Everybody Hang On!
It appears one of three things is set to occur in Washington D.C. in the next few days. The president will either give the GOP what they want (large cuts to social programs that help the poor while continuing the lower tax rates for the wealthy and to subsidize oil company profits) with nothing in return, just to raise the nations debt limit (thus saving of economy). Or perhaps he will wait until the last minute and when it is undeniable the GOP will stop at nothing to win in 2012 he will then use the cover of the 14th amendment to bypass congress and force the supreme court to show us once again just how anti-citizen they really have become. The third potential outcome is that the deadline or deadlines set by whomever will pass and the credit ratings and bond ratings will be lowered and send our economy along with the worlds into a tailspin that might not be recoverable. No matter how this plays out the GOP wins, as their wealthy marionettes will be just fine. Because if you have millions or billions, credit is not as important. The GOP pretends it is a matter of "job creation" when they refuse to create a more fair tax burden for the wealthy, but any half-wit can understand that if the credit/bond ratings go down jobs will go as well.
Look at it like this. Let's say you own a company that has been achieving a 10% profit margin every year for the past 8 years. That doesn't mean you have made the same amount every year it simply means that even after adjustments for all cost increases you have still maintained a 10% profit. If then you notice your profits begin to fall you will look for ways to increase those profits. In doing so you will try a variety of things such as cutting costs, boosting output, and perhaps even layoffs (which is still a form of cost cutting) and so on. In other words, it is as simple as, money on hand minus money paid out = profit. In order to increase the money on hand you can either bring more money in or send less money out. One of the ways in keeping more money on hand is to pay less in taxes. Well for 8 plus years you had the lowest tax rates in recent memory and yet you still began to achieve less profit, so as previously stated it was time to look for ways to keep more money on hand. Increasing production won't always work if there is nobody buying what you sell, so the fastest method is to cut the labor force thus creating the fastest/largest increase of money on hand. This works well in the short term to make/maintain profits, but long term it doesn't change what caused the decrease in the first place. I like to say this points out the flaw of capitalism which is greed. If the company and its shareholders would understand it much faster to simply absorb the profit loss and maintain the workforce, they then would be in a much better place coming out of the lost-profit cycle. This would allow them to recapture the market share faster and allow them to get back to where they may have been prior. Sadly when you cut the workforce you also cut the economic motor, that is to say those that buy things are the oil in the buying machine. They can't buy stuff so in turn others can't buy stuff and so on. So cutting the workforce is a quick fix that never solves the problem. That is unless your problem was simply that you outgrew your market.
And as for how this relates to taxes, if a company, weather it is doing well or not-so-well is forced give up a tax decrease given to it from ten years ago in order to help correct deficiencies in our nations revenue. And that company then determines that the only way it can regain the profit margin it seeks is to lay off or stop hiring workers then the open market will decide if that process should allow that company to compete and or survive. After all there is always going to be someone willing to honor their civic duty while making a profit. And not seek profit at any cost or by any means. Isn't that what the neo-conservatives claim is their true desire anyway? Prove me wrong, but bring facts please.
Look at it like this. Let's say you own a company that has been achieving a 10% profit margin every year for the past 8 years. That doesn't mean you have made the same amount every year it simply means that even after adjustments for all cost increases you have still maintained a 10% profit. If then you notice your profits begin to fall you will look for ways to increase those profits. In doing so you will try a variety of things such as cutting costs, boosting output, and perhaps even layoffs (which is still a form of cost cutting) and so on. In other words, it is as simple as, money on hand minus money paid out = profit. In order to increase the money on hand you can either bring more money in or send less money out. One of the ways in keeping more money on hand is to pay less in taxes. Well for 8 plus years you had the lowest tax rates in recent memory and yet you still began to achieve less profit, so as previously stated it was time to look for ways to keep more money on hand. Increasing production won't always work if there is nobody buying what you sell, so the fastest method is to cut the labor force thus creating the fastest/largest increase of money on hand. This works well in the short term to make/maintain profits, but long term it doesn't change what caused the decrease in the first place. I like to say this points out the flaw of capitalism which is greed. If the company and its shareholders would understand it much faster to simply absorb the profit loss and maintain the workforce, they then would be in a much better place coming out of the lost-profit cycle. This would allow them to recapture the market share faster and allow them to get back to where they may have been prior. Sadly when you cut the workforce you also cut the economic motor, that is to say those that buy things are the oil in the buying machine. They can't buy stuff so in turn others can't buy stuff and so on. So cutting the workforce is a quick fix that never solves the problem. That is unless your problem was simply that you outgrew your market.
And as for how this relates to taxes, if a company, weather it is doing well or not-so-well is forced give up a tax decrease given to it from ten years ago in order to help correct deficiencies in our nations revenue. And that company then determines that the only way it can regain the profit margin it seeks is to lay off or stop hiring workers then the open market will decide if that process should allow that company to compete and or survive. After all there is always going to be someone willing to honor their civic duty while making a profit. And not seek profit at any cost or by any means. Isn't that what the neo-conservatives claim is their true desire anyway? Prove me wrong, but bring facts please.
Comments