Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Conservatives tried to tell you Global Warming was a load of socialist horse crap, and again... you've had to change the name to Climate Change just to keep from being laughed out of your own seminars.
Conservatives tried to tell you Global Warming was a load of socialist horse crap, and again... you've had to change the name to Climate Change just to keep from being laughed out of your own seminars.
Very few people deny global warming... Antropogenic global warming is another matter. I honestly hope you do not belong to the set of people who deny WG, because the evidence is overwheelming.
They've been on the correct side of all policies. Liberals are consistently on the wrong side.
Obamacare is the most recent example. Conservatives told you it would be a total clusterfuck and wouldn't accomplish what you claimed, and it has turned out exactly as they predicted.
And more unadulterated propaganda! How predictable!
So other than your opinions, unlike my fact based historical linked posits, you have nothing. Got it
AND you can't give me even one policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history, lol
They've been on the correct side of all policies. Liberals are consistently on the wrong side.
Obamacare is the most recent example. Conservatives told you it would be a total clusterfuck and wouldn't accomplish what you claimed, and it has turned out exactly as they predicted.
Pulling our troops out of Iraq and running away from the War on Terror... Conservatives told you it would be a grave mistake we'd live to regret. Turning out that way, as predicted. The same for the glorious Arab Spring you were all dancing in the streets about.
Conservatives have tried to tell your stubborn asses for 9 years now, that your stupid 'war on the rich' is not only going to fail to harm the rich but also fail to bring our economy back... low and behold, the number of billionaires has doubled and our economy still flounders.
Conservatives tried to tell you Global Warming was a load of socialist horse crap, and again... you've had to change the name to Climate Change just to keep from being laughed out of your own seminars.
We tried to tell you there weren't any shovel ready jobs! We tried to tell you bailing out failing corporations was a bad idea! We tried to tell you that it was a bad idea to dole out money to unproven and untried "green energy" companies to produce a product with no demand.
You want to go further back? We told you it was a mistake to let LBJ establish a welfare state which has kept black people in dependent poverty for the past 60 years. Further back? We told you it was a mistake to abandon Federalism when liberals founded the Republican party.
So?Sweden's corporate tax rate is about 20%.
So the Swedes understand the benefits of a lower corporate tax rate, even though they tax income through the wazoo.
They also tax consumption at a much higher rate than we do. They tax their lower income groups harder than we do. (And higher income groups too.) But they keep corporate tax rates competitive.
We should too. But we should also streamline our tax system and eliminate most of the loopholes that lower the effective tax rate.
You'll keep being dishonest. Shocking
The corporate tax myth
n fact, the United States collects less corporate tax relative to the overall economy than almost any other country in the world.
And that's a more objective measure of tax burden. Different accounting rules around the world means what's counted as income in one country isn't counted in another -- that makes comparisons of tax rates misleading.
U.S. corporate tax collections totaled only 1.7% of GDP in 2009, the most recent year for which complete data is available, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
On that measure, the United States had the third lowest corporate tax burden, behind France and Germany. The worldwide average was 2.8%.
In other countries, many small businesses pay both corporate and personal income tax. So a business owner in a country with a lower corporate tax rate could end up paying more than his U.S. counterpart.
The corporate tax myth - Feb. 23 2012
Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High
The interesting thing about the corporate rate is that corporate profits, as a percentage of GDP last year were the highest or just about the highest in the last 50 years. They were ten and a fraction percent of GDP. That’s higher than we’ve seen in 50 years. The corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP were 1.2 percent, $180 billion. That’s just about the lowest we’ve seen. So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively, in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent, which is well below those existing in most of the industrialized countries around the world. So it is a myth that American corporations are paying 35 percent or anything like it…Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness.
All other developed nations raise a significant part of their tax revenue through VATs, but it is not included in the comparisons of corporate tax collections.
CRS: Effective Tax Rate In The U.S. "About The Same" As The Rest Of The Developed World.
fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41743.pdf
GAO: Effective Tax Rates For Large, Profitable Corporations Fall Between 13 Percent And 23 Percent
www.gao.gov/assets/660/654957.pdf
Since the thread has started diverging from its original purpose I'll try to make a summary that serves as a base for further discussion.
Tax revenue has shifted from corporate to personal income in the last 40 years.
During that same period of time corporations have increased their profit and the income gap between the rich and the poor within the US has increased dramatically.
Tax revenue as a percent of GDP in the US is well below the average of the OECD and the EU.
The curent taxation system is inefficient , because it has provoked that many corporations move outside the US and deters investment because it is above the world average and the OECD average.
Taxes should be changed to both encourage investment and allow the government to have more revenue to provide the infrastructures and services that allow leveling the field for a market economy.
At the same time there is an urgent need for manufacturing jobs, most of which have been offsored in the past 20 years. A tax reform should include measures to attract manufacturing to the US.
Some of the alternatives include :
A) Reduce the corporate tax to zero.
B) Reduce the corporate tax to zero for the manufacturing industry and to a competitive level ( <= 10% for the rest of the companies)
C) Increase the VAT
D) Increase the ceiling for the personal income tax.
Sources :
Corporate tax rates table KPMG GLOBAL
So?Sweden's corporate tax rate is about 20%.
