It was GOP tax breaks and subsidies that moved millions of jobs to China. Not trade agreements.

[rdean]

Whitehouse says companies get a tax break for moving jobs overseas

So the law Whitehouse decries is still the law. There is little debate that the current system allows companies to get a tax break for their expenses when they send jobs outside the U.S.
We rate Whitehouse's statement True.

GOP senators block Dem ‘insourcing’ bill
Under current law, companies can deduct the cost of moving people and equipment overseas from their taxes. S. 3364 would have eliminated that deduction, and created a new 20 percent tax credit for all costs associated with moving overseas jobs back to America.

Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing
Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing


Bernie Santa's followers have it all wrong. There is nothing in any trade agreement about tax breaks for companies moving millions of American jobs to China. It's been and has always been about GOP tax cuts and subsidies for companies moving to China. Come on people, get it right.

But I can run with a Liberal source, too...

Bill Clinton's True Legacy: Outsourcer-in-Chief
Progressives who justifiably condemn the repeal of the Glass-Steagall law that resulted in deregulating banks have Clinton to blame. According to the findings of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Committee, "The decision in 2000 to shield the exotic financial instruments known as over-the-counter derivatives from regulation, made during the last year of President Bill Clinton's term, is called 'a key turning point' in the march towards the financial crisis."

But the only thing worse than being a taxpayer forced to bail out reckless banks is losing your job because it's been outsourced or offshored. As Richard McCormack pointed out in the American Prospect, in the beginning of this century American companies stopped making the products Americans continued to buy, from clothing to computers. Manufacturers never emerged from the 2001 recession, which coincided with China's entry into the World Trade Organization. Between 2001 and 2009 the U.S. lost 42,400 factories and manufacturing employment dropped to 11.7 million, a loss of 32 percent of all manufacturing jobs. The last time fewer than 12 million people worked in the manufacturing sector was in 1941.


Clinton had the gall to accuse those who opposed China's entry into the WTO of "aligning themselves with the Chinese army and hard-liners in Beijing who do not want accession for China." Clinton claimed that the agreement that he championed "creates a win-win result for both countries," arguingthat exports to China "now support hundreds of thousands of American jobs" and "these figures can grow substantially." (Clinton's press person at the Clinton Global Initiative did not respond to my requests for feedback.)

The facts contradict these assertions. Imports of computers and electronic partsaccounted for almost half of the $178 billion increase in the U.S. trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2007 and the loss of 2.3 million jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

Clinton then went on to enact NAFTA, or the North America Free Trade Act, which asAmerican Prospect editor Robert Kuttner has observed, "was less about trade and more about making it easier for U.S. based multinationals and banks to take over Mexican companies."

As is the case too often on Capitol Hill, the revolving door between government jobs and the banking industry compromises too many decisions. As Jeff Faux observed in his must-read book, The Global Class War, it's no surprise that Robert Rubin, Clinton's Treasury Secretary, had the gall to sell Americans on NAFTA, given that after leaving Treasury Rubin took a job as chairman of Citigroup's executive committee, where one of his roles was buying Mexican bank Banamex for $12.5 billion in 2001.

Not only did Average Joe NOT gain from NAFTA -- according to the Economic Policy Institute as of 2010 U.S. trade deficits with Mexico totaling $97.2 billion had displaced682,000 U.S jobs. But "Average Jose" didn't make out well, either; NAFTA is very likely the driver behind the surge of Mexican immigrants to the U.S. As Faux observes, between 1993 and 2002 two million Mexican farmers were forced to abandon their land as a result of increased imports of food from the U.S. Mexican wages have also shrunk; while they were about 23% of U.S. wages in the mid 1970s by 2002 they shrank to 12% of them.

Since millions of jobs moved under Bush and the GOP was able to use reconcilliation three times, I'm guessing you think tax breaks and subsidies were the answer, but they didn't work out as planned. Did I guess right?

So let me get this straight.....

You're claiming Bill Clinton fucked shit up so bad that tax breaks and subsidies couldn't even fix it, right????

Hey, wait.....

Didn't Obungles sign an agreement like that???

Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP)
The United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations—Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and Japan—signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on Feb. 4, 2016. This trade, investment and economic governance agreement had been negotiated in secret since 2010.

The AFL-CIO provided the Obama administration with ideas to improve U.S. trade positions so that they work for the 99%, not just the 1%. Unfortunately, our ideas were rejected. The final TPP will not create jobs, protect the environment or ensure safe imports. Rather, it appears modeled after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a free trade agreement that boosts global corporate profits while leaving working families behind.

