Slashdot Mirror
New York State Spent Millions On Program For Startups That Created 76 Jobs
Nerval's Lobster writes Last year, the New York state government launched Start-Up NY, a program designed to boost employment by creating tax-free zones for technology and manufacturing firms that partner with academic institutions. Things didn't go quite as planned. In theory, those tax-free zones on university campuses would give companies access to the best young talent and cutting-edge research, but only a few firms are actually taking the bait: According to a report from the state's Department of Economic Development, the program only created 76 jobs last year, despite spending millions of dollars on advertising and other costs. If that wasn't eyebrow-raising enough, the companies involved in the program have only invested a collective $1.7 million so far. The low numbers didn't stop some state officials from defending the initiative. "Given the program was only up and running for basically one quarter of a year," Andrew Kennedy, a senior economic development aide to Governor Cuomo, told Capital New York, "I think 80 jobs is a good number that we can stand behind."
Wait a second -- this program has only been running for one quarter of a year?
76 jobs doesn't sound that bad, on such a short time frame.
Sounds like a pre-mature judgement.
Looks like about 20k per job. Probably 100k paying jobs...
This is hardly a case of government waste by comparison.
Is equally bad. So how many "millions" were spent? 2? Or 20? Are these stats from a quarter of a year or a whole one? Hard to get angry when the details are so purposefully vague to fill a story.
You could modify the tax code such that wealthy people and corporations have to pay their fair share of taxes.
What exactly... is "their fair share"?
I keep hearing people say that without defining what that really is.
Did you know the wealthy already pay most of the taxes? How much more would *you* like them to pay?
"Last year, the New York state government launched Start-Up NY, a program designed to boost employment by creating tax-free zones for technology and manufacturing firms that partner with academic institutions."
See, this is what you are supposed to think, but here is how the truth of the matter reads:
"Last year, the New York state government launched Start-Up NY, a program that allows state politicians to give tax money to their buddies while having the appearance that they care about jobs and the general public."
Wait a second -- this program has only been running for one quarter of a year? 76 jobs doesn't sound that bad, on such a short time frame.
Damn right!
It takes a substantial time to set up a company. (The startup I just helped start up took over five months before I was actually "employed" (and over 6 before the payroll was in place to pay me as an employee with a W2 rather than a consultant with a 1099).)
Three months and they ALREADY have 76 new jobs? It sounds like there are some bats exiting hell!
Come back in a year and see how many there are, and how fast more are being added.
And when counting the cost of the program versus the benefits of it, don't forget to take into account that investments provide their payback over time - so count those costs against the paybacks from several years.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Microsoft, Tetris and Google wire created by less than a dozen people, in total. Anything more than that could be regarded as a success. :)
Their fair share is obviously whatever things cost and I don't feel like paying for myself.
People with EARNED INCOME pay the highest tax rates. Ever wonder why Steve Jobs and other CEO's take a $1 salary? They don't want to pay taxes on EARNED INCOME. Meanwhile, they pay lower taxes on PORTFOLIO INCOME (i.e., stocks and bonds) and PASSIVE INCOME (i.e., real estate). If you don't want to pay your fair share of taxes, stop working for EARNED INCOME.
It appears automation/AI and offshoring are cutting into US jobs and there is no known "new field" that can replace those jobs in the volume needed. The actual need for STEM is either flat or not growing near enough to offset the losses in other fields (despite what the pro-visa lobbyists claim).
"Mass STEM-related entrepreneurship" sounds good on paper, but probably won't fly in practice. As somebody who tried 3 startup businesses can attest, most startups fail*, and the few successful ones eventually automate or outsource just like everybody else to cut labor costs. That's not a recipe for large-volume job creation.
I don't know if there is a magic job policy. Times are changing and the future is too murky to really know if, where, and what the Magic Job Policy is.
I applaud NY for trying something. Sometimes you just have to experiment to find solutions, many of which will fail.
* Some of mine may have taken off eventually, but I had bills to pay and couldn't wait years down the road. Seems only the wealthy have the luxury to take losses up front to gain later, and this is partly why it's a winner-take-all economy. Analysts of Warren Buffet have said that part of the reason for his success is that he's so wealthy he can take gambles the medium-rich cannot. In other words, he's rich because he's rich.
Table-ized A.I.
What exactly... is "their fair share"?
An indeterminate number based on the fluctuating interactions of society, wealth, and justice.
I keep hearing people say that without defining what that really is.
And the same with Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Or Equality, Fraternity, Liberty.
Go figure, slogans are easier than actual plans.
Did you know the wealthy already pay most of the taxes? How much more would *you* like them to pay?
Well I'd start by making an effort to reduce the amount of wealth enrichment they get by debt service creation. If we're going to have graft and corruption, let's at least make them try to build some bridges, pave some roads, or whatever.
Oh wait, no, we can't do that. So we get deficit spending.
Woah wait a second.
You're saying that creating Tax Free zones helps create jobs? So why doesn't New York lower taxes for the companies that still reside there, that are threatening to leave to Texas or other lower taxed states?
