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

[bedowin62]

MOMMY MOMMY I'M A PROGRESSIVE!! How can i be IRRELEVANT??????


hold me!!

 

[bripat9643]

It depends on how it is structured. Now the wealthy get their tax breaks with the 70k page tax code set up purposely to enrich them and the pols.

The typical federal flat tax planned is 10%. The vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes...

Wait ... so you admit that the "vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes." Since you are aware that they are not carrying their weight, why all the silly socialist whining? Under the current system, the top 25% pay 86% of all federal personal income tax. They pay for our military, our highways, our education and health care, our courts and the very gov't that takes what is theirs not only to pay for all that but to pick up the slack for you socialist slackers. So what is your gripe? That they don't pay 96% or 106%?
Socialists are the weeping pimple on society's butt.

HINT: THE BOTTOM HALF OF US MAKE 11% OF ALL INCOME, a
drop from nearly 18% in 1980, pre Reaganomics!

Wrong. That's bullshit.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[Dad2three]

It depends on how it is structured. Now the wealthy get their tax breaks with the 70k page tax code set up purposely to enrich them and the pols.

The typical federal flat tax planned is 10%. The vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes...

Wait ... so you admit that the "vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes." Since you are aware that they are not carrying their weight, why all the silly socialist whining? Under the current system, the top 25% pay 86% of all federal personal income tax. They pay for our military, our highways, our education and health care, our courts and the very gov't that takes what is theirs not only to pay for all that but to pick up the slack for you socialist slackers. So what is your gripe? That they don't pay 96% or 106%?
Socialists are the weeping pimple on society's butt.

HINT: THE BOTTOM HALF OF US MAKE 11% OF ALL INCOME, a
drop from nearly 18% in 1980, pre Reaganomics!

Wrong. That's bullshit.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

INCOME SHARE BY GROUP:


Bottom 50% 2012 (latest year avail)
11.1%


Bottom 50% 1980 (Pre Reaganomics)
17.68%


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data


GO AWAY NOW BUBS

 

[Dad2three]

It depends on how it is structured. Now the wealthy get their tax breaks with the 70k page tax code set up purposely to enrich them and the pols.

The typical federal flat tax planned is 10%. The vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes...

Wait ... so you admit that the "vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes." Since you are aware that they are not carrying their weight, why all the silly socialist whining? Under the current system, the top 25% pay 86% of all federal personal income tax. They pay for our military, our highways, our education and health care, our courts and the very gov't that takes what is theirs not only to pay for all that but to pick up the slack for you socialist slackers. So what is your gripe? That they don't pay 96% or 106%?
Socialists are the weeping pimple on society's butt.

HINT: THE BOTTOM HALF OF US MAKE 11% OF ALL INCOME, a
drop from nearly 18% in 1980, pre Reaganomics!

Wrong. That's bullshit.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

I'll wait for your apology since I gave you the link to the "Anti" Tax Foundation proving my posit Bubs

 

[SAYIT]

It depends on how it is structured. Now the wealthy get their tax breaks with the 70k page tax code set up purposely to enrich them and the pols.

The typical federal flat tax planned is 10%. The vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes...

Wait ... so you admit that the "vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes." Since you are aware that they are not carrying their weight, why all the silly socialist whining? Under the current system, the top 25% pay 86% of all federal personal income tax. They pay for our military, our highways, our education and health care, our courts and the very gov't that takes what is theirs not only to pay for all that but to pick up the slack for you socialist slackers. So what is your gripe? That they don't pay 96% or 106%?
Socialists are the weeping pimple on society's butt.

HINT: THE BOTTOM HALF OF US MAKE 11% OF ALL INCOME...

And as a reward for their lack of financial success they pay NO Federal Personal Income Tax. They enjoy the same (or better) benefits and protections - despite the baseless claims of those who believe America's wealthiest are recipients of "90%" of federal spending - than any other segment of our population.

 

[SAYIT]

Once more for the terminally dense: the bottom 49% of American earners pay NOTHING while the top 25% carry 86% of the load. If you can't accept that as good enough you will have to move to a country where everyone is equally poor. We don't do that here.

The bottom 49% don't have enough income to pay more.

I'm not sure how you determined that (you forgot to include a link) and it's not the point being discussed but merely a lame diversion by you. I only mention the lack of monetary contribution to the common good by the bottom 49% as a comparative. The point is every loony lefty (like you, for instance) whines about the unfairness of our tax structure, though you aren't whining about the 86% burden on our top 25% but rather the 0% paid by the bottom 49%.
If 86% doesn't satisfy you, what share of the load would?
96%?
106%
How much less than 0% should the bottom half pay?