I'm sorry, I didn't see a thing in there about tax breaks and subsidies. Would you mind pointing them out?

We didn't point them out, because they were not relevant to the point.

Companies are not subsidized to move over seas. That's simply a lie. If you want to prove otherwise, feel free to look up the Federal budget and show me where there is expenditure to corporations for moving jobs over seas.

You won't find it, because it doesn't exist.

There are tax breaks. Small, irrelevant tax breaks.

Companies do not move jobs over seas, because they get a one time, reduction of $1,000 on their taxes. They move jobs over seas, because they can make a profit doing so.

A company that is going to outsource, is going to do so with... or without... a tax break. Because making $2 billion in profit, is worth it, regardless of if you get a tax deduction.

No amount of tax deduction, is going to cause a company to outsource if there isn't billions in profits to be made. No lack of tax deduction is going to stop a company from outsourcing, if there is billions in profits to be made.

Fact is.... free trade has more to do with outsourcing, than any tiny tax deduction.

Tiny?

 

[whitehall]

The left has it back assward as usual. New York's desperate effort to recruit industry will tell you everything about taxes. Tax breaks recruit and keep industry. Tax increases send industry overseas. Last I heard Barry Hussein was still president and his asinine "global warming" policy is responsible for sending U.S. industry overseas.

 

[Andylusion]

But I can run with a Liberal source, too...

Bill Clinton's True Legacy: Outsourcer-in-Chief
Progressives who justifiably condemn the repeal of the Glass-Steagall law that resulted in deregulating banks have Clinton to blame. According to the findings of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Committee, "The decision in 2000 to shield the exotic financial instruments known as over-the-counter derivatives from regulation, made during the last year of President Bill Clinton's term, is called 'a key turning point' in the march towards the financial crisis."

But the only thing worse than being a taxpayer forced to bail out reckless banks is losing your job because it's been outsourced or offshored. As Richard McCormack pointed out in the American Prospect, in the beginning of this century American companies stopped making the products Americans continued to buy, from clothing to computers. Manufacturers never emerged from the 2001 recession, which coincided with China's entry into the World Trade Organization. Between 2001 and 2009 the U.S. lost 42,400 factories and manufacturing employment dropped to 11.7 million, a loss of 32 percent of all manufacturing jobs. The last time fewer than 12 million people worked in the manufacturing sector was in 1941.


Clinton had the gall to accuse those who opposed China's entry into the WTO of "aligning themselves with the Chinese army and hard-liners in Beijing who do not want accession for China." Clinton claimed that the agreement that he championed "creates a win-win result for both countries," arguingthat exports to China "now support hundreds of thousands of American jobs" and "these figures can grow substantially." (Clinton's press person at the Clinton Global Initiative did not respond to my requests for feedback.)

The facts contradict these assertions. Imports of computers and electronic partsaccounted for almost half of the $178 billion increase in the U.S. trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2007 and the loss of 2.3 million jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

Clinton then went on to enact NAFTA, or the North America Free Trade Act, which asAmerican Prospect editor Robert Kuttner has observed, "was less about trade and more about making it easier for U.S. based multinationals and banks to take over Mexican companies."

As is the case too often on Capitol Hill, the revolving door between government jobs and the banking industry compromises too many decisions. As Jeff Faux observed in his must-read book, The Global Class War, it's no surprise that Robert Rubin, Clinton's Treasury Secretary, had the gall to sell Americans on NAFTA, given that after leaving Treasury Rubin took a job as chairman of Citigroup's executive committee, where one of his roles was buying Mexican bank Banamex for $12.5 billion in 2001.

Not only did Average Joe NOT gain from NAFTA -- according to the Economic Policy Institute as of 2010 U.S. trade deficits with Mexico totaling $97.2 billion had displaced682,000 U.S jobs. But "Average Jose" didn't make out well, either; NAFTA is very likely the driver behind the surge of Mexican immigrants to the U.S. As Faux observes, between 1993 and 2002 two million Mexican farmers were forced to abandon their land as a result of increased imports of food from the U.S. Mexican wages have also shrunk; while they were about 23% of U.S. wages in the mid 1970s by 2002 they shrank to 12% of them.

Since millions of jobs moved under Bush and the GOP was able to use reconcilliation three times, I'm guessing you think tax breaks and subsidies were the answer, but they didn't work out as planned. Did I guess right?

