FedEx 1Q profit doubles; boosts next qtr outlook, & is cutting 1,700 jobs

[BillB1960]

How does keeping tax cuts that raised the debt under Bush help anything. I thought that debt was bad? Has the cut created any jobs?? Hello?? I can't wait for that miracle to happen. And yes the debt did go up under Bush.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[weirdotis]

A family of 4 making more that 200k is doing much better than the same family making 25k.

I'm not arguing the point necessarily that those who make more money often have it easier- that is generally true.

If you have a small business owner, who grosses say $250K per year, for his shop. He has to pay rent (a LOT, depending where on the location) to keep his shop open, utilities, and has to stock/produce product beforehand, in addition to all his employees salaries' and benefits... (there was a good thread on how much an employee costs a company on here a while ago, for reference). After that, the taxes come out, and how much is he left with?

The amount a person grosses has no reflection on the amount of "disposable income" one has.

Tax the "rich" (on paper...) and you end up making money tighter for him and his business, which in turn leads to layoffs, pay cuts, etc.

So while I agree the uber-rich should pay more in taxes, those who gross a fair amount of dollars shouldn't all be grouped into one category.

EDIT: I'd like to add that the $250K amount I used was Obama's opinion of what the average business owner makes...

 

[jeff_farkas]

Oh and if the tax cuts are supposed to go to investing what investing is being done? And where?

 

[jeff_farkas]

You didn't answer the question.

Well, why did the tax cuts not work? What about the debt that everyone hates??

It's good under Bush but bad under Obama?

 

[Mule Train]

Tax cuts for big business to ship U.S. jobs overseas. Cheat chaet cheat-win win win!!

 

[allbusinessjoe]

Joe, how does raising taxes generate more private sector jobs?

Its a good question, but if you look at history, one method has a better track record that the other. And history has shown which one works and which one does not.

Its amazing how people fall for and fixate on "media catch-phrases" such as raising taxes. What we are talking about is alowing tax cuts (that were irresponsible and unfunded in the first place) to expire.

If at the end of bush's 8 years the economy was booming with 4% unemployment, and declining debt, I might be agreeing with you right now. However, bush's policies have put America 180 degrees from where we need to be. Unfortunately, the person tasked with the clean up job is being prevented from doing his job by the party of "no."

Why is the party of "no" refusing to pass the already funded small business bill?

 

[jeff_farkas]

Tax cuts for big business to ship U.S. jobs overseas. Cheat chaet cheat-win win win!!

FedEx carries our mail as well.

 

[jeff_farkas]

Its a good question, but if you look at history, one method has a better track record that the other. And history has shown which one works and which one does not.

Its amazing how people fall for and fixate on "media catch-phrases" such as raising taxes. What we are talking about is alowing tax cuts (that were irresponsible and unfunded in the first place) to expire.

If at the end of bush's 8 years the economy was booming with 4% unemployment, and declining debt, I might be agreeing with you right now. However, bush's policies have put America 180 degrees from where we need to be. Unfortunately, the person tasked with the clean up job is being prevented from doing his job by the party of "no."

Why is the party of "no" refusing to pass the already funded small business bill?

It's due to the haltered of Obama and anything that could allow the Dems to have a 'win'. It's funny how debts don't matter now .. or do they?

 

[KSG_Standard]

How does keeping tax cuts that raised the debt under Bush help anything. I thought that debt was bad? Has the cut created any jobs?? Hello?? I can't wait for that miracle to happen. And yes the debt did go up under Bush.

Good try Jeff! Joe said the tax cuts for the rich (which really went to ALL Americans) were one of the causes of the recession we're in...I asked how raising taxes will increase private sector wealth and give us more private sector jobs.

The tax cuts we got under Bush did create jobs, they did increase tax revenues into the federal coffers...these are facts that can't be disputed.

If you want to argue about debt, and the sudden concern for debt...let's look at that too. According to the CBO, at CURRENT spending levels, continuing the tax cuts to the folks (and small businesses) that make over $250k/year will "cost" $700 billion over 10 years. Mr. Obama (or Barry as Joe is on a first name basis with him) has spent more than $2.3 Trillion in his first 20 months in office and unemployment and home foreclosures continue to rise. So, lets see...$70 billion a year for tax cuts vs. $2.3 Trillion in 20 months for stimulus/bailouts/Obamunism...What could we do to cut the debt? Hmmmm? That's a tough one, but I think that we could STOP spending first, lower taxes on individuals and corporations second, drop Cap&Tax third, repeal Obamacare fourth...maybe then we could get some businesses to start up here and hire more people here...that would get more people paying taxes vs. more people living off the gov't dole.

