A lot to respond to.  

First, businesses are in business to make money.   If they can't increase revenue to keep up with increased costs, they will cutback in some way, shape or form.   Increased costs can come in many forms including taxes.    If you're going to claim that a business making $100 and paying $15 in taxes won't change they way they do business if that $100 is now taxed at 30%, I don't think we can continue this discussion. 

Second, I'm not sure how to balance the budget.  Fortunately, that's not in my hands.  I do think cutting spending HAS to play a part.  I do think taking money out of the hands of the people via taxes will not give us an economic boost.  I also think nailing businesses with higher taxes will cost jobs or create pay cuts.  

Third, I don't think anyone will willingly volunteer to pay more taxes.   That is not the American way. 

Lastly, I was speaking to someone with the Dept of Labor this morning and a side conversation turned to the economy and unemployment.  I said "Even with a down economy and a huge deficit, you can't cut unemployment.   There just aren't enough jobs for workers and people still have to provide for their families.  With no money coming in, one of the few options is crime.   We can't have that."   So I do understand that some programs cannot be cut.   But there's plenty of fat out there that can. 

Of course companies move based on tax burden.  Just off the top of head, being a recent transplant from Washington State, Boeing moved a whole bunch of their jobs to South Carolina.  Drive anywhere in the south and you see car plants popping up because the labor costs less.  Businesses react to conditions.

Investors in business (just like the commoner looking for return in a mutual fund) require a certain return on investment or they move their money elsewhere.  If taxes are raised on corporations, it affects their cost of goods sold.  The return still key, so the company has a couple of choices:

1.  Pass the cost along to customers to keep the return at the requirement.
2.  Cut costs in other areas to keep the return at their  requirement (i.e. labor costs, capital expenditures for expansion)
3.  Lower their rate of return on their investment in the business (out of the goodness of their heart?)
4  Sell and put their money in a business with a better return.

In every single case, it's the consumer that ultimately pays, whether it's in the cost of goods they buy, lost jobs, lost income (since higher corporate taxes reduce the amount raises they can give), reduce their profit (affecting your equity positions rate of return), etc.

Posted by The Taint on 4/15/2011 11:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/15/2011 11:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 4/15/2011 11:06:00 AM (view original):
Mike, do you think we can balance the budget purely by cutting spending?

techically yes... but its probably not the only measure that should be taken.


I don't think the right would mind paying more taxes 'to balance the budget' (as opposed to having riots in the streets, like france and greece, if the deficit continues out of control) - but the gov't FIRST has to show it's not going to spend/waste more and more money if they collect more in taxes, which its pretty good at doing.

Totally agree with the waste statement, not so sure about the mind paying more taxes statement.

Maybe - It would have to be a republican president for the talking heads like hannity, rush, etc to jump onboard... but anyone with half a brain can see that a high deficit is not a good thing. I think cutting spending (anywhere) is a good start but its not the whole equation to reel the budget back in.

High corporate taxes don't incentivise foreign investment either.

Take a look at Honda's US Plants. They are employing US citizens in Ohio, Indiana, and Alabama. This is good for the country because it brings foreign money into circulation and employs more US people. We should be looking for more of that - instead we tax the hell out of corporations and they outsource to foreign countries in response.

We need to stop looking at increasing taxes as the solution. We have been to this solution every time for 50 years.

We need to start making serious cuts in the scope of the federal government.

We have tried it the liberal way for the last 50 years. Lets try it our way for a decade or so!

Yup, and it's gonna have to start with defense leading the way.  You and I are already paying higher taxes than we did last year...the richo's can kick in some extra also.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/16/2011 3:58:00 AM (view original):
We need to stop looking at increasing taxes as the solution. We have been to this solution every time for 50 years.

We need to start making serious cuts in the scope of the federal government.

We have tried it the liberal way for the last 50 years. Lets try it our way for a decade or so!

Supply side economics is "your way" you moron and we've been trying it for the last 40 or so years.

Here's were it's gotten us....

We can look at things a million different ways.

The bottom line is spending has always went up more than inflation.

The Democrats offer freebies and the Republicans are scared to say no.

The Dems have controlled the house for most of the last 50 years. Notice that when Republicans controlled it during Clinton the Deficit went down!

**** off, liar. You haven't looked at anything more than one way -- the way you are instructed to -- in your entire ******* life.

I'm absolutely amazed that you continue to use the same discredited argument about government spending.  I've already pointed out to exhaustion that R's and D's have shared equal power, not only through Reagan's administration (actually the R's held the most power during that administration), but from 1980 to the present.  It takes the House, Senate and Prez to pass a budget, and while the actual bill itself originates in the House, the basis for that bill is the Administration's budget proposal.  

If you look at Reagan's budget proposals, you'll see that they fall right in line, and in some cases higher, than the final budget passed.



Don't believe the graph?  Then consider it's source.

REGULAR ANNUAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATIONS BILLS COMPARISON OF ADMINISTRATION BUDGET REQUESTS AND APPROPRIATIONS ENACTED

Go back to the 40's - 70's when the D's did dominate congress and shared the Presidency almost equally and you'll find that they always came in under the Administration's proposal.  You're whole way of thinking is based on myth.

The argument was discredited? How.

The clearest defining issue on debt is control of the house.

As I said earlier Republicans never stood up to the mass social spending of the Democrats, our bad.

Reagan spent to defeat the Soviet Union and Bush spent to defeat the Islamic terrorists. These costs could have been adsorbed if not for massive social spending on the part of the Democrats.

You really can't argue with someone who just lies away every counter-argument.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/17/2011 7:39:00 PM (view original):
The argument was discredited? How.

The clearest defining issue on debt is control of the house.

As I said earlier Republicans never stood up to the mass social spending of the Democrats, our bad.

Reagan spent to defeat the Soviet Union and Bush spent to defeat the Islamic terrorists. These costs could have been adsorbed if not for massive social spending on the part of the Democrats.

So Reagan just decided to give up and let the money-spending Dems get what they want?  How could you right wingers worship such a *****?

WE allowed it because it was a defining moment in history. We defeated the evil empire!

So it was the Democrats who were responsible for the fall of the USSR?