So let me get this straight.....

You're claiming Bill Clinton fucked shit up so bad that tax breaks and subsidies couldn't even fix it, right????

Hey, wait.....

Didn't Obungles sign an agreement like that???

Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP)
The United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations—Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and Japan—signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on Feb. 4, 2016. This trade, investment and economic governance agreement had been negotiated in secret since 2010.

The AFL-CIO provided the Obama administration with ideas to improve U.S. trade positions so that they work for the 99%, not just the 1%. Unfortunately, our ideas were rejected. The final TPP will not create jobs, protect the environment or ensure safe imports. Rather, it appears modeled after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a free trade agreement that boosts global corporate profits while leaving working families behind.

I'm sorry, I didn't see a thing in there about tax breaks and subsidies. Would you mind pointing them out?

We didn't point them out, because they were not relevant to the point.

Companies are not subsidized to move over seas. That's simply a lie. If you want to prove otherwise, feel free to look up the Federal budget and show me where there is expenditure to corporations for moving jobs over seas.

You won't find it, because it doesn't exist.

There are tax breaks. Small, irrelevant tax breaks.

Companies do not move jobs over seas, because they get a one time, reduction of $1,000 on their taxes. They move jobs over seas, because they can make a profit doing so.

A company that is going to outsource, is going to do so with... or without... a tax break. Because making $2 billion in profit, is worth it, regardless of if you get a tax deduction.

No amount of tax deduction, is going to cause a company to outsource if there isn't billions in profits to be made. No lack of tax deduction is going to stop a company from outsourcing, if there is billions in profits to be made.

Fact is.... free trade has more to do with outsourcing, than any tiny tax deduction.

Tiny?

Yeah. Relative to the profits to outsourcing, a tax deduction is tiny.

You do know how a tax deduction works, right?

Every time you see "A company got a Billion in tax deductions", that's doesn't mean they got $1 Billion.

First off, in order to deduct anything, you have to spend that money. So the company spent $1 Billion dollars.

Then the way a deduction works, is you have your total profits, let's make up that the profits were $10 Billion. Then you deduct from your total profits, $1 Billion, so now you have $9 Billion in profits, and that is what you are taxed on.

In other words, a deduction only saves you the taxes you would have paid on the amount deducted.

$1 Billion, times a 35% tax rate, is $350M. So understand.... the company SPENT $1 Billion dollars, in order to SAVE $350 million.

No one ever ends up wealthy off of tax deductions. You inherently spend a ton, to save a little.

So yes, to answer your question TINY.

By the way.... If the company is losing money, and is outsourcing in order to save the company from losses... how much does a tax deduction save you, if you have zero profits? Answer.... zero.

I have seen where liberals screamed about a company taking a tax deduction, when they had no profits to save money on.

 

[Andylusion]

The left has it back assward as usual. New York's desperate effort to recruit industry will tell you everything about taxes. Tax breaks recruit and keep industry. Tax increases send industry overseas. Last I heard Barry Hussein was still president and his asinine "global warming" policy is responsible for sending U.S. industry overseas.

Absolutely correct. I have read where the 'green-energy' goobs over in Germany are pushing out all the heavy industries there. Apparently the spiking cost of electricity, doesn't work too well with electricity intensive industry.

Unless things change (and they won't), Germany will be the next France, with double digit unemployment, and an "economic emergency" declared.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Ford squeezed the car into a tiny frame – 3.8 meters (12.5 feet) by 1.7 meters (5.5 feet) – to ease its passage through the tide of bullock carts, angry taxis, handcarts, motorbikes and cows that flog city roads

Point being just because our per capita income is higher, doesn't mean we're the most profitable investment.

Starting at 349,900 ($7,690), the Figo is within reach of "Sandeep," Ford's vision of its archetypal consumer – a 27-year-old man, recently married and ambitious, with an income of 300,000 to 400,000 rupees ($6,000 to $8000) a year.



Ford sells most of their extremely profitable F 150 pick up trucks here in the USA. They can sell their extremely profitable trucks in the USA because the per capita income of the USA consumer will allow us to buy 50k Ford F 150 trucks. And Ford makes a fucking killing in profits on their trucks. No other cars are close in profits.

You on the other hand need a 6000 dollar Ford from India. Do you get paid in rupees?

