesting that as a nation we should get something in return for the tax breaks we give to the rich. The Job Creators should create jobs or stop calling themselves something that they are not.

I found your tax charts interesting buy they don't go back very far and they don't really compare where we are to where we were.

You aren't getting anything for the money because it gets paid and the government wastes it. That we do agree on. That is why you don't see any "bang for the buck".

As for business tax, you wrote,

Maybe it's time to rethink the whole sucking up to rich people phenomenon we've seen in this country for the last 3 decades. If they want tax breaks they should earn them. If they want to be called "Job Creators" they need to create good paying jobs in America.

I interpreted that as you were for raising business taxes or "doing something to earn them" and I responded with the reasons it won't work. They simply can go somewhere else. And many do, thus the conflict.

But one thing you can get excited about is the rich will get hit again through Obamacare. All kind of new taxes coming with that and they are providing free insurance for the uninsured.

 

[cheri1122]

'Job creators' want low taxes [after being given incentives & subsidies] and cheap labor.
When their demands are met, governments are left without enough revenue to provide and maintain the infrastructure and services that are essential, and the workers can't afford to maintain even a bare minimum standard of living, so something's gotta give.
Like a wise man says: follow the money. When the entire convo is about the government spending for social needs, cui bono? Sure: the taxpayers, like you, me, and the rest of us who work for a living.
But there's another group that benefits: the nontaxpaying 'job creators'. They don't pay taxes, but they benefit from the amenities [roads, airports, police] provided by the government, and that's without any of the subsidies, grants, or other 'deals' & programs that aren't known to those outside the legislative arena. They also benefit from the outrage over 'entitlements' [the safety net for the poor] because it isn't directed at them, and their sweet deals.
When you say "they'll simply go somewhere else", I think we should encourage them to do just that. If they aren't willing to support the country that makes their wealth possible, they don't deserve to be supported in return. Let them go to Mexico, or China, and do business.
Oh wait - they already tried, and it didn't work too well for them, if I remember right.

 

[cheri1122]

Wow, the only jobs being offered today are at McDonald's? It used to be that these were jobs for high school students or people in college. When did the skill set of these jobs change that makes them jobs that should support a family?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

The skill set hasn't changed - the economy has changed. We are becoming a retail/service economy, which offers very low wages, compared to the industrial economy we were used to being - which paid decent wages. [The last big change in the economy was agrarian to manufacturing, in which people were able to earn more money, not less.]
Unfortunately, the cost of living hasn't declined to match the wages offered. Because the job creators don't want to raise wages, [they have lots of graphs & charts to explain why they can't pay more at the bottom, even by adding 07 cents to the price of a burger], the government has stepped in to keep people fed and housed and so forth. It suits the job creators just fine, but the rest of us, not so much.

 

[Turtle]

Someone earlier in this thread expressed mild outrage that someone could lose their job and then have to take on two separate lower paying jobs in order to make the same money they were making with the one job. And the outrage was expressed as a question. The answer is, that's the reality if they want to maintain the same income. The other reality is they could reduce their living expenses and live within their means.

It is true that these evil, rapacious capitalist corporations will pay as little as they can for anything in order to maximize their profits. How rude. Apparently there is a mindset that thinks any business can stay in business by wasting money, by paying more for something than they need to. No one will pay more than they need to for anything, certainly not because the recipient merely wants it. A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to have my front struts and lower ball joints replaced at a dealer for the tidy sum of $1640. I rudely chose to order identical parts online and have them replaced at a dealer with a reasonable labor rate for a parts and labor total of $580.

McDonalds, Walmart and other low skilled employers aren't going to pay "a living wage" just because someone wants to earn a living wage while working a low skilled job. They will pay exactly what they can get away with, which is, as it turns out, exactly what the job is worth. Given the supply of low skill labour in the US and the demand for that low skill labour then those companies are paying what that low skill labour is actually worth. This is definitional: in a market economy something is worth what someone will pay for it. Sorry.

We see it every day in expediting, where a load will pay whatever someone is willing to move it for. Shippers want to move it for the lowest price, drivers want to haul it for the highest price. But competition wins and the lowest price moves it. Driver who want to maintain a certain level of revenue may have to run more loads at a cheaper rate in order to achieve their revenue goals. Kinda like working two jobs, ain't it? The other option is to cut back on expenses and live within your revenue means. Kinda life real life, isn't it?

