Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Bah!
A tax cut for a "commitment" to a "program" to create jobs.
Businesses can already write off salaries on their taxes.
If you want to encourage more hiring, then how about letting companies write off say 120%-200% of an employee's fully loaded cost up to a certain amount, say $100,000 (this encourages them to hire more people, rather than give it all to one guy).
Getting jobs back on track is an important part of maintaining and sustaining this recovery.
Further, it's the lower rungs that tend to be hurt worst and recover slowest from these recessions, causing them to lose ground.
It's also true that the published tax rates are almost meaningless given our current code, and the effective tax on the rich bears so little resemblance to it that it's hard to believe they're related.
So, we need the fix now and the give is just playing on the margins in a system that needs some big changes long-term.
But ultimately, corporate taxes are a waste of time. We should be taxing rich people, not companies. Corporate profits that are reinvested in the business are a good thing, not a bad thing.
Don't corporations not pay taxes on the amount they reinvest in the company? I thought that was a big factor, back in the day, for the Christmas bonus. Corporations weren't trying to be nice, they were trying to offload profit onto their employees before the end of the year.
It seems to me that letting corporations get away with paying effectively zero taxes means that they're *less* likely to reinvest that money in the company, not more.
Or how about this? Corporations pay a punishing tax rate on the money they're hoarding and not spending.