 

[Wilbur Right]

We’ve also written before on several occasions that the tax code has long allowed U.S. corporations doing business abroad to defer paying taxes on any of their “unrepatriated income.” That is to say that the revenue earned by the company’s foreign subsidiary remains untaxed by the IRS until that money is brought back to the parent company in the U.S.

Sometimes politicians also refer to this as a “tax break for shipping jobs overseas.” And Clausing told us that this part of tax law could motivate companies to move business abroad.

“This can provide a huge incentive for locating jobs and income abroad, since many tax haven countries have tax rates that are very low, even approaching zero, and thus the money can grow abroad ‘tax free’ until it is repatriated,” she said.




No tax breaks for moving business out of country? WTF? Being able to avoid tax on business profits conducted out of the country isn't a tax break?

Why did business lobby so hard for those provisions? You think they just magically showed up in the tax code one day? LMAO.

And notice congress won t get rid of that ability to avoid those taxes.

 

[Wildman]

Whitehouse

the Whitehouse...??????
so who is the fucking Whitehouse?? i had no idea houses could talk so why don't the stupid liberlying media say it is the scumbag muslime mulatto rather than beat around the bushes and say who EXACTLY is doing the talking.

oooh, BTW little boy deanie....., .......

 

[Wildman]

a flat tax would eliminate all the tax hocus pocus.

OR

consumer tax.., which i prefer, those of us who have to live on a fixed income would benefit greatly, the big spenders would be the highest taxed, that should satisfy the fucking libertards who keep saying "tax the rich.., TAX THE RICH!!"

 

[Andylusion]

Ford squeezed the car into a tiny frame – 3.8 meters (12.5 feet) by 1.7 meters (5.5 feet) – to ease its passage through the tide of bullock carts, angry taxis, handcarts, motorbikes and cows that flog city roads

Point being just because our per capita income is higher, doesn't mean we're the most profitable investment.

Starting at 349,900 ($7,690), the Figo is within reach of "Sandeep," Ford's vision of its archetypal consumer – a 27-year-old man, recently married and ambitious, with an income of 300,000 to 400,000 rupees ($6,000 to $8000) a year.



Ford sells most of their extremely profitable F 150 pick up trucks here in the USA. They can sell their extremely profitable trucks in the USA because the per capita income of the USA consumer will allow us to buy 50k Ford F 150 trucks. And Ford makes a fucking killing in profits on their trucks. No other cars are close in profits.

You on the other hand need a 6000 dollar Ford from India. Do you get paid in rupees?

You completely missed the point of the argument. The question you asked, didn't even make sense in the context of what I said.

Try and follow my point........

You are correct in your assessment that F-150 pickups are more profitable in the US, than cars in the US.

That is not true in other countries.

But that wasn't the point.

The claim is that because our per-capita GDP is higher here in the US, means that companies will always prioritize the US market over other markets.

That is not true. Just because we earn more, doesn't automatically mean selling here is profitable.

Profit is determined by the cost of producing the goods, verses the price the goods can be sold for.

If you eliminate imports, that will drastically increase the cost of producing everything, including pickups. As that cost, get's closer to the price it will sell for, the profit goes down.

That's a fact.

Ford can easily make tons of money selling outside the US, as many auto manufacturers do.

 

[Andylusion]

We’ve also written before on several occasions that the tax code has long allowed U.S. corporations doing business abroad to defer paying taxes on any of their “unrepatriated income.” That is to say that the revenue earned by the company’s foreign subsidiary remains untaxed by the IRS until that money is brought back to the parent company in the U.S.

Sometimes politicians also refer to this as a “tax break for shipping jobs overseas.” And Clausing told us that this part of tax law could motivate companies to move business abroad.

“This can provide a huge incentive for locating jobs and income abroad, since many tax haven countries have tax rates that are very low, even approaching zero, and thus the money can grow abroad ‘tax free’ until it is repatriated,” she said.




No tax breaks for moving business out of country? WTF? Being able to avoid tax on business profits conducted out of the country isn't a tax break?

Why did business lobby so hard for those provisions? You think they just magically showed up in the tax code one day? LMAO.

And notice congress won t get rid of that ability to avoid those taxes.

This isn't rocket science. Profits earned in other countries, is taxed by those other countries.

Why did business lobby for it? Well.... If you lived in one city, and worked in another city, and both cities taxed your income.... that wouldn't bother you? Being double taxed?

If you eliminate this provision, and double tax companies, that would create an even greater incentive for companies to leave the US.

