Why U.S. Business Is Winning

[Saryctos]

It's not to hard to see how anyone with kids earning no more than minimum wage would be in "poverty."

well, if you only make minimum wage, AND have children, you get a good number of tax beneffits*.

[Jim]

well, if you only make minimum wage, AND have children, you get a good number of tax beneffits*.

 

True, yet I can see how it would be tough to survive making only minimum wage. I certainly do not begrudge the tax breaks and most other benefits if an unskilled person is doing what they can to earn a living. Whether we can afford to increase minimum wage is another issue. There is no guarantee that our country will be able to afford any given standard of living.

[Sisyphus]

How about raising the minimum tax bracket? Currently in the U.S., if you make less than $6000 in a year, you are not required to file income taxes. What if we raised this figure to, say $20,000? It wouldn't have the problems associated with raising minimum wage (i.e., forcing businesses to outsource or lay off workers), it would put more money into the economy where it will actually be used, and it will help out those who need it most, without giving anyone a free ride.

 

I dunno, just a thought...

[john5746]

How about raising the minimum tax bracket? Currently in the U.S.' date=' if you make less than $6000 in a year, you are not required to file income taxes. What if we raised this figure to, say $20,000? It wouldn't have the problems associated with raising minimum wage (i.e., forcing businesses to outsource or lay off workers), it would put more money into the economy where it will actually be used, and it will help out those who need it most, without giving anyone a free ride.

 

I dunno, just a thought...[/quote']

 

Nah, let's give Bill Gates a tax break too, otherwise we would hurt his feelings and he would work less because we would be punishing him for making money.

[pcs]

Nah, let's give Bill Gates a tax break too, otherwise we would hurt his feelings and he would work less because we would be punishing him for making money.

 

Bill Gates can give as much as he wants to the state if he feels government can manage his money better than he can. Rupert Murdoch may feel differently.

[Phi for All]

How about raising the minimum tax bracket? Currently in the U.S.' date=' if you make less than $6000 in a year, you are not required to file income taxes. What if we raised this figure to, say $20,000? It wouldn't have the problems associated with raising minimum wage (i.e., forcing businesses to outsource or lay off workers), it would put more money into the economy where it will actually be used, and it will help out those who need it most, without giving anyone a free ride.

 

I dunno, just a thought...[/quote']Interesting, but then you'd probably have to classify anyone in that category as below poverty level, and the politicians don't want that. It also doesn't guarantee the money would be used to help raise them out of poverty. It would still seem like a free ride to me if the extra money just went for booze and cigarettes.

 

It would be interesting to know how much tax money the gov't would lose that way. They'd have to make it up somewhere else.

[Pangloss]

The filing threshold isn't the only factor. There's a much higher number below which you're filing and dealing with "withholding", but you still get it all back. I don't know what that number is off the top of my head.

[Sisyphus]

It also doesn't guarantee the money would be used to help raise them out of poverty.

 

It wouldn't have to be a guarantee. It would just make it significantly easier to get out of poverty. And even if it all was blown on frivolous purchases, they're no worse off, and it's money in the economy.

[john5746]

It would be interesting to know how much tax money the gov't would lose that way. They'd have to make it up somewhere else.

 

No, Reagan and Bush have proven that you can reduce taxes forever and everything just gets better and better!

[Phi for All]

It wouldn't have to be a guarantee. It would just make it significantly easier to get out of poverty. And even if it all was blown on frivolous purchases, they're no worse off, and it's money in the economy.

But since the lost tax revenue either means the rest of us have to pick it up or we do without other budget items (where would this administration make the cuts?), then I would like more of a guarantee. How about the tax money they save has to go towards schooling or specialty training, something geared towards getting them away from minimum wage? More money in the economy AND tremendously easier to get out of poverty.

No, Reagan and Bush have proven that you can reduce taxes forever and everything just gets better and better!

From Bill Maher:

President Bush's tax returns are a little different. He claimed the Christian Right as dependents, he declared the 2000 election as a gift, and he tried to write off all the mileage he got from 9/11.

[Pangloss]

Maher always cracks me up.

[raid517]

Fascinating editorial today by Washington Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby. Mallaby is not a conservative -- he spent 13 years writing for The Economist' date=' a British paper that follows economic news and which has been a frequent critic of the Bush and Blair administrations (as Mallaby has been). This is a guy who writes books about apartheid and the World Bank, folks, not Rush Limbaugh and Christian evangelism. He knows his stuff. His editorials make frequent appearances on liberal as well as conservative blogs. And he has written editorials that are extremely critical of the Bush administration, such as this one, criticizing his economic policies. He's seen by most as an objective, fair-minded observer.

 

And yet here he is, saying that American business is at the top of its game. Gosh. Guess he can toss his invite to the next Nobel Peace Prize awards ceremony. And forget about that Pulitzer!

 

This page may be subscription-based, so I'll post a few good quotes along with my comments:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/26/AR2006032600878.html

 

 

 

Fascinating. The nightly news certainly seems to tell a different story, doesn't it? All I hear about is layoffs and losses and GM and Ford. As if the "Fortune 500" were actually the "Misfortunate 2"!

 

Mallaby goes on to talk about the reasons for this success:

 

 

 

Imagine that. We're actually doing something right. Go figure. And here I thought we were on the brink of decay and collapse!

 

A final thought:

 

 

 

Darn tootin'. And see what I mean about balance? He's right on both of those counts, as far as I'm concerned, although I realize he doesn't make a case here for the last point (it's the last sentence in the piece).

 

Erm.. the Economist is an extremely right wing British establishment rant mag - and this guy is largely critical of Blair and Bush for not being 'right wing enough', not becuase he personally leans towards the left in any way. The far right in British politics are generally admiring of the American economic system, and they would very much like to see it transposed here to the UK. More private enterprise involvement in government, social services and health care, less government regulation, a severe curtailing of the welfare state and so on - so you have to read this in context.

 

The guy has an agenda, just like most people in publications of this nature do.

 

GJ

[gcol]

The Economist, right wing rant? balderdash, sir:

 

Main article: The Economist editorial stance

 

When the newspaper was founded, the term “economism” denoted what would today be termed fiscal conservatism. The Economist generally supports economic liberalism, that is it supports free markets, and opposes socialism. It is in favour of globalisation. Economic liberalism is generally associated with the right, especially outside the United States, but is now favoured by some traditionally left-wing parties. It also supports social liberalism, which is often seen as left-wing, especially in the United States. This contrast derives in part from The Economist's roots in classical liberalism, disfavouring government interference in either social or economic activity. According to former editor Bill Emmott "The Economist's philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative"[7]. In modern terms its stance has traces of libertarianism. However, the views taken by individual contributors are quite diverse.

 

If you dont like this, find an opinion that supports your own rant. If you can, quote it.

[Pangloss]

Quite right, gcol, well said.

[Severian]

The Economist is most certainly regarded as a right-wing magazine in the UK. I used to buy it, but I found myself getting too upset with some of their more outrageously right-wing articles, so I stopped.