 

[rightwinger]

What major accomplishment has this country had since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich?

reagan couldnt do jackshit if his 8-year Dem-majority House didnt want him to leftard;

remember you are the idiots saying the Repub MINORITY IN BOTH chambers "obstructed" obama from "day One"

We are talking thirty years since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich. Before that the U.S. Built the worlds largest military, interstate highway system and put a man on the moon
Since supply side we have no major accomplishments as a nation

Since Reagan
1. Our industry has want to China
2. Our middle class has become far smaller
3. We have want from one of the best education systems to 14th in the world.
4. Student debt is through the roof!
5. The rich are making record profit...Still they offshore jobs and go through the loop holes.
6. Our infrastructure has gone to shit...
7. Science is being cut and China is catching up to us.

The republican plan sucks ass.

Very true

Since Reagan, debt has moved to the middle class and we have accomplished nothing

 

[rightwinger]

MOMMY MOMMY!!!

MEAN OL Republicans made me fail; even the dead ones are still making me fail?

is it my failed Progressive ideology Mom???

Mean old republicans really fucked up this country

 

[Dad2three]

Once more for the terminally dense: the bottom 49% of American earners pay NOTHING while the top 25% carry 86% of the load. If you can't accept that as good enough you will have to move to a country where everyone is equally poor. We don't do that here.

The bottom 49% don't have enough income to pay more.

I'm not sure how you determined that (you forgot to include a link) and it's not the point being discussed but merely a lame diversion by you. I only mention the lack of monetary contribution to the common good by the bottom 49% as a comparative. The point is every loony lefty (like you, for instance) whines about the unfairness of our tax structure, though you aren't whining about the 86% burden on our top 25% but rather the 0% paid by the bottom 49%.
If 86% doesn't satisfy you, what share of the load would?
96%?
106%
How much less than 0% should the bottom half pay?

Household Income Percentile
(2007 CBO data)


Bottom 0–19% Tax Rate incl. All Federal Taxes 4.% (effective tax rate)


Share of Earnings 4%



Bottom 20–39% Tax Rate incl. All Federal Taxes 10.6% (effective tax rate)

Share of earnings 8.4%


The Tax Foundation produced a similar breakdown for 1991 to 2004. Its computation of comprehensive household income consisted of both market-based income and the net value of government transfer payments, the latter are not part of the CBO's definition. In this report the top quintile earned 41.5% and paid 48.8% of total taxes. The fourth quintile earned 21.0% and paid 22.4%. The third quintile earned 15.4% and paid 14.8%. The second quintile earned 12.2% and paid 9.6%. The lowest quintile earned 9.8% and paid 4.3% of total taxes

Progressivity in United States income tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I'LL ACKNOWLEDGE YOU KEEP IGNORING THIS BUBBA:



Soaking the Poor, State by State

That includes overall tax rates, where data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy shows that in the median state (Mississippi, as it turns out) the poorest 20 percent pay twice the tax rate of the top 1 percent. In the worst states, the poorest 20 percent pay five to six times the rate of the richest 1 percent. Lucky duckies indeed. There's not one single state with a tax system that's progressive

Soaking the Poor, State by State

 

[Dad2three]

It depends on how it is structured. Now the wealthy get their tax breaks with the 70k page tax code set up purposely to enrich them and the pols.

The typical federal flat tax planned is 10%. The vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes...

Wait ... so you admit that the "vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes." Since you are aware that they are not carrying their weight, why all the silly socialist whining? Under the current system, the top 25% pay 86% of all federal personal income tax. They pay for our military, our highways, our education and health care, our courts and the very gov't that takes what is theirs not only to pay for all that but to pick up the slack for you socialist slackers. So what is your gripe? That they don't pay 96% or 106%?
Socialists are the weeping pimple on society's butt.

HINT: THE BOTTOM HALF OF US MAKE 11% OF ALL INCOME...

And as a reward for their lack of financial success they pay NO Federal Personal Income Tax. They enjoy the same (or better) benefits and protections - despite the baseless claims of those who believe America's wealthiest are recipients of "90%" of federal spending - than any other segment of our population.

Sure since federal INCOME taxes are less than half of ALL revenues and they pay other taxes, like the SS/Medicare taxes that GOP/Conservative policy stole the last 30 years to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!!!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What major accomplishment has this country had since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich?

reagan couldnt do jackshit if his 8-year Dem-majority House didnt want him to leftard;

remember you are the idiots saying the Repub MINORITY IN BOTH chambers "obstructed" obama from "day One"

We are talking thirty years since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich. Before that the U.S. Built the worlds largest military, interstate highway system and put a man on the moon
Since supply side we have no major accomplishments as a nation

Since Reagan
1. Our industry has want to China
2. Our middle class has become far smaller
3. We have want from one of the best education systems to 14th in the world.
4. Student debt is through the roof!
5. The rich are making record profit...Still they offshore jobs and go through the loop holes.
6. Our infrastructure has gone to shit...
7. Science is being cut and China is catching up to us.