So the Swedes understand the benefits of a lower corporate tax rate, even though they tax income through the wazoo.
They also tax consumption at a much higher rate than we do. They tax their lower income groups harder than we do. (And higher income groups too.) But they keep corporate tax rates competitive.
We should too. But we should also streamline our tax system and eliminate most of the loopholes that lower the effective tax rate.
You'll keep being dishonest. Shocking
The corporate tax myth
n fact, the United States collects less corporate tax relative to the overall economy than almost any other country in the world.
And that's a more objective measure of tax burden. Different accounting rules around the world means what's counted as income in one country isn't counted in another -- that makes comparisons of tax rates misleading.
U.S. corporate tax collections totaled only 1.7% of GDP in 2009, the most recent year for which complete data is available, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
On that measure, the United States had the third lowest corporate tax burden, behind France and Germany. The worldwide average was 2.8%.
In other countries, many small businesses pay both corporate and personal income tax. So a business owner in a country with a lower corporate tax rate could end up paying more than his U.S. counterpart.
The corporate tax myth - Feb. 23 2012
Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High
The interesting thing about the corporate rate is that corporate profits, as a percentage of GDP last year were the highest or just about the highest in the last 50 years. They were ten and a fraction percent of GDP. That’s higher than we’ve seen in 50 years. The corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP were 1.2 percent, $180 billion. That’s just about the lowest we’ve seen. So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively, in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent, which is well below those existing in most of the industrialized countries around the world. So it is a myth that American corporations are paying 35 percent or anything like it…Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness.
All other developed nations raise a significant part of their tax revenue through VATs, but it is not included in the comparisons of corporate tax collections.
CRS: Effective Tax Rate In The U.S. "About The Same" As The Rest Of The Developed World.
fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41743.pdf
GAO: Effective Tax Rates For Large, Profitable Corporations Fall Between 13 Percent And 23 Percent
www.gao.gov/assets/660/654957.pdf
You've been found out.
Talk to the hand, poseur.
So?Sweden's corporate tax rate is about 20%.
So the Swedes understand the benefits of a lower corporate tax rate, even though they tax income through the wazoo.
They also tax consumption at a much higher rate than we do. They tax their lower income groups harder than we do. (And higher income groups too.) But they keep corporate tax rates competitive.
We should too. But we should also streamline our tax system and eliminate most of the loopholes that lower the effective tax rate.
You'll keep being dishonest. Shocking
The corporate tax myth
n fact, the United States collects less corporate tax relative to the overall economy than almost any other country in the world.
And that's a more objective measure of tax burden. Different accounting rules around the world means what's counted as income in one country isn't counted in another -- that makes comparisons of tax rates misleading.
U.S. corporate tax collections totaled only 1.7% of GDP in 2009, the most recent year for which complete data is available, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
On that measure, the United States had the third lowest corporate tax burden, behind France and Germany. The worldwide average was 2.8%.
In other countries, many small businesses pay both corporate and personal income tax. So a business owner in a country with a lower corporate tax rate could end up paying more than his U.S. counterpart.
The corporate tax myth - Feb. 23 2012
Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High
The interesting thing about the corporate rate is that corporate profits, as a percentage of GDP last year were the highest or just about the highest in the last 50 years. They were ten and a fraction percent of GDP. That’s higher than we’ve seen in 50 years. The corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP were 1.2 percent, $180 billion. That’s just about the lowest we’ve seen. So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively, in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent, which is well below those existing in most of the industrialized countries around the world. So it is a myth that American corporations are paying 35 percent or anything like it…Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness.
All other developed nations raise a significant part of their tax revenue through VATs, but it is not included in the comparisons of corporate tax collections.
CRS: Effective Tax Rate In The U.S. "About The Same" As The Rest Of The Developed World.
fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41743.pdf
GAO: Effective Tax Rates For Large, Profitable Corporations Fall Between 13 Percent And 23 Percent
www.gao.gov/assets/660/654957.pdf
You've been found out.
Talk to the hand, poseur.
Weird, EVERY-TIME I point out your fallacies, you say the same thing? 20% huh? LOL
Boss,Conservatives tried to tell you Global Warming was a load of socialist horse crap, and again... you've had to change the name to Climate Change just to keep from being laughed out of your own seminars.
Very few people deny global warming... Antropogenic global warming is another matter. I honestly hope you do not belong to the set of people who deny WG, because the evidence is overwheelming.
The evidence is overwhelming that it's not happening. There has been no warming the past 18 years. We're actually in a slight cooling phase. Does our planet get warmer and cooler? Yes, but we have very little impact on it.
View attachment 36221
You buy into the premise that tax rates (taxes AFTER profits) have something to do with jobs in the US. Any credible economist knows that bullshit even at the currently MARGINAL rates, much less the record low effective rates!
Fair taxes?
Well lets start by removing negative tax liabilities. Except for special circumstances, no one should receive more back from the IRS than they paid in. Period.
It is called tax welfare, the R in IRS does not stand for Redistribution.
Second. Businesses should have zero tax liability on income from products and services that are made within the borders of the U.S. Business Income tax should only be on income derived from products/services made overseas. Talk about an incentive to produce products in America!
