Are you calling for a tax cut for business? Pointing out that having the first or second highest business taxes in the world isn't a good thing?
Let's be honest...
Wealth is created by greed & usury fees (20% GDP). Things are made by workers (the other 80%).
Because they have degrees in management (not that cars arent mostly made by machines)
Wow someone needs to retake their high school economics class.
This argument just does not hold water. Austerity doesn't affect the needy. No one is advocating getting rid of social safety net for those who really need it. Further the work requirement doesn't affect those who can't work or are disabled. When people who can work, won't and those who do expect all kinds of extra entitlements therein lies the problem. We simply can't pay for it all even considering all the other wasteful government spending we could get rid of. Your argument is really demagogic and typical scare tactics. If we don't cut spending we will be headed for major austerity and we will have no choice.
Continued wasteful spending without paying for it will be disastrous for everyone and our country.
Teachers who invest 28% + 15%? Sound fair to you?
Much less efficiently than in the private sector. Less bang for the buck resulting in less prosperity and higher unemployment.
So you support no tax increases. More money in people's pockets and for business to expand creates more demand like you said. This then creates more jobs. You must be a Grover Norquist supporter then?
Yes, it worked so well for us with our failed stimulus. Give one example of Keynesian policy positively affecting outcomes. Good luck.
1. lower tax among OECD = essentially irrelevant. The question IS what has been done with the money? Answer, at best mediocre results, more likely TERRIBLE results - see graduation rates, poverty rates, food stamp rates, roughly half pay NO federal income taxes (some for very good reasons) BUT they/some of them DEMAND that those who do pay fed income taxes MUST pay more (their fair share - top 10% of fed income tax filers pay 70%+/- of total fed income taxes), unfunded pension liabilities (fed employees), bankrupt states, currently annual deficits of OVER a TRILLION $'s, ETC.
2. GIVEN the dismal results, what is the argument that politicians of ANY stripe will improve their track record with yet MORE tax "revenue"
3. TAX THE RICH = by estimates I've read, this funds fed govt 8-10 days. LET"S ARGUE OVER LESS THAN TWO WEEKS of govt spending gained by increased taxes
4. Assuming your 10% took 90% of income growth and "kept it" - what is your point? and what do you mean by "kept it"? Were you expecting a handout of some sort?
5. People pay the required tax rates or they are CHARGED and taken to court if necessary to rectify the problem. OTOH, people who have "unearned" income such as dividends and capital gains as a significant or SOLE source of income pay the required tax rates - applies to MANY seniors who have saved and invested ALL THEIR LIVES and are now living within the law. This includes me. Don't like the tax code, stop whining about other people's money and get the code changed.
6. You appear to be obsessed with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY and that "they" have too much and "you" have too little. Stop whining as that does not change anything. Go earn more money and leave "the rich" people out of it. 7. Yes, wealth has accumulated in fewer hands...and fewer countries...life is "unfair"...that's kinda true since T-ball where everyone gets a trophy and there's no such thing as striking out. Understanding that is part of the definition of BEING AN ADULT
In a message dated 11/28/2012 7:58:54 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
Clarence Swinney wrote, in response to johnleehooker:16000B debt9-30-01=5800B9-30-09=11.900B10% took 90% Income Growth and kept it as we borrowed to let em off hook. #3 in OECD as Least taxed---27% of GDP in fed state local taxes.#4 on Inequality==Rich have most by far25%=66%=15% Tax Rate paid in 2009
_User's website_ (http://www.facebook.com/claren..._Link to comment_ (http://redirect.disqus.com/url... SFdQFJrAVw2rcMU&imp=ca645b84-afb6-4433-b255-6dfbc914b6ed&zone=notifications. clicks&forum=inthesetimes&thread=940421003)
#2 in oecd as Least tax on corporationsPaid 12.1% tax rate in 2011.15-18% in prior three years..
#3 in Oecd as Least taxed As % gdp====27%Lowest tax rates in 50 years.15% for Gamblers???? 28% for Teachers??????
