Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > Economy

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-21-2012, 12:01 PM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
Signs of the Times - and a question

In Michigan, the recession has been going on now for years. Probably since the dot-com bust, with a brief spike of activity around 2002 - 2005 or so. There was another pretty healthy stretch during the 1990's, so its fair to say that we've not really recovered much from the early '90's recession.

What really gets to me sometimes is driving through my city - Livonia, which is still ranked as a pretty favorable place to live - and seeing the for lease / for sale signs on building after building. Driving one mile on a stretch of light industrial and retail buildings, I counted 23 for lease or for sale signs. Some of the buildings were partially occupied, but many were vacant and in search of tenants.

It wasn't all that long ago that most of these buildings had tenants. That means that there were employees earning wages, paying taxes, spending their earnings supporting their families and the community. This has to change soon.

Blame cannot be placed fully on the current White House occupant for originating this stagnant economy. I don't even want to get into a political "blame game" for how we got to this point in my city and state. However, there are some things that can be done to spur economic growth, get folks working again to produce earnings and tax revenues, and support this community again.

Politicians love to talk about "Enterprise Zones". These are areas specifically targeted for re-invigoration of the business climate, and such plans are (probably for political reasons) typically reserved for urban areas where economic distress is wide-spread. The zones are created typically by state/local legislation. The centerpiece of such strategies is typically a reduction in local and state taxes designed to encourage business activity by making the zone "more competitive" than other areas.

This suggests that there is recognition that the strategy of reducing taxes spurs business activity, and the increase of activity is deemed to be good for the community. Also, Michigan wanted to try to shave off some film-making business and create "Hollywood East", so the state offered targeted incentives to film-makers and studios. The program met with some moderate success. So, here's the question:

If there is some agreement that the business climate can be made more favorable for business by reducing tax rates, then why does the current administration and many members of this board steadfastly oppose this strategy as a method of jump-starting the economy? In fact, there seems to be a recurrent mindset that such activity is essentially amoral? Why is this?


Not really trolling here, though I suspect some might take it that way. I'm just trying to understand the rationale for opposition to a strategy which, in other contexts, has been successful.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-21-2012, 12:13 PM
beej's Avatar
beej beej is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 511
Read your post with interest and have given some thought to your question.

First, with respect to the 'Enterprise Zone' question: They can be successful (I've seen limited success with them) on a limited basis when the tax reduction/abatement/limitation is restricted to property tax (from what I've seen). When such a reduction extends to business income tax it appears to be a different matter which I will address below.

Across the board corporate tax reductions, in theory, encourage entrepeneurial activity. The problem with that is that when Reagan pressed for and got it through Congress in the 1980's big business did not engage in such activity. They engaged in business acquisitions with the cash gained.

Moreover, and I'm not trying to get into a point/counterpoint debate either, as was demonstrated in the 1980's a massive tax reduction balloons the deficit. Yeah, the 80's were a boom but 1) it was done on a credit card and 2) much of it was as a consequence of a massive defense build up.

My 2 cents, adjusted for stimulus.
__________________
Butch
Extremist Moderate
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-21-2012, 12:25 PM
ebacon's Avatar
ebacon ebacon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,223
There are a few problems with reducing taxes to attract businesses. First, the businesses that come tend to leave after the tax incentive expires. They leave behind the mess of abandoned buildings which blight neighborhoods, reduce property values, and increase crime rates.

Second, the reduced tax revenues must be made up in other areas or the citizens must do with fewer services. What usually happens is workers are taxed more either by income tax, sales tax, or property tax. Nothing is free.

If you are genuinly interested in this topic you might enjoy researching the subject of "race to the bottom".
__________________
People like stories.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-21-2012, 12:29 PM
noonereal noonereal is offline
Abby Normal
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
Blame cannot be placed fully on the current White House occupant for originating this stagnant economy.

LMAO!!!

Ya' think?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-21-2012, 12:31 PM
noonereal noonereal is offline
Abby Normal
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebacon View Post
First, the businesses that come tend to leave after the tax incentive expires. They leave behind the mess of abandoned buildings which blight neighborhoods, reduce property values, and increase crime rates.