Third - lower taxes on the middle class.
I have no issue on raising taxes on the wealthiest in America, say income over $500k.
Bottom 50% of US received 11% of ALL US income, that is an AVERAGE of less than $15,000 PER FAMILY. Top 1% (50 TIMES more families) received 18% of
income If the bottom 50% kept the same SHARE of the pie they had in 1980, the families would have nearly $5,000 MORE per family (plus SS taxes Reagan increased to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich)
Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent
Poor Americans Pay Double The State Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent
Reagan strongly supported the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which sends checks to Americans who work but earn less than around $46,000 a year, depending on family size. Recipients of the credit are among those who don’t pay income tax, but Reagan never regarded that as a problem. His administration estimated that the 1986 reform of the tax code would remove 6 million working poor from the tax rolls. Reagan called the reform a “sweeping victory for fairness” and “perhaps the biggest antipoverty program in our history.”
Ronald Reagan and the 47 Percent - Businessweek
Fair taxes?
Well lets start by removing negative tax liabilities. Except for special circumstances, no one should receive more back from the IRS than they paid in. Period.
It is called tax welfare, the R in IRS does not stand for Redistribution.
Second. Businesses should have zero tax liability on income from products and services that are made within the borders of the U.S. Business Income tax should only be on income derived from products/services made overseas. Talk about an incentive to produce products in America!
Third - lower taxes on the middle class.
I have no issue on raising taxes on the wealthiest in America, say income over $500k.
Bottom 50% of US received 11% of ALL US income, that is an AVERAGE of less than $15,000 PER FAMILY. Top 1% (50 TIMES more families) received 18% of
income If the bottom 50% kept the same SHARE of the pie they had in 1980, the families would have nearly $5,000 MORE per family (plus SS taxes Reagan increased to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich)
Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent
Poor Americans Pay Double The State Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent
Reagan strongly supported the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which sends checks to Americans who work but earn less than around $46,000 a year, depending on family size. Recipients of the credit are among those who don’t pay income tax, but Reagan never regarded that as a problem. His administration estimated that the 1986 reform of the tax code would remove 6 million working poor from the tax rolls. Reagan called the reform a “sweeping victory for fairness” and “perhaps the biggest antipoverty program in our history.”
Ronald Reagan and the 47 Percent - Businessweek
I have zero problem with lower wage earners paying no federal tax, I have a problem with them getting more back then they paid in.
Right now the problem is the tax rate for the middle class.
When you get old enough to earn a pretty good salary, this is what happens.
When you realize you could buy 3 or 4 new cars a year with what you pay in taxes - you will sing a different tune.
Been there, done that. I'm 54 years old
Why have the middle classes taxes went up? Oh right Reagan increased SS taxes to "save SS" (not hide the REAL costs of tax cuts to the rich, lol)
You probably don't support a living wage, nor most social safety nets NOW you want to get rid of one of the programs that helps the bottom half of US?
Fair taxes?
Well lets start by removing negative tax liabilities. Except for special circumstances, no one should receive more back from the IRS than they paid in. Period.
It is called tax welfare, the R in IRS does not stand for Redistribution.
Second. Businesses should have zero tax liability on income from products and services that are made within the borders of the U.S. Business Income tax should only be on income derived from products/services made overseas. Talk about an incentive to produce products in America!
Third - lower taxes on the middle class.
I have no issue on raising taxes on the wealthiest in America, say income over $500k.
Bottom 50% of US received 11% of ALL US income, that is an AVERAGE of less than $15,000 PER FAMILY. Top 1% (50 TIMES more families) received 18% of
income If the bottom 50% kept the same SHARE of the pie they had in 1980, the families would have nearly $5,000 MORE per family (plus SS taxes Reagan increased to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich)
Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent
Poor Americans Pay Double The State Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent
Reagan strongly supported the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which sends checks to Americans who work but earn less than around $46,000 a year, depending on family size. Recipients of the credit are among those who don’t pay income tax, but Reagan never regarded that as a problem. His administration estimated that the 1986 reform of the tax code would remove 6 million working poor from the tax rolls. Reagan called the reform a “sweeping victory for fairness” and “perhaps the biggest antipoverty program in our history.”
Ronald Reagan and the 47 Percent - Businessweek
Fair taxes?
Well lets start by removing negative tax liabilities. Except for special circumstances, no one should receive more back from the IRS than they paid in. Period.
It is called tax welfare, the R in IRS does not stand for Redistribution.
Second. Businesses should have zero tax liability on income from products and services that are made within the borders of the U.S. Business Income tax should only be on income derived from products/services made overseas. Talk about an incentive to produce products in America!
Third - lower taxes on the middle class.
I have no issue on raising taxes on the wealthiest in America, say income over $500k.
