Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[Boss]

Or as I posit, get max revenues from those Chinese/Mexico "job creators" IF they don't want to hire in the USA

But you can't because you're not a King. These companies are not your subjects. They are in a free country where they have the liberty to locate their HQ elsewhere, in a country that doesn't mind them outsourcing to China and Mexico. You can certainly see the problem with trying to tax revenue from a company that is no longer in the United States.

Now what we CAN do and SHOULD do, is apply heavy tariffs on the goods they have manufactured elsewhere on the cheap, and then try to export back in to our market. That would definitely discourage a lot of outsourcing, especially to Mexico.

I've also got another great idea... Declare a tax moratorium on repatriated wealth brought back to the US to expand business and create new jobs. For 10 years, there would be no taxation on any money used for this purpose coming from US holdings abroad. My idea would bring back billions of dollars and directly inject it into the economy in the form of new jobs... good paying real jobs.

 

[Dad2three]

Or as I posit, get max revenues from those Chinese/Mexico "job creators" IF they don't want to hire in the USA

But you can't because you're not a King. These companies are not your subjects. They are in a free country where they have the liberty to locate their HQ elsewhere, in a country that doesn't mind them outsourcing to China and Mexico. You can certainly see the problem with trying to tax revenue from a company that is no longer in the United States.

Now what we CAN do and SHOULD do, is apply heavy tariffs on the goods they have manufactured elsewhere on the cheap, and then try to export back in to our market. That would definitely discourage a lot of outsourcing, especially to Mexico.

I've also got another great idea... Declare a tax moratorium on repatriated wealth brought back to the US to expand business and create new jobs. For 10 years, there would be no taxation on any money used for this purpose coming from US holdings abroad. My idea would bring back billions of dollars and directly inject it into the economy in the form of new jobs... good paying real jobs.

THEY can do whatever the fukk they want, but if they want to bring products into the US, we sure as fuk can tax them what we want!



ARE CORPS/"JOB CREATORS" HURTING FOR CAPITAL??? HINT THAT'S THE ONLY REASON THEY WOULD NEED TO BRING IT BACK RIGHT? BUT SORRY, DUBYA BEAT YOU TOO IT, HUGE FAILURE

Senate report says repatriation tax holiday failed to create jobs in US

in fact, the corporations who took most advantage of the holiday enacted in 2004 shed jobs in the ensuing years and did not increase their rate of spending on research and development.


On the flip side, the study found those corporations also appear to have used the holiday for stock buybacks and to boost executive pay, which was not allowed under the legislation authorizing the holiday.

Senate report says repatriation tax holiday failed to create jobs in US


EVEN RIGHT WING HERITAGE SAYS YOU ARE WRONG BUBS

A Repatriation Holiday Would Not Create Jobs


Repatriation Holiday Would Not Increase Investment or Job Creation


Since the businesses did not need the overseas cash to invest domestically, they brought it home and used it to pay dividends to shareholders, buy back shares, or acquire other businesses.

The 2004 holiday was supposed to prevent them from doing these things, but money is fungible, so there was no realistic way to stop it.

A Repatriation Holiday Would Not Create Jobs


DO YOU EVER GET TIRED OF GETTING SPANKED BECAUSE OF YOUR RANDIAN FETISH?

 

[Andylusion]

Weird, it worked pretty well 1932-1980, we still had rich right? You know a HEAVY progressive tax?

What worked pretty well? Fucking 90% income tax rates? No... those didn't work! You see, when incomes are taxed that high, very few earn incomes that big. The point is, if no one is earning an income in that bracket, you can raise it to 500%... it's not going to generate revenue.

If you raise top marginal rates back up to 90% or even 70%... the effect will be fewer incomes in that bracket. The result will be less revenue. Why do you idiotically believe people are just going to sit there and have government confiscate 70-90% of their incomes? Ain't gunna happen, buddy!

If I remember right, when the 90% income tax was put in place, there was only one single family in the entire country that was even in the 90% income bracket. That is to say, it didn't generate much revenue at all.