The republican plan sucks ass.

Of course, since Reagan we've had 8 years of Clinton (D) and 7 years of Obama (D) but don't let facts interfere with your mindless hate, Bubba..

Yes, but neither get get the GOP to agree to get rid of ALL of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich! Since the EFFECTIVE rates for the top 1/10th of 1% 1% is about 1/3rd of what it was 1932-1980. You know the underpinning of "supply side" Give the "job creators" tax cuts and it trickles down? lol

So where is your proof that it didn't trickle down? You think jobs moving overseas is bad now, what do you suppose it would be like if we increased taxes back to pre-Reagan years?

 

[Agit8r]

"legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind... to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."
-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to James Madison (Oct. 28, 1785)

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What major accomplishment has this country had since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich?

reagan couldnt do jackshit if his 8-year Dem-majority House didnt want him to leftard;

remember you are the idiots saying the Repub MINORITY IN BOTH chambers "obstructed" obama from "day One"

We are talking thirty years since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich. Before that the U.S. Built the worlds largest military, interstate highway system and put a man on the moon
Since supply side we have no major accomplishments as a nation

Since Reagan
1. Our industry has want to China
2. Our middle class has become far smaller
3. We have want from one of the best education systems to 14th in the world.
4. Student debt is through the roof!
5. The rich are making record profit...Still they offshore jobs and go through the loop holes.
6. Our infrastructure has gone to shit...
7. Science is being cut and China is catching up to us.

The republican plan sucks ass.

Our industry has went to China. Who's fault is that?

Our middle-class has become smaller. Median family wages has dropped under Obama.

We went from one of the best education systems? When was that?

Student debt is through the roof. Could it be because supply and demand dictates the cost of college and always has? You know, those colleges mostly run by liberals?

The rich are making record profits. What's wrong with that? If they made less profit, how would that help you?

Our infrastructure has gone to ship. Who's fault is that? Do you suppose it has anything to do with union costs to repair and rebuild roads and bridges?

 

[Dad2three]

reagan couldnt do jackshit if his 8-year Dem-majority House didnt want him to leftard;

remember you are the idiots saying the Repub MINORITY IN BOTH chambers "obstructed" obama from "day One"

We are talking thirty years since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich. Before that the U.S. Built the worlds largest military, interstate highway system and put a man on the moon
Since supply side we have no major accomplishments as a nation

Since Reagan
1. Our industry has want to China
2. Our middle class has become far smaller
3. We have want from one of the best education systems to 14th in the world.
4. Student debt is through the roof!
5. The rich are making record profit...Still they offshore jobs and go through the loop holes.
6. Our infrastructure has gone to shit...
7. Science is being cut and China is catching up to us.

The republican plan sucks ass.

Of course, since Reagan we've had 8 years of Clinton (D) and 7 years of Obama (D) but don't let facts interfere with your mindless hate, Bubba..

Yes, but neither get get the GOP to agree to get rid of ALL of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich! Since the EFFECTIVE rates for the top 1/10th of 1% 1% is about 1/3rd of what it was 1932-1980. You know the underpinning of "supply side" Give the "job creators" tax cuts and it trickles down? lol

So where is your proof that it didn't trickle down? You think jobs moving overseas is bad now, what do you suppose it would be like if we increased taxes back to pre-Reagan years?

REALLY? You mean GOOD GOV'T POLICY wouldn't stop that? Having tax policy that punishes off shoring jobs but rewards creating US jobs?

Seems LOTS of jobs off shored even though tax rates on the top 1/10th of 1% "make" over half of capital gains/dividends WHILE their effective tax rate has been cut by 2/3rds!!!!


WHAT DOES TAX POLICY MATTER ON OFF SHORING JOBS ANYWAYS? RECORD CORP PROFITS, LOWEST LABOR COSTS EVER RECORDED IN THE US AND LOWEST CORP TAX BURDEN IN 40+ YEARS, WHERE ARE THOSE "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS" GOP/DUBYA PROMISED?



Jul 30, 2014 - Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would end tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas
Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing

 

[Dad2three]

What major accomplishment has this country had since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich?

reagan couldnt do jackshit if his 8-year Dem-majority House didnt want him to leftard;

remember you are the idiots saying the Repub MINORITY IN BOTH chambers "obstructed" obama from "day One"

We are talking thirty years since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich. Before that the U.S. Built the worlds largest military, interstate highway system and put a man on the moon
Since supply side we have no major accomplishments as a nation

Since Reagan
1. Our industry has want to China
2. Our middle class has become far smaller
3. We have want from one of the best education systems to 14th in the world.
4. Student debt is through the roof!
5. The rich are making record profit...Still they offshore jobs and go through the loop holes.
6. Our infrastructure has gone to shit...
7. Science is being cut and China is catching up to us.