Bottom 50% of US received 11% of ALL US income, that is an AVERAGE of less than $15,000 PER FAMILY. Top 1% (50 TIMES more families) received 18% of
income If the bottom 50% kept the same SHARE of the pie they had in 1980, the families would have nearly $5,000 MORE per family (plus SS taxes Reagan increased to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich)
Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent
Poor Americans Pay Double The State Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent
Reagan strongly supported the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which sends checks to Americans who work but earn less than around $46,000 a year, depending on family size. Recipients of the credit are among those who don’t pay income tax, but Reagan never regarded that as a problem. His administration estimated that the 1986 reform of the tax code would remove 6 million working poor from the tax rolls. Reagan called the reform a “sweeping victory for fairness” and “perhaps the biggest antipoverty program in our history.”
Ronald Reagan and the 47 Percent - Businessweek
I have zero problem with lower wage earners paying no federal tax, I have a problem with them getting more back then they paid in.
Right now the problem is the tax rate for the middle class.
When you get old enough to earn a pretty good salary, this is what happens.
When you realize you could buy 3 or 4 new cars a year with what you pay in taxes - you will sing a different tune.
Been there, done that. I'm 54 years old
Why have the middle classes taxes went up? Oh right Reagan increased SS taxes to "save SS" (not hide the REAL costs of tax cuts to the rich, lol)
You probably don't support a living wage, nor most social safety nets NOW you want to get rid of one of the programs that helps the bottom half of US?
Why have the middle classes taxes went up? Oh right Reagan increased SS taxes to "save SS"
Yeah, that was awful. He pushed the rate from 5.35% all the way up to 6.2%. Just awful!
You buy into the premise that tax rates (taxes AFTER profits) have something to do with jobs in the US. Any credible economist knows that bullshit even at the currently MARGINAL rates, much less the record low effective rates!
I have my qualms regarding the job creation part. At some point of the thread I used the COGS ( Cost of goods sold of a real company) to point out that even with a 0% tax rate a company operating in Mexico would not move back to the US.
Small and medium business (with less than 500 employees) generate 70% of the jobs in America. Though I feel no love for large corporations my bet is those businesses will see the benefit of such policy.
On the other hand large corporations do have an uncanny ability to avoid corporate taxes ( the've done it before and they will continue doing it) . So increasing the income tax ceiling seems both fair and would probably yield better results for tax collection purposes.
Even if no manufacturing jobs ( the core element of current unemployment ) are created by dropping the corporate tax rate to zero. The revenue obtained by the increase in the income tax could be used to invest in infrastructure achieveing the same end.
The thread is about fair taxation. If such fairness can only be achieved through the personal income tax , then so be it.
I have commented on this in another thread. Apparently there are enough open job positions right now.
The problem is that there is a gap between the skills required by the companies ( mathematicians, computer scientists, health care workers, accountants , operation managers , biomedical engineers) vs
Corporations Are Swimming in Cheap Cash. So Why Aren't They Investing?
Corporations Are Swimming in Cheap Cash. So Why Aren t They Investing - Businessweek
"Two reasons: weak demand and absolutely zero clarity when it comes to U.S. fiscal policy."
This would seem to support Boss's point to a certain degree.
There are always an abundance of job openings in the highly-skilled areas you mentioned, that is why people earn so much in those roles. These jobs are not adequate to address high unemployment across the nation because most people simply don't qualify. Where we are severely hurting is in manufacturing jobs. Those are never coming back unless there is an incentive to bring them back. As long as it remains cheaper to manufacture elsewhere, that's what most capitalists will do.
Now the left seems to believe the solution is to punish the capitalist for manufacturing abroad by making it more expensive to ship their products back to the US, through tariffs and fees or whatever means the government can manipulate to achieve this objective. The problem is, the capitalist is too smart to be manipulated. They simply find another customer for the intended US production and life (profits) continue on. Eventually, shortage of supply drives prices up and it becomes profitable once again, in spite of the tariffs and fees. This plan will never work to bring back lost manufacturing jobs, it simply drives prices higher for the consumer.
Fixing the problem is really not that hard if we simply apply common sense principles and standards we have already demonstrated will work. For instance, we need to standardize labor costs in the US. Rather than have organized labor constantly pushing for more and more unrealistic wages, we need to have a set base standard which everyone uses with an adjustable parameter for individual production. With computer technology we should be able to obtain information on production output for each individual laborer. So we establish a base rate, then a scaled increase/decrease based on actual individual production. I could write for hours about this, but the bottom line is, we have to change how we're approaching this problem to solve it.
As for capital available, yes... corporations are swimming in cheap money... that's not the problem. There is no demand because we are economically stagnant at the moment and nothing is going to change that until we take some action to affect a change. We can borrow another trillion from China and pump that into the economy to keep it churning along for another year... we haven't fixed the problem. Zero corporate tax combined with a tax moratorium on wealth held abroad would be the sort of thing that would change the dynamics. It's not that capitalists need the money, it's that they have the money available tax free if they want the money... and under that circumstance, many of them would.
It is an opportunity. Some would take it, others would pass, but it would certainly create new jobs and boost economic prosperity. As I said before, it represents a potential $20 trillion private-sector economic stimulus plan that wouldn't cost us a dime.
Our problem is the brainwashed Marxist masses who simply can't see the forest for the trees. I can't tell you how much I enjoyed this month's interview in Rolling Stone with Bob Dylan. He talked about politics as bit... Bob said, the people are sitting around with no jobs and nothing to do, hopeless and in despair, and we keep hearing this anger and rage directed at the billionaires, but the billionaires create the jobs and prosperity. How can anyone reject Dylan's philosophy?