People talk about the high-tax era in this country as if the government was awash with cash. Last I checked they ran a deficit. It didn't work better then, than it would today.

 

[Boss]

THEY can do whatever the fukk they want, but if they want to bring products into the US, we sure as fuk can tax them what we want!

Which is essentially what I just said.

Now what we CAN do and SHOULD do, is apply heavy tariffs on the goods they have manufactured elsewhere on the cheap, and then try to export back in to our market. That would definitely discourage a lot of outsourcing, especially to Mexico.

 

[Dad2three]

Weird, it worked pretty well 1932-1980, we still had rich right? You know a HEAVY progressive tax?

What worked pretty well? Fucking 90% income tax rates? No... those didn't work! You see, when incomes are taxed that high, very few earn incomes that big. The point is, if no one is earning an income in that bracket, you can raise it to 500%... it's not going to generate revenue.

If you raise top marginal rates back up to 90% or even 70%... the effect will be fewer incomes in that bracket. The result will be less revenue. Why do you idiotically believe people are just going to sit there and have government confiscate 70-90% of their incomes? Ain't gunna happen, buddy!

If I remember right, when the 90% income tax was put in place, there was only one single family in the entire country that was even in the 90% income bracket. That is to say, it didn't generate much revenue at all.

People talk about the high-tax era in this country as if the government was awash with cash. Last I checked they ran a deficit. It didn't work better then, than it would today.

YOU MEAN WHEN TO HIT THE 90% IN THE 1930'S, YOU NEEDED 3,000,000+ INCOME? How many families made that? lol

The US has run a deficit almost every year, doesn't mean you don't get more revenues from higher EFFECTIVE tax rates

I MIGHT HAVE EA FUKKN STROKE IF ONE OF YOU RIGHT WINGERS WAS EVER HONEST


LAFFER CURVE HAS A LEFT AND RIGHT AND WE HAVEN'T BEEN ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE CURVE IN THE US EVER!

SOMEONE PAID A BIG EFFECTIVE RATES TILL REAGANOMICS


“The progressivity of the U.S. federal tax system at the top of the income distribution has declined dramatically since the 1960s.” As Figure 1 shows, since 1960, average federal tax rates for middle-income households have increased and then declined modestly. Over the same period, high-income households saw sharp drops in their federal tax rates.

Moreover, the drops were largest for the very highest-income households. The average tax rate declined by a larger amount for households in the top one hundredth of 1 percent of the income scale (where incomes in 2004 averaged about $15 million) than for households in the top tenth of 1 percent (where incomes averaged above $3.7 million) or for households in the top 1 percent (where incomes averaged about $850,000).

Over the same period in which the progressivity of the tax system declined, pre-tax income inequality grew significantly (see Figure 2). In an earlier study that examined the distribution of income since 1913, Piketty and Saez showed that the concentration of pre-tax income has increased substantially since the 1970s, especially at the very top of the income spectrum

the share of the nation’s total income going to the top 1 percent of households jumped from 8.4 percent in 1970 to 19.3 percent in 2005, an increase of 10.8 percentage points. In 2005 terms, that increase works out to about $550,000 more in income per household for those in the top 1 percent. In other words, households in this income group received an average of about $550,000 more in income in 2005 than they would have if the group’s share of national had remained constant since 1970.


Over the same period in which high-income households benefited the most from changes in the distribution of pre-tax income, they also benefited the most from changes in effective federal tax rates. In 1970, the top 1 percent of households paid an average of 47 percent of their income in federal taxes; under 2004 law, Piketty and Saez estimate they faced an average tax rate of just 30 percent, a difference of 17 percentage points




CBO Provides New Evidence That the 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts Have Only Modest Economic Effects And Do Not Pay For Themselves | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[Andylusion]

THEY can do whatever the fukk they want, but if they want to bring products into the US, we sure as fuk can tax them what we want!

Which is essentially what I just said.