This is like Cable companies screwing existing customers and favoring customers that are new. I guess it works.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I was out of work for two years (2009-2010), underemployed for six months (working 20 hours PER MONTH), and filed for Chapter Seven bankruptcy in 2011. During those years, recruiters told me I was "unemployable" for tech jobs and hiring managers told me I was "overqualified" for minimum wage jobs. Yet I got another tech job after my bankruptcy despite these repeated assertions. What the difference between my old tech job in 2009 and the new tech job in 2011? Nothing. The jobs were the same. The reason I got hired in 2011 was because the hiring manager needed people for the contract and couldn't make excuses for not hiring qualified candidates.
Yes, it seems way to early to evaluate the program. This is the very first report; basically it's saying "the program just started". Clicking through the links leads to this one: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/a...
with more numbers in the summary:
The state agency responsible for economic development across New York says companies last year created 76 of the nearly 2,100 new jobs promised over five years in return for tax breaks under the Cuomo administration's Start-Up NY program.
The first annual report from the Department of Economic Development says 30 companies began operating in 2014 among 54 initially approved for the program.
According to the report, they made $1.7 million of some $91 million investments promised over five years as part of Start-Up NY. The program has established 356 tax-free zones at 62 colleges and universities that act as sponsors.
The agency says another 26 businesses have been approved so far this year, while 12 have withdrawn applications.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
You could just pay those 76 people $600,000 a year for doing nothing and you'd have enough left over that you could use to hire another 12 at the same rate.
Sadly, I wish I had mod points for that one, in spite of my usual policy of not upmodding ACs when I do have said points.
To the point: Between housing costs, transportation (not to mention the murder of fuel and/or commute times/costs), *and* the high taxes that NY usually carries?
No effing thank you. I'll move to Silly Valley first, and only then if death were the only other option.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
"their fair share" is nebulous on purpose, because if they actually specified, then it could be argued against. By keeping it undefined, there is no argument that can be made. The people making that argument win by default, because you can't argue against it.
If I were in a debate, and someone used "their fair share" as an argument, I would ask them what they define it as. If they refused, I would simple toss out the argument as meaningless emotionalism. It would basically say it is like arguing "You should love your wife more". Any answer to that argument would indicate that he doesn't love his wife ... at all (or husband or whomever).
But it works in politics because nobody ever asks to define "fair share". It never happens.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Easy. The cost of maintaining a country is based on the GDP. If the calculated budget is $100, and you hold 12% of the GDP, your fair share is $12. If someone else holds .01% of the GDP, they owe $.01.
Fair share is not every citizen pays the same. This is no a socialist economy where everyone contributes the same to get the same benefits. Some people hold far more than others, so their fair share is much higher. They also reap far more of the benefits of those taxes. A man that owns 10,000 trucks in a trucking company gets a hell of a lot more benefit than the guy that rides the bus across town to his job at McDonald's.
I tired to use Start-Up NY. We called and were told that it was only for out of state businesses opening in New York. They referred me to a small business consulting group at Stony Brook University. They referred me back to Start-Up NY. I had the impression that no one I spoke with knew what they were talking about, and really weren't interested in helping at all. I have even considered writing to Governor Cuomo. I think that Governor Cuomo's concept here is very well intentioned and could be a great benefit to the state. But, from my experience the administrative staff are not executing the Governor's program as intended.
Bullshit. H1b visas exist because companies want low paid captive workers. No other reason.
Government will basically claim ANYTHING improves the economy except the one thing everyone wants: lower taxes across the board.
They'll claim that welfare and UC improve the economy by giving poor people more buying power.
They'll claim tax breaks for crony corporations (auto manufacturers, green energy) give them incentive to hire.
But apparently, this doesn't work if we let everyone keep more of their money. They'll just bury it in the backyard.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
A good write-up on the current abysmal tax situation in New York: http://national.deseretnews.co...
They're just like apartment complex management companies: they're banking that you're too lazy to pack up and move, so they continue jacking up your rent year after year, while giving new renters a big discount.
H-1B Visa workers aren't picking fruit, they are taking jobs that American's want and are willing to do. But why I am replying to an AC troll is beyond me.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
All the tax-cuts since the Reagan administration actually creation millions of jobs and explosive economic growth, in China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, India, Indonesia... The rich took all the tax cuts, shafted America and invested them all abroad. All our economic woes can be traced to middle class naively believing the Republicans promises of wealth and prosperity by giving tax cuts to the rich.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
> "their fair share" is nebulous on purpose, because if they actually specified, then it could be argued against. By
> keeping it undefined, there is no argument that can be made. The people making that argument win by default,
> because you can't argue against it.
Its worst than that, you can't argue against it because it is absolutely correct in its nebulosity.
By saying their "Fair Share" they can invoke not just anything but...whatever YOU think. If you think $1 is fair, then that is what they just said isn't it? If you think $1million is, they said that too.... they just didn't explicitly say either because they let you fill in the blank!
How can anyone be againt one paying their "fair share"? Clearly if its fair, and its their share, they should pay it by definition right?
Its kind of like "tax reform". You can't be against "reform" without being regressive right? So once something has been called reform, anyone againt it is stuck with more complicated arguments trying to explain why it isn't actually reform, and usually has to use the word reform in its name, this implicitly contradicting himself via raw terminology.
A "Fair share" that isn't fair is a contradiction in terms, so it puts anyone who disagrees with it on automatic uphill footing.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Their fair share is obviously whatever things cost and I don't feel like paying for myself.
