Friday, August 29, 2008
The good jobs here in America thing
When Barack Obama said tonight that he would give tax breaks to corporations "that create good jobs right here in America," I wonder if this is what he meant?
Of course, foreigners employed here might still count as "good jobs right here in America," as well they should! Or maybe it is that "artists" just get a pass from all this populism.
It will be interesting to seem him spell out the details behind these paragraphs:
Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.
I will eliminate capital-gains taxes for the small businesses and the startups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.
If I read this right, it means that a job created in a "startup" will confer a tax advantage (in the form of eliminated capital gains taxes) over a job created in a mature company. If I am correct, that would seem like a basis for hurting him with workers for smokestack companies in places like Ohio. And if I'm wrong, then what exactly does the paragraph mean?
CWCID: Glenn Reynolds.
6 Comments:
By 
, at
Fri Aug 29, 03:50:00 AM:
What does it mean? Almost nothing, since few operating companies ever realize capital gains, and investment companies are almost never organized as corporations. Since Obama's speeches show he doesn't understand how our tax code actually works (never having owned or, as far as I know, even worked in a business), nor does he understand the difference between a corporation and a partnership, this is much sound and fury, signifying nothing.
By , at
Fri Aug 29, 08:25:00 AM:
But does it play to the unwashed?
My morning thought is that if McCain is the continuation of the "failed policies" of GWB, and Obama's Dem ruled Congress takes no hit, then voting in Obama gets you the failed policies of Jimmy Carter. Sissys crying in adoration while some black rap guy jumps and jives as Obama provides a voice overlay. Very Presidential. Call me a bad guy, but "I ain't down wit dat".
We have an oil "crisis", inflation or stagflation on the horizon, rising interest rates and personal debt, etc. New threats from the Soviets.
If I were McCain, I would speak with righteous indignation to the thought that everyone gets a free college education. Who TF built, builds and maintains this great nation when everyone feels good with their sheepskin, and no one does any work?
We've done the high on the hog thing. It's not working.
By , at
Fri Aug 29, 08:31:00 AM:
Just as an aside, the problem in Ohio is 4th generation labor (they all expect to get paid like they were represented by the UAW and work at GM), and relatively high state taxes.
There are high-tech industries in Ohio, and former governor Bob Taft had put a modest bond-issue on the ballot in 2006 to help finance high-tech start-ups (it failed). But a lot of capital has fled south to Right-To-work states, and onward to Mexico and points further west (China).
Present governor Bob Strickland (D) is caught in a quandary, for a Democrat (Mr. Obama may find himself in the same pickle if he is elected). Strickland dare not raise taxes to pay for the things he wants, because even the Democrats know it would hurt employment; and his budget is stuck where it is, because there is little give in what he MUST spend to meet the State's obligations (education and Medicare).
So BHO and the Dems in Congress might get to re-arrange the deck chairs (fiddle with the tax code, as it were), but they really don't have the room to manuever to enact the really big changes that the activist Left wants to deploy.
Things aren't bad enough as they were in 1932, so the Dems aren't going to take really big risks that might surely blow up in their faces. And frankly, the economy might turn on its own in 12-18 months, if the government just doesn't jigger with everything.
-David
By , at
Fri Aug 29, 09:44:00 AM:
Democrats still love to demonize the big bad corporations, and constantly talk about increasing taxes on corporations, not people. Of course, corporations don't pay tax in an economic sense, they collect tax, and pass the cost on to their customers.
Democrats also go on about the increased concentration of wealth in this country. Well, maybe that's because corporations (which tend to be widely owned, including by workers' retirement accounts and mutual funds) are at a cost disadvantage because of high taxes, and the double taxation of corporate earnings and dividends.
No wonder more and more viable businesses have been snapped up by private equity, organized as S corporations, LLCs, and partnerships. Pass-through entities can't have many owners, so that increases the concentration of wealth. Inevitable, given the desire to heavily tax the corporate form.
Dan
By , at
Fri Aug 29, 11:03:00 AM:
George Reisman just came out with a great article on his blog explaining why workers should prefer tax cuts for the "rich" and corporations over tax cuts for themselves.
By 
Richard Jennings, at
Sat Sep 06, 11:53:00 AM:
Here's the 3 of the newest job sites from About.com's top 10 Employment list..all of them provide high paying job listings.
http://www.linkedin.com
http://www.indeed.com
http://www.realmatch.com
Theres a perfect job out there for everyone..if they look.