I don't know though, it might be more important to punish the evil rich.

Please try to answer the original questions:

1) How does raising taxes create more private sector jobs?
2) How does raising taxes create more wealth?
3) What did Bush's tax cuts have to do with the Real Estate bubble bursting?
4) What role did Bush's tax cuts play in 911 (which started our downward business cycle)?

 

[KSG_Standard]

Its a good question, but if you look at history, one method has a better track record that the other. And history has shown which one works and which one does not.

Its amazing how people fall for and fixate on "media catch-phrases" such as raising taxes. What we are talking about is alowing tax cuts (that were irresponsible and unfunded in the first place) to expire.

If at the end of bush's 8 years the economy was booming with 4% unemployment, and declining debt, I might be agreeing with you right now. However, bush's policies have put America 180 degrees from where we need to be. Unfortunately, the person tasked with the clean up job is being prevented from doing his job by the party of "no."

Why is the party of "no" refusing to pass the already funded small business bill?

You are talking nonsense my friend with your democratic talking points about tax cuts for the rich...that's laughable and stupid.

Let me try again for you...EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN TAXPAYER got their tax rates cut...the people at the low end got REFUNDABLE TAX CREDITS. As it stands now almost half of ALL Americans PAY ZERO FEDERAL INCOME TAX. These are facts, if you can dispute them, please post a link to your evidence.

Raising taxes has NEVER created jobs or created wealth...NEVER.

You need to pull your head out of Barack's crotch and think.

 

[kernelofwisdom]

If we need to raise taxes, let's just rollback ALL of the Bush tax cuts.

Liberals wanting to tax the higher income bracket don't care about the deficit any more than the conservatives - they just want to confiscate income.

If you fixed the corporate loophole on foreign earnings and taxed capital gains more like regular income and perhaps created a higher earning tax bracket with a slight increase in marginal tax rate that might be as "fair" as you can get.

As it is, conservatives only care about the deficit as it applies to federal spending, and liberals only care as it applies to people taking the wages of those who have managed to land, at least for awhile, a decent income.

 

[KSG_Standard]

Debt DOES matter. Cutting taxes doesn't create debt. Spending money you don't have creates debt. It's simple accounting 101. When you're in a hole, stop digging.

 

[kernelofwisdom]

The liberals complaining about Bush now should realize that he's the reason the percentage of lower income Americans paying no taxes is as high as it is.

Repeal ALL of the Bush tax cuts to tackle the deficit, or do you just want the OTHER guy to contribute??

I'd rather we fix the glaring problems with the tax code before resuming income envy.

 

[jeff_farkas]

I thought you guys were against all debt? SO Bush debt is different? And the 1 trillion on the wars?

1) How does raising taxes create more private sector jobs?
2) How does raising taxes create more wealth?

So the current 'cuts' are making jobs in the private sector?? IF there is investing being done.. who and were is it going to??

3) What did Bush's tax cuts have to do with the Real Estate bubble bursting?
4) What role did Bush's tax cuts play in 911 (which started our downward business cycle)?

The fans of republicans, wall street, seemed to have a big say in the real estate burst.

Oh and 911 started the rescission? I thought that was at the end of the Bush administration.


The Republicans had a chance to make the tax cuts permanent. What stopped them in the first place??

 

[jeff_farkas]

Debt DOES matter. Cutting taxes doesn't create debt. Spending money you don't have creates debt. It's simple accounting 101. When you're in a hole, stop digging.

What if the tax cuts are not invested?? And not taking in 70 Billion is a good thing??

 

[jeff_farkas]

Extension of High-Income Tax Cuts Would Benefit Few Small Businesses; Jobs Tax Credit Would Be Better
Proponents of extending President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for people with incomes over $250,000 argue, in part, that allowing them to expire after 2010 would weaken the economy by hurting small businesses. In reality, however, extending the tax cuts would do little for small business because only the top 3 percent of people with any business income, let alone income from a small business, would benefit. [1] Over the long term, an extension would likely harm the economy — and thus small business — by adding about $1 trillion to deficits and debt over the next decade and even larger amounts in subsequent decades. [2]

Extending the high-income tax cuts for one or two years, as some have proposed, would be highly ill-advised as well. It would make it much more likely that Congress would later act to extend the tax cuts indefinitely, increasing deficits and the debt for as far as the eye can see and thereby adding to the economic risks that already unsustainable long-term deficit and debt levels pose.

