Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says

a reply to: mclarenmp4

So what if a company makes 'profit'.

That's why they exist.

Of course pay no attention to the FACT they do PAY TAXES.

In reality, however, U.S. corporations face a high tax on additional investment with the second highest marginal effective tax rate in the OECD at 35.3 percent, according to a new study from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.

taxfoundation.org...

For once I'd like to hear something NEW.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

If they're not paying fair wages to employees or taking advantage of tax loop holes or not paying fair taxes then they are gaining it unfairly. Flat taxes are not fair, the concept even, is absurd.

Who gets to decide what is "fair" for a wage?

I'm going to try to explain something that seems to be beyond most people when this is discussed. There is a floor in any economy. Minimum wage reflects the floor. It won't matter what arbitrary number you set the minimum wage at; it will still reflect the floor of the economy and everything in the economy will adjust to reflect the new floor.

You could make the minimum wage $100/hour and it would shortly become the new $7.50 (or whatever the current minimum is) and it wouldn't be enough because all prices and all things connected to labor cost would be adjusted to reflect the new floor.

a reply to: neo96

You know that employees also pay medicare, SSI, unemployment insurance and not all workers get vacation pay/holiday pay or sick pay?

a reply to: neo96

Yes and do you know why they have corporation tax that high which stifles small businesses?
Because your major companies pay little to no corporation tax because of offshoring their corporations.

You tax the business through payroll not corporation tax.
We have the same issue in our country holding certain businesses accountable for their corporation tax bill and they are looking at ways to address this loophole. Taxing through payroll while keeping corporation tax low helps smaller business who don't seek to avoid paying their share of tax and holds the larger business accountable to tax.

a reply to: ketsuko

The policies don't punish all of them, or anyone.

a reply to: ketsuko

If labor were allowed into the market, the market would.

a reply to: neo96

Alright, well that's a good start, it's probably the straightest answer I"ve ever gotten.

Okay, the Federal Reserve, we can agree on that, I've stated many times the Fiat currency is one of the prime reasons we have so many problems.

I don't know if there were dems vs republicans back then, but either way I feel like that would have been bypartisan anyway. That was the bankers who got that together IMO.

That one is funny since people are under the delusion they actually pay for their medicare, They don't.

They are also under the delusion they pay for their own social security. They don't.

This also plays into that argument regarding financial instruments though. Only INCOME is used to pay for social programs. Other forms of income, like, the stock market for example, don't end up getting taxed or those taxes don't end up in social programs.

This is acutally the only point that Huckabee made that made sense. The number of people receiving a paycheck is decreasing, therefore so is money for medicaid and medicare, which they keep borrowing out of and leaving IOU's.

There has been, and always will be a difference in pay between skilled, and unskilled labor.

Yeah but just because university will be tuition free doesn't mean you'll get in. The standards for accepting students aren't going to change. Harvard Law isn't going to have a bunch of high school dropouts suddenly join because it's free.

So the unskilled labor, will still be there to do those jobs that skilled laborers don't. Plus, with automation, a lot of this unskilled jobs are going away. Do you know how much money from a Iphone sale goes back to the US?

It's 2%. Why? Because all the components are manufactured in Germany. They collect like 30% of the sales of Iphones.

America can have that. It can compete in a global economy. But it needs skilled workers, that you don't haver.

And I"m going to be honest, I only came down on the GOP so hard to invoke a response from you that I thought would have more substance than I was expecting. And you did.

~Tenth

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

You know that employees also pay medicare, SSI, unemployment insurance and not all workers get vacation pay/holiday pay or sick pay?

Employees contribute 6 % from payroll tax.

Employers contribute another 6%.

For those on Social security have that 'fee' automatically deducted from their social security checks month. Which means one govnerment program that isn't funding itself, Is paying for another program that ISN'T paying for itself.

Thats created DEBT. That creates deficits to where they print more money,print treasuries, and create NEW TAXES to 'cover' the shortfall.