ALL govt $$$ are spent in an economy--here-overseas
How much profit for investor?Wall Street rules us.How much is FAIR pay?Market demand runs a company.Owner can pay more for labor he shouldWall Street== as much profit as can get.24% make Minimum Wage is disgraceful#1 in Oecd as percent of workers making low payshame on us
16000B debt9-30-01=5800B9-30-09=11.900B10% took 90% Income Growth and kept it as we borrowed to let em off hook.#3 in OECD as Least taxed---27% of GDP in fed state local taxes.#4 on Inequality==Rich have most by far25%=66%=15% Tax Rate paid in 2009
Paycheck=Demand for product/service24% of workers now earn Minimum wage.Push to $10=much more demand.=less profit//or increased price of product. Over time all benefit with greater velocity thru the economy in money supply. More get a teeny bit.
Companies are built on DEMANDSome must buy product.labor=pay more= buy more=more jobsThree of my employers went from one small plant to largest in its line in America----How? A desirable product. Hosiery-Yachts--Furniture. Sell stock buy firms.Each decimated by Take Over Robber Barons.Long Gone. Shameful.
Corp top 35% rate---paid 12.1% in 2011---10-22% over ten years.GE=81B Profit over 10 years. Paid avg 2.3% rate.Verizon profit 6B in 2011 paid 0.We rank #2 in OECD----- in Least---tax on corporations..Budget=3800Corp Profit= 2000BWhat part of 2000? 10%----35%=700B10%=200B of 3800B20%=400B of 3800B= 15% of budget
Unions try to create jobs. Not efficiency. Teamster=no backhauls=millions of miles nothing in trailer. Shame,My truck 2500 miles across nc to calif.No backhaul yet trucks from calif were headed to nc 2500miles waste fuel etc Hilton NYC-test mike for speech--Ask man in room to help move lecturn--no--I carpenter that takes electrician. What the????Unions good. some very wasteful of resources.
Hedge -Equity firms a disaster for labor.Been there done thatFirst act=accounts payable file top down.Labor big except Yachts-- Furniture where purchased materials is number one---50% + of costs.Cut Bonus Programs #1---my 30% down drain..Sell assets.Borrow max on assets and revenue yields.In pockets of robber barons.A disaster for labor. Usually not always.We bought/built 27 firms. Then we were bought. Hell.We cared for employees.No greed. .
Decent wages=demnd=growthCheap Labor=unemployment elsewhereexport of our jobs biggie
I suspect they accumulated much more wealth than you after reading your post.
I guess you aren't up with the facts Jarid Moon. Youth unemployment is the highest of any age group so kids are getting hired by anyone.
You also don't understand economic history. Henry Ford paid three times the going wage because his assembly line's pace and monotony caused workers to quit in droves. He had to pay more to keep a workforce intact.
The facts just get in the way of your narrative.
I have been to the cesspool of inactivity that is the county permitting office; My grandchildren theoretically go to public schools that seem to be open so rarely that they might only be open the hundred days each year that congress is in session.
Then why do all owners of companies always hire theirkids to work for them (Those kids were just born with the creative genius inside them?) but the guy that has been there for 30 years and helped create the company right alongside that owner is still working hard while the son of the owner is now the CEO and is 25 years old and has never worked a day in his life doing whatever they do. Money and luck is what it takes to make it big and rich! Henry Ford paid is works 3 times the average pay, because he knew that those men working to build those cars, would be the one buying his cars and talking about how great a company they work for. If you pay a man a wage a little over what he needs to live, he will invest that extra money back into the economy, which will create more and more jobs.
Replying with sarcasm in kind would be too easy. Public sector workers accepted a trade-off of foregoing a good salary (as compared to the better salaries of their private sector counterparts) for good benefits (as compared to the poorer benefits of their private sector counterparts), which turned out to be stupid because they did not expect unethical and greedy people to renege on the contract just when it would pay off. As for "no workin," that's just you, projecting.