Now what we CAN do and SHOULD do, is apply heavy tariffs on the goods they have manufactured elsewhere on the cheap, and then try to export back in to our market. That would definitely discourage a lot of outsourcing, especially to Mexico.

I completely and entirely disagree. That is exactly what we did in the late 1920s, early 1930s, and the result was the Great Depression.

If you put tariffs on stuff that's imported, then so will those countries on our goods.

The result will be economic devastation. Bad plan. Every country that has attempted to follow a protectionist plan, has had economic ruin as the result.

If both of you would deny that, then explain protectionist India in the 50s,60s,70s,80s, verses non-protectionist India today?

Protectionist N.Korea, verses Free-Trade S.Korea? Hong Kong, vs Protectionist pre-78 China? Singapore Free-Trade vs Venezuela Protectionism? Jamaica protectionism, vs Barbados free-trade?

What protectionist country would you point to as a successful example? Japan's lost decade and a half?

 

[Dad2three]

THEY can do whatever the fukk they want, but if they want to bring products into the US, we sure as fuk can tax them what we want!

Which is essentially what I just said.

Now what we CAN do and SHOULD do, is apply heavy tariffs on the goods they have manufactured elsewhere on the cheap, and then try to export back in to our market. That would definitely discourage a lot of outsourcing, especially to Mexico.

GOT IT, AS USUAL YOU'LL IGNORE EVERYTHING THAT DEBUNKED YOUR BS PREMISES AND THEN SAY IT'S "ESSENTIALLY" WHAT YOU SAID

FUKK IT IS. YOU SAID THEY COULD MOVE THEIR CORPS AND JOBS OUT OF THE US!!! GREAT LET THEM DO IT! IF HOWEVER THEY WANT TO SELL THEIR GOODS WITH THE US, WE SURE AS FUKK CAN TAX THEM WHAT WE WANT AND AS NOTED, WE ARE NOWHERE NEAR THE LAFFER CURVE!

CONservatives/GOP have US on "free trade' haven't YOU noticed Bubs? (Yep, Dems voted against EVERY "free trade" agreement)

THE ONLY WAY TO FIX IT WITHOUT HAVING A TRADE WAR, IS TO TAX THOSE WHO HAVE BENIFFITED THE MOST THE PAST 35 YEARS, THOSE "JOB CREATORS" AND CORPS!!

 

[Boss]

Repatriation Holiday Would Not Increase Investment or Job Creation

Not talking about a holiday. I said a 10-year moratorium... you got peanut butter in your ears?

Since the businesses did not need the overseas cash to invest domestically,

they brought it home and used it to pay dividends to shareholders, buy back shares, or acquire other businesses.

Again, my moratorium would ONLY apply to wealth brought back and used to create new jobs. Not to buy other businesses, not to buy back shares, not to pay dividends to shareholders.

It's not a matter of them "hurting for capital." It's a matter of incentive.

If it doesn't work, so what? What are we losing? We need jobs... a shit ton of jobs! Not government jobs... not infrastructure jobs... not mythical shovel ready jobs... not $15 hr. burger flipper jobs--- But REAL actual new jobs that pay a decent wage.

 

[Dad2three]

THEY can do whatever the fukk they want, but if they want to bring products into the US, we sure as fuk can tax them what we want!

Which is essentially what I just said.

Now what we CAN do and SHOULD do, is apply heavy tariffs on the goods they have manufactured elsewhere on the cheap, and then try to export back in to our market. That would definitely discourage a lot of outsourcing, especially to Mexico.

I completely and entirely disagree. That is exactly what we did in the late 1920s, early 1930s, and the result was the Great Depression.

If you put tariffs on stuff that's imported, then so will those countries on our goods.

The result will be economic devastation. Bad plan. Every country that has attempted to follow a protectionist plan, has had economic ruin as the result.

As usual you wingnutters leave out that entire roaring 20's that Harding/Coolidge cheered on that created the credit BUBBLE that bust Oct 1929 (well housing busts in Cali, Florida and NY happened in 1927!)