"Zero corporate tax combined with a tax moratorium on wealth held abroad would be the sort of thing that would change the dynamics"
YOUR PREMISE IS IF WE DON'T TAX THEM, THEY'LL SPEND MONEY? LOL
The 'job creators' send their money to money managers, who promptly offshore it to the cheapest labor to make the largest return!
No, my premise is; if you don't tax them, they'll have more money available. They may or may not spend it. Despite what you'e been brainwashed to believe, no group of people always does the same predictable thing... not even screwball liberals. Some voted for Hillary and questioned Obama's birth certificate (before they blamed this on the right) and some voted for Obama.
The primary reason for offshoring US wealth is to avoid US taxation. Stands to logical reason if we remove that taxation there will be less offshoring of wealth.
WHY DIDN'T DUBYA/GOP TAX HOLIDAY THAT BROUGHT BACK $800+ BILLION IN 2004 AT 5% DO THAT THEN? In fact orps that did that actually shed US jobs and cut back on R&D, lol
Mainly because Dubya didn't eliminate the corporate tax and his policies were not conservative. You have no valid data to show that all corporations did any one particular thing. Some cut jobs and R&D, some expanded and created jobs. But since you are a myopic socialist moron, you focus only on the bad and ignore any good.
WHAT DYLAN ACTUALLY SAID (YEAH, I;'M SHOCKED A LIAR LIKE YOU PUSHES A FALSE CATEGORIZATION OF HIS POSIT, LOL)
"The government's not going to create jobs," he said. "It doesn't have to. People have to create jobs, and these big billionaires are the ones who can do it."
But instead of doing that, he said he sees inner cities festering with crime and people "turning to alcohol and drugs." "They could all have work created for them by all these hotshot billionaires," Dylan said. "For sure, that would create lot of happiness. Now, I'm not saying they have to — I'm not talking about communism — but what do they do with their money?"
Again, Dylan is right and he is totally rejecting left-wing socialist nitwits like you. You're still stuck on the notion of the government creating jobs by building roads and bridges.
He later turned his attention back to the underprivileged. "There are good people there, but they've been oppressed by lack of work," Dylan said. "Those people can all be working at something. These multibillionaires can create industries right here in America. But no one can tell them what to do. God's got to lead them."
Bob Dylan The Government s Not Going to Create Jobs. Billionaires Can Rolling Stone
I'LL GET ON TO THE SPAGHETTI MONSTER IN THE SKY RIGHTAWAY, LOL
Wow, Bob's on a fucking roll! Now he's rejected your godless beliefs! Look out Bob, they don't like it when you talk about God!
The 'job creators' haven't had this much wealth or income since the first GOP great depression, why didn't they spend it then? Because like now, they don't NEED to. Of course IF we went back to a HIGHER TAX RATE ON THE 'JOB CREATORS', IT GIVES THEM INCENTIVES TO PUT MONEY INTO THE COMPANIES AND NOT GET TAXED, YOU KNOW CREATE MORE WEALTH THROUGH BUILDING UP, VERSUS STRIPPING OUT AND GAMBLING ON WALL STREET EAST?
What do you mean "if we went back to a higher tax rate?" We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. What's their incentive to put money in a corporation so it can generate more tax revenue? You want to see them use their wealth to build up the corporation and create more jobs? Eliminate corporate taxation!
lol
"Mainly because Dubya didn't eliminate the corporate tax"
YEAH, I GUESS 5% WASN'T LOW ENOUGH, LOL
According to a study by the Internal Revenue Service, 842 of the 9,700 businesses with foreign subsidiaries transferred a total of $362 billion from their foreign subsidiaries to their U.S. parent companies
The evidence clearly shows that these repatriated earnings did not increase domestic investment, job creation, or research and development (R&D). As the authors of the leading paper on the subject concluded in 2010, “repatriations did not lead to an increase in domestic investment, domestic employment, or R&D.”The authors continued:
Instead, estimates indicate that a $1 increase in repatriations was associated with a $0.60–$0.92 increase in payouts to shareholders—despite regulations stating that such expenditures were not a permitted use of repatriations qualifying for the tax holiday. The results indicate the U.S. multinationals were not financially constrained and were reasonably well-governed. The fungibility of money appears to have undermined the effectiveness of the regulations.
LOL
RIGHT WING HERITAGE
Would Another Repatriation Tax Holiday Create Jobs
Oct 3, 2011
Giving U.S. companies a tax break for bringing home profits held overseas likely won’t create more jobs or spur domestic investment, an influential conservative think tank will argue in a report to be released Tuesday.
In a break from many Republican lawmakers and a host of major U.S. companies including Google Inc., Apple Inc., Pfizer Inc. and Microsoft Corp., the Heritage Foundation said in a new study that a repatriation tax holiday would not motivate companies to hire new workers.
Heritage Repatriation Tax Holiday Wouldn 8217 t Create Jobs - Real Time Economics - WSJ
The Institute for Policy Studies looked at fifty-eight corporations that accounted for 70 percent of overseas profits repatriated under the last tax repatriation holiday, in 2004 and 2005. It found that the companies cut 600,000 jobs.