While conceding that this would benefit only a tiny share of people with business income, some proponents of extending the high-income tax cuts argue that Congress should extend the tax cuts anyway because this relatively small group of people receives a large proportion of the nation’s business income. While true, this fact reflects the reality that large amounts of “business income” go to concerns like large corporate law practices, accounting firms, and wealthy people who invest in financial and real estate partnerships. These are not what most Americans think of when they hear the term “small business.” It also reflects the reality of income inequality at levels not seen in this country for decades. These are hardly reasons to extend the high-income tax cuts.

Policymakers who are rightly concerned that nearly one in ten Americans cannot find a job should allow the high-income tax cuts to expire on schedule and channel the resulting revenues in the first year to a robust job-creation tax credit. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that a cut in employer payroll taxes for firms that hire more workers would create four to eight times as many jobs per dollar of cost as extending the high-end tax cuts. Moreover, such a tax credit would be strictly temporary and thus would add only negligible amounts to long-term deficits.
Tax-Cut Extension Would Not Generate New Customers for Business

CBO has explained that firms will not hire workers or make new investments unless they have — or expect to have — enough customers to justify the increased capacity. Whether a firm’s taxes modestly rise or fall matters much less in this regard than the level of demand for the firm’s products or services.

A CBO analysis noted that some small businesses would profit from an extension of the current top tax rates, but pointedly rejected the argument that Congress should extend these tax cuts to create jobs in a weak economy. CBO explained that “increasing the after-tax income of businesses typically does not create much incentive for them to hire more workers in order to produce more, because production depends principally on their ability to sell their products.” [3]

The most efficient way to ensure that businesses have customers is to bolster the incomes of people who tend to spend quickly much or all of any extra income they receive, such as lower-income families. This is why measures such as providing adequate unemployment insurance benefits deliver the largest bang-for-the-buck in stimulating the economy, according to CBO. As former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Alan Blinder highlighted in theWall Street Journal recently: “the unemployed worker struggling to make ends meet will likely spend the entire dollar right away.” [4]
Robust Job-Creation Tax Incentive a Preferable Alternative

Opponents of letting the high-income tax cuts expire on schedule often cite the potential impact on small-business job creation. But when CBO analyzed the job-creating efficiency of various stimulus policies, extending the high-end Bush income tax cuts came in dead last.

If policymakers want to pursue further stimulus through tax policy, it would be far more efficient to reward small (and large) businesses that create jobs by giving them a tax credit. CBO estimates that an employer payroll tax cut for firms that hire more workers would create four to eight times as many jobs per budget dollar as extending the high-income tax cuts.[

A job-creation tax credit would also be more fiscally responsible. It would be temporary and thus would add only very small amounts to long-term deficits. In contrast, even a temporary extension of the high-income tax cuts would likely lead to future extensions and mounting long-term costs. (This is especially likely given the expected outcome of the November election, in which more politicians who seek to make all of the Bush tax cuts permanent — including the tax cuts for high-income households — are likely to gain seats.)

Simply put, both for near-term job creation and long-term fiscal sustainability, it is far better to encourage businesses to hire workers now through a temporary tax credit for new hires than to extend the Bush tax cuts for the highest-income people. Such a temporary tax incentive, if adopted, should not be limited to small businesses; if the goal is job creation, there is no economic rationale for excluding jobs that larger companies create.
Extension of High-End Tax Cuts Would Be Poorly Targeted

An additional problem with extending the Bush high-income tax cuts to aid small businesses is that it would be very poorly targeted. Most small businesses are just that — small — so their incomes are not high enough to face the top marginal rates. Allowing the two top tax rates to return to their pre-2001 levels would have no impact whatsoever on 97 percent of taxpayers with business income, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.[5] Only the top 3 percent of such taxpayers are in the top two brackets.

