Old economic standby not working.

Taichiliberal said:
Both political parties have used the old standby of "tax incentives" to cajole companies and corporations to create more jobs. In the last 30 years, that hasn't worked out as well as intended. Here's one explanation why;

https://www.axios.com/company-tax-i...XNvDvl3CAe71vLvFTubIgKRT38BKidCz6M_wQi-MxWSEc
Click to expand...

Over a 50 + year period, trillions have been given to freeloaders in an effort to eradicate poverty. Democrats push for more because they haven't figured out that you can't continue to enable someone unwilling to do for him/herself and expect them to change their ways. When Republicans try to do things to solve the problem, they're accused of hating poor people.

If handing a freeloaders someone else's money eradicated poverty, it would no longer exist.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the tax incentives DID create jobs........what incentives should we use for the next round?.....
Click to expand...

Not quite, as another articles linked to the OP source clearly points out here:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-...28.753372165.1578604388-2034949766.1578604387

In 2017, the state of Wisconsin agreed to provide

$4 billion in state and local tax incentives to the electronics manufacturing giant Foxconn. In return, the Taiwan-based company promised to build a new manufacturing plant in the state for flat-screen television displays and the subsequent creation of 13,000 new jobs.

It didn’t happen. Those 13,000 jobs never materialized, and plans for the manufacturing plant have been consistently scaled back. Even if the project had gone through as planned, there is no way the Foxconn subsidy would have made money for the state, or provided earnings benefits for residents that exceed its costs. It now appears that few of Foxconn’s promises will be fulfilled, even though local governments have gone into debt over the project.



https://www.axios.com/how-tax-incentives-cripple-cities-50807da0-e7bc-46d2-ab88-5e6252957f7d.html

The bottom line: Since the 1990s, the typical size of a corporate tax break has tripled, and although these incentives are open to all businesses, 70% of the deals and 90% of the dollars go to big companies.
The future of incentives is trending even bigger, says the Upjohn Institute's Bartik. "There's a threat that these things will dip into money for schools and roads."
 
CFM said:
Over a 50 + year period, trillions have been given to freeloaders in an effort to eradicate poverty. Democrats push for more because they haven't figured out that you can't continue to enable someone unwilling to do for him/herself and expect them to change their ways. When Republicans try to do things to solve the problem, they're accused of hating poor people.

If handing a freeloaders someone else's money eradicated poverty, it would no longer exist.
Click to expand...

Please provide some valid sourced documentation to substantiate your generalities and opinions here.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Both political parties have used the old standby of "tax incentives" to cajole companies and corporations to create more jobs. In the last 30 years, that hasn't worked out as well as intended. Here's one explanation why;

https://www.axios.com/company-tax-i...XNvDvl3CAe71vLvFTubIgKRT38BKidCz6M_wQi-MxWSEc
Click to expand...

Here's a couple of lessons for you: (1) Corporations do not pay taxes. They collect them. Whenever some Democrat dumb fuck tells you they are going to raise corporate taxes, thank them for raising your own. YOU, the consumer, are the one PAYING;

(2) Companies do not need to be cajoled into doing anything. That is more leftist tripe. They just need to be left to their own to do what they do best, fabricate goods or provide services the consumer demands with the least amount of resistance from Government;

(3) Our country does not have a revenue problem, it has a SPENDING problem;

(4) Raising taxes or finding creative ways to tax citizens does nothing to improve the economic condition of the nation;

(5) Turning citizens into dependent wards of the State has never improved anyone's life or qualify of living; and lastly,

(6) The economy is not finite; it is infinite. Attacking wealth with Marxist dogma and class envy is the pinnacle of ignorance and stupidity.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Not quite, as another articles linked to the OP source clearly points out here:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-...28.753372165.1578604388-2034949766.1578604387

In 2017, the state of Wisconsin agreed to provide

$4 billion in state and local tax incentives to the electronics manufacturing giant Foxconn. In return, the Taiwan-based company promised to build a new manufacturing plant in the state for flat-screen television displays and the subsequent creation of 13,000 new jobs.

It didn’t happen. Those 13,000 jobs never materialized, and plans for the manufacturing plant have been consistently scaled back. Even if the project had gone through as planned, there is no way the Foxconn subsidy would have made money for the state, or provided earnings benefits for residents that exceed its costs. It now appears that few of Foxconn’s promises will be fulfilled, even though local governments have gone into debt over the project.
Click to expand...