Nearly all other countries have this provision. Profits earned in other countries, is not taxed unless those profits are brought back to the home country.

So... Ford could stay in the US, and profits made in the UK, would be taxed there, and then taxed again here.

Or, Ford move to the UK, and profits made in the US, would be taxed by the US, but not by the UK. Not to mention, UK corporate taxes are lower to begin with.

Now, what do you think is going to happen? Companies will leave the US. I promise you.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Andy, I take it you view yourself as a citizen of the world?
Cause you sure do support the screws being put to the American workers.

And why didn't you address the tax benefits for companies relocating out of the country.

They get much lower labor rates, much higher profits as result of low labor and very favorable tax treatment on profits. Plus whatever perks are thrown at them by the country they relocate to. Like cheap land, no pollution controls and new manufacturing plants.

You still want to claim companies are not rewarded for moving out of country?

 

[Wilbur Right]

So... Ford could stay in the US, and profits made in the UK, would be taxed there, and then taxed again here.

I suggest you Google corporate taxes on overseas profits.
Educate yourself dude. No company is "double taxed". US Companies get credit for taxes paid in other countries.

Read and learn.

 

[Andylusion]

Andy, I take it you view yourself as a citizen of the world?
Cause you sure do support the screws being put to the American workers.

And why didn't you address the tax benefits for companies relocating out of the country.

They get much lower labor rates, much higher profits as result of low labor and very favorable tax treatment on profits. Plus whatever perks are thrown at them by the country they relocate to. Like cheap land, no pollution controls and new manufacturing plants.

You still want to claim companies are not rewarded for moving out of country?

No. I consider myself a "citizen that thinks".

Here's the difference. I understand that tax breaks don't mean diddly jack.

A company faced with losing money, or relocating, is going to relocate, whether there is a tax break or not.
A company that is profitable without relocating, is not going to relocated, whether there is a tax break or not.

How do I know this? Because my company outsourced to china, and we didn't get any tax break whatsoever.

Why did we do this? Because the other option was to close the company. We couldn't produce our product economically, without outsourcing to China.

Companies are not "rewarded". People do not give companies 'awards' or 'prizes' for outsourcing or moving out of the country.

Most companies do not want to outsource, or relocate. My company hated the idea of outsource. My company CEO complained about it routinely.

Let me ask you something... would you like to spend 7 days, flying to China, to bicker with people there, paying an interpreter, and translating engineering specs to Mandarin? Does that sound like a 'fun getaway' to you? Go to smog filled Beijing, so you can pay $50 for crappy food?

And then when the screw the product up, you have to fly back to Beijing, and bicker through an interpreter again, to try and fix the error, over another week? My company executives had fights over who had to go to China. Literal yelling arguments, because everyone hates it. It's not fun.

So why do they do it? Because otherwise we'd have to close the company. Everyone would lose their jobs.

As long as this is the economic reality in the US, you can bicker all you want about tax breaks, and rewards, and blaw blaw blaw blaw... and "you are for the working man" and "You are pro-outsourcing" and making up all that crap..... as long as what I said above is the reality.... none of that matters.

Companies are going to move to where they can make money. If you pass Obama care, and Labor laws, and taxes on companies here, and they can't make a profit here, but they can over there... they will move over there.

That's the facts.

 

[BluesLegend]

Riiiiight the highest corporate taxes in the world and hundreds of thousands of pages of government regulations had nothing to do with it. What other BS are you libs trying to sell today. /eyeroll

 

[Andylusion]

So... Ford could stay in the US, and profits made in the UK, would be taxed there, and then taxed again here.

I suggest you Google corporate taxes on overseas profits.
Educate yourself dude. No company is "double taxed". US Companies get credit for taxes paid in other countries.

Read and learn.

You are correct. I had thought that the Foreign tax deduction, only paid a portion. I was wrong. The Foreign Tax Credit, is dollar for dollar.

Even so, the reasons are still the same. Do you want to be taxed at 35% or taxed at 20%?

I vote for people who say they'll cut my taxes, and give money to people who say they'll cut my taxes.

Why would a company be any different?

And you do know that the tax deferral only works if the company invests money into the foriegn affiliate, right?
It's not like they have store houses of money laying around Europe or something. They are investing the money.

(which I think is good).

But let's even say that we eliminate this deferral. How is this a win for anyone?

If because of all the other policies, it's still more profitable to invest and create jobs elsewhere.... Then elsewhere, is still where most companies are going to invest.