Weird how EVERY TIME we have those "free marketeer" guys in, the US economy takes a dump. Harding/Coolidge's great depression, Ronnie's S&L crisis then Dubya's subprime bubble

 

[Dad2three]

Repatriation Holiday Would Not Increase Investment or Job Creation

Not talking about a holiday. I said a 10-year moratorium... you got peanut butter in your ears?

Since the businesses did not need the overseas cash to invest domestically,

they brought it home and used it to pay dividends to shareholders, buy back shares, or acquire other businesses.

Again, my moratorium would ONLY apply to wealth brought back and used to create new jobs. Not to buy other businesses, not to buy back shares, not to pay dividends to shareholders.

It's not a matter of them "hurting for capital." It's a matter of incentive.

If it doesn't work, so what? What are we losing? We need jobs... a shit ton of jobs! Not government jobs... not infrastructure jobs... not mythical shovel ready jobs... not $15 hr. burger flipper jobs--- But REAL actual new jobs that pay a decent wage.

Yeah, ten years is better than the 2 year failure under Dubya/GOP

Don't understand money is fungible huh Bubs? lol

How does the Randian fetishist assume that we can work this "job creator" BS again?

 

[Dad2three]

THEY can do whatever the fukk they want, but if they want to bring products into the US, we sure as fuk can tax them what we want!

Which is essentially what I just said.

Now what we CAN do and SHOULD do, is apply heavy tariffs on the goods they have manufactured elsewhere on the cheap, and then try to export back in to our market. That would definitely discourage a lot of outsourcing, especially to Mexico.

I completely and entirely disagree. That is exactly what we did in the late 1920s, early 1930s, and the result was the Great Depression.

If you put tariffs on stuff that's imported, then so will those countries on our goods.

The result will be economic devastation. Bad plan. Every country that has attempted to follow a protectionist plan, has had economic ruin as the result.

If both of you would deny that, then explain protectionist India in the 50s,60s,70s,80s, verses non-protectionist India today?

Protectionist N.Korea, verses Free-Trade S.Korea? Hong Kong, vs Protectionist pre-78 China? Singapore Free-Trade vs Venezuela Protectionism? Jamaica protectionism, vs Barbados free-trade?

What protectionist country would you point to as a successful example? Japan's lost decade and a half?

US 1791-1970'S WAS A HEAVY PROTECTIONIST NATION!

Comparing closed society and claiming them to be protectionists societies? lol

 

[Dad2three]

NO ONES ATTEMPTED TO EVEN TOUCH THE "SWEET SPOT" OF TAXATION? Weird

Following World War II tax increases, top marginal individual tax rates stayed near or above 90%, and the effective tax rate at 70% for the highest incomes (few paid the top rate), until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70%. Kennedy explicitly called for a top rate of 65 percent, but added that it should be set at 70 percent if certain deductions weren't phased out at the top of the income scale


Economists Say We Should Tax The Rich At 90 Percent

All Americans, including the rich, would be better off if top tax rates went back to Eisenhower-era levels when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent, according to a new working paper by Fabian Kindermann from the University of Bonn and Dirk Krueger from the University of Pennsylvania.

The top tax rate that makes all citizens, including the highest 1 percent of earners, the best off is “somewhere between 85 and 90 percent,”


MARGINAL RATE!!

Economists Say We Should Tax The Rich At 90 Percent

 

[Boss]

GOT IT, AS USUAL YOU'LL IGNORE EVERYTHING THAT DEBUNKED YOUR BS PREMISES AND THEN SAY IT'S "ESSENTIALLY" WHAT YOU SAID

FUKK IT IS. YOU SAID THEY COULD MOVE THEIR CORPS AND JOBS OUT OF THE US!!!

No, I didn't ignore anything. We agreed on something and Andylusion disagrees with me. As disheartening as that is to me, I still believe we need to implement heavy tariffs on goods from China and Mexico in order to bring back the manufacturing sector in the US. I don't care that it didn't work in the 20s and 30s, we weren't a consumerist nation like we are today. We depended much more on our exports which are virtually non-existent today.

