American international companies?
Oxymoronic.
They are International Companies, their concerns are purely monitary as you have stated. They have no patriotic loyalties to America as you can see by their actions.
-
I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...
Apparently France hates investments and innovation
- Thread starter Move In Media
- Start date
- Status
American international companies?
Oxymoronic.
They are International Companies, their concerns are purely monitary as you have stated. They have no patriotic loyalties to America as you can see by their actions.
CES020
New Member
And the middle class work for who? Rich people that own businesses. Take away the rich people and there is no "middle class" anymore because there are no employers left.
Where does this "middle class" get all this money to spend to DRIVE the economy, in your words? Oh, that's right, once again, from the employers that write their checks.
rjssigns
Active Member
randya you are missing something in your argument. We as consumers are partially to blame for offshoring. Always clamoring to spend the least amount of money for the best quality product. Granted there are many other factors that lead to outsourcing of jobs, but we are all guilty in some form or another of propagating the imbalance.
HaroldDesign
New Member
I rarely if ever hear of the current economic state of things being the result of the ease and speed of world-wide communication, to which now irrelevant solutions are sworn to work or fail. It wasn't long ago that working with companies around the world simply wasn't practical enough to create cost savings, and now it is. As for taxes, it's much easier to go online and move money in an instant to keep it safe from Uncle Sam and the citizens clamoring for a piece of the pie.
Ohh excuse me. American owned who do business internationally. Maybe those companies would be a bit more patriotic if they could keep and invest more of their money and not have it taken by the government to be re-distributed as it wants to.
Who creates a healthier middle class:
1. Mom and Pop businesses with a vested interest in their employees and community?
2. Corporations like Walmart?
AGAIN, IF lower taxes on the wealthy creates middle class jobs -WHERE are THOSE jobs with the lower taxes?
http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...gain-even-as-republicans-decry-redistribution
No, patriotism has NOTHING to do with how much more money they would make.
This is Corporatism not Patriotism......
Yes, of course we are.
Primarily for allowing things like THIS to happen:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110618182852AAPFPJ3
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/07/20/walmart-is-americas-first-welfare-queen-superstore/
Why do the riches of Americans, the Waltons need welfare?
CES020
New Member
I hate to tell you, but those "Mom and Pop" businesses with a vested interest in their employees are considered wealthy by the government. They don't distinguish between Mom and Pop with 10 employees and WalMart. Both are considered wealthy.
You keep citing one post by business week. There are 100's and 100's of other articles that do prove that lowering taxes benefits everyone.
You can't site one example where taxing the rich created jobs and helped the economy. Rich being defined as anyone making $250,000 or more.
I have citing more than one post by business week.
And you realize that with the GREAT REDISTRIBUTION of Wealth from the middle to the upper class means that taxes are HIGHER for everyone EXCEPT the upper classl.
Lower taxes for EVERYONE would benefit everyone (provided we dont just BORROW with INTEREST to pay for spending.
So SHOW ME THE DATA.
If your data is better than mine, I will support it.
So which one builds a better middle class in the US.
I would rather have thousands and thousands of Mom and Pops (who dont get billions in WELFARE), than one Walmart, but that is just me.
And actually the government DOES distinguish between Mom and Pops and Walmart.
How many millions a year does Mom or Pop spend lobbying the government for special favors?
http://www.bankrate.com/financing/taxes/high-tax-states-beat-no-tax-ones/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303425504577353843997820160.html
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-14/news/30093395_1_tax-rates-tax-shelters-income
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/commentary/taxing-rich-good-economy
...and that's just 2 seconds on Google. The entire history of tax rates in the contemporary (post civil-war, let's say) world proves the point, so it's rather easy to find these citations you feel are so hard to find.
http://www.bankrate.com/financing/taxes/high-tax-states-beat-no-tax-ones/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303425504577353843997820160.html
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-14/news/30093395_1_tax-rates-tax-shelters-income
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/commentary/taxing-rich-good-economy
...and that's just 2 seconds on Google. The entire history of tax rates in the contemporary (post civil-war, let's say) world proves the point, so it's rather easy to find these citations you feel are so hard to find.
As for your "mom and pop = walmart to the gov" argument...that's complete nonsense. The tax code is chock full of exemptions for businesses with 50 employees or less. You also seem to not have any idea how tax brackets actually work...
I'll also chip in that I don't think the actual tax rate is the first problem to tackle ... we don't even collect 35% at 35%, as Romney's tax returns show. The richer you are, the more easily you can disguise income as capital gains and be taxed at 15% (or less, in many cases) or use various other loop holes.
Personally I think capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income (and yes, I'm a heavy stock investor, this would hurt me), and I think the social security wage base should be uncapped. Those two changes alone would result in a huge shift in revenue for the government without needing to increase the income rate on high earners.
Personally I think capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income (and yes, I'm a heavy stock investor, this would hurt me), and I think the social security wage base should be uncapped. Those two changes alone would result in a huge shift in revenue for the government without needing to increase the income rate on high earners.
From an article about France raising their tax rates.
“We’re getting a lot of calls from high earners who are asking whether they should get out of France,” said Mr. Grandil, a partner at Altexis, which specializes in tax matters for corporations and the wealthy. “Even young, dynamic people pulling in 200,000 euros are wondering whether to remain in a country where making money is not considered a good thing.”
“We’re getting a lot of calls from high earners who are asking whether they should get out of France,” said Mr. Grandil, a partner at Altexis, which specializes in tax matters for corporations and the wealthy. “Even young, dynamic people pulling in 200,000 euros are wondering whether to remain in a country where making money is not considered a good thing.”
Poor and middle class Americans have a much better reason to ask whether they should get out of America:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Sans Patriotism...
We'll all be poor if the rich leave. How many signs do you sell a year to poor people?
You mean like they did when the tax rate was 90% and businesses were booming from the middle class?
Last edited:
Most of France's wealthy are already in London and other locales. There's a huge difference in mobility between moving within the Eurozone for your permanent residence and moving your permanent residence out of the USA. It's also worth noting that of developed nations, the US and the UK have the lowest tax rates as it currently stands. Raising taxes in the US isn't the same thing as raising taxes in some place like France, which already has higher rates than the US (though also a much more robust, effective, and less costly hybrid public/private healthcare system).
Eventually the rates, on a long enough historical scale, will have to normalize across regions or we'll just end up with continued cyclic economic cliffs. The part of normalization growing out of wack is the difference between the ultra-rich (the .001%, if you will) and the middle class, which is at all time highs.
Eventually the rates, on a long enough historical scale, will have to normalize across regions or we'll just end up with continued cyclic economic cliffs. The part of normalization growing out of wack is the difference between the ultra-rich (the .001%, if you will) and the middle class, which is at all time highs.
WildWestDesigns
Active Member
It still isn't a correct comparison.
I mentioned the factors that I could just think of then that were different in the 50s compared to now. If you don't really have a good alternative and you still want to do business, have to pay the piper, rather you want to or not.
If you were to hike it to 90% now, you better believe that they will go else where. If their business allows them to (depending on what that business is). Why you ask. Because there are alternatives for them to go now that didn't exist back then. Certainly not at the level that they do now.
You as an investor would want them to go elsewhere, otherwise you won't get as much for your investment. At least not monetarily.
- Status