That is one of the most honest answers I've ever read... cudos to you... :)
People with EARNED INCOME pay the highest tax rates.
While that is true, they pay far more in total dollars than you do.
If you were to try and tax their portfolio income at a higher rate, they'd just come up with ways around that, or run their businesses differently.
You could raise the capital gains tax to 40% if you like, but you wouldn't like the result in the economy and it wouldn't raise as much money as you think. Some of it would get moved offshore, some of it would be put into different investments to avoid the tax, and some of it would simply "disappear" into a black market of investments.
People of means generally won't pay such taxes if they can find any other option, and in today's global economy, they can.
Now if you're suggesting that we should lower "earned income tax rates", I'd agree with you. I personally think we should do a flat 20% tax on anything you earn, active or passive, with no deductions. It won't happen of course, but it would level the playing field and that is a low enough number that the wealthy would largely pay.
So your argument is that because some Republicans fucked up, it's OK for Democrats from NY to get a free pass when they fuck up and waste tens of millions in taxpayer money? Your attitude is the absolute embodiment of everything that's wrong with this country, and literally how we got into the mess we're in now.
Simple google search will reveal that "October 22, 2013 was the official day the program has started by CUOMO".
Typical distortion and deception from the governmental officers.
The problem with NY is that they are offering as a perk something which is offered by other states for free, without even asking, such as low taxes and pro-business government.
Of course they pay more in total dollars. However, I suspect that nonetheless also benefit more, economically, per dollar of taxes. For instance, I'd like to see these huge companies try to make their current profits without pax Americana, and that shit ain't cheap at all. On the other hand, the very poor also owe their very lives to the state, so you could logically make the cold-hearted argument for regressive taxation. On the other other hand, we probably only have social welfare because it's more expedient than just outright leaving them to die and starting riots. It's cheaper and less declasse to pay them off than to deploy the gatling guns.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Ok, so would you support a flat 20% tax rate on all income across the board with no deductions?
We're a society that depends heavily on the service sector. Over 3/4 of the GDP comes from services. And over 3/4 of the people depend in one way or another on them for their job.
Services are awesome when it comes to generation of GDP. Because it's pretty hard to store them. They have to be used when produced. More, they usually have to be consumed. And only by consumption, value is generated. Yes, consumption. Not production. That's hard for the supply side preachers to wrap their head around, but tell me, what did you create when you produce something? Revenue? No. You accrued cost. You had to invest material and manpower to produce something. Without having someone to sell it to, it's quite worthless.
Value is generated when you sell it. But that doesn't contribute to the GDP yet. Because if whoever purchased your good or service uses it to produce other goods and services, the value of your product becomes part of the cost for his product. That's, globally speaking, a zero sum game. The 100 bucks you just earned might have gone into your pocket, but the economy, the supply side, did not generate anything at all yet. Because some other supplier is now 100 bucks short and needs to find an end customer, a consumer, that not only pays those 100 bucks on top of whatever he has to ask for to cover the other costs he has for material usage and his manpower.
Only when someone buys such a good or service and removes it from existence by consumption, actual revenue is generated. That, or when you export it.
Now, as stated in the entrance sentence, we're pretty dependent on the service sector. And it's damn hard to export services. How do you sell a haircut to some Frenchman? Only if he comes to you as a tourist. And ... well, let's say the US didn't really make themselves very attractive as a tourism destination lately.
If you want to sell services, you need people with money. And most services are simply bought and paid for (and consumed) by average people. For a simple, logical reason: I only need one haircut. No matter how rich I may be. I only need one gardener to cut my grass and I only need one house cleaning service to clean up my mess. I won't hire another one.
Services, though, are something you need to be able to afford, and they're usually also the first thing people cut back on when money gets tight. When facing the decision between having something to eat for the rest of the week or getting a haircut, I guess it's easy to determine which one it's going to be.
In a nutshell, and the TL;DR version: If you want jobs, make sure people have money to spend. It works pretty well for countries that didn't axe their social programs and ensured that there would be many people who can still spend money on more than just food&shelter.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So the question becomes, do you believe in a flat tax rate?
Everyone pays the same percentage, 20% without deductions?
Just once, I'd like to see a politician stand up in front of the cameras and say "We fucked up. We fucked up royally. We blew millions and didn't get a fraction of the benefits for society we'd hoped for. I'm going to take responsibility for that mistake and fire myself."
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I don't think you're saying what you think you're saying. You are mixing GDP-based and asset-based valuation in the same comment.
The GDP is, oversimplified, a measure of all the income in the country. So basing the rate on GDP is pretty close to the same as basing it on income. (It's not identical, though, as I'm sure some people with more time on their hands will be happy to point out.) So taxing percentage of GDP at a flat rate would be similar to taxing income at a flat rate, which would be the opposite of progressive. (Again, only very roughly equivalent.)
I think what you might have meant is a wealth tax, i.e. based on assets. So if someone owns 12% of the assets in the country, they get 12% of the taxes.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Well, since they're not paying a fair wage to many of their employees, I'd say it would be whatever taxes they need to pay to fund the social net that picks up the slack for those low wages. Big corps like Walmart and McDonalds that give you brochures on how to apply for government assistance being an example of companies that don't pay a fair wage and don't pay their fair share.