Corporate Tax Holidays Might Not Create Jobs
"What do you mean "if we went back to a higher tax rate?" We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world."
ANOTHER RIGHT WING KLOWN ARGUING THE USUAL RIGHT WING MYTHS, FORGETTING THE AVG EFFECTIVE RATE IS ABOUT 1/3 OF THE 'RATE' LOL,
12% IS WHAT CORPS PAY, ONLY MEXICO AND CHILE IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD PAY LOWER RATES, LOL
The corporate tax myth
U.S. businesses might face the highest corporate tax rate in the world, but what they pay isn't nearly as bad in comparison to other countries.
In fact, the United States collects less corporate tax relative to the overall economy than almost any other country in the world.
And that's a more objective measure of tax burden. Different accounting rules around the world means what's counted as income in one country isn't counted in another -- that makes comparisons of tax rates misleading.
The corporate tax myth - Feb. 23 2012
Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High
CARRY ON LIAR!
Gave the most top end tax cuts for the longest period of time of any president?
LOL!
Laughably false.
I have commented on this in another thread. Apparently there are enough open job positions right now.
The problem is that there is a gap between the skills required by the companies ( mathematicians, computer scientists, health care workers, accountants , operation managers , biomedical engineers) vs
"Two reasons: weak demand and absolutely zero clarity when it comes to U.S. fiscal policy."
This would seem to support Boss's point to a certain degree.
There are always an abundance of job openings in the highly-skilled areas you mentioned, that is why people earn so much in those roles. These jobs are not adequate to address high unemployment across the nation because most people simply don't qualify. Where we are severely hurting is in manufacturing jobs. Those are never coming back unless there is an incentive to bring them back. As long as it remains cheaper to manufacture elsewhere, that's what most capitalists will do.
Now the left seems to believe the solution is to punish the capitalist for manufacturing abroad by making it more expensive to ship their products back to the US, through tariffs and fees or whatever means the government can manipulate to achieve this objective. The problem is, the capitalist is too smart to be manipulated. They simply find another customer for the intended US production and life (profits) continue on. Eventually, shortage of supply drives prices up and it becomes profitable once again, in spite of the tariffs and fees. This plan will never work to bring back lost manufacturing jobs, it simply drives prices higher for the consumer.
Fixing the problem is really not that hard if we simply apply common sense principles and standards we have already demonstrated will work. For instance, we need to standardize labor costs in the US. Rather than have organized labor constantly pushing for more and more unrealistic wages, we need to have a set base standard which everyone uses with an adjustable parameter for individual production. With computer technology we should be able to obtain information on production output for each individual laborer. So we establish a base rate, then a scaled increase/decrease based on actual individual production. I could write for hours about this, but the bottom line is, we have to change how we're approaching this problem to solve it.
As for capital available, yes... corporations are swimming in cheap money... that's not the problem. There is no demand because we are economically stagnant at the moment and nothing is going to change that until we take some action to affect a change. We can borrow another trillion from China and pump that into the economy to keep it churning along for another year... we haven't fixed the problem. Zero corporate tax combined with a tax moratorium on wealth held abroad would be the sort of thing that would change the dynamics. It's not that capitalists need the money, it's that they have the money available tax free if they want the money... and under that circumstance, many of them would.
It is an opportunity. Some would take it, others would pass, but it would certainly create new jobs and boost economic prosperity. As I said before, it represents a potential $20 trillion private-sector economic stimulus plan that wouldn't cost us a dime.
Our problem is the brainwashed Marxist masses who simply can't see the forest for the trees. I can't tell you how much I enjoyed this month's interview in Rolling Stone with Bob Dylan. He talked about politics as bit... Bob said, the people are sitting around with no jobs and nothing to do, hopeless and in despair, and we keep hearing this anger and rage directed at the billionaires, but the billionaires create the jobs and prosperity. How can anyone reject Dylan's philosophy?
"Zero corporate tax combined with a tax moratorium on wealth held abroad would be the sort of thing that would change the dynamics"
YOUR PREMISE IS IF WE DON'T TAX THEM, THEY'LL SPEND MONEY? LOL
The 'job creators' send their money to money managers, who promptly offshore it to the cheapest labor to make the largest return!
No, my premise is; if you don't tax them, they'll have more money available. They may or may not spend it. Despite what you'e been brainwashed to believe, no group of people always does the same predictable thing... not even screwball liberals. Some voted for Hillary and questioned Obama's birth certificate (before they blamed this on the right) and some voted for Obama.
The primary reason for offshoring US wealth is to avoid US taxation. Stands to logical reason if we remove that taxation there will be less offshoring of wealth.
WHY DIDN'T DUBYA/GOP TAX HOLIDAY THAT BROUGHT BACK $800+ BILLION IN 2004 AT 5% DO THAT THEN? In fact orps that did that actually shed US jobs and cut back on R&D, lol
Mainly because Dubya didn't eliminate the corporate tax and his policies were not conservative. You have no valid data to show that all corporations did any one particular thing. Some cut jobs and R&D, some expanded and created jobs. But since you are a myopic socialist moron, you focus only on the bad and ignore any good.