Before the free market economy took hold with the agricultural and industrial modes of earning a living, and today with the more service-oriented economy, people had to earn a living by doing the things that enable them to live. They did this by ensuring they had food, clothing and shelter. They had to work to obtain food, either by growing it or by going out and killing something and dragging it home and by gathering food, or both. They had to make their own clothes, and build or find their own shelter. If they did some of these things but not all of them, they didn't survive. Today, they need to do the same things, but in different ways. They go out and earn money to buy food clothing and shelter. If they are only willing or able to earn enough money for some of these things but not all of them, they can't survive. It's really not up to everyone else to grow more, gather more and hunt more, in order to help those who won't help themselves. It's not up to everyone else to build or find shelter for those who can't or won't do it for themselves. It's not up to everyone else to make clothes for others. You have to actually earn your living, or you can't live.

So, to answer the question of, what kind of a society requires people to work 2 jobs [if they can find 2 employers who will allow them to choose their shifts - like that'll happen] just to pay the bills, when they have already worked long enough to have a house & family to care for? It is a society that has taught people how to live without earning a living, by living off the living of others.

Bill Clinton and liberals in Congress led by Barney Frank took the "chicken in every pot" mentality and applied to to home ownership. Whether they earned it or not, deserved it or not, could afford it or not, they got a house. They didn't really have to work "long enough" or hard enough to have a house and a family to care for. Then, when it came time to pay the piper, Obama and liberals in Congress, again led by Barney Frank, enabled people to keep the homes they didn't earn and couldn't afford.

The result is the highest rate of home ownership in the history of the country. And what happens when people own homes? They are reluctant to move to warmer climates to hunt for food and gather nut and berries. They are reluctant to move in order to find work in order to earn a living.

So, what kind of society will we have if it continues? A very liberal one, where no one knows how to take care of themselves and are reliant upon government from, you guessed it, cradle to grave for their living. We will have a society that believes each and every job available (i.e., McDonalds, Walmart) should pay a living wage, regardless of what the skill set for that job is worth.

 

[WanderngFool]

Great article this morning.

An Investment Manager's View - Business Insider

 

[davekc]

I don't think there is any question that some game the system to their advantage. I think that will always be there. But your article confirms that there isn't enough of them one percenters to pay for everyone else. That is why we are 17 trillion in debt.

 

[davekc]

'Job creators' want low taxes [after being given incentives & subsidies] and cheap labor.
When their demands are met, governments are left without enough revenue to provide and maintain the infrastructure and services that are essential, and the workers can't afford to maintain even a bare minimum standard of living, so something's gotta give.
Like a wise man says: follow the money. When the entire convo is about the government spending for social needs, cui bono? Sure: the taxpayers, like you, me, and the rest of us who work for a living.
But there's another group that benefits: the nontaxpaying 'job creators'. They don't pay taxes, but they benefit from the amenities [roads, airports, police] provided by the government, and that's without any of the subsidies, grants, or other 'deals' & programs that aren't known to those outside the legislative arena. They also benefit from the outrage over 'entitlements' [the safety net for the poor] because it isn't directed at them, and their sweet deals.
When you say "they'll simply go somewhere else", I think we should encourage them to do just that. If they aren't willing to support the country that makes their wealth possible, they don't deserve to be supported in return. Let them go to Mexico, or China, and do business.
Oh wait - they already tried, and it didn't work too well for them, if I remember right.

You are making a liberal assumption that corporate America isn't paying taxes. Or...not enough.
Back to that global economy thing again. Companies here in the US pay almost the highest rate in the world in taxes. Doesn't mean they don't get tax breaks but if they go somewhere else you have a much bigger problem. Take small towns or large where a big company pulls out. The area collapses. Look at Detroit.
The reality is in most cases, they bring in more than they take. That is proven time and time again when a factory or business closes. I have yet to see a large employer leave an area and the town celebrates that departure.

 

[paullud]

Great article this morning.

An Investment Manager's View - Business Insider

I didn't see anything about getting ahead or being successful by demanding low skill jobs pay more than they are worth or welfare handouts. This was in there though: "The net worth for those in the lower half of the top 1% is usually achieved after decades of education, hard work, saving and investing as a professional or small business person."

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[davekc]

I didn't see anything about getting ahead or being successful by demanding low skill jobs pay more than they are worth or welfare handouts. This was in there though: "The net worth for those in the lower half of the top 1% is usually achieved after decades of education, hard work, saving and investing as a professional or small business person."