I also think we need to impose these tariffs on goods produced by US companies abroad, exploiting cheap labor and then exploiting our trade agreements to "import" their goods back into this country where they make a huge profit at the expense of American workers. That shit needs to stop.

It was not ME who said they could move their jobs. I was opposed to NAFTA and WTO. Still... We live in a free and open society where companies have the right to move wherever the hell they want to move... we can't keep them here in the US like Chairman Mao. You want to build a Great Wall to keep them from leaving?

 

[Andylusion]

Repatriation Holiday Would Not Increase Investment or Job Creation

Not talking about a holiday. I said a 10-year moratorium... you got peanut butter in your ears?

Since the businesses did not need the overseas cash to invest domestically,

they brought it home and used it to pay dividends to shareholders, buy back shares, or acquire other businesses.

Again, my moratorium would ONLY apply to wealth brought back and used to create new jobs. Not to buy other businesses, not to buy back shares, not to pay dividends to shareholders.

It's not a matter of them "hurting for capital." It's a matter of incentive.

If it doesn't work, so what? What are we losing? We need jobs... a shit ton of jobs! Not government jobs... not infrastructure jobs... not mythical shovel ready jobs... not $15 hr. burger flipper jobs--- But REAL actual new jobs that pay a decent wage.

Yeah, I'm skeptical as well. It's a nice thought, and I believe there shouldn't be a corporate tax at all.

But how would you even be able to enforce such a system?

The share holders, own the company. They are entitle to a share of the profit, just as much as you are entitled to use your car as you see fit, when you own it.

Moreover, acquiring another businesses is how large companies grow. Massive companies typically don't say "we're going to expand here", and go find a building, and find some guy to run it, and say "go make something".

Typically when Amazon wants to grow their business, they buy out Zappos. That's not a negative. Zappos now has hundreds more employees than they did before, and is larger than they had ever planned to be.

And by the way, this resulted in huge benefits for the shareholders as well. In fact, everyone benefited. And honestly if the shareholders did not benefit from it, then it would not have happened.

So I am skeptical of any theory that says we can put in place some policy that doesn't do X, and Y, and Z, but only creates jobs. That idea is far-fetched in my mind.

 

[Dad2three]

GOT IT, AS USUAL YOU'LL IGNORE EVERYTHING THAT DEBUNKED YOUR BS PREMISES AND THEN SAY IT'S "ESSENTIALLY" WHAT YOU SAID

FUKK IT IS. YOU SAID THEY COULD MOVE THEIR CORPS AND JOBS OUT OF THE US!!!

No, I didn't ignore anything. We agreed on something and Andylusion disagrees with me. As disheartening as that is to me, I still believe we need to implement heavy tariffs on goods from China and Mexico in order to bring back the manufacturing sector in the US. I don't care that it didn't work in the 20s and 30s, we weren't a consumerist nation like we are today. We depended much more on our exports which are virtually non-existent today.

I also think we need to impose these tariffs on goods produced by US companies abroad, exploiting cheap labor and then exploiting our trade agreements to "import" their goods back into this country where they make a huge profit at the expense of American workers. That shit needs to stop.

It was not ME who said they could move their jobs. I was opposed to NAFTA and WTO. Still... We live in a free and open society where companies have the right to move wherever the hell they want to move... we can't keep them here in the US like Chairman Mao. You want to build a Great Wall to keep them from leaving?

Wow your ability to be dishonest just awes me Bubs


Free and open society BUT you want tariffs over taxation? lol


I WANT TO GO BACK WHERE, IF THEY DON'T WANT TO NOT CREATE JOBS IN THE US, YOU TAX THE FUK OUT OF THEM, LIKE THE DEMS PROPOSED ALREADY!!!


US CAN TAX ANY PROFIT THEY WANT YOU KNOW, NO TRADE WAR, JUST TAX POLICY, SIMPLE not the anti Randian stuff YOU are proposing (weirdly) by starting a trade war!!!