Why you're posting as AC, I don't know. It is a fair point, if the pay of a job is such that the employees can get government assistance, then really tax dollars are subsidizing those cheap wages.
I live here, and have seen the ads for this program. One of the problems facing New York, both the metro area and upstate, is the loss of old-line employers, both in manufacturing and services:
- Upstate NY had huge numbers of manufacturing jobs as recently as 20 years ago. Most of the actual jobs have either been automated or the companies themselves have moved to other states or countries. Steel mills and auto plants in Buffalo, Kodak in Rochester, Carrier in Syracuse, Corning Glass in Corning are just examples I can think of off the top of my head (yes, I'm a former upstater.)
- The huge tax generator for the state, financial services, only keeps the high end jobs in NYC. Other jobs like IT support, etc. are mostly in cheaper parts of the country.
- IBM was, and still is to some degree, a very big New York State employer. They have large operations in the Hudson Valley and HQ is in Westchester County. However, everyone sees the writing on the wall with IBM -- they are getting rid of or outsourcing any job that doesn't generate outsized revenue for the company and dumping product lines/businesses left and right. I think it won't be long before their influence is done as well.
- Kodak's bankruptcy basically dropped a bomb in Rochester's economy. Not just manufacturing jobs were lost -- tons and tons of service jobs went away too.
- In addition, New York City is no longer seen as a place where companies have to have an office. It certainly was in the early to mid 20th Century. Even if a company does locate here, you aren't seeing the 50s and 60s style "seas of desks" where people manually worked on paper records and company headquarters were the size of a city block, filled with 50 floors of this. (I worked for MetLife early in my career -- it was very interesting to hear the old timers talk of a time when 20,000 people worked in one building.)
One of the issues that I see, having lived both upstate and downstate, is that New York, like California and Massachusetts, are good places to live. Even rural school districts are adequate, the state university system is great and still a good deal, and local services are decent for the most part. The problem is that this requires money, and the anti-tax crowd is all about cutting that off. In addition, low- or no-tax states like Texas and Florida constantly go trolling for companies to move there. No taxes for 20 years? Sure. Free utilities for 10 years? No problem. Want us to build you a headquarters for free? We'll sign the deal tomorrow. I'm not saying taxes should be as high as they are, but that's a far cry from the anti-tax zealots proposing that we gut the entire state government in the name of savings. High tax states like NY, CA, CT, MA, MD, etc. can't win a game of Prisoner's Dilemma with TX, FL, TN, AL, etc.
I don't think programs like this will solve everything, nor will they fix the big mess that happened when companies got rid of all the low- to mid-skill work. But, it's a start and early on in the program. I don't really see a startup with 5 guys sporting hipster beards and writing iPhone apps replacing the labor force NY used to have, or the manufacturing base they had. I think the only long term fix is one of two things -- (1) bring manufacturing back to the level it was at, or (2) accept that a chunk of the population is going to be under- or un-employed forever and subsidize them enough to prevent increases in crime.
90% of tax law complexity is defining 'income'.
It, more or less, has to be that complicated. Unless you want to tax business on gross.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
SO a super regressive tax plan that would bankrupt most poor and lower middle class? No thank you. while I may benefit from the program it would be hard to argue the morality of it.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
There are mathematical formula that can calculate fair share. It is generally tough before even college algebra, I used to tutor it. In short it relies on the value generated by the item being gained. It would be hard to argue that the rich do not gain more value form the US taxes than the poor or middle class do, therefore a scaled tax rate is fair.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
"The problem with NY is that they are offering as a perk something which is offered by other states for free, without even asking, such as low taxes and pro-business government."
Here's a very interesting question for the business owners...what exactly is a pro-business government? What regulations exist in one state, that don't exist in another, and overly burden a business's ability to operate? I know the tax code in many states is a huge pain in the butt, but all you have to do is hire one tax lawyer/accountant and the problem goes away.
I agree that entrepreneurial spirit is good, and business owners work hard, etc...but one of the things that bothers me is how much cheerleading they do for themselves trying to drum up sympathy for the over-regulated, over-taxed plight they're in. Small business owners have it pretty good as far as taxes go -- everything they buy or do is a business expense, hence reducing their tax liability. Wage earners can't do that. Even better if the business is a corporation -- they can pay themselves a $1 salary and have the company pay for all their personal expenses. [1]
So sure, let business owners create, innovate, whatever...but they're not doing as badly as they would have you think they are.
[1] I'm not saying that's legal, and the IRS can "pierce the corporate veil" if they really suspect something shady, but it does happen.
Tax breaks as an economic development program. There is a similar giant program in Chicago called TIF. No one believes it actually creates jobs or anything. It's just a way for the mayor to reward his supporters and other rich people.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Clinton had one projected surplus that went away when .com imploded. That included the SS trust fund accounting tricks so it wasn't even an honest projection.
Aside from being completely wrong, you have a point (on your head).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I sure would. I would love to only pay 20% on my income tax, especially if it meant I didn't have to spend money on software to do my taxes for me every year because the tax code keeps changing.
Love sees no species.