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

I think that is what many liberals can't get there head around. They think they are successful because of tax breaks and yet fail to mention or understand that most started at the bottom and worked their way up. The only difference is they made the most of their opportunities and didn't make critical life mistakes.
There is always failure. Just part of life. Most business people have tanked a business or two along the way and had to start over. Same when people lose a job or anything else.
Just a matter for most as to whether "they want to".

 

[Turtle]

You are making a liberal assumption that corporate America isn't paying taxes. Or...not enough.

Well, in Cheri's defense, while it's not nearly as pathetic as she wants to make it out to be, the reality is that a US corporation's tax rate is largely dependent on their ability to hire a competent tax lobbyist. The US corporate tax rate is 35%, and jumps to 39.2% when state rates are taken into account. That's by far the highest corporate tax rate in any developed country in the world. However, there is a big difference between the rates set by law and the amount of cash that's actually collected. According to the GAO (in a report that looked at companies with at least $10 million in assets), thanks to corporate tax credits, exemptions and offshore tax havens, the effective corporate tax rate in 2011 fell to 12.1%, its lowest level since at least 1972. Even when foreign, state and local taxes were taken into account, those US corporations in the report paid an average of only 16.9% of their worldwide income in taxes. The report was requested this year by Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Tom Coburn (R.-Okla.)

Republicans and Democrats both want corporate tax reform, with a lower statutory corporate rate along with the closing of loopholes, or so they say. The Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has hauled several corporate executives to Capitol Hill over the past year for testimony on their tax practices. We saw from those that Apple used a complicated system of international subsidiaries and cost-shifting strategies to avoid paying taxes on $74 billion of income, that Microsoft cut it's tax bill by more than $7 billion since 2009 by using loopholes and offshore subsidiaries, and that Hewlett Packard saved $6 billion by shifting money back and forth between two offshore companies.

And of course, the Senators who crafted the legislation that allowed this were outraged at the companies who so rudely and evilly took advantage of these loopholes. The Senators were so outraged that they didn't do anything about it and decided to leave things the way they are.

 

[paullud]

Well, in Cheri's defense, while it's not nearly as pathetic as she wants to make it out to be, the reality is that a US corporation's tax rate is largely dependent on their ability to hire a competent tax lobbyist. The US corporate tax rate is 35%, and jumps to 39.2% when state rates are taken into account. That's by far the highest corporate tax rate in any developed country in the world. However, there is a big difference between the rates set by law and the amount of cash that's actually collected. According to the GAO (in a report that looked at companies with at least $10 million in assets), thanks to corporate tax credits, exemptions and offshore tax havens, the effective corporate tax rate in 2011 fell to 12.1%, its lowest level since at least 1972. Even when foreign, state and local taxes were taken into account, those US corporations in the report paid an average of only 16.9% of their worldwide income in taxes. The report was requested this year by Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Tom Coburn (R.-Okla.)

Republicans and Democrats both want corporate tax reform, with a lower statutory corporate rate along with the closing of loopholes, or so they say. The Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has hauled several corporate executives to Capitol Hill over the past year for testimony on their tax practices. We saw from those that Apple used a complicated system of international subsidiaries and cost-shifting strategies to avoid paying taxes on $74 billion of income, that Microsoft cut it's tax bill by more than $7 billion since 2009 by using loopholes and offshore subsidiaries, and that Hewlett Packard saved $6 billion by shifting money back and forth between two offshore companies.

And of course, the Senators who crafted the legislation that allowed this were outraged at the companies who so rudely and evilly took advantage of these loopholes. The Senators were so outraged that they didn't do anything about it and decided to leave things the way they are.

We definitely need corporate tax reform and it should be a really simple sliding scale of 15-25% of profits from business that originates or passes through the US. No more of this crap with buying stuff from yourself in Ireland and moving money to the Bahamas.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[davekc]

That I would agree with. That part will not likely change as long as politicians rely on that money to get elected.
They are all guilty. Hillary just last week made 400k doing a couple of speeches for Goldman's.
http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-speeches-2013-10

 

[WanderngFool]

That I would agree with. That part will not likely change as long as politicians rely on that money to get elected.
They are all guilty. Hillary just last week made 400k doing a couple of speeches for Goldman's.
Hillary Clinton Goldman Sachs' Speeches - Business Insider

I'm sure that's true but here's where you can't have it both ways. You can't accuse the left of being socialists and in the next breath accuse them of being capitalists run amok. Sure, some of them are, but it isn't what they stand for. As an outsider viewing both groups I'd have to say that conservatives worship money and liberals like it a whole lot.