Eliminating a way to avoid tax, will never result in more jobs. That's not even logical. You are the employer. You now have LESS money. How do you higher MORE people with LESS money? Not logical.

 

[rdean]

Since millions of jobs moved under Bush and the GOP was able to use reconcilliation three times, I'm guessing you think tax breaks and subsidies were the answer, but they didn't work out as planned. Did I guess right?

So let me get this straight.....

You're claiming Bill Clinton fucked shit up so bad that tax breaks and subsidies couldn't even fix it, right????

Hey, wait.....

Didn't Obungles sign an agreement like that???

Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP)
The United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations—Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and Japan—signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on Feb. 4, 2016. This trade, investment and economic governance agreement had been negotiated in secret since 2010.

The AFL-CIO provided the Obama administration with ideas to improve U.S. trade positions so that they work for the 99%, not just the 1%. Unfortunately, our ideas were rejected. The final TPP will not create jobs, protect the environment or ensure safe imports. Rather, it appears modeled after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a free trade agreement that boosts global corporate profits while leaving working families behind.

I'm sorry, I didn't see a thing in there about tax breaks and subsidies. Would you mind pointing them out?

We didn't point them out, because they were not relevant to the point.

Companies are not subsidized to move over seas. That's simply a lie. If you want to prove otherwise, feel free to look up the Federal budget and show me where there is expenditure to corporations for moving jobs over seas.

You won't find it, because it doesn't exist.

There are tax breaks. Small, irrelevant tax breaks.

Companies do not move jobs over seas, because they get a one time, reduction of $1,000 on their taxes. They move jobs over seas, because they can make a profit doing so.

A company that is going to outsource, is going to do so with... or without... a tax break. Because making $2 billion in profit, is worth it, regardless of if you get a tax deduction.

No amount of tax deduction, is going to cause a company to outsource if there isn't billions in profits to be made. No lack of tax deduction is going to stop a company from outsourcing, if there is billions in profits to be made.

Fact is.... free trade has more to do with outsourcing, than any tiny tax deduction.

Tiny?

Yeah. Relative to the profits to outsourcing, a tax deduction is tiny.

You do know how a tax deduction works, right?

Every time you see "A company got a Billion in tax deductions", that's doesn't mean they got $1 Billion.

First off, in order to deduct anything, you have to spend that money. So the company spent $1 Billion dollars.

Then the way a deduction works, is you have your total profits, let's make up that the profits were $10 Billion. Then you deduct from your total profits, $1 Billion, so now you have $9 Billion in profits, and that is what you are taxed on.

In other words, a deduction only saves you the taxes you would have paid on the amount deducted.

$1 Billion, times a 35% tax rate, is $350M. So understand.... the company SPENT $1 Billion dollars, in order to SAVE $350 million.

No one ever ends up wealthy off of tax deductions. You inherently spend a ton, to save a little.

So yes, to answer your question TINY.

By the way.... If the company is losing money, and is outsourcing in order to save the company from losses... how much does a tax deduction save you, if you have zero profits? Answer.... zero.

I have seen where liberals screamed about a company taking a tax deduction, when they had no profits to save money on.

So to one Republican, tax breaks are tiny, hardly worthy of notice, barely anything of importance, but to another if corporations don't get them they, they will move their business overseas.

This is why Republicans can be considered tards. They fit their delusional narrative to their imaginary facts.

 

[Andylusion]

So let me get this straight.....

You're claiming Bill Clinton fucked shit up so bad that tax breaks and subsidies couldn't even fix it, right????

Hey, wait.....

Didn't Obungles sign an agreement like that???

Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP)
The United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations—Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and Japan—signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on Feb. 4, 2016. This trade, investment and economic governance agreement had been negotiated in secret since 2010.

The AFL-CIO provided the Obama administration with ideas to improve U.S. trade positions so that they work for the 99%, not just the 1%. Unfortunately, our ideas were rejected. The final TPP will not create jobs, protect the environment or ensure safe imports. Rather, it appears modeled after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a free trade agreement that boosts global corporate profits while leaving working families behind.

I'm sorry, I didn't see a thing in there about tax breaks and subsidies. Would you mind pointing them out?

We didn't point them out, because they were not relevant to the point.

Companies are not subsidized to move over seas. That's simply a lie. If you want to prove otherwise, feel free to look up the Federal budget and show me where there is expenditure to corporations for moving jobs over seas.

