More stimulus.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

Same question - if the state wanted to encourage business activity, and the increase of employment activity that typically results, why not decrease taxation across the board for all businesses?

because then you can't pay the bills plus as stated it tends to increase profits not increase jobs

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

Same question - if the state wanted to encourage business activity, and the increase of employment activity that typically results, why not decrease taxation across the board for all businesses?

I agree that a lot of what Obama is unrolling here may just be window dressing and the rest may be too minimal and restrictive to produce any real benefit. That being said, targeted tax cuts like these are rewards for specific behavior. There's a quid pro quo involved in an effort to get business to do something deemed as in the interest of the people. Don't do it? Don't get it.

On the other hand, the sort of tax breaks Republicans seem to favor are those with no strings attached. The idea is to "trust the business sector" to do the right thing. As we've seen, what that means is to increase the bottom line. It's one of the reasons why we have record profits and high unemployment.

John

[whell]

Originally Posted by noonereal

because then you can't pay the bills plus as stated it tends to increase profits not increase jobs

noonreal - you appear to be picking the part of the question you want to respond to, and not the whole question. Here's the question again:

So why, when we have an economy in free fall does the administration reach for a program of "targeted" tax cuts? Would such benefits have less costly to produce and much more wide - spread in their impact if there had been a broad - based, "permanent" reduction in business income taxes? Such a program would provide a lower cost environment for businesses to operate in, and provide for greater predictability in business / labor costs.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

On the other hand, the sort of tax breaks Republicans seem to favor are those with no strings attached.

John

One might make the same observation about the type of spending that the Democrats favor. However, I tend to think that tax cuts should not pick the winners and losers as defined by government tax policy. Such government behavior creates an uneven playing field for businesses, creates costs that reduce the intended impact of the tax treatment, and potentially create an environment for legislative and special interest mischief - making. I'd rather have the broad - based, "no strings attached" approach.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

noonreal - you appear to be picking the part of the question you want to respond to, and not the whole question. Here's the question again:

So why, when we have an economy in free fall does the administration reach for a program of "targeted" tax cuts? Would such benefits have less costly to produce and much more wide - spread in their impact if there had been a broad - based, "permanent" reduction in business income taxes? Such a program would provide a lower cost environment for businesses to operate in, and provide for greater predictability in business / labor costs.

Why bother, business profits are rising very rapidly, seems to me that they need a tax break like most people need a hole in the head.

BTW please don't sing us the song that it is small business that provides all the jobs.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

noonreal - you appear to be picking the part of the question you want to respond to, and not the whole question. Here's the question again:

So why, when we have an economy in free fall does the administration reach for a program of "targeted" tax cuts? Would such benefits have less costly to produce and much more wide - spread in their impact if there had been a broad - based, "permanent" reduction in business income taxes? Such a program would provide a lower cost environment for businesses to operate in, and provide for greater predictability in business / labor costs.

Because it's a bad idea and the only reason they are considering this now is purely (and irresponsibility) political.

btw feel free to call me noon

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

One might make the same observation about the type of spending that the Democrats favor.

Really? How so?

However, I tend to think that tax cuts should not pick the winners and losers as defined by government tax policy. Such government behavior creates an uneven playing field for businesses, creates costs that reduce the intended impact of the tax treatment, and potentially create an environment for legislative and special interest mischief - making. I'd rather have the broad - based, "no strings attached" approach.

We've already noted the broad Objectivist streak in your posts but "picking winners and losers" is an inescapable consequence of a regulated economy. Picking them based on actions that are beneficial to the people seems to be a pretty enlightened use of government power.

John

[piece-itpete]

How about picking them on basis of favors owed?

Pete

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

One might make the same observation about the type of spending that the Democrats favor. However, I tend to think that tax cuts should not pick the winners and losers as defined by government tax policy. Such government behavior creates an uneven playing field for businesses, creates costs that reduce the intended impact of the tax treatment, and potentially create an environment for legislative and special interest mischief - making. I'd rather have the broad - based, "no strings attached" approach.

Because some business activity is good for the overall community, and will create jobs for which there will be a demand in the future. It creates an incentive to venture into underdeveloped technologies. The targeted tax breaks are supporting the kind of socially responsible activity that simply putting more money into the hands of the propertied class does not.

It's comical to suggest that a level playing field exists out there anyway. With disregard for the competitive impact of merger after merger in the corporate world, too many business are able to wield monopoly power.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Why bother, business profits are rising very rapidly, seems to me that they need a tax break like most people need a hole in the head.

BTW please don't sing us the song that it is small business that provides all the jobs.

The profits that businesses were showing though mid 2010, which have eroded somewhat in the last couple of months, were due to gains in efficiency due and lower expense structures (i.e., lower employment). Net profits are up, but market share, market cap, and gross profits are down. Not encouraging.

Originally Posted by merrylander

BTW please don't sing us the song that it is small business that provides all the jobs.

OK, I'll won't. I'll let the statistics do it for me.

http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/p..._August_10.pdf

45% of the jobs are currently with companies who employ less than 50

84.3% of the jobs are currently with companies who employ less than 500

16.3% of the jobs are currently with companies who employ 500 or more.

If I had to choose between no tax reduction for business, and a targeted tax reduction for businesses who employ less than 500, I could at least take some solace in the fact that it would assist businesses who do most of the "employing" in this country.