The republican plan sucks ass.

Our industry has went to China. Who's fault is that?

Our middle-class has become smaller. Median family wages has dropped under Obama.

We went from one of the best education systems? When was that?

Student debt is through the roof. Could it be because supply and demand dictates the cost of college and always has? You know, those colleges mostly run by liberals?

The rich are making record profits. What's wrong with that? If they made less profit, how would that help you?

Our infrastructure has gone to ship. Who's fault is that? Do you suppose it has anything to do with union costs to repair and rebuild roads and bridges?

WOW, you hit quite a few talking points. Perhaps get off hate talk radio/Faux "News" and educate yourself SOME?


ONE policy the past 40 years conservatives have been on the correct side of us history? 100 years? 200 years?


Middle Class Series: The Failure of Supply-Side Economics


Three Decades of Empirical Economic Data Shows That Supply-Side Economics Doesn’t Work\

When President Bill Clinton,raised taxes that same year did the economy suffer a slowdown, as was predicted by those who believe in supply-side economics? The data says no.


Investment growth was weaker under supply-side policies

Productivity growth was weaker under supply-side policies

Overall economic growth was weaker under supply-side policies

Employment growth was weaker under supply-side policies

Income growth for middle-class households was lackluster under supply-side policies

Hourly earnings were flat or declined under supply-side policies

Our nation’s fiscal health deteriorated under supply-side policies

Some of the more dedicated supply-side devotees go so far as to argue that tax cuts for the rich will result in so much additional economic activity that they will actually increase government revenues, thereby “paying for themselves,” and have no negative impact on the bottom line. This assertion, as with the others, is not supported in the data. Not only did government revenues fall during the supply-side era, but the bottom line deteriorated noticeably, too. Publicly held debt rose during both supply-side eras, and fell substantially during the higher-tax period.

Conclusion


Did the supply side policies of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush work? Did they boost investment, spur growth, and cause prosperity to trickle down? The data says no. And when President Clinton raised taxes in 1993, did the economy suffer a slowdown, as was predicted by those who believe in supply-side economics? Again, the data says no.



The Failure of Supply-Side Economics

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We are talking thirty years since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich. Before that the U.S. Built the worlds largest military, interstate highway system and put a man on the moon
Since supply side we have no major accomplishments as a nation

Since Reagan
1. Our industry has want to China
2. Our middle class has become far smaller
3. We have want from one of the best education systems to 14th in the world.
4. Student debt is through the roof!
5. The rich are making record profit...Still they offshore jobs and go through the loop holes.
6. Our infrastructure has gone to shit...
7. Science is being cut and China is catching up to us.

The republican plan sucks ass.

Of course, since Reagan we've had 8 years of Clinton (D) and 7 years of Obama (D) but don't let facts interfere with your mindless hate, Bubba..

Yes, but neither get get the GOP to agree to get rid of ALL of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich! Since the EFFECTIVE rates for the top 1/10th of 1% 1% is about 1/3rd of what it was 1932-1980. You know the underpinning of "supply side" Give the "job creators" tax cuts and it trickles down? lol

So where is your proof that it didn't trickle down? You think jobs moving overseas is bad now, what do you suppose it would be like if we increased taxes back to pre-Reagan years?

REALLY? You mean GOOD GOV'T POLICY wouldn't stop that? Having tax policy that punishes off shoring jobs but rewards creating US jobs?

Seems LOTS of jobs off shored even though tax rates on the top 1/10th of 1% "make" over half of capital gains/dividends WHILE their effective tax rate has been cut by 1/3rd!!!!


WHAT DOES TAX POLICY MATTER ON OFF SHORING JOBS ANYWAYS? RECORD CORP PROFITS, LOWEST LABOR COSTS EVER RECORDED IN THE US AND LOWEST CORP TAX BURDEN IN 40+ YEARS, WHERE ARE THOSE "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS" GOP/DUBYA PROMISED?



Jul 30, 2014 - Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would end tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas
Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing

FULL QUESTION:

When Democratic presidential candidates talk about tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas and tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies, what are they referring to and are they accurate?

FULL ANSWER:

It’s true that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have associated the transfer of U.S. jobs overseas with tax breaks, or loopholes, for companies that practice off-shoring:

Obama, Nov. 3, 2007: When I am president, I will end the tax giveaways to companies that ship our jobs overseas, and I will put the money in the pockets of working Americans, and seniors, and homeowners who deserve a break.

Clinton, Nov. 19, 2007: And we are going to finally close the tax loopholes and stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. Enough with outsourcing American jobs using taxpayer dollars.