If a company negotiates incentives, but then does not build the plant, there is no economic impact. How is this story supporting your laughable arguments?

Taichiliberal said:
https://www.axios.com/how-tax-incentives-cripple-cities-50807da0-e7bc-46d2-ab88-5e6252957f7d.html

The bottom line: Since the 1990s, the typical size of a corporate tax break has tripled, and although these incentives are open to all businesses, 70% of the deals and 90% of the dollars go to big companies.
The future of incentives is trending even bigger, says the Upjohn Institute's Bartik. "There's a threat that these things will dip into money for schools and roads."
Click to expand...

This goofy fact challenges article is written by a grad student who has never held a real job in life. Hardly a source I would tout.

So let's look at a typical scenario; a city is desirous of more opportunity for it's citizens and additional tax revenue. By agreeing with a manufacturing plant to forgo property taxes for a period of time, the plant will get built that hires, say 1,000 people.

1,000 new jobs leads to more income taxes. It leads to more buyers of local goods. More home buyers or renters. Etc. etc, etc. This leads to more taxes from goods being sold to these additional employees and homes being sold or rented. Etc. etc. etc. The revenue benefits far outweigh the small concession on taxing a company which merely passes those costs onto their consumers.

Trying to argue that companies can be lured to invest in a hostile regulatory and tax environment can only be expressed by fools and ignoramuses.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Please provide some valid sourced documentation to substantiate your generalities and opinions here.
Click to expand...

Why? You won't read or educate yourself from them.

In a series of OECD working papers,[14] summarized by Arnold et al.,[15] OECD affiliated economists have determined a ranking of the most harmful taxes for economic growth. They find that corporate taxes are the most harmful, followed by personal income taxes, consumption taxes, and, finally, property taxes, particularly property taxes levied on households rather than corporations. They look at twenty-one OECD countries from 1971 to 2004 and control for various factors including measures of physical and human capital accumulation, population growth, and time and country specific effects. They also control for the overall tax burden in each country as a share of GDP. This allows them to isolate the effect of different types of taxes based on the share of tax revenue that comes from each tax on a revenue- and spending-neutral basis.[16] They find that a 1 percent shift of tax revenues from income taxes (both personal and corporate) to consumption and property taxes would increase GDP per capita by between 0.25 percent and 1 percent in the long run. They also find progressivity of personal income taxes reduces economic growth.[17] The authors find further support for their results by looking at industry[18] and firm level[19] measures of investment and productivity growth. They find corporate taxes, both in terms of the statutory tax rate and depreciation allowances, reduce investment and productivity growth. They also find that raising the top marginal rate on personal income reduces productivity growth, stating that “a reduction in the top marginal [individual] tax rate is found to raise productivity in industries with potentially high rates of enterprise creation. Thus reducing top marginal tax rates may help to enhance economy-wide productivity in OECD countries with a large share of such industries….” [20] The U.S. is one such country with a large share of entrepreneurship and non-corporate businesses.[21]

https://taxfoundation.org/what-evidence-taxes-and-growth
 
CFM said:
https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/the-war-poverty-after-50-years

If you think handing some POS freeloader someone else's money solves anything, you're a goddamn idiot.

Let's see if you accept facts or use the 'that's not a valid source' excuse.
Click to expand...

In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began.
 
Truth Detector said:
In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began.
Click to expand...

His goal was to eradicate poverty. It is clear that he failed. Poverty had been declining prior to the start of the $22 trillion in spending. All that spending and poverty still exists.
 
In the Detroit area, tax relief has been given over and over. The companies never come close to providing the jobs or revenue they promise. It costs a lot of money to support them with roads, ramps, policing , traffic lights and sewer systems.
What you should offer is an experienced and qualified workforce. And that you have lots of universities and trade schools to support their staffing.
When you offer tax incentives, you pass that cost on to the citizens.
Overall the area gets more pollution and more costs.
Some local businesses do well.
 
CFM said:
His goal was to eradicate poverty. It is clear that he failed. Poverty had been declining prior to the start of the $22 trillion in spending. All that spending and poverty still exists.
Click to expand...

His goal was to create a generation of dependency: Democrat voters.
 
Take that money you’re giving to the corporations, and give it to the poor people. They can’t afford to save it So they spend it, and it trickles up.
 
Jarod said:
Take that money you’re giving to the corporations, and give it to the poor people. They can’t afford to save it So they spend it, and it trickles up.
Click to expand...

Or you could just stop subsidizing corporations and poor people, and let the market handle things on its own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top