Easy. The cost of maintaining a country is based on the GDP
WTF? The cost of maintaining a country is based on the government budget, not GDP. GDP is a measure of economic output. If citizens have good saving habits and the government doesn't run deficits then the cost of maintaining the country can be a small fraction of GDP. For bad savers and runaway spending governments, the cost can be much higher than GDP.
And in your example, trucks are charged a highway tax all their own to help pay their share.
It's sad you work at McD's but stop hating on more economically successfull people. It's clear from your posts that you're a coffee shop marxist.
Almost no one would, and you know that.
But one, and only one, personal existence deduction would solve all of the flat tax issues.
That deduction is at the line between poor, and... less poor. Then everything after that is a flat tax. That way the poor pay no or trivial tax, and the rich get no or trivial deductions.
But you didn't mean the question sincerely in the first place did you?
Here's a pretty comprehensive study from 2008 that shows the benefits and services received per one dollar in taxes paid (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/11/how-wealth-is-spread-distribution-of-government-benefits-services-taxes-by-income-quintile-in-us).
It shows the first quintile in income receiving $6.82 in benefits and services received per one dollar in taxes paid and $0.31 for those in the top quintile.
The conclusion of the study states, "Economic redistribution can occur as a result of the direct transfer of benefits as well as the provision of services funded by other taxpayers. The present analysis suggests that one trillion dollars in resources is transferred from the two highest income household quintiles to the rest of the population. Roughly speaking, this sum would represent about 15 percent of income the higher income households. Further, public good expenditures 9such as national defense and scientific research) and interest payments on the debt are financed solely by the two highest income quintiles."
It would be hard to argue that the poor do not gain more value from the US taxes than the rich given this study.
But apparently, this doesn't work if we let everyone keep more of their money. They'll just bury it in the backyard.
Worse yet, they might save for retirement, making them less dependent upon the government in their "golden" years.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
The easiest flat rate plan that also doesn't hurt the poor or middle class would be simply to have an adequate personal exemption limit. For example, the first $20k any person makes is entirely tax free and then you pay 20% on ALL income after that.
Politicians don't like flat taxes though because it cuts out a very large part of their funding; special interest groups looking for favorable tax breaks for their members. No tax breaks = less money spent on bribing (excuse me, lobbying) pols to pass legislation favoring one group over another.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Tax dollars are subsidizing those low skill workers. Raise the minimum wage and they are out of jobs.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Try the run you expenses through the corp trick. We'll send you a cake with a file in it when you go to federal prison.
You ought to check your facts. You are taxed on a company car. Try and have the corp pay for your house and you will go directly to jail.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
So then all you have to do is funnel all your expenses through your business and not get a paycheck of greater than 20k per year.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
When you look at benefits as a portion of their income yes, but that is not the only benefit one has. Without Roads everywhere buisness like Amazon would not be able to survive, however a road in Iowa is not very beneficial to a person in Florida, therefore the tax money spent on that road is vastly more beneficial to Amazon than it is to any Floridians.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
I don't think it's hard to argue the rich don't get more from US taxes at all. The rich tend not to have to rely on social services as much and often bypass government funded services for private ones (schools, security, medical, etc..).
They definitely benefit more from tax BREAKS but not necessarily the taxes themselves. Tax breaks are just a byproduct of a the very scaled tax system you deem fair because in a system where everyone is treated differently, everyone believes they should be paying less in tax than someone else is and will do everything in their power to try and make that happen; the rich just tend to have more power and therefore have more chances to tailor the tax code to their needs.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Amazon contracts out their delivery services. But let's assume you mean UPS, USPS or even if Amazon were itself making the deliveries.
Don't those trucks pay registration fees, tolls and fuel taxes already? Aren't those taxes and fees designed to maintain the roads?
Are you suggesting that there's some other tax Amazon should be paying in addition to the fees they already pay?
This concept that corporations somehow benefit from the roads more than the consumers who purchase their products and individual drivers who utilize those roads is incomprehensible to me. Everyone who uses the roads benefits. Those roads are supposed to be paid for by the various fees (fuel taxes, tolls, excise taxes, licensing taxes, etc.) extracted.
Further, your argument that a road in Iowa is not very beneficial to a person in Florida has no meaning outside an interstate highway. The non-interstate highways in Iowa are paid for by Iowans and those non-Iowans who drive through Iowa, likewise for Florida.
You should also look at the study and what they considered a benefit - they looked well beyond income and looked at all government services.
They set this up at universities, so the start ups they are creating are going to be Amazon/Google likes where a 5 billion dollar company can employ 3 guys. A university is filled with the privileged, highly skilled, rich 1%. You will not going to employ hundreds of working stiffs out of a university; You will employ one or two guys in a tech focused highly automated business.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
And they directly employ millions, and indirectly support entire industries of many many million and millions more. It might actually be a better return on investment for numbers of employed per dollar.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Bullshit. H1b visas exist because companies want low paid captive workers.
Actually, if the workers are captive they can be very flexible about the low paid part.
You're arguing for a flat tax.
Republicans prefer a flat tax, Democrats prefer a fat tax.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
It isn't quite 90%, but I get your point...
Companies hide income all the time, look at Apple, Microsoft, GE, etc.
That being said, they go to such lengths because the tax rate for them is 35% and they just aren't going to pay it if they can avoid it.