Both candidates are referring to a feature of the U.S. tax code that allows domestic companies to defer taxes on “unrepatriated income.” In other words, revenue that companies earn through their overseas subsidiaries goes untaxed by the IRS as long as it stays off the company’s U.S. books.

But economists, including left-leaning ones, do not agree that eliminating this provision will bring an end to off-shoring. And here’s why: In the U.S., companies are taxed 35 percent on earnings of $10 million to $15 million or on all earnings over $18.3 million. That’s one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, making an overseas move somewhat attractive to companies that wish to avoid the U.S. tax rate. But that’s not the leading reason companies send jobs overseas. According to a 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office, global technological advancement, increased openness of countries such as China and India, the higher education level of foreign workers in technological fields, and the reduced cost per foreign worker are all contributing factors to off-shoring.

We first addressed this popular theme in 2004, when we reported on a John Kerry campaign ad in which he blamed President George W. Bush for providing tax incentives to companies “outsourcing” jobs overseas. At the time we found that such tax breaks, which do exist, pre-dated the Bush administration and that even Democratic-leaning economists did not support the idea that changing the corporate tax code would end the movement of jobs overseas.

Three years later, in Dec. 2007, we reported on an ad launched by a labor group in support of John Edwards. The ad implied that corporate tax breaks were responsible for the shipment of jobs overseas from an Iowa Maytag plant. We found that the jobs were actually sent to Ohio and that, again, eliminating such tax breaks would not go far in stanching the flow of jobs overseas.

Oil and Gas Company Tax Breaks

 

[Dad2three]

Since Reagan
1. Our industry has want to China
2. Our middle class has become far smaller
3. We have want from one of the best education systems to 14th in the world.
4. Student debt is through the roof!
5. The rich are making record profit...Still they offshore jobs and go through the loop holes.
6. Our infrastructure has gone to shit...
7. Science is being cut and China is catching up to us.

The republican plan sucks ass.

Of course, since Reagan we've had 8 years of Clinton (D) and 7 years of Obama (D) but don't let facts interfere with your mindless hate, Bubba..

Yes, but neither get get the GOP to agree to get rid of ALL of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich! Since the EFFECTIVE rates for the top 1/10th of 1% 1% is about 1/3rd of what it was 1932-1980. You know the underpinning of "supply side" Give the "job creators" tax cuts and it trickles down? lol

So where is your proof that it didn't trickle down? You think jobs moving overseas is bad now, what do you suppose it would be like if we increased taxes back to pre-Reagan years?

REALLY? You mean GOOD GOV'T POLICY wouldn't stop that? Having tax policy that punishes off shoring jobs but rewards creating US jobs?

Seems LOTS of jobs off shored even though tax rates on the top 1/10th of 1% "make" over half of capital gains/dividends WHILE their effective tax rate has been cut by 1/3rd!!!!


WHAT DOES TAX POLICY MATTER ON OFF SHORING JOBS ANYWAYS? RECORD CORP PROFITS, LOWEST LABOR COSTS EVER RECORDED IN THE US AND LOWEST CORP TAX BURDEN IN 40+ YEARS, WHERE ARE THOSE "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS" GOP/DUBYA PROMISED?



Jul 30, 2014 - Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would end tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas
Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing

FULL QUESTION:

When Democratic presidential candidates talk about tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas and tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies, what are they referring to and are they accurate?

FULL ANSWER:

It’s true that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have associated the transfer of U.S. jobs overseas with tax breaks, or loopholes, for companies that practice off-shoring:

Obama, Nov. 3, 2007: When I am president, I will end the tax giveaways to companies that ship our jobs overseas, and I will put the money in the pockets of working Americans, and seniors, and homeowners who deserve a break.

Clinton, Nov. 19, 2007: And we are going to finally close the tax loopholes and stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. Enough with outsourcing American jobs using taxpayer dollars.

Both candidates are referring to a feature of the U.S. tax code that allows domestic companies to defer taxes on “unrepatriated income.” In other words, revenue that companies earn through their overseas subsidiaries goes untaxed by the IRS as long as it stays off the company’s U.S. books.

But economists, including left-leaning ones, do not agree that eliminating this provision will bring an end to off-shoring. And here’s why: In the U.S., companies are taxed 35 percent on earnings of $10 million to $15 million or on all earnings over $18.3 million. That’s one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, making an overseas move somewhat attractive to companies that wish to avoid the U.S. tax rate. But that’s not the leading reason companies send jobs overseas. According to a 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office, global technological advancement, increased openness of countries such as China and India, the higher education level of foreign workers in technological fields, and the reduced cost per foreign worker are all contributing factors to off-shoring.