That is as crooked as it gets.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: elitegamer23

If it is such a great plan, then why isn't it being implemented now?

Or at least during Obama's first 2 years when he had Congress.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

I don't know if there were dems vs republicans back then, but either way I feel like that would have been bypartisan anyway. That was the bankers who got that together IMO.

That is Democrats ALL the way. NO Bankers.

Introduced in the House as H.R. 7837 by Carter Glass (D-VA) on August 29, 1913

en.wikipedia.org...

The House of Representatives passed the Federal Reserve Act by a vote of 298 to 60. The Senate also passed the measure 43 to 25. In both chambers of Congress, it was the anti-banker Democrats that overwhelmingly supported the Act, while for the most part the pro-banker Republicans opposed it.

Federal Reserve Act (1913)

Same crap different century. Different Democrat.

Democrats have always been against private anything.

And NO employees DO NOT pay for their 'insurance'.

EMPLOYERS do.

Employers pay state and federal taxes to cover all those unemployment checks.

www.csmonitor.com...

Employees don't pay squat.

For EACH and every employee.

a reply to: Kali74

A tax rate that takes more than half of what a person brings in is punitive no matter what you think of it. The idea of what you think someone does or does not need is not the point. The idea is that you taking most of what a person works to make. Whether or not you think of what they do as work is also not the point. The idea is that you are taking most of what a person works to make.

Is that sinking in?

Private employers pay a tax to finance the unemployment benefits paid to their former employees. For most employers, this tax rate goes up or down depending upon how much their former workers collect.

www.employeradvocates.com...

Increase the wage on an employee?

That is an increase on medicaire,social security,umemployment, and workmans comp.

But hey people want their 'fair' wage.

Of course they are ALREADY getting more than a 'fair' wage, but Sanders supporters don't give a ratts behind.

a reply to: Kali74

Anyone who works is labor. It is already in the market.

a reply to: neo96

Yes that's why you reduce corporation tax down to 20% and increase payroll taxes to include a "National Insurance" this pays for social programs, Social security, Healthcare and Pensions. The more someone contributes the higher the NI rating which means more money from the state when they retire.
No tax for people under a certain tax threshold and a progressively higher rate of tax the more you earn with a cap at whatever level you desire.
So income tax payments go up but the government can set the minimum wage higher to compensate. The company is paying less corporation tax but pays more on income tax and NI payments. So it would balance out.

The thing is the major earners pay little to no tax because they use tax loopholes, like director dividends and other known tax loopholes. There are companies that specialise in it. So I'm against too high a rate of tax for the top earners as it usually unfairly hurts the people who genuinely want to contribute.

a reply to: mclarenmp4

No that's why you abolish the income tax.

I am sick of hearing about it.

Neither the individual or a business should pay an income tax to the STATE.

They make enough off of other taxes.

$$ was also a check to balance the states power.

Seems Sanders and others have FORGOTTEN that.

I think we should replace the entire income system with a consumption or sales based system. You get taxed on what you buy new and consume.

a reply to: elitegamer23

Then vote the SOB in!!!!! Trump for VP!!!!

a reply to: neo96

Ok I get you.
I would agree with you on income tax being devolved to the state but I would argue that what we call National Insurance in our country which funds our state pensions, unemployment benefit, national healthcare and other national social programs should be made to the Federal government.
We have a council tax which funds local services like bin collection, water treatment, roads and housing benefit which pays your rent while unemployed. Council tax varies in price depending on where you live so that would be a state tax.
The only other taxes we pay directly are sales tax and vehicle excise tax which all cars need.

Our NI is 12% until you earn a certain amount and then it reduces to 2%

I am less than impressed by this 'economist'. His analysis appears to be heavily biased by his own paradigms. He's in the tank for Sanders.

www.ratemyprofessors.com...

www.truth-out.org...

www.facebook.com...