Should the next president do more to protect jobs from being sent to countries other than the United States?

Yes

1 of 2

by B Smith

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

The question is, "Should the next president do more to protect jobs from being sent to countries other than the United States?"

The answer is yes, but maybe not the way you might have expected.

Some people believe that the President is the sole person responsible for the ups or downs of the economy some might add the world's economy. Some also believe the U.S. economy to be in rough shape. Let's take a look.

Please set politics aside for a moment as in Republican vs. Democrat or vice-a-versa. First, consider the following "provable facts":
1) Under President Clinton, the unemployment rate hovered around 5.5% and it is currently around 5.7%
2) President Clinton was blessed with the dot.com boom in the technology field which made much money for many people (Unfortunately, not me!), anyways
3) President Bush inherited a recession when he took office.
4) Technically, we are not currently in a recession, but it sure feels like one.

The President gets much blame or much credit for the health of the economy. Right, wrong or indifferent, that is just life in America.

So get to the point Smith! Okay, if the President is the one charged with the health of the economy and I am saying that he can protect jobs from being sent overseas, the question is "How?"

Taxes. It's the money silly! Follow the money!

At some point we have become a nation consumed with wealth envy. We have people screaming that big corporations need to pay more taxes. If they pay more, then the low and middle class people will be better off. After all, they have more money than all of us so they can pay more in taxes and not only that; it is their civil obligation to do so! Now take it one step further and apply that to companies.

Anyone that thinks that companies pay taxes just does not understand basic economics. Companies do not pay taxes. Now I know they write a check to whatever branch of government they have to, whether once a month or once a year, they do pay. But what are they paying? They are paying money (not taxes) that they have collected through the course of doing business. A tax represents a cost of doing business to a company and they have to factor their costs into their business plans.

Let me try to make t simple.

Brianna is running a lemonade stand in her front yard. She sells it for $1.00 per cup and for every cup she sells she spends $0.40 in costs. Her profit is $0.60 per cup and her profit margin is 60%.

Now the local government comes along and informs her that she is now going to have to pay a new tax of $0.40 per cup. Uh-oh, her costs have just doubled and she is going to lose a significant amount of her profit unless she does something. What can she do? She will raise her prices but by how much? If she raises it to $1.40 then she will still be making $0.60 profit but her profit margin will have decreased from 60% to 30%. If she wants to keep her former profit margin she will have to double her price to $2.00 per cup. Don't believe me? Do the math yourself.

I know this is probably a silly example, but I believe it is an effective one.

If we want to keep jobs in our country then we want to make our market more attractive to businesses. Companies are in business to make money. They make money by keeping their costs down. Companies are attracted to other countries that have lower corporate taxes and the jobs belong to the companies. Taxes represent a cost to companies and our government should reduce not raise taxes. Remember, the higher the cost to the company the higher the price to all of us at the retail level. It really is simple. Do you understand it?

Yes, the President should do everything in his power to keep jobs here. Lowering the taxes is just one piece of the puzzle.

Learn more about this author, B Smith.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.