We first addressed this popular theme in 2004, when we reported on a John Kerry campaign ad in which he blamed President George W. Bush for providing tax incentives to companies “outsourcing” jobs overseas. At the time we found that such tax breaks, which do exist, pre-dated the Bush administration and that even Democratic-leaning economists did not support the idea that changing the corporate tax code would end the movement of jobs overseas.

Three years later, in Dec. 2007, we reported on an ad launched by a labor group in support of John Edwards. The ad implied that corporate tax breaks were responsible for the shipment of jobs overseas from an Iowa Maytag plant. We found that the jobs were actually sent to Ohio and that, again, eliminating such tax breaks would not go far in stanching the flow of jobs overseas.

Oil and Gas Company Tax Breaks

OIL AND GAS ARE THE ONLY INDUSTRIES THAT "OFF SHORE" JOBS? LOL

THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT, WHY ARE WE GIVING TAX BREAKS TO AN INDUSTRY WITH RECORD PROFITS. You think they need it?

 

[Dad2three]

Since Reagan
1. Our industry has want to China
2. Our middle class has become far smaller
3. We have want from one of the best education systems to 14th in the world.
4. Student debt is through the roof!
5. The rich are making record profit...Still they offshore jobs and go through the loop holes.
6. Our infrastructure has gone to shit...
7. Science is being cut and China is catching up to us.

The republican plan sucks ass.

Of course, since Reagan we've had 8 years of Clinton (D) and 7 years of Obama (D) but don't let facts interfere with your mindless hate, Bubba..

Yes, but neither get get the GOP to agree to get rid of ALL of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich! Since the EFFECTIVE rates for the top 1/10th of 1% 1% is about 1/3rd of what it was 1932-1980. You know the underpinning of "supply side" Give the "job creators" tax cuts and it trickles down? lol

So where is your proof that it didn't trickle down? You think jobs moving overseas is bad now, what do you suppose it would be like if we increased taxes back to pre-Reagan years?

REALLY? You mean GOOD GOV'T POLICY wouldn't stop that? Having tax policy that punishes off shoring jobs but rewards creating US jobs?

Seems LOTS of jobs off shored even though tax rates on the top 1/10th of 1% "make" over half of capital gains/dividends WHILE their effective tax rate has been cut by 1/3rd!!!!


WHAT DOES TAX POLICY MATTER ON OFF SHORING JOBS ANYWAYS? RECORD CORP PROFITS, LOWEST LABOR COSTS EVER RECORDED IN THE US AND LOWEST CORP TAX BURDEN IN 40+ YEARS, WHERE ARE THOSE "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS" GOP/DUBYA PROMISED?



Jul 30, 2014 - Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would end tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas
Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing

FULL QUESTION:

When Democratic presidential candidates talk about tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas and tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies, what are they referring to and are they accurate?

FULL ANSWER:

It’s true that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have associated the transfer of U.S. jobs overseas with tax breaks, or loopholes, for companies that practice off-shoring:

Obama, Nov. 3, 2007: When I am president, I will end the tax giveaways to companies that ship our jobs overseas, and I will put the money in the pockets of working Americans, and seniors, and homeowners who deserve a break.

Clinton, Nov. 19, 2007: And we are going to finally close the tax loopholes and stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. Enough with outsourcing American jobs using taxpayer dollars.

Both candidates are referring to a feature of the U.S. tax code that allows domestic companies to defer taxes on “unrepatriated income.” In other words, revenue that companies earn through their overseas subsidiaries goes untaxed by the IRS as long as it stays off the company’s U.S. books.

But economists, including left-leaning ones, do not agree that eliminating this provision will bring an end to off-shoring. And here’s why: In the U.S., companies are taxed 35 percent on earnings of $10 million to $15 million or on all earnings over $18.3 million. That’s one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, making an overseas move somewhat attractive to companies that wish to avoid the U.S. tax rate. But that’s not the leading reason companies send jobs overseas. According to a 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office, global technological advancement, increased openness of countries such as China and India, the higher education level of foreign workers in technological fields, and the reduced cost per foreign worker are all contributing factors to off-shoring.

We first addressed this popular theme in 2004, when we reported on a John Kerry campaign ad in which he blamed President George W. Bush for providing tax incentives to companies “outsourcing” jobs overseas. At the time we found that such tax breaks, which do exist, pre-dated the Bush administration and that even Democratic-leaning economists did not support the idea that changing the corporate tax code would end the movement of jobs overseas.

Three years later, in Dec. 2007, we reported on an ad launched by a labor group in support of John Edwards. The ad implied that corporate tax breaks were responsible for the shipment of jobs overseas from an Iowa Maytag plant. We found that the jobs were actually sent to Ohio and that, again, eliminating such tax breaks would not go far in stanching the flow of jobs overseas.