Lower it to 20% and many of those companies will bring that cash back to America and pay tax on it.
As for what is "income" for a company?
Example: GE
http://www.ge.com/investor-rel...
GE announced fourth-quarter 2014 operating earnings of $5.6 billion, with operating earnings per share of $0.56, up 6% from the fourth quarter of 2013.
So in the 4th quarter of 2014, GE earned $5.6 billion. Great, 20% of that goes to the US government or $1.12 Billion.
Now wait a minute you say, not all of that was earned in the US. Fair enough, the only deduction they can take is actual taxes paid in other countries on that income. If they paid a total of $500 million in taxes oversea to various governments, then they owe the US government $620 Million.
No other deductions, simple accounting, it is the only way to do it, or the games get played to the point of silly.
Example of silly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
So then all you have to do is funnel all your expenses through your business and not get a paycheck of greater than 20k per year.
Clearly that needs some reform as well...
SO a super regressive tax plan that would bankrupt most poor and lower middle class? No thank you. while I may benefit from the program it would be hard to argue the morality of it.
A flat tax is not regressive...
One of the problems we have in this country is that 47% of the people are paying NOTHING into the system...
How is it that they are allowed to not pay "their fair share", yet the wealthy is expected to do so?
I say EVERYONE pays their fair share, and the way to do that is with a flat tax.
While I don't believe in the concept of a minimum wage, I'd be willing to compromise and raise it to $15/hr the day we put into place a flat tax with no deductions.
That would more than make up the taxes to the poor.
Depending on how the business is structured, a paycheck is optional.
If government stuck to things like "roads" that would be something. But it has expanded to way beyond that.
And when a Liberal mentions "fair share", what they mean is anywhere up to, and including confiscatory tax rates on people, they deem "too rich". These same people see nothing wrong with 90% tax rate on others.
AND if you talk to liberals enough, you'll find an occasional one that thinks the government should stop building roads, as that only encourages building and driving more ICE cars.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
What exactly... is "their fair share"?
I keep hearing people say that without defining what that really is.
Did you know the wealthy already pay most of the taxes? How much more would *you* like them to pay?
In total amount of taxes paid yes, as a percentage of income, hell no. On average, the rich pay only 1/3-1/4 of their share of taxes (12-15%) as the "average american" (33.5-36%) as a percentage basis. And since the rich are receiving ~90% of the income in the US, they should be paying ~90% of the taxes. See how that works? But they are not even close to that. When you come in to suggest that since they pay 51% (or whatever) of the taxes that's OK, even though they make 90% of the "income". How that even seems fair in your brain is beyond me. If you are rich, you are just a greedy person but I can understand your motivations. If you are not rich, you are truly a fool so please turn in your voter card.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
Almost no one would, and you know that.
Not at all, I totally support it, I think our tax code does nothing but support special interests and the wealthy. And while I don't consider myself "wealthy", I imagine the average person would.
If it helps, I'm in the 33% tax bracket, but my marginal tax rate is actually under 20% because I own my own business. I would pay more under this system and I'm ok with that.
But one, and only one, personal existence deduction would solve all of the flat tax issues.
That deduction is at the line between poor, and... less poor. Then everything after that is a flat tax. That way the poor pay no or trivial tax, and the rich get no or trivial deductions.
But you didn't mean the question sincerely in the first place did you?
I was quite serious... and no deductions means just that, everyone pays into the system, no free rides.
However, as a compromise, I'd be willing to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr the minute the flat tax was put into place. That more than compensates the poor for the 20% flat tax.
Also, keep in mind that this replaces FICA taxes which are horribly regressive for frankly anyone making under $40k or so won't really be paying much more in taxes.
Raise the minimum wage and they are out of jobs.
I used to think that... I'm no longer so sure...
$15/hr is still only $30k per year for full time work, that frankly isn't that much money in 2015...
So then all you have to do is funnel all your expenses through your business and not get a paycheck of greater than 20k per year.
You must be thick. The point of a 20% flat tax is that there is no way to do that. Income coming in to an entity is taxed at 20%. Doesn't matter if its a foreign entity (as long as the transaction involves an american) or shell corp or whatever, if it passed through your hands its taxed at 20%. In fact, using shell corps and foreign entities would become a bad thing as you would risk double taxation then. So routing all of your income directly to bank account would become the most tax efficient tactic. But it will never happen as tax attorneys, accountants, politicians and CEOs would all band together to stop it.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
It's worse than that.
Most of those 47% get a significant yearly tax return against those $0 taxes paid in. Thousands of dollars each in most cases.
I see now the brilliance of this plan: It makes any meaningful tax reform impossible.
It would amount to a 33% welfare cut in many cases. The simple flat(er) tax we crave (or insert any tax code that's not thousands of pages), would now be instantly and truly devastating to many poor. Deficit hawk that I am, I don't want to directly hurt the poor like that. And it would be political suicide to try.
Nerds here on /. can discuss moving the EIC directly to Social Services, converting it to a check, etc., but I don't think our media would allow a reasoned discussion of options.
We are well and truly screwed I think.
(And attempting to outlaw being poor with a $15/hm min wage won't work out as well as you think.)
It's due to how screwed-up NY state politics are.