You won't find it, because it doesn't exist.

There are tax breaks. Small, irrelevant tax breaks.

Companies do not move jobs over seas, because they get a one time, reduction of $1,000 on their taxes. They move jobs over seas, because they can make a profit doing so.

A company that is going to outsource, is going to do so with... or without... a tax break. Because making $2 billion in profit, is worth it, regardless of if you get a tax deduction.

No amount of tax deduction, is going to cause a company to outsource if there isn't billions in profits to be made. No lack of tax deduction is going to stop a company from outsourcing, if there is billions in profits to be made.

Fact is.... free trade has more to do with outsourcing, than any tiny tax deduction.

Tiny?

Yeah. Relative to the profits to outsourcing, a tax deduction is tiny.

You do know how a tax deduction works, right?

Every time you see "A company got a Billion in tax deductions", that's doesn't mean they got $1 Billion.

First off, in order to deduct anything, you have to spend that money. So the company spent $1 Billion dollars.

Then the way a deduction works, is you have your total profits, let's make up that the profits were $10 Billion. Then you deduct from your total profits, $1 Billion, so now you have $9 Billion in profits, and that is what you are taxed on.

In other words, a deduction only saves you the taxes you would have paid on the amount deducted.

$1 Billion, times a 35% tax rate, is $350M. So understand.... the company SPENT $1 Billion dollars, in order to SAVE $350 million.

No one ever ends up wealthy off of tax deductions. You inherently spend a ton, to save a little.

So yes, to answer your question TINY.

By the way.... If the company is losing money, and is outsourcing in order to save the company from losses... how much does a tax deduction save you, if you have zero profits? Answer.... zero.

I have seen where liberals screamed about a company taking a tax deduction, when they had no profits to save money on.

So to one Republican, tax breaks are tiny, hardly worthy of notice, barely anything of importance, but to another if corporations don't get them they, they will move their business overseas.

This is why Republicans can be considered tards. They fit their delusional narrative to their imaginary facts.

That is funny. Typical leftist illogical debate tactics.

First make up that I'm a Republican. I'm not. I have voted for democrats, and I didn't vote for Romney or McCain.

But of course that 'fact' doesn't fit your delusional narrative and imaginary facts.

Then claim that because someone pointed out that this specific tax deduction, the tax deduction that is the center of the entire argument, is tiny, means that we are claiming all tax breaks are tiny, which not a single person anywhere has said.

But of course that 'fact' doesn't fit your delusional narrative and imaginary facts.

And if that isn't funny enough, after posting this leftard intellectual crap on the forum, you claim that others are 'tards', that post delusional narratives to their imaginary facts, for doing exactly that yourself.

Yeah.... Can't say I'm surprised. This is pretty much what I expected from you.

 

[Wilbur Right]

How do you higher MORE people with LESS money?

That that is funny. Typical leftist illogical debate tactics.

You ever proof read what you write? Try it some time. At least you could make yourself sound smarter. There is even an edit button for those posts that have to be seen immediately. But then read like they were written by a fourth grader. Fix your raggedy shit.

 

[Andylusion]

How do you higher MORE people with LESS money?

That that is funny. Typical leftist illogical debate tactics.

You ever proof read what you write? Try it some time. At least you could make yourself sound smarter. There is even an edit button for those posts that have to be seen immediately. But then read like they were written by a fourth grader. Fix your raggedy shit.

If you are going to judge people on such things, that's fine... but I don't care. Did I ever give you the impression, that what you thought of me, matters to me?

More than half the people on this forum think I'm an idiot. Do you see me worried about it? Is truth determined by your opinion of what my IQ is?

If I was a Ph.D at some ivory tower somewhere, publishing an article for a scholarly paper, I'd take more time, and then have someone proof read it.

But I am a joe blow nobody, from nowhere, working for $11/hr at a manufacturing company, for which I need to leave in 20 minutes. How much worse off is my reputation, because some other joe blow nobody on a forum, who elected himself the grammar police? Are you really that arrogant, to think so highly of yourself, that it will matter to anyone when you find an error?

lol

Seriously dude, time to chill out. Just take a sip of long island ice tea, and chill.

Stop taking yourself so seriously.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Andy. You have made 6000 posts. You apparently feel you have something to add to this weird place.

I was just offering a suggestion as to how your points could come across better. Words matter and how you use words says a great deal about what you think of your opinions.

Enjoy your day at work.