WHAT DYLAN ACTUALLY SAID (YEAH, I;'M SHOCKED A LIAR LIKE YOU PUSHES A FALSE CATEGORIZATION OF HIS POSIT, LOL)
"The government's not going to create jobs," he said. "It doesn't have to. People have to create jobs, and these big billionaires are the ones who can do it."
But instead of doing that, he said he sees inner cities festering with crime and people "turning to alcohol and drugs." "They could all have work created for them by all these hotshot billionaires," Dylan said. "For sure, that would create lot of happiness. Now, I'm not saying they have to — I'm not talking about communism — but what do they do with their money?"
Again, Dylan is right and he is totally rejecting left-wing socialist nitwits like you. You're still stuck on the notion of the government creating jobs by building roads and bridges.
He later turned his attention back to the underprivileged. "There are good people there, but they've been oppressed by lack of work," Dylan said. "Those people can all be working at something. These multibillionaires can create industries right here in America. But no one can tell them what to do. God's got to lead them."
Bob Dylan The Government s Not Going to Create Jobs. Billionaires Can Rolling Stone
I'LL GET ON TO THE SPAGHETTI MONSTER IN THE SKY RIGHTAWAY, LOL
Wow, Bob's on a fucking roll! Now he's rejected your godless beliefs! Look out Bob, they don't like it when you talk about God!
The 'job creators' haven't had this much wealth or income since the first GOP great depression, why didn't they spend it then? Because like now, they don't NEED to. Of course IF we went back to a HIGHER TAX RATE ON THE 'JOB CREATORS', IT GIVES THEM INCENTIVES TO PUT MONEY INTO THE COMPANIES AND NOT GET TAXED, YOU KNOW CREATE MORE WEALTH THROUGH BUILDING UP, VERSUS STRIPPING OUT AND GAMBLING ON WALL STREET EAST?
What do you mean "if we went back to a higher tax rate?" We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. What's their incentive to put money in a corporation so it can generate more tax revenue? You want to see them use their wealth to build up the corporation and create more jobs? Eliminate corporate taxation!
lol
"Mainly because Dubya didn't eliminate the corporate tax"
YEAH, I GUESS 5% WASN'T LOW ENOUGH, LOL
According to a study by the Internal Revenue Service, 842 of the 9,700 businesses with foreign subsidiaries transferred a total of $362 billion from their foreign subsidiaries to their U.S. parent companies
The evidence clearly shows that these repatriated earnings did not increase domestic investment, job creation, or research and development (R&D). As the authors of the leading paper on the subject concluded in 2010, “repatriations did not lead to an increase in domestic investment, domestic employment, or R&D.”The authors continued:
Instead, estimates indicate that a $1 increase in repatriations was associated with a $0.60–$0.92 increase in payouts to shareholders—despite regulations stating that such expenditures were not a permitted use of repatriations qualifying for the tax holiday. The results indicate the U.S. multinationals were not financially constrained and were reasonably well-governed. The fungibility of money appears to have undermined the effectiveness of the regulations.
LOL
RIGHT WING HERITAGE
Would Another Repatriation Tax Holiday Create Jobs
Oct 3, 2011
Giving U.S. companies a tax break for bringing home profits held overseas likely won’t create more jobs or spur domestic investment, an influential conservative think tank will argue in a report to be released Tuesday.
In a break from many Republican lawmakers and a host of major U.S. companies including Google Inc., Apple Inc., Pfizer Inc. and Microsoft Corp., the Heritage Foundation said in a new study that a repatriation tax holiday would not motivate companies to hire new workers.
Heritage Repatriation Tax Holiday Wouldn 8217 t Create Jobs - Real Time Economics - WSJ
The Institute for Policy Studies looked at fifty-eight corporations that accounted for 70 percent of overseas profits repatriated under the last tax repatriation holiday, in 2004 and 2005. It found that the companies cut 600,000 jobs.
Corporate Tax Holidays Might Not Create Jobs
"What do you mean "if we went back to a higher tax rate?" We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world."
ANOTHER RIGHT WING KLOWN ARGUING THE USUAL RIGHT WING MYTHS, FORGETTING THE AVG EFFECTIVE RATE IS ABOUT 1/3 OF THE 'RATE' LOL,
12% IS WHAT CORPS PAY, ONLY MEXICO AND CHILE IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD PAY LOWER RATES, LOL
The corporate tax myth
U.S. businesses might face the highest corporate tax rate in the world, but what they pay isn't nearly as bad in comparison to other countries.
In fact, the United States collects less corporate tax relative to the overall economy than almost any other country in the world.
And that's a more objective measure of tax burden. Different accounting rules around the world means what's counted as income in one country isn't counted in another -- that makes comparisons of tax rates misleading.
The corporate tax myth - Feb. 23 2012
Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High
CARRY ON LIAR!
Instead, estimates indicate that a $1 increase in repatriations was associated with a $0.60–$0.92 increase in payouts to shareholders
So the government got 5% off the top, the shareholders got more dividends and then the government got the tax on those dividends as well.
Yeah, that sounds like a horrible idea. Let's never do that again. LOL!