Oil and Gas Company Tax Breaks

Sens. John Walsh (D-Mont.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) introduced the bill, which would give companies incentives to bring jobs back to the United States, including a tax write-off for the relocating costs and an additional 20 percent credit.

Currently, U.S. companies can deduct from their corporate taxes some expenses of moving facilities overseas. Democrats said 2.4 million jobs have been outsourced in the past 10 years.

“It is wrong that American workers subsidize a corporate decision to pack up American jobs and ship them overseas,” Walsh said Wednesday. “That’s bologna.”


Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Of course, since Reagan we've had 8 years of Clinton (D) and 7 years of Obama (D) but don't let facts interfere with your mindless hate, Bubba..

Yes, but neither get get the GOP to agree to get rid of ALL of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich! Since the EFFECTIVE rates for the top 1/10th of 1% 1% is about 1/3rd of what it was 1932-1980. You know the underpinning of "supply side" Give the "job creators" tax cuts and it trickles down? lol

So where is your proof that it didn't trickle down? You think jobs moving overseas is bad now, what do you suppose it would be like if we increased taxes back to pre-Reagan years?

REALLY? You mean GOOD GOV'T POLICY wouldn't stop that? Having tax policy that punishes off shoring jobs but rewards creating US jobs?

Seems LOTS of jobs off shored even though tax rates on the top 1/10th of 1% "make" over half of capital gains/dividends WHILE their effective tax rate has been cut by 1/3rd!!!!


WHAT DOES TAX POLICY MATTER ON OFF SHORING JOBS ANYWAYS? RECORD CORP PROFITS, LOWEST LABOR COSTS EVER RECORDED IN THE US AND LOWEST CORP TAX BURDEN IN 40+ YEARS, WHERE ARE THOSE "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS" GOP/DUBYA PROMISED?



Jul 30, 2014 - Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would end tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas
Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing

FULL QUESTION:

When Democratic presidential candidates talk about tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas and tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies, what are they referring to and are they accurate?

FULL ANSWER:

It’s true that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have associated the transfer of U.S. jobs overseas with tax breaks, or loopholes, for companies that practice off-shoring:

Obama, Nov. 3, 2007: When I am president, I will end the tax giveaways to companies that ship our jobs overseas, and I will put the money in the pockets of working Americans, and seniors, and homeowners who deserve a break.

Clinton, Nov. 19, 2007: And we are going to finally close the tax loopholes and stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. Enough with outsourcing American jobs using taxpayer dollars.

Both candidates are referring to a feature of the U.S. tax code that allows domestic companies to defer taxes on “unrepatriated income.” In other words, revenue that companies earn through their overseas subsidiaries goes untaxed by the IRS as long as it stays off the company’s U.S. books.

But economists, including left-leaning ones, do not agree that eliminating this provision will bring an end to off-shoring. And here’s why: In the U.S., companies are taxed 35 percent on earnings of $10 million to $15 million or on all earnings over $18.3 million. That’s one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, making an overseas move somewhat attractive to companies that wish to avoid the U.S. tax rate. But that’s not the leading reason companies send jobs overseas. According to a 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office, global technological advancement, increased openness of countries such as China and India, the higher education level of foreign workers in technological fields, and the reduced cost per foreign worker are all contributing factors to off-shoring.

We first addressed this popular theme in 2004, when we reported on a John Kerry campaign ad in which he blamed President George W. Bush for providing tax incentives to companies “outsourcing” jobs overseas. At the time we found that such tax breaks, which do exist, pre-dated the Bush administration and that even Democratic-leaning economists did not support the idea that changing the corporate tax code would end the movement of jobs overseas.

Three years later, in Dec. 2007, we reported on an ad launched by a labor group in support of John Edwards. The ad implied that corporate tax breaks were responsible for the shipment of jobs overseas from an Iowa Maytag plant. We found that the jobs were actually sent to Ohio and that, again, eliminating such tax breaks would not go far in stanching the flow of jobs overseas.

Oil and Gas Company Tax Breaks

OIL AND GAS ARE THE ONLY INDUSTRIES THAT "OFF SHORE" JOBS? LOL

THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT, WHY ARE WE GIVING TAX BREAKS TO AN INDUSTRY WITH RECORD PROFITS. You think they need it?

You missed the point entirely.

Tax breaks, tax incentives, rich getting richer are all BS excuses for why there are less jobs in this country. We've out-priced ourselves in labor many years ago thanks to unions.

As this report points out, it has nothing to do with taxes with the exception that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. It has to do with labor costs, education, and consumer demand.

US companies don't offshore because it's a trend, they offshore because they need to supply American consumers with cheap products. Those who didn't offshore invested in technology such as automation. There are even McDonald's restaurants that are now experimenting with employee-less outlets. Machines will now make your Big Mac combo.

