Huh? Why would Democrats want to threaten workers, and how the hell does the corporate income tax impact them?
Here’s what Democrats are planning:
Rep. John Yarmuth, the new House Budget chairman, said his chamber’s budget blueprint will aim to claw back lost revenue by boosting the corporate tax rate from its current 21 percent to as high as 28 percent… he anticipates the budget resolution will envision changes to the 2017 GOP tax overhaul, including raising the corporate tax rate above its current 21 percent. “…We’ll see how much revenue we can get out of it.” The rate was 35 percent before it was cut in the GOP tax bill.
Here’s how the higher tax rate impacts workers:
Whole thing here.
In the U.S., the Democratic party is the party of government and fully embracing of progressivism. The Republican party’s message is muddled. They say they are for smaller government, more freedom, and constitutionally limited government, but they too crave control.
Politicians, government employees, political insiders crave control, certainty, and stability. You hear them talk about stability of financial markets, of job markets, of domestic social and global situations. When they complain about “market fundamentalism”, the break-up of the family, wealth disparities, etc. they are making a play for control over the lives of the citizenry.
With that in mind, view any issue from the perspective of politicians. Growing a government bureaucracy is one way of maintaining control. The people employed in government agencies hold jobs in the bureaucracy. They are voters as well, but they are just as self-interested in their job security, money, respect, social acceptance, celebrity, and public adoration as anyone else. You see, money is not the only form of recognition. So when anyone cites something other than money when they are recognized for some achievement, they are seeking recognition by other means — as I listed above. They may feel good about themselves for avoiding recognition via cash payment, but they, nonetheless, are still seeking something. They are not selfless.
Businesses don’t exist to create jobs. If readers doubt this they need only try to raise start-up funds with “creating jobs” listed at the top of their business plan. Lots of luck finding investors when your goal is costs, as opposed to returns.
Crucial here is that the desire for returns among investors is what indirectly leads to copious hiring. Workers enable the returns that entice those with means to delay consumption in favor of the investment without which there are no companies, jobs, and progress.
People need to invest first before jobs are created. Invest in start-up as above, themselves to enhance their usable skill-set, in ideas, innovations, physical structures, machines, processes, stocks, bonds.
Up front, Lowry’s focus on wages is rooted in a surprising conservative belief that compensation has long been stagnant in the U.S. Ok, but if the latter were even remotely true then it would also be true that the U.S. would not presently be showered with imports from around the world. Stated simply, a law of economics (Say’s) embraced by conservatives disproves a popular conservative narrative of the moment. We’re only able to consume insofar as we’re able to produce first. That wages are supposedly stagnant in the U.S. is further evidence that the economic statistics followed by economists and pundits aren’t worth their attention.
Its the measurement of wages and income that needs fixing.
This one’s a keeper. Read the whole informative thing.
Actress Kristen Bell did a video intended to be a parody about the fact that the average pay of women in America is lower than is the average pay of men.
If this were true, there would be a pool of skilled women who can be hired for less then men for the same job, entrepreneurs and hiring managers would be missing a big profit opportunity. They’d fire all those overpaid men and replace them with women. But that’s not the case.
Don Boudreaux responds. Kristen Bell’s video is in linked piece. Snippets:
[I]f this pay gap really does reflect widespread underpayment of women, then this pay gap is a huge profit opportunity for entrepreneurs of the fictional sort whose company is featured in this video.
. . .
If women are generally underpaid – if low-skilled workers are generally underpaid – if non-unionized workers are generally underpaid – if legions of college graduates are generally underpaid – if military veterans are generally underpaid – if blacks are generally underpaid – if all workers generally are underpaid – then profit opportunities abound!
Today’s “brutal tax beating” is about what happens when a left-leaning journalist writes a sophomoric column about tax policy and then gets corrected by an expert from the Tax Foundation.
. . . part of Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax hike was a provision to bar companies from deducting executive compensation above $1 million when compiling their tax returns (which meant, for all intents and purposes, an additional back-door 35-percent tax penalty on salaries paid to CEO types). But to minimize the damaging impact of this discriminatory penalty, particularly on start-up firms, this extra tax didn’t apply to performance-based compensation such as stock options.
The bottom line, as Scott points out, is that Bill Clinton’s provision means that CEO pay is penalized rather than subsidized.
I was looking for an explanation of how executive pay is taxed and now I found it.