Idiot.
Corp taxes don't stop job creation, and economists assign 80% of Corp tax liability to owners of capital
Fair taxes?
Well lets start by removing negative tax liabilities. Except for special circumstances, no one should receive more back from the IRS than they paid in. Period.
It is called tax welfare, the R in IRS does not stand for Redistribution.
Second. Businesses should have zero tax liability on income from products and services that are made within the borders of the U.S. Business Income tax should only be on income derived from products/services made overseas. Talk about an incentive to produce products in America!
Third - lower taxes on the middle class.
I have no issue on raising taxes on the wealthiest in America, say income over $500k.
Bottom 50% of US received 11% of ALL US income, that is an AVERAGE of less than $15,000 PER FAMILY. Top 1% (50 TIMES more families) received 18% of
income If the bottom 50% kept the same SHARE of the pie they had in 1980, the families would have nearly $5,000 MORE per family (plus SS taxes Reagan increased to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich)
Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent
Poor Americans Pay Double The State Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent
Reagan strongly supported the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which sends checks to Americans who work but earn less than around $46,000 a year, depending on family size. Recipients of the credit are among those who don’t pay income tax, but Reagan never regarded that as a problem. His administration estimated that the 1986 reform of the tax code would remove 6 million working poor from the tax rolls. Reagan called the reform a “sweeping victory for fairness” and “perhaps the biggest antipoverty program in our history.”
Ronald Reagan and the 47 Percent - Businessweek
Fair taxes?
Well lets start by removing negative tax liabilities. Except for special circumstances, no one should receive more back from the IRS than they paid in. Period.
It is called tax welfare, the R in IRS does not stand for Redistribution.
Second. Businesses should have zero tax liability on income from products and services that are made within the borders of the U.S. Business Income tax should only be on income derived from products/services made overseas. Talk about an incentive to produce products in America!
Third - lower taxes on the middle class.
I have no issue on raising taxes on the wealthiest in America, say income over $500k.
Bottom 50% of US received 11% of ALL US income, that is an AVERAGE of less than $15,000 PER FAMILY. Top 1% (50 TIMES more families) received 18% of
income If the bottom 50% kept the same SHARE of the pie they had in 1980, the families would have nearly $5,000 MORE per family (plus SS taxes Reagan increased to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich)
Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent
Poor Americans Pay Double The State Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent
Reagan strongly supported the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which sends checks to Americans who work but earn less than around $46,000 a year, depending on family size. Recipients of the credit are among those who don’t pay income tax, but Reagan never regarded that as a problem. His administration estimated that the 1986 reform of the tax code would remove 6 million working poor from the tax rolls. Reagan called the reform a “sweeping victory for fairness” and “perhaps the biggest antipoverty program in our history.”
Ronald Reagan and the 47 Percent - Businessweek
I have zero problem with lower wage earners paying no federal tax, I have a problem with them getting more back then they paid in.
Right now the problem is the tax rate for the middle class.
When you get old enough to earn a pretty good salary, this is what happens.
When you realize you could buy 3 or 4 new cars a year with what you pay in taxes - you will sing a different tune.
Been there, done that. I'm 54 years old
Why have the middle classes taxes went up? Oh right Reagan increased SS taxes to "save SS" (not hide the REAL costs of tax cuts to the rich, lol)
You probably don't support a living wage, nor most social safety nets NOW you want to get rid of one of the programs that helps the bottom half of US?
Why have the middle classes taxes went up? Oh right Reagan increased SS taxes to "save SS"
Yeah, that was awful. He pushed the rate from 5.35% all the way up to 6.2%. Just awful!
Yep, OVER $2 trillion since Ronnie increased SS taxes to 'save' SS? LOL
Of course he also doubled the rate on the self employed, made SS income taxable
"The 1977 amendments to the Social Security Act advanced the scheduled increases in the Social Security tax rate. For 1979-80, the rate increased to 10.16 percent, for 1981, the rate increased to 10.7 percent, and for 1982-1984, the rate increased to 10.8, or at least it was supposed to. The 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act – signed into law by Reagan in April of 1983 – increased the rate for 1984 to 11.4 percent, and kept it there until 1987. For 1988-89, the rate increased to 12.12 percent. The 1983 amendments – which Reagan signed – also mandated that the rate increase to 12.4 percent beginning in 1990. So Reagan was responsible for raising the rate from 10.8 percent to 12.4 percent – a 14.81 percent increase"
Reagan the Tax Raiser 8211 LewRockwell.com
" The Social Security Amendments of 1983 laid the foundation for 30-years of federal embezzlement of Social Security money in order to use the money to pay for wars, tax cuts and other government programs. The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. "
Ronald Reagan and the Great Social Security Heist Dissident Voice
Weird, you can't refute the REASON Reagan did it was to hide the REAL costs of his tax cuts for the rich, you know my original posit? lol
Gave the most top end tax cuts for the longest period of time of any president?
LOL!
Laughably false.
Weird you don't know the top tax rate was cut under Dubya that lasted 10 years? In FACT the EFFECTIVE tax rates of the 'job creators' haven't had aa sustained low rate like this since before the GOP great depression of the 1920's