You can't blame this on Reagan, Republicans or any single entity. This has been in the making for a long time now, and now that it's here, we are looking for excuses why it is.

You want to take away tax breaks from oil companies, then don't complain when gasoline increases 20 cents per gallon more, because industry always finds a way to make up for their losses.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Of course, since Reagan we've had 8 years of Clinton (D) and 7 years of Obama (D) but don't let facts interfere with your mindless hate, Bubba..

Yes, but neither get get the GOP to agree to get rid of ALL of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich! Since the EFFECTIVE rates for the top 1/10th of 1% 1% is about 1/3rd of what it was 1932-1980. You know the underpinning of "supply side" Give the "job creators" tax cuts and it trickles down? lol

So where is your proof that it didn't trickle down? You think jobs moving overseas is bad now, what do you suppose it would be like if we increased taxes back to pre-Reagan years?

REALLY? You mean GOOD GOV'T POLICY wouldn't stop that? Having tax policy that punishes off shoring jobs but rewards creating US jobs?

Seems LOTS of jobs off shored even though tax rates on the top 1/10th of 1% "make" over half of capital gains/dividends WHILE their effective tax rate has been cut by 1/3rd!!!!


WHAT DOES TAX POLICY MATTER ON OFF SHORING JOBS ANYWAYS? RECORD CORP PROFITS, LOWEST LABOR COSTS EVER RECORDED IN THE US AND LOWEST CORP TAX BURDEN IN 40+ YEARS, WHERE ARE THOSE "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS" GOP/DUBYA PROMISED?



Jul 30, 2014 - Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would end tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas
Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing

FULL QUESTION:

When Democratic presidential candidates talk about tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas and tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies, what are they referring to and are they accurate?

FULL ANSWER:

It’s true that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have associated the transfer of U.S. jobs overseas with tax breaks, or loopholes, for companies that practice off-shoring:

Obama, Nov. 3, 2007: When I am president, I will end the tax giveaways to companies that ship our jobs overseas, and I will put the money in the pockets of working Americans, and seniors, and homeowners who deserve a break.

Clinton, Nov. 19, 2007: And we are going to finally close the tax loopholes and stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. Enough with outsourcing American jobs using taxpayer dollars.

Both candidates are referring to a feature of the U.S. tax code that allows domestic companies to defer taxes on “unrepatriated income.” In other words, revenue that companies earn through their overseas subsidiaries goes untaxed by the IRS as long as it stays off the company’s U.S. books.

But economists, including left-leaning ones, do not agree that eliminating this provision will bring an end to off-shoring. And here’s why: In the U.S., companies are taxed 35 percent on earnings of $10 million to $15 million or on all earnings over $18.3 million. That’s one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, making an overseas move somewhat attractive to companies that wish to avoid the U.S. tax rate. But that’s not the leading reason companies send jobs overseas. According to a 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office, global technological advancement, increased openness of countries such as China and India, the higher education level of foreign workers in technological fields, and the reduced cost per foreign worker are all contributing factors to off-shoring.

We first addressed this popular theme in 2004, when we reported on a John Kerry campaign ad in which he blamed President George W. Bush for providing tax incentives to companies “outsourcing” jobs overseas. At the time we found that such tax breaks, which do exist, pre-dated the Bush administration and that even Democratic-leaning economists did not support the idea that changing the corporate tax code would end the movement of jobs overseas.

Three years later, in Dec. 2007, we reported on an ad launched by a labor group in support of John Edwards. The ad implied that corporate tax breaks were responsible for the shipment of jobs overseas from an Iowa Maytag plant. We found that the jobs were actually sent to Ohio and that, again, eliminating such tax breaks would not go far in stanching the flow of jobs overseas.

Oil and Gas Company Tax Breaks

Sens. John Walsh (D-Mont.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) introduced the bill, which would give companies incentives to bring jobs back to the United States, including a tax write-off for the relocating costs and an additional 20 percent credit.

Currently, U.S. companies can deduct from their corporate taxes some expenses of moving facilities overseas. Democrats said 2.4 million jobs have been outsourced in the past 10 years.

“It is wrong that American workers subsidize a corporate decision to pack up American jobs and ship them overseas,” Walsh said Wednesday. “That’s bologna.”


Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing

And as this Fact Check report points out, eliminating those tax breaks won't keep one American job here. It's all a dog and pony show by the Democrats. Do you really think that a couple of thousand dollars in tax breaks is going to play a part in a major decision such as moving your operations overseas?

The Democrats are trying to tell you that peeing on a three alarm house fire will put the fire out. Moving expenses may be costly, but not nearly as costly as keeping up with new US regulations, OSHA regulations, environmental regulations, healthcare regulations, taxation and so on. Write-offs are nothing more than not paying taxes on the money you spent on expenditures, and it's not all that much.