I'll note again, WE ARE NOWHERE NEAR THE WRONG SIDE OF THE CURVE OF LAFFERS LAW!

 

[Boss]

Repatriation Holiday Would Not Increase Investment or Job Creation

Not talking about a holiday. I said a 10-year moratorium... you got peanut butter in your ears?

Since the businesses did not need the overseas cash to invest domestically,

they brought it home and used it to pay dividends to shareholders, buy back shares, or acquire other businesses.

Again, my moratorium would ONLY apply to wealth brought back and used to create new jobs. Not to buy other businesses, not to buy back shares, not to pay dividends to shareholders.

It's not a matter of them "hurting for capital." It's a matter of incentive.

If it doesn't work, so what? What are we losing? We need jobs... a shit ton of jobs! Not government jobs... not infrastructure jobs... not mythical shovel ready jobs... not $15 hr. burger flipper jobs--- But REAL actual new jobs that pay a decent wage.

Yeah, ten years is better than the 2 year failure under Dubya/GOP

Don't understand money is fungible huh Bubs? lol

How does the Randian fetishist assume that we can work this "job creator" BS again?

Money is fungible? ...You should avoid big words you don't understand.

Bush's 2-year "tax holiday" was as stupid and short-sighted as his "across the board tax cuts." The problem is, I seem to be getting credited with the policies of Bush who was a moron when it came to Reagan economics... and that goes for all three Bushes.

My idea is completely different because there would be restrictions on the repatriated wealth. It would have to be used to create real jobs. No loopholes or get-arounds, no 'special deals' for crony corporatists.

 

[Dad2three]

Repatriation Holiday Would Not Increase Investment or Job Creation

Not talking about a holiday. I said a 10-year moratorium... you got peanut butter in your ears?

Since the businesses did not need the overseas cash to invest domestically,

they brought it home and used it to pay dividends to shareholders, buy back shares, or acquire other businesses.

Again, my moratorium would ONLY apply to wealth brought back and used to create new jobs. Not to buy other businesses, not to buy back shares, not to pay dividends to shareholders.

It's not a matter of them "hurting for capital." It's a matter of incentive.

If it doesn't work, so what? What are we losing? We need jobs... a shit ton of jobs! Not government jobs... not infrastructure jobs... not mythical shovel ready jobs... not $15 hr. burger flipper jobs--- But REAL actual new jobs that pay a decent wage.

Yeah, I'm skeptical as well. It's a nice thought, and I believe there shouldn't be a corporate tax at all.

But how would you even be able to enforce such a system?

The share holders, own the company. They are entitle to a share of the profit, just as much as you are entitled to use your car as you see fit, when you own it.

Moreover, acquiring another businesses is how large companies grow. Massive companies typically don't say "we're going to expand here", and go find a building, and find some guy to run it, and say "go make something".

Typically when Amazon wants to grow their business, they buy out Zappos. That's not a negative. Zappos now has hundreds more employees than they did before, and is larger than they had ever planned to be.

And by the way, this resulted in huge benefits for the shareholders as well. In fact, everyone benefited. And honestly if the shareholders did not benefit from it, then it would not have happened.

So I am skeptical of any theory that says we can put in place some policy that doesn't do X, and Y, and Z, but only creates jobs. That idea is far-fetched in my mind.

Most gains the past 35 years in Vegas East went to Corp officers (who game the system to push up stock prices to get rewarded and cash out) and the 1/10th of 1% of US who receive over half of ALL dividends/cap gains

Good for Amazon? Oh that comp that has never made a profit or paid a dividend? Hmm Shareholders? Until it pops

 

[Boss]

I WANT TO GO BACK WHERE, IF THEY DON'T WANT TO NOT CREATE JOBS IN THE US, YOU TAX THE FUK OUT OF THEM, LIKE THE DEMS PROPOSED ALREADY!!!

