Congratulations for complaining when people offer some sort of way forward without offering something constructive as an alternative. By the way. I never watch MSNBC or read the Atlantic. More or less the only broadcast news I look at is CNBC which is mostly financial news and how politics effects markets. I just don’t think the policies proposed will have a similar effect as most people here do, especially if they are inevitably going to be negotiated down so they can pass through the Senate.
Because it pays for necessary improvements that will make our economy more competitive going forward, and after those improvements are paid for we can begin to consider dropping those taxes back. Also consider that to fund green infrastructure improvements you might soon see competitors like Europe increasing their rates as well. (Obviously I’m speaking more about the infrastructure bill than the child care bill). Try thinking about it as a bill to make capital investments in the rusty infrastructure of the US which hasn’t seen major updates in decades or is critically behind other emerged nations. That capital investment should have benefits in terms of jobs created to implement the infrastructure improvements, as well as making the functionality of our economy more viable going forward.
As I said before, capital gains don’t exist in a vacuum either. Europe doesn’t lose all of its potential investment to us just because they currently have substantially higher tax rates than we do. There is quite a lot to be said for being able to capture market potential and taxes are perpetually secondary to that. If you can make 100M in the USA and be taxed at 43% or you can make $10M in South but be taxed at 15%, you should choose America every time. ROI cares as much (if not more) about the economic potential of the investment as it does about taxes and an America with an improved infrastructure provides more opportunity for overall economic potential and profitability. Falling behind in infrastructure will gradually begin to limit the overall economic potential of projects in comparison to global alternatives as the cost of projects go up stateside and down elsewhere.
Investing in Germany still have limited market potential. The taxes on the gains you make won’t change that. There will still be vastly more potential for gains in America despite having to pay higher taxes on them. (Especially when spending on infrastructure is increasing economic opportunity for profits in certain sectors)
taxfoundation.org
How much do that the VAT taxes have on corporate profits in Europe effect that number? Or are they included at all?Under Biden’s proposal the US would have the highest combined corporate tax rate in the OECD. Not sure where your info is coming from ?
The tax revenue generated from these rates are vastly overstated (see WSJ) as we don’t operate in a vacuum.
Anyone who believes a total cap gain tax rate of 48% won’t deter people from putting their capital at risk has never put substantial capital at risk .
Combined Corporate Rates Would Exceed 30 Percent in Most States Under Biden’s Tax Plan
While the focus has been on the federal rate, it is important to include state tax rates when thinking about the total tax burden on corporate income.
Lmao. Ole’ foot in the mouth joe.
Well, in a lot of cases, they promise not to not sell us oil, titanium, silicon and other material we need for war.
People create jobs. They create jobs by trading items of value to any entity (be it a business or the government) for goods or services. If they give their tax money for the government to fund a bridge being built... that creates jobs. The only differences between the government and a business are a) the fact that the government doesn’t have shareholders wanting a profit on the bridge being built b) The government has the power to regulate how the bridge’s building and use.
Theoretically you could pay for every job as long each person’s labor was valued equally. Of course it’s not, nor should it be. Many government jobs aren’t meant to be permanent. The government can; however, fund projects that facilitate private industry growth and permanent jobs. (Like building a bridge might allow people to work on the other side of the river) the bridge job is temporary but the other job might not be. Often the private industry is so concerned with profit margins that expanding market share with huge capital projects might not be in their budgets, even though they might be good for the community at large.Lol. How about a) we pay for every one of those government jobs b) said jobs generally disappear once we stop paying for them c) as such, said jobs aren’t sustainable without many more jobs created by private industry.
You omitted the most important difference
I make my examples extreme because everything less extreme works on a similar premise, they just have more layers of complexity placed on top. (Look at A Smith’s example of people who make pins. That is extreme as well)
Private sector jobs will exist in any situation where there is a community with significant enough propensity for trade (population base / infrastructure existence) to facilitate it. Infrastructure does not “need” the private sector anymore than the private sector “needs” infrastructure. Without one, the other won’t exist. If one stops flourishing so will the other. Communities have been connected by roads for millennia. The difference between then and now is the quality and technology being used to facilitate trade and the security of those pieces of infrastructure. We need to continue to fund, as a community, any technology and undertaking which can (at a reasonable cost to the community) improve our productivity and facilitate trade. That’s how the private sector benefits.
Improving / creating infrastructure should improve the private sector, as I said, they are inherently linked and one makes possible increases in production in the other. The issue is making sure that the costs of whatever improvements you make are not more than the expected benefits... which is an inherently difficult task. It’s hard to do a cost benefit analysis on network security for example. It’s almost like trying to decide how much we’re going to spend on defense. No one knows the right number, but we can certainly tell when we’re not spending enough. (We see terrorist attacks, international incidents, enemy military buildups etc... ) for infrastructure, right now seems to be one of those times.