Because it is cheaper to hire people who would starve to death without a job than to build it yourself.
Really? What kind of "wealth" do your two workers have? How much "wealth" do you think they've accumulated since working for you? Income is not the same thing as wealth. Excuse me if I don't bow to Your Royal Highness the Job Creator.
Hmm... Why don't the GM executives make the cars themselves then?
You re simply misinformed. Keynesian policies work very well, that was also the conclusion in a recent report from the IMF. What clearly doesn't work is trickle-down economics.
What a load of BS.
ALL of America's problems stem from the 47% freeloaders who demand freebies and don't want to pay for them in the way of Federal Income Taxes.
It certainly isn't from the rich.
Time to make the 47% pay their "Fair Share" and America will self-correct and everyone will benefit. If you want Americans to work you can't hand out free Obama-phones you morons.
But to think that Obama holds the key to creating jobs when he has declared war on business in insane - the stuff from wacko Liberal minds.............
So when I'm driving down the highway and I see a road construction project and there's four people watching one guy working with a shovel, this is wealth being created?Wow. Who would have thought it.
Something is wrong with the facts that get published and your post.
First I keep reading that red states, especially in the South, receive more of the government spending than blue states. Yet those red states voted for Romney and his plans to cut back government spending.
So either the Red States don't receive more of the money paid out by the federal government or your statement that the middle-class had an uproar over relaxing workfare. Why would states that receive that workfare make an uproar over increasing it.
The problem with liberals telling lies is they don't seem to keep straight what has been said.
The facts demolish your post. When Hostess went through bankruptcy the last time a few years ago seven of the eight largest creditors were union pension funds.
The ridiculous pensions and benefits of the unions destroyed hostess just like it did General Motors, and cities like Stockton and San Bernadino in California.
Unions are destroying everything they touch. The biggest union of all, the Soviet Union, imploded over 20 years ago FYI.
My family owns a company that employees two people. They answer phones and keep books. I could find literally hundreds of thousands of people who could do their exact jobs. The wealth of the company comes from the expertise and creativity of the companies owners not from the employees.
So in reality a handful of creative geniuses create wealth for thousands of workers. You have it exactly backwards.
Government cannot create jobs without the money to pay for them, and even then government is very inefficient. Public works didn't work for FDR or LBJ, why would you think they would work now. The ACA will also cause additional national fiscal burdens and financial hardship to many Americans causing further damage to the economy. With tax and spend policies, the ACA, a rather stagnant housing market, and increased regulatory burdens on business, we will be stuck in this "recession" for at least another 10 years. It will probably get worse before it returns to this new normal.
"The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead" --Keynes
My question to this article: Where is the job creation going to come from when faced with increased taxes and regulations, and redistribution of income in order to close the income gap? Who will create them? Why would they going into further debt in order to try and expand business when business has been down the last 4 years, especially small business? Why would anyone be optimistic about this happening? I don't see the logic or reason in such an approach, do you, does anyone?
I believe that was my point. If labor alone created wealth, we would not be suffering.
If you consider 6.8% unemployment excellent then you are correct Germany is great. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/busi... Unfortunately I'd rather not grade on the curve as you seem to want. There are historically proven ways towards low unemployment and Keynes is not the right prescription.I agree with you concerning manufacturing, since that is my industry, but the only way to have a strong, robust manufacturing sector is to help them, not hinder them with excessive taxes and regulation.
Bopper, do you know exactly what 'tax policies' incentivize companies to oursource? It's our outdated and excessive corporate tax structure. US companies have an effective tax rate of 30% (Institute for International Economics). Compare this to China 11.3%, Great Britian 18.2%, Mexico 15.2%. I only see one party even talking about lowering effective corporate tax rates. Moberg loses all credibility in my book the moment he mentions that with austerity-based budgeting "there will be little money available for creating jobs". Government has never created a lasting viable job because that is not what governments do.
