Dow Drops More Than 500 Points

But I thought we were giving tax breaks for rich..I mean "job creators" so they can create jobs? :doh:


Would raising taxes on the evil rich make things better right now?


Either way something needs to be done to encourage firms to start hiring again. No one is going to go anywhere if companies keep hoarding cash. For better or worse it looks like Obama is going to loose reelection.



Yeah Obama is on the outside looking in unless the economy is in much better shape then now come 2012

Also i heard this yesterday. What if we made the corporate tax rate zero but offset it by making the tax rates on capital gains and qualified dividens equal to individual's income tax rate and maybe even raise the top tax rate a little on those disgusting rich people. US corporate taxes are the highest in the world (prob the most complicated too) and are equal to only 15% of the total the IRS collects. Im sure that would attract new businesses and maybe spur production a little bit too.

Obama said we need to focus on creating jobs. Well what the hell was that 800 billion spent on? I have no problem with hitting the rich with higher taxes as long as we make other cuts to go along with them.

What I don't understand is the unwillingness to cut tax loopholes like the oil subsidies and private jet tax credit.

It always seems the message is the free market knows best, but don't mess with our sacred cows that are propped up.

What I don't understand is the unwillingness to cut tax loopholes like the oil subsidies and private jet tax credit.

It always seems the message is the free market knows best, but don't mess with our sacred cows that are propped up.

I only know so much about this, but a lot of people want to hit a lot the corporations with heavy taxes which from a basic economic standpoint makes little sense. First it raises prices in an economy where many are either unemployed or underemployed. Then it encourages these companies that could be providing jobs to pack up and leave all together for more tax friendly countries.

There needs to be a more amicable solution then just going hard at the corporations with taxes. Only thing I can think of is tax breaks for companies that hired unemployed workers. Make it worth their while.

This great...I got extra money laying around amd now I have a place to put them. Everything is on sale....buy buy buy!

This great...I got extra money laying around amd now I have a place to put them. Everything is on sale....buy buy buy!

?? drunk thread maybe?

?? drunk thread maybe?

No, it's called Value Investing Strategy...one of the pillars of investing is to buy more when the stock price of solid companies drop. It makes sense plus it doesn't hurt that Warren Buffet uses this strategy.

But I thought we were giving tax breaks for rich..I mean "job creators" so they can create jobs? :doh:

Well, we certainly aren't getting hired by poor people are we?

The job creators will create jobs only if it fits their business model. Most Americans don't seem to understand this. There's this notion that if you're wealthy, it's your natural patriotic duty to give up that money in the form hiring someone.

The job of a corporation/business is to remain profitable for their shareholders. That's it. It isn't their job to provide employment. In fact, if somebody runs the numbers and finds that operations can still be successful while reducing labor costs, hiring will stop and the workforce might be trimmed. On the other hand, if it's determined that it would be more profitable to expand services/operations, then you'll see more hiring.

If the rich are fearful that the government is set to confiscate even more of their money, which is what's scheduled to happen at the end of 2012 when the Bush tax cuts expire, you'll see timid, temporary hiring at best.

Now, if government would just get the hell out of the way, stop threatening the risk-takers, entrepreneurs, ... the "job creators" ... by taking more of their money, and instead adopted the policy of allowing people to keep more of what they earn and let them be as wildly successful as they can, then that's an economic environment we'd all want to be in.

I only know so much about this, but a lot of people want to hit a lot the corporations with heavy taxes which from a basic economic standpoint makes little sense. First it raises prices in an economy where many are either unemployed or underemployed. Then it encourages these companies that could be providing jobs to pack up and leave all together for more tax friendly countries.

There needs to be a more amicable solution then just going hard at the corporations with taxes. Only thing I can think of is tax breaks for companies that hired unemployed workers. Make it worth their while.


I was thinking more along the lines of all of these tax incentives that are unnecessary. Do you really need a $7,000 credit to go buy an electric car. If you cannot afford the car don't buy it. Do oil companies need an incentive to drill for oil? Do people who want to fly on a private jet need an incentive to own one? I would much rather see that money go into fixing the highway I have to drive to work on every day. Except not fixing those pot holes is a stimulus plan for suspension and tire manufactures.

I agree the main problem is that there is no incentive to keep jobs in the US right now. Lower taxes for the top individual bracket alone is not going to do that. Better corporate taxes might.

Well, we certainly aren't getting hired by poor people are we?

The job creators will create jobs only if it fits their business model. Most Americans don't seem to understand this. There's this notion that if you're wealthy, it's your natural patriotic duty to give up that money in the form hiring someone.

The job of a corporation/business is to remain profitable for their shareholders. That's it. It isn't their job to provide employment. In fact, if somebody runs the numbers and finds that operations can still be successful while reducing labor costs, hiring will stop and the workforce might be trimmed. On the other hand, if it's determined that it would be more profitable to expand services/operations, then you'll see more hiring.

If the rich are fearful that the government is set to confiscate even more of their money, which is what's scheduled to happen at the end of 2012 when the Bush tax cuts expire, you'll see timid, temporary hiring at best.

Now, if government would just get the hell out of the way, stop threatening the risk-takers, entrepreneurs, ... the "job creators" ... by taking more of their money, and instead adopted the policy of allowing people to keep more of what they earn and let them be as wildly successful as they can, then that's an economic environment we'd all want to be in.Great post. I would add the increased regulatory burden and the effects Obamacare will have when its fully implemented are major factors in keeping businesses on the sidelines until after 2012. If Obama is re-elected, it will extend the malaise another 4 years.