Those who claim that raising the top rates would seriously harm small businesses also tend to rely on an extremely broad definition of “small business.” Because the IRS does not publish specific, satisfactory data on the taxes that small businesses pay, analysts are left to examine various sources of business income that individuals receive. Some analysts define any taxpayer who shows any business income on a tax return — including passive income that very wealthy investors secure — as a small business. Defining small businesses in this manner greatly overstates the actual number of small businesses, particularly among households with very high incomes.[6]

For example, most Americans would not describe the nation’s wealthiest 400 individuals, some of whom are billionaires, as small businesses. Yet the “Top 400” individuals have a great deal of money to invest and consequently receive significant business income — which means that they qualify as “small business owners” under the broad definition of the term. The 400 highest-earning taxpayers received nearly $17 billion in S corporation and partnership income in 2007 (the most recent year for which we have these data) — an average of $83 million each, according to the IRS. [7] In addition to the wealthiest 400 taxpayers, the following types of individuals are commonly included in the definition of “small business” used in tax debates:

partners in very large corporate law firms,
partners in lucrative medical practices, and
Wall Street bond traders who receive multi-million dollar bonuses and invest some of their income in investment partnerships.

The commonly used definition of “small business” also includes many wealthy executives of the nation’s largest corporations and financial institutions, who are considered “small business owners” if they rent out their vacation homes.[8]
Severe Income Inequality Surely No Rationale for Extending Tax Cuts

Some proponents of extending the high-income tax cuts, while conceding that this would benefit only a tiny share of people with business income, argue that Congress should do it anyway because this relatively small group of people receives a large proportion of the nation’s business income. Small business income is indeed concentrated among the wealthy because all income is concentrated among the wealthy — before the recession, the share of income going to the top 1 percent hit its highest level since 1928. But if anything, this fact argues for letting the high-income tax cuts expire in order to lean against, rather than exacerbate, this trend.

The upward shift in income and wealth in recent decades is stunning:

The gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007, according to Congressional Budget Office data.[9]
Between 2002 and 2007 — that is, during the expansion that preceded the recent recession — two-thirds of the nation’s total income gains flowed to the top 1 percent of households.[10] Between 1995 and 2007, the real income of the median family grew by less than 13 percent. During that same period, the average real income of the 400 richest people in the country multiplied by five times.[11]

Thus, when supporters of extending the high-income tax cuts argue that the top tax rates cannot be allowed to return to their pre-Bush levels because about half of all “pass-through” business income (i.e., income from partnerships, S. corporations, and sole proprietorships) flows to people in the two top brackets, they are essentially arguing that because income has become so much more concentrated among a very elite group, that elite group must maintain its lavish tax cuts and cannot be asked to pay taxes at the same marginal rates as in the prosperous Clinton years. [12]

Indeed, if all of the Bush tax cuts are extended, those at the pinnacle of the income scale — people who make over $1 million — will receive average annual tax cuts of $128,832 apiece, according to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. [13] This is more than double the total annual income of the typical American family.

The increasing concentration of income and wealth is a reason to make the tax code more progressive, rather than less so. It is not a reason to extend the most regressive of the Bush tax cuts, especially when as noted above, these tax cuts are highly inefficient — and largely ineffective — at creating jobs in a weak economy.
Exempting Business Income from Rate Increase Would Promote Tax Avoidance

Some have proposed letting the top marginal tax rate on regular income rise to 39.6 percent but extending the current 35 percent rate for business income. This, however, would give wealthy taxpayers a powerful incentive to reconfigure various business and financial arrangements in order to reclassify their regular income as business income. For example, if pass-through income qualified for the lower tax rate, the opportunities for wealthy taxpayers to avoid paying the 39.6 percent top rate would be virtually endless.

Even a carve-out just for active income that high-income individuals receive from S corporations would greatly aggravate tax compliance and tax avoidance problems. The Treasury’s Inspector General for Tax Administration, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) all have noted that wage compensation paid by S corporations is heavily underreported and, correspondingly, distributions of profits from S corporations — which are not subject to payroll taxes — are overreported. The GAO calculated that in 2003 and 2004, S corporations underreported about $23.6 billion in wage compensation to shareholders, “which could result in billions in annual employment tax underpayments.”

This current compliance problem flows from the structure of the Medicare tax,[14] which applies to the wages and salaries of S corporation shareholders but not to the shares of the firm’s profits they receive. This gives shareholders an incentive to convert wages to distributions of firm profits (or to understate their wages and overstate the distribution of profits), since every dollar they receive in distributed profits rather than wages saves them 2.9 cents in Medicare taxes. The recently approved health reform legislation increases the Medicare tax, levying a 3.8 percent rate on income above a threshold of $250,000 for married couples and $200,000 for singles, starting in 2013. The increased rate on income exceeding the threshold will apply to investment income as well as wage income, which will generally reduce the incentive for tax avoidance. But active S corporation income will continue to be exempt from the Medicare tax, increasing the incentive for shifting to that type of income.

Exempting active S corporation income from the scheduled increase in the top tax rates would more than double shareholders’ incentive to convert wages into distributions or to misreport wages as pass-through income. Every dollar they received or reported in distributed profits rather than wages would save them not only 3.8 cents in Medicare taxes (starting in 2013) but also 4.6 cents in income tax. [15] Instead of addressing an existing tax-compliance problem, Congress would be making it substantially worse.

In addition, providing pass-through entities with a lower tax rate ignores the fact that they already enjoy a tax advantage over competitors organized as traditional corporations (known as C corporations): pass-through entities are not subject to the corporate income tax.

Firms often organize themselves as pass-through entities to avoid the corporate tax and reduce their tax liability. They are free to organize, or re-organize, themselves as Schedule C corporations if that becomes more advantageous for them from a tax standpoint.

End Notes:

[1] Unless otherwise noted, we follow the Joint Committee on Taxation’s definition of business income, as defined in JCT’s letter of April 6, 2009: “For purposes of this analysis, business income consists of income from sole proprietorships (Schedule C); farm income (Schedule F); and income from rental real estate, royalties, partnerships, subchapter S corporations, estates and trusts, and real estate mortgage investment conduits (Schedule E).”

[2] Based on President Obama’s 2011 budget, table S-8, which reflects Treasury Department estimates. The $1 trillion figure includes the costs (relative to President Obama’s proposals) of extending the current top two marginal income tax rates, the 15 percent tax rate on income from capital gains and dividends, and the repeal of the Pease and PEP provisions, for households with income above $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for single filers. The figure also includes the cost of reducing the tax rate on dividends for households above the $250,000/$200,000 thresholds from the ordinary tax rates that will be in place after 2010 under current law to President Obama’s proposed rate of 20 percent for these households, as estimated by JCT. Some $838 billion of the $1 trillion increase in the deficit would come from revenue losses. The other $180 billion would come from increased interest payments on the national debt.

[3] Congressional Budget Office, Policies for Increasing Economic Growth and Employment in 2010 and 2011, p. 26, January 2010, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10803/01-14-Employment.pdf.

[4] Alan S. Blinder, “Obama’s Fiscal Priorities Are Right,” The Wall Street Journal, July 19, 2010, Alan Blinder: Obama's Fiscal Priorities Are Right - WSJ.com .

[5] Calculated using estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation, “Present Law and the President’s Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Proposals Related To Select Individual Income Tax Provisions Scheduled to Expire Under the Sunset Provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001,” July 14, 2010, p. 10, JCX-36-10.

[6] See Chye-Ching Huang and James R. Horney, “Big Misconceptions About Small Businesses and Taxes,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Feb. 2, 2009.

[7] Some 202 out of the 400 taxpayers with the highest adjusted gross income reported net income from partnerships and S corporations. IRS, “The 400 Individual Income Tax Returns Reporting the Highest Adjusted Gross Incomes Each Year, 1992-2007,” p. 4, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07intop400.pdf.

[8] Such rental income would be filed under Schedule E, causing these individuals to be included in the commonly used definition of taxpayers with small business income.

[9] Arloc Sherman and Chad Stone, “Income Gaps Between Very Rich and Everyone Else More Than Tripled In Last Three Decades, New Data Show,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, June 25, 2010.

[10] Avi Feller and Chad Stone, “Top 1 Percent of Americans Reaped Two-Thirds of Income Gains in Last Economic Expansion,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, September 9, 2009. This paper was based on analysis of IRS data by economists Thomas Picketty and Emmanuel Saez.

[11] See U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Income Tables, Table H-5, Historical Income Tables - Households - U.S Census Bureau , and IRS, “The 400 Individual Income Tax Returns Reporting the Highest Adjusted Gross Incomes Each Year, 1992-2007,” p. 4, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07intop400.pdf.

[12] See Joint Committee on Taxation, “Present Law and the President’s Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Proposals Related To Select Individual Income Tax Provisions Scheduled to Expire Under the Sunset Provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001,” July 14, 2010, p. 10, JCX-36-10. In addition, nearly half of all qualified dividends and 72 percent of capital gains go to people with incomes above $500,000.

[13] Tax Policy Center, “Extend the 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts and Permanently Extend AMT Patch, Baseline: Current Law, Distribution of Federal Tax Change by Cash Income Level, 2011,” July 8, 2010, http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/Content/PDF/T10-0132.pdf.

[14] We focus here on the Medicare tax and not the Social Security payroll tax because the Medicare wage tax base is uncapped. Including both the employer and employee shares of the tax (both of which are ultimately born by employees), the current Medicare tax rate is 2.9 percent.

[15] That 4.6 cents represents the difference between the 39.6 percent rate these individuals would pay on ordinary wage and salary income and the 35 percent rate they would pay on their profits.

.

Extension of High-Income Tax Cuts Would Benefit Few Small Businesses; Jobs Tax Credit Would Be Better — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[KSG_Standard]

I thought you guys were against all debt? SO Bush debt is different? And the 1 trillion on the wars?

1) How does raising taxes create more private sector jobs?
2) How does raising taxes create more wealth?

So the current 'cuts' are making jobs in the private sector?? IF there is investing being done.. who and were is it going to??

Investors are not investing in US companies, they are investing in foreign companies, bonds and gold. Why would someone invest in a US company when they think that healthcare costs, taxes, regulations are going to go up and profits are going to go down?

3) What did Bush's tax cuts have to do with the Real Estate bubble bursting?
4) What role did Bush's tax cuts play in 911 (which started our downward business cycle)?

The fans of republicans, wall street, seemed to have a big say in the real estate burst.
The correct answer is that lower taxes had nothing to do with the real estate bubble bursting. Higher taxes mean less money in the pockets of private citizens, meaning less money to spend and invest.
Oh and 911 started the rescission? I thought that was at the end of the Bush administration.
911 started the change in the business cycle Jeff, not the recession. We were already living in a house of cards when the 911 attacks shook the markets and rattled investors, then came war, then came $5/gallon gas prices, then came the mass defaulting on consumer debt and mortgages.

The Republicans had a chance to make the tax cuts permanent. What stopped them in the first place??
When the tax bill was created, voted on and signed the repubs only had a 1 seat majority in the Senate and a bare majority in the house. 4 of the Republican Senators who were there were more Democrat than Republican, so the tax bill was a compromise and the only way to get it passed was to have sunsets in it. The Democrats took over at the end of 2006...why didn't they repeal the tax cuts then?

What we need is JOBS, capital investment in new business, new manufacturing, more small business startups. How will raising taxes help create any of this good stuff? How does the rising cost of healthcare on small business and corporate America help create more jobs? (the CBO and Mr. Obama's own Medicare actuaries say that Obamacare will cause healthcare costs to rise, not fall as promised). How will Cap&Trade or the threat of it help create more jobs when it's already proven to be an additional cost to business? How will ANY of the current proposals help lure more businesses, manufacturers, investors and capital to America?

 

[jeff_farkas]

What we need is JOBS, capital investment in new business, new manufacturing, more small business startups. How will raising taxes help create any of this good stuff? How does the rising cost of healthcare on small business and corporate America help create more jobs? (the CBO and Mr. Obama's own Medicare actuaries say that Obamacare will cause healthcare costs to rise, not fall as promised). How will Cap&Trade or the threat of it help create more jobs when it's already proven to be an additional cost to business? How will ANY of the current proposals help lure more businesses, manufacturers, investors and capital to America?

Why did the Republicans filibuster attempts to help small business create jobs?? You still have not said what investing is being done now with the tax cuts. The tax cuts are still there and who is investing to generate jobs? Are the small business being helped that much by these cuts?

Peace out.

Oh so the well off don't want to invest in the US so why keep the tax cut for them?? Just silly.

 

[KSG_Standard]

About Center on Budget and Policy Priorities — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

/FACEPALM/

 

[jeff_farkas]

About Center on Budget and Policy Priorities — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

/FACEPALM/

And you quote FOX.