Don't over-think this. It is just labor saying they will not share the pain. All the Democrat's special interest groups will be telling the Democrats in government that they delivered the vote, now make sure someone else bears all the pain. Blacks have already met with Obama and made that same point. That's the problem with winning elections by promising goodies - the time comes to pay up.
Hostess will become the norm.
Value creation is something real.
Job creation is a made up progressivism.
Let me ask you:
When you go shopping, do you usually look to buy the item that you want at the price that is best for YOU? Would you pay $50 for a pack of hotdogs? Or would you buy the ones that cost $3?
That is called 'value'. To you, $50 is NOT a good value for hotdogs. $3 is.
Value dictates economics.
Why would you expect a business to be willing to PAY a worker MORE than they value the work?????
You don't do it in YOUR everyday life!! Why should a business be expected to do it?
Value creation is what leads to jobs.
Job creation is just a phrase. It's pretend. It's made up and gobbled up by people who have never run a business.
Value creation!!! Learn it.
Allow it to take place.
THEN apply for a job with a value creator!!
You will never even SEE a job opening at a 'job creator'!
Or, maybe you could start your own business? Or make better choices about the job field you enter....or job skills you try to attain?
I dunno....just saying.....maybe you have a little accountability for yourself, too? Maybe it isn't ALL corporate America's fault?
I mean....if you spend money on stuff you don't 'need'....and then at rent time bitch you barely have enough: that sounds like YOUR fault.
I mean...if you didn't take school seriously, or didn't take advantage of the THOUSANDS of college and technical training opportunities that abound in this country....and then you get married and have kids and realize you can barely cover your bills because you work as a cart collector at walmart: does it make sense to go on strike and blame walmart for not paying you more?
You sound brilliant.
Please, help us solve the economic issues facing America! Your enlightened view of business and clear grasp of what 'austerity' even means are awe inspiring!
Listen, dim bulb, let me explain at your level: We don't have CASH! Therefore, we can't buy all the pretty things in the store. We can only buy the basic things we NEED.
Thanks for playing!
Hey silly, wealth is created by identifying a market need, and filling it.
Wealth is created by identifying something the market values, and going after that value.
Laborers make stuff.
There is a HUGE difference. If 'labor' created value, how come the united auto workers NEED to work in GMs plants, use GMs equipment, utilize GMs supply and logistics chain, rely on GMs marketing and hope GMs sales force can sell things?
If labor created the value, why don't UAW workers make cars in their own garages and create a bunch of value???
These modern day keynesians only adhere to half of keynes' theory.
they only adhere to the government spending and high tax part.....they ignore the rest of his directives.
dead on. whoever this guy is, he's an economic fool. keynes may (and "may" is operative) have worked in 1935, but it does not work now, nor will it in the future. it is a different world dynamic, and debtor nations around the planet don't give evidence of anything we should attempt to emulate. thanks for posting, we need to push back against the idiocy of borrow/print/spend, and against the idea that it has any credible academic basis.
Jobs are not CREATED!!!!!!
Market demands are MET (or created) and, as a result of filling THAT market need......jobs are born.
The day we believe we can start a business with the purpose of 'creating' jobs is the day we start a business destined for failure.
If you could start businesses with the purpose of providing jobs:
Why don't the Unions start building factories instead of spending all that dues money on Democrat political campaigns?
If it was possible to create a viable business that held the sole purpose of creating jobs.......wouldn't it make sense for Unions to ditch the corporations and management they currently work for and start their OWN businesses?
Yea...I wonder why they don't do that???? Hint: cause it don't work!!!!
Each and every business has one purpose: To serve its customer (meet a market need).
If you start a business with ANY other purpose......you is gone!!!
You can have different business OBJECTIVES....one of which can be to provide jobs....but the moment that the object clouds the vision of the purpose (serving the customer).....you is DONE!
shut up, you idiot. if you want to write about anthropology, maybe i'll listen, but what you know about economics and fiscal matters wouldn't fit in my used tissue. "Anit-worker", who even utters a moronic phrase like that. there is no economic free lunch, you clown, and what's "anti-worker" is to continue to live in the fiction (witness your blessed blue states) that you can spend and borrow your way back to fiscal propriety. the oppression of your tax-happy foolery is what's "anti-worker", j-off. restrain the govt, leave more money in people's pockets, and you'll see things improve. period, end.
