Your Signature Needed To Prevent Major Corporate Tax Dodge:

[MikeK]

Sorry a nap attack took over.

Yes, they're moving because it is cheaper to operate out of Ireland than the USA. It's basically why taxing the rich/businesses "more" doesn't work and isn't sustainable. The more you crank up the taxes the less incentive they have to stay. The US must compete with the global market for not only corporate/business taxes, but also labor and production costs. There is no way around it.

That is the corporatist snow-job disseminated by right-wing propagandists like Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al -- and it is nonsense! The U.S. is by far the most powerful economic force in the world but we have allowed our own corrupt politicians to falsely assume a position of shameful timidity. The U.S. is the most lucrative marketplace in the world. We don't need to compete with the global market because we are the world's consumer powerhouse! We make the rules because we are in a position to . The problem is we've allowed bastard politicians like Bill Clinton to convince us otherwise.

We need to start replacing the regulations eliminated by corrupt bastards like Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and others.

 

[MikeK]

You lost me there. The Bush tax cut reduced the tax rates on the working class and the Democrats are dying to raise it back up. After all, that is where the real money is. The higher income rate is already 39% or more.

Bush's tax reduction was surreptitiously accompanied by wage stagnation and wage reductions the collective effect of which far exceeded any deceptive reduction in taxes. We were given pennies but it cost us dollars.

While the Democrats will indeed impose a nominal progressive tax increase we are also determined to end wage stagnation and bring about substantial increases in middle class incomes. This the the part the right-wing propagandists aren't telling you.

 

[MikeK]

Because they can and so they don't get taxed to death.

"Taxed to death?"

Have you any idea how much these corporate executives are taking home in bonuses while they are crying poverty? They have managed, with the aid of lobbyists and bribes, to effect a scheme in which they pay no taxes at all. And the American People have been so effectively brainwashed as to be supportive of their scheme.

You are seeing evidence of that right here in this thread. The right-wing corporatists have managed to raise an army of supporters.

 

[TooTall]

You lost me there. The Bush tax cut reduced the tax rates on the working class and the Democrats are dying to raise it back up. After all, that is where the real money is. The higher income rate is already 39% or more.

Bush's tax reduction was surreptitiously accompanied by wage stagnation and wage reductions the collective effect of which far exceeded any deceptive reduction in taxes. We were given pennies but it cost us dollars.

While the Democrats will indeed impose a nominal progressive tax increase we are also determined to end wage stagnation and bring about substantial increases in middle class incomes. This the the part the right-wing propagandists aren't telling you.

If and when wages go up, the government will have more tax income since the tax rate is a percentage of income. And you want to raise tax rates as well. That is a show stopper for me.

 

[MikeK]

You lost me there. The Bush tax cut reduced the tax rates on the working class and the Democrats are dying to raise it back up. After all, that is where the real money is. The higher income rate is already 39% or more.

Re: that 39% corporate tax rate: when the corporate tax lawyers get finished with their twenty volume flim-flam loophole routines the likely result is more like 12% -- which is still too much when all they need to do is move their address offshore and pay nothing.

Keep in mind that the way FDR dealt with the Robber Barons was a 94% tax rate, which was rigidly enforced with a minimum of loopholes. Eisenhower did the same. So why are we putting up with a loophole-riddled 39% farce?

 

[TooTall]

Sorry a nap attack took over.

Yes, they're moving because it is cheaper to operate out of Ireland than the USA. It's basically why taxing the rich/businesses "more" doesn't work and isn't sustainable. The more you crank up the taxes the less incentive they have to stay. The US must compete with the global market for not only corporate/business taxes, but also labor and production costs. There is no way around it.

That is the corporatist snow-job disseminated by right-wing propagandists like Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al -- and it is nonsense! The U.S. is by far the most powerful economic force in the world but we have allowed our own corrupt politicians to falsely assume a position of shameful timidity. The U.S. is the most lucrative marketplace in the world. We don't need to compete with the global market because we are the world's consumer powerhouse! We make the rules because we are in a position to . The problem is we've allowed bastard politicians like Bill Clinton to convince us otherwise.

We need to start replacing the regulations eliminated by corrupt bastards like Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and others.

Obama has signed three trade deal that were supported by Republicans and not by Democrats. The Unions were not happy either.

 

[MikeK]

If and when wages go up, the government will have more tax income since the tax rate is a percentage of income. And you want to raise tax rates as well. That is a show stopper for me.

Would you rather pay 1% of $100 or 2% of $200? That is the simplest answer to your question I can think of. But it tells the tale.

 

[TooTall]

You lost me there. The Bush tax cut reduced the tax rates on the working class and the Democrats are dying to raise it back up. After all, that is where the real money is. The higher income rate is already 39% or more.

Re: that 39% corporate tax rate: when the corporate tax lawyers get finished with their twenty volume flim-flam loophole routines the likely result is more like 12% -- which is still too much when all they need to do is move their address offshore and pay nothing.

Keep in mind that the way FDR dealt with the Robber Barons was a 94% tax rate, which was rigidly enforced with a minimum of loopholes. Eisenhower did the same. So why are we putting up with a loophole-riddled 39% farce?

It can't be too loophole riddled if the top earners paid this much.

"Top earners were the main target of recent tax increases under President Obama, but the federal income tax system is already highly progressive. The top 10 percent of income earners paid 68 percent of all federal income taxes in 2011 (the latest year available), though they earned 45 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent of income taxes, but earned 12 percent of income."

 

[TooTall]

If and when wages go up, the government will have more tax income since the tax rate is a percentage of income. And you want to raise tax rates as well. That is a show stopper for me.

Would you rather pay 1% of $100 or 2% of $200? That is the simplest answer to your question I can think of. But it tells the tale.

That is a strawman argument since no one is going to have their wages DOUBLED any time soon.

 

[EverCurious]

I wish it was that easy, but the choices to do what you want is to tell companies that unless they are based in the US they cannot import/sell, services/goods, to the USA which is going to impact a companies desire to do so. To explain, global businesses treat countries rather like states so it's kind of like telling a company from New York that they can't operate in Texas. It shuts down the global free market.

Of course I want what's best for America, but /if/ we do that many companies are going to pull entirely out of the US - and unless you want to have a USA against the world mentality you don't get to just blow off patents on shit and say it's void in the USA. A lot of the stuff isn't really patented in a way that a US only based company could /steal/ (and yes that is what it would be) because its kept under a generic term - like the recipe isn't patented, just the name. So you'd have to have folks defecting from the company to share those trade secrets and I have no doubt that the owner company could sue them. Which means no only do we have to change laws and crap, but we're also going to have to have something along the lines of "can't sue an American for theft of recipes" -- Start doing that shit and we're very likely to create some very powerful enemies, because while America might go bitch like that, EU isn't likely to, nor other countries because it goes against national cooperation.

I'm not even sure it's POSSIBLE, much less that it's advisable...