NY used to have a House representing "the people" and a Senate representing "geography". Similar to the US House and Senate. The result of this was upstate NY was able to get some attention and benefits from the state government, because the NY City-dominated House had to negotiate with the upstate-dominated Senate.
Then a resident of NY City sued, citing the NY State Constitution's requirement that each person be represented equally. And won. The result was the state Senate was changed to also be based on population. Since NY city is roughly half of NY state's population, upstate NY was more-or-less politically abandoned for decades. At the same time, the deindustrialization of upstate NY (and the rest of the Rust Belt) utterly devastated the upstate NY economy.
This program is an attempt to start reversing some of that pain. Resulting in a somewhat odd program - there are virtually no major industries left in upstate NY to receive the tax breaks you propose. They need to import something.
But it's going to be a very hard sale. The area has been suffering from major economic depression for a very long time. Even the "successful" cities look old and dreary, and there is the palpable sense that everything has either gone to hell, or will be going to hell soon. It's going to be very hard to get someone to decide to move their business into that environment. Heck, even the locals desperately hope their children grow up to move somewhere better. Like Detroit.
You bring up property rights. The very most basic foundation of any society, ever.
And yet you would hold that over a rich person's head like we're selling him something. As if you could take back property rights, if they don't pay up.
I guess it's been done before, hasn't it?
And don't forget that what debt reduction was in there, was due to Newt, and in spite of Clinton.
Newt burned his career over that shutdown, and Clinton came out smelling like a rose, as usual. Clinton's budget. Hell, I guess he signed it.
It should go in the history books as the most costly political victory ever.
"Wage earners can't do that."
They don't have to. All those regulations only apply to those with 50 employees or more. Not always 50, but never (well, usually) a one-man business, or a wage earner for sure.
And you propose that only the rich, that can afford a tax lawyer/accountant, should have access to the law of the land, and thus to profits?
And the rest of us masses should have no access to the law, or profit, because we can't afford it?
That is what you just said.
I see now the brilliance of this plan: It makes any meaningful tax reform impossible.
Honestly that is not my goal...
It would amount to a 33% welfare cut in many cases. The simple flat(er) tax we crave (or insert any tax code that's not thousands of pages), would now be instantly and truly devastating to many poor.
That is why I tossed out the carrot of $15/hr min wage. Yes, I'm well aware that doesn't actually solve the problem, but poor people don't know that.
I'd promote it with "I'll raise your pay to a fair wage and make sure those wealthy pay their fair share of taxes!"
Meanwhile I'll quietly remind the rich that it is just moving the chess pieces around, they might pay a bit more, but not that much and they'll actually end up with lots of new customers with cash to spend, so it'll even out. Trickle up economics! :)
Nerds here on /. can discuss moving the EIC directly to Social Services, converting it to a check, etc., but I don't think our media would allow a reasoned discussion of options.
Yes, the media is indeed a problem... I don't have a solution to that problem I'm afraid...
You mention the anti-tax crowd in passing, as if it is a given, but I don't think so.
I'm here in FL, and you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a New Yorker. And they all have exactly the same story: High taxes ran them off. You can't afford to live there. *If* you had one of those jobs (and GE is one you left off that has quit most of their NY operations), then you could get by. But you really weren't getting rich even working in those places.
Not just taxes. Fuel oil runs you hundreds a month and electricity is even higher. Taxes and fees to own a car. Endless list apparently.
And they don't like Florida better, except maybe the winters. They would be still there if they could, with or without Kodak.
Hey, all that advertising money went to fund American workers at the ad agencies!
The cup's half full, no?
You high minimum wage assumes the bottom of the labor market is static.
You gave a handful of people a raise; the ones that were apparently underpaid before; but took away the $10 and $12 and $14 jobs from all the rest.
Let's see how it works out for Seattle. They have advantages most other cities don't, but at least it's somewhat of a test case.
You high minimum wage assumes the bottom of the labor market is static.
You gave a handful of people a raise; the ones that were apparently underpaid before; but took away the $10 and $12 and $14 jobs from all the rest.
No, of course not... In fact, I'm aware that raising the min wage won't do much, because people making $15/hr before will now want $20-25/hr.
In the end, the effective spending power of the poor won't change much, but they also don't understand this and you can't tell them because they are not educated enough to get it and they think the "rich" are just trying to trick them, so it is a waste of time.
Just give them a bigger number and they'll be happy for awhile. It may take 10-20 years before they catch on that nothing really changed other than a short term boost.
Let's see how it works out for Seattle.
It isn't even Seattle, just a very small part of town. It isn't a big enough area to have any effect, you have to do it across a broad area to notice anything.
If asking those people to pay taxes would endanger their standing, then it would probably be cheaper for them to not be taxed. We can't use three-year-old-child logic when discussing this subject, as it simply doesn't work. A more nuanced approach is required. A flat tax simply hurts poor people a lot for a tiny benefit, and can cause more problems than it solves.
Yes, everyone who uses the roads benefits. People who don't use the roads also benefit, as they benefit from others who directly use the roads. And so on. Companies can not survive without a peaceful, secure society containing people with money to spend, infrastructure to spend it through, guarantees of future security. Larger companies even more so. Your argument needs some work.
If asking those people to pay taxes would endanger their standing, then it would probably be cheaper for them to not be taxed. We can't use three-year-old-child logic when discussing this subject, as it simply doesn't work. A more nuanced approach is required. A flat tax simply hurts poor people a lot for a tiny benefit, and can cause more problems than it solves.
It isn't really a lot of overhead to have employers take out 20% of a paycheck and forward it to the government.
It does establish that everyone is part of the system, everyone pays for it. This is not three-year-old logic, this is reasonable adult logic.
When half of the people of a county see the government as "free", you end up with Greece, people who want "benefits" without paying anything.
The fundamental question remains: why would a "larger" company be required to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes?
This isn't asking why an entity with more income should pay more in taxes. Why should they have to pay a higher percentage?
There's a completely different argument on why there are corporate taxes at all given that corporations don't pay the taxes out of thin air, it's the consumers of the corporate products who pay those taxes in higher prices.
The original point I argued against was the concept that the rich benefit more from US taxes than the poor or middle class. I cited a study that shows the opposite. I still await the argument that counters the study.
Can you give me some sources for the 47% figure? That sounds round about the proportion of population I would expect to be underage, studying, unemployed, disabled, stay-at-home parents, caring for elderly relatives, retired, frail, incarcerated, dying, etc. Those naughty tax dodgers, how dare they!
Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
Doesn't change the basic fact that if someone can't do $15/hour worth of work they will be unemployed.
Yes it's not a lot of money. But these clowns are barely net positive workers. Their supervisors could do 90% of the work they do in the time it takes to supervise them.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The key # is (1-CorpTaxRate)*(1-CaptialGainsTaxRate). Which is the bottom line tax rate to stockholders.
Just eliminate the corporate tax, inflation adjust capital gains and tax _all_ income the same.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I obviously meant 'bottom line keep rate'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
First, let me be clear. This is not 47% of the entire population, it is 47% of the working population, a key point.
---
In 2013, it was 43.3% according to this web site:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...
And I suppose it depends on if you count FICA taxes or not. Since those go to three specific programs, I personally don't count them (SS is your own savings, Medicare is your health care, and unemployment is for you if you need it), but you might choose to do so.
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
In 2009, it was indeed 47%, but of course that was a bad year.
---
It is worth noting who DOES pay the taxes around here:
http://dailysignal.com/2014/04...
The top 1% pays on average 19% of their income in taxes and pays 37% of all federal income taxes.
Interestingly enough, it is the top 10-25% who pays the lowest percentage of taxes, 11%, followed by the bottom 50%, at 12% of their income. But that 12% pays only 2% of the federal taxes.
So the bottom 50% of the entire working population is paying only 2%. Frankly, they should shut up about taxes, they have only one way to go for them, which is up. But the bottom 50% tends to be uneducated, ignorant about such things, and low information voters who listen to soundbites.
That may be true... so what do you do with them? Toss them off a pier? Tell them to stay home and collect unemployment?
Do they have any incentive to improve themselves?
Live off the government tit until they can develop the skills and attitude to flip burgers or push a broom.
The government tit should be a very meager existence. So they have incentive to learn something.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
There isn't just one GE.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Fair enough...
Of course, on the flip side... what happens when robots are doing both jobs?
I can see a time, not that far in the future, when most of the unskilled jobs get replaced by machines...
The idea of "everyone getting a job" might end up out of date at some point.
Yes, we'll need someone to fix the robots, until we have robots for that, but not nearly as many people as they replaced.
I don't have simple answers, but the time is coming when we need to have that conversation.
Lowering the American corporate rate to 20% would not solve anything when Ireland has a 12.5% corporate rate.
Maybe... at some point the difference becomes small enough that it isn't worth messing with.
At 35%, there are no hoops too big to be jumped through, at 20%? Maybe there are...
Apple has over $50 billion in cash overseas that it can't bring into the US to invest here because of this. The question becomes, how low does the rate have to get before they change their minds and decide to bring it back?
---
To put this another way, we live in a global marketplace, we now have to compete with other nations, including on tax rates and services.
I think the potential mistake here is that welfare isn't just a benefit for the people who don't pay. The people paying in to welfare get a benefit also. Less people dying in the streets. Less load on them for any family relative who hits hard times. Lower crime (the I have to steal this bread to eat today variety). Less disease going around due to no access to modern vaccines and antibiotics... Less revolutions and stupid guillotining people.
I don't know about you, but that's a pretty big benefit to me.
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
Carl's Jr has had a burger flipping conveyor for decades.
They still employ people to assemble food. Many simple things are damn tough for a computer to figure out.
Why aren't the 99% of 'statistical former farmers' starving today? It would have been terrible to setup a government program to support them all.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Why aren't the 99% of 'statistical former farmers' starving today? It would have been terrible to setup a government program to support them all.
Many of them are... despite how much food we produce, hunger is a real problem in America...
Of the adults in this country, about 2/3 of them are working. Of those 2/3, how many have a decent paying job?
That number keeps shrinking... I don't have any easy answers, but I can see the problem...
A simple example is Apple, they plan to bring some manufacturing back to the US from China, but they'll do it in a robot factory. In China, iPads and iPhones are hand built by human labor because it is so cheap, in the US, this is too expensive so they'll use robots.
What will the 800,000 or so people in China do who currently build iDevices if Apple moves all production back using robots?