We are fools to think the fools in DC have any CLUE as to how to solve this.
They prove everyday that they can't....yet the hope and change mongers want to believe it is real....
Yea, the outdated labor union requirments of only being allowed to ship certain products in certain trucks and only being able to work on certain product lines in an effort to force more job creation at hostess sure was a great idea!!!
The unions are EVERY bit as much to blame.
And, your choice to pretend that ANY company operates for anything BUT profits is naive and foolish.
You scold Hostess for operating for profits for a few? Yet you laud the labor union for 'organizing' the workers to demand more money to pay more dues to........the labor unions? Sounds like a profit grab to any rational mind.
Every job has an associated value to the business. Once you pass the point of that value, you are expendable.
Hello, hostess workers!
I never see articles that discuss the individual responsibility that has made this nation great. The ambitious have flocked here for years, and they still do. Its the one country where your desire and effort to get ahead can pay off for you. I realize working full time and going to school are tough, but I did it because I had to support myself and I wanted something better than I had. Its about sacrifice, but that sacrifice doesnt take a lifetime-it takes 4-6 years. There are alot of sectors hiring like crazy-technology being the most notable. Within technology there are opportunities for all lines of skills. in this sector, we compete by making benefits better, offering very competitive salaries, being employee friendly. These people are in demand and can walk out today and have two job offers in a month. Instead it seems like we want to talk about more government spending and doing more for the individual. On top of this, once you get into tax payer status, they want to take more from you-when its you that have made all the sacrifices that for some reason alot of American's dont want to make-but they want the same benefits and when they dont get this stuff for free, they call us racists for wanting to keep more of our money we have earned.
There is a HUGE difference. If 'labor' created value, how come the united auto workers NEED to work in GMs plants, use GMs equipment, utilize GMs supply and logistics chain, rely on GMs marketing and hope GMs sales force can sell things?
Excellent column. I completely agree with David Moberg. Austerity would be disastrous for the American worker.
Wish I had a gobermnt job. Good money. Great retirement. No workin.
Government spending creates jobs and economic growth? When? Where?
FDR never got unemployment below 14% from 1933-1939.LBJ's Great Society created the stagflation decade of the 1970's. The European Welfare State is in shambles. The Soviet Union's government owned everything and it collapsed. The Chinese had to privatize part of their economy away from government control and they still have over 500 million people living in abject poverty.
I appreciate that Mr. Moberg has an ideology, but his ideology is not based on fact. Sorry.
EXCEPT, here is the trend in German unionization: 1999 2011Germany 25.3 24.6 23.7 23.5 23.0 22.2 21.7 20.7 19.9 19.1 18.8 18.5for those who actually have math skills, that's a 27% reduction in union membership in 12 years. Seems to be getting CLOSER to US union membership of about 8-10%.but, thanks for your economic advice. I'm sure reid/Pelosi/Obama would be very interested.
"Hacker and Loewentheil argue for a government investment in such areas as research, infrastructure, education, improved economic and environmental security for working families, constraints on corporate political power, and more widespread unionization."this is laughable to the point of absurdity: IF politicians of any stripe knew anything about INVESTING public funds we would not have $16 TRILLION in current debt and a likely $20 TRILLION by 2016, high unemployment, terrible public education, 45 MILLION on food stamps, etc.
as to the "more widespread unionization" see the 12,000 non-union workers at Hostess who lost their jobs because 5,000 union workers would NOT accept a court imposed bankruptcy plan. Yep, that's JUST WHAT WE NEED alright!