.
Do you have an example of where this has happened?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-21-2012, 12:34 PM
ebacon's Avatar
ebacon ebacon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal View Post
Do you have an example of where this has happened?
I can't tell if you are kidding.
__________________
People like stories.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-21-2012, 12:46 PM
BlueStreak's Avatar
BlueStreak BlueStreak is offline
Area Man
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 27,407
For my part it is not so much that tax reductions are bad, (They not, per se.), it's how they are targeted and what we are told must be cut to pay for them.

I wouldn't mind seeing tax cuts for struggling businesses. I would not have a problem with government truly reducing waste and corruption to free up the funds to pay for for said cuts.

The problem is, this is usually not what we get. With Dems we seem to get higher taxes with no reduction in waste and fraud. Republicans always seem to suggest reductions in benefits for working folks and the poor while protecting tax cuts for the top earners, and no reduction in fraud and waste.

These two models make no sense to me. In one, we keep throwing money into a bottomless pit of corruption. In the other we give taxcuts to people who have no need of them and cut benefits to those most in need*,....while continuing to throw money into a bottomless pit of corruption.

So, like the rest of the country, I struggle to discern the lesser of the two evils.

Dave

*(To my mind, reducing benefits to the poor and working classes in order to give cuts to the top of the economic strata----IS a form of corruption.)
__________________
"When the lie is so big and the fog so thick, the Republican trick can play out again....."-------Frank Zappa

Last edited by BlueStreak; 08-21-2012 at 12:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-21-2012, 12:49 PM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by beej View Post

Across the board corporate tax reductions, in theory, encourage entrepeneurial activity. The problem with that is that when Reagan pressed for and got it through Congress in the 1980's big business did not engage in such activity. They engaged in business acquisitions with the cash gained.

Moreover, and I'm not trying to get into a point/counterpoint debate either, as was demonstrated in the 1980's a massive tax reduction balloons the deficit. Yeah, the 80's were a boom but 1) it was done on a credit card and 2) much of it was as a consequence of a massive defense build up.

My 2 cents, adjusted for stimulus.
No desire here to debate the 80’s, as that will only lead to a pointless, polarizing discussion. I'm trying to scrupulously avoid that in this thread. I will say that while consolidation / buyout activities did occur in the 1980’s, such activity continued into the 1990’s and beyond. Also, unemployment decreased from 1983 onward across all industries, not just defense related industries. So, while some increase in economic activity can be tied to defense, such activity only accounted for a portion of the increase in GDP during that time.

More to the point, the Michigan example I cited was trotted out under a Democrat governor, and was a reduction in business taxes.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-21-2012, 12:49 PM
BlueStreak's Avatar
BlueStreak BlueStreak is offline
Area Man
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 27,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal View Post
Do you have an example of where this has happened?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebacon View Post
I can't tell if you are kidding.
This has happened across the country, Noone. For a time we even had states building industrial buildings at taxpayer expense and offering to let businesses use them rent free, on top of tax incentives----to no avail. It was a complete waste of huge sums of money.
__________________
"When the lie is so big and the fog so thick, the Republican trick can play out again....."-------Frank Zappa
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-21-2012, 12:54 PM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueStreak View Post
For my part it is not so much that tax reductions are bad, (They not, per se.), it's how they are targeted and what we are told must be cut to pay for them.

I wouldn't mind seeing tax cuts for struggling businesses. I would not have a problem with government truly reducing waste and corruption to free up the funds to pay for for said cuts.

The problem is, this is usiually not what we get. With Dems we seem to get higher taxes with no reduction in waste and fraud. Republicans always seem to suggest reductions in benefits for working folks and the poor while protecting tax cuts for the top earners, and no reduction in fraud and waste.

These two models make no sense to me. In one, we keep throwing money into a bottomless pit of corruption. In the other we give taxcuts to people who have no need of them and cut benefits to those most in need*,....while continuing to throw money into a bottomless pit of corruption.

So, like the rest of the country, I struggle to discern the lesser of the two evils.

Dave

*(To my mind, reducing benefits to the poor and working classes in order to give cuts to the top of the economic strata----IS a form of corruption.)
I agree with much of this, believe it or not. To me, the nature of our current tax code is such that the government is picking winners and losers with targeted tax breaks and loop holes. Protecting that structure is what the debate about "taxing the rich" is really all about. It's not about the rich. It's about protecting the tax system that keeps politicians in a position of power, able to elicit "tribute" in the form of campaign contributions from beneficiaries of certain tax treatment.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:12 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.