And again, hard head... they leave the country and open their HQ in Belize! You can't tax companies in Belize, only Belize can... and guess what? They LIKE the companies bringing their wealth to Belize, they don't wanna tax them!

 

[Dad2three]

Repatriation Holiday Would Not Increase Investment or Job Creation

Not talking about a holiday. I said a 10-year moratorium... you got peanut butter in your ears?

Since the businesses did not need the overseas cash to invest domestically,

they brought it home and used it to pay dividends to shareholders, buy back shares, or acquire other businesses.

Again, my moratorium would ONLY apply to wealth brought back and used to create new jobs. Not to buy other businesses, not to buy back shares, not to pay dividends to shareholders.

It's not a matter of them "hurting for capital." It's a matter of incentive.

If it doesn't work, so what? What are we losing? We need jobs... a shit ton of jobs! Not government jobs... not infrastructure jobs... not mythical shovel ready jobs... not $15 hr. burger flipper jobs--- But REAL actual new jobs that pay a decent wage.

Yeah, ten years is better than the 2 year failure under Dubya/GOP

Don't understand money is fungible huh Bubs? lol

How does the Randian fetishist assume that we can work this "job creator" BS again?

Money is fungible? ...You should avoid big words you don't understand.

Bush's 2-year "tax holiday" was as stupid and short-sighted as his "across the board tax cuts." The problem is, I seem to be getting credited with the policies of Bush who was a moron when it came to Reagan economics... and that goes for all three Bushes.

My idea is completely different because there would be restrictions on the repatriated wealth. It would have to be used to create real jobs. No loopholes or get-arounds, no 'special deals' for crony corporatists.

Don't understand fungible huh Bubs?

Restrictions? SUCH AS? lol


How do you make Corp A which which has $500 million in the bank in the us, brings in $500 million from offshore,just take the $500 million from the bank and pay div or buy back stock?

Reagan economics? Oh right gut taxes for the richest, increase taxes 11 times on the workers, including a tax that created $3+ trillion the next 30 years to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich (but is now due!)? Average worker paid a higher effective tax rate in 1989 than 1981, AS RONNIE TRIPLED THE DEBT AND GUTTED REVENUES!

 

[Dad2three]

Repatriation Holiday Would Not Increase Investment or Job Creation

Not talking about a holiday. I said a 10-year moratorium... you got peanut butter in your ears?

Since the businesses did not need the overseas cash to invest domestically,

they brought it home and used it to pay dividends to shareholders, buy back shares, or acquire other businesses.

Again, my moratorium would ONLY apply to wealth brought back and used to create new jobs. Not to buy other businesses, not to buy back shares, not to pay dividends to shareholders.

It's not a matter of them "hurting for capital." It's a matter of incentive.

If it doesn't work, so what? What are we losing? We need jobs... a shit ton of jobs! Not government jobs... not infrastructure jobs... not mythical shovel ready jobs... not $15 hr. burger flipper jobs--- But REAL actual new jobs that pay a decent wage.

Yeah, I'm skeptical as well. It's a nice thought, and I believe there shouldn't be a corporate tax at all.

But how would you even be able to enforce such a system?

The share holders, own the company. They are entitle to a share of the profit, just as much as you are entitled to use your car as you see fit, when you own it.

Moreover, acquiring another businesses is how large companies grow. Massive companies typically don't say "we're going to expand here", and go find a building, and find some guy to run it, and say "go make something".

Typically when Amazon wants to grow their business, they buy out Zappos. That's not a negative. Zappos now has hundreds more employees than they did before, and is larger than they had ever planned to be.

And by the way, this resulted in huge benefits for the shareholders as well. In fact, everyone benefited. And honestly if the shareholders did not benefit from it, then it would not have happened.

So I am skeptical of any theory that says we can put in place some policy that doesn't do X, and Y, and Z, but only creates jobs. That idea is far-fetched in my mind.

Why not a Corp tax? Don't they get something for being a Corp? Why ANOTHER break for the "job creators"?