If we want to be a 3rd world country as you propose, then you may be right. Your lack of attention though makes your opinions worth less than the words that are written. Right now, to use YOUR example, Germany who has more union labor forces making things and shipping them around the world and is a prime example that protecting your manufacturing base pays off. Germany has THE strongest economy in Europe, with some of the lowest unemployment. the rest of Europe that has played the austerity/ cut jobs and income card are spiraling down with Spain, England, and Greece being the norm there. The choice is easy, spiral down with trickle down race to the cheapest labor economics or build a strong country with opportunities, good pay, and benefits for all. You can spin all you want, when you look at FACTS no country EVER has been an economic force without it's own manufacturing---PERIOD.
Unfortunately for YOU, you aren't comparing chickens or eggs. Since you CHOSE Hostess as your example when you look at the fact the company wasn't being run as a company, only a wealth creator for a hedge fund. They took away their pensions, they were asking for their middle class stature, and their only goal wasn't to make anything other than money for just a few. The idea that lousy trade policies, where we are the ONLY country in the modern world who encourages outsourcing of jobs with out tax policies and then blame it on working AMERICANS is as bizarre a notion as can be found. When did wanting, better yet needing to be in the middle class become a bad thing.
What the writer doesn't seem to grasp is the Gov't DOESN'T make jobs. All the Gov't does is remove money ofmr the econoimy via taxation.
Haha give it up unions. Democrats know you will never leave the party, where are you going to go? He's going to cut a Grand Bargain and you all know it. So just get in line and and taste the bile after you worked so hard to re-elect the guy..
How many more time must Keynesian policies fail before we give up on them? Japan's latest failed two decade experiment with Keynesian stimulus, on top of recent failures in the US and Europe, should have been the final nail in the Keynesian coffin.
“'Unrest first,' says one high-ranking strategist"
So, unions need to get out into the street and make as much of a nuisance of themselves as possible (I'm hopefully assuming he doesn't mean actual rioting).
Yes, I'm sure that will improve their currently low popularity with the electorate.
The US (based on unemployment figures) now has more "labor" than it needs. Is that labor producing wealth? No.
If you have workers but no factory for them to work in how are they creating wealth? Look to Hostess for a recent example. Kind of like the chicken and egg thing but in this case we know which came first. The work then the worker. The problem for American workers is that the factories can find the workers elsewhere but the worker cannot find the workplace elsewhere.
Yes. By labor. The thousands of workers that make a company's earnings possible.
So, Dr. Moberg. Like Hacker and Loewentheil you believe the key to economic growth is first, more government spending, second, more environmental regulations, third, more corporate regulations, and fourth, more union power. Wow. Do you have any idea at all how wealth is created?
The main obstacle facing unions is international competition. We no longer control the worlds manufacturing as we did post WWII and cannot stop companies seeking the best labor force at the lowest cost regardless of geographical location on the planet. Yes, there are still some advantages in some ares for using US labor but no where near as much as 50 years ago when labor was strong. The world is on it's way to worker parity and it cannot be stopped nor will it be complete for some time but it is going to mean a slide in pay and benefits for the American and European worker as the rest of the world moves toward us. The other thing that hampers the rank and file is the increased (and increasing) use of robots and computers that makes a worker more productive. As productivity increases then employers just need fewer and often time less skilled employees. You can practically have a monkey run a CNC lathe making the skilled machinist less necessary. The world is evolving and labor will have to evolve with it or die. Perhaps sad but true.
One fly in the ointment is that the middle class demands that we keep the policies that are strengthening the austerity agenda, most notably, our mandatory workfare replacement labor. There was recently a middle class uproar over some rumor that President Obama had considered relaxing mandatory workfare, possibly for the very ill and unemployable. So, what can we do? We demanded a full-out austerity agenda against the poor, and instituted workfare for those who are healthy enough to be of use. There is no way that corporate America would allow workfare to be ended, as it is a steady source of super-cheap temporary or replacement labor. We're just stuck.
"Working In These Times" is dedicated to providing independent and incisive coverage of the labor movement and the struggles of workers to obtain safe, healthy and just workplaces. more »
The Right to Call In Sick
COPYRIGHT ©2012 IN THESE TIMES AND THE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED