obamas job proposal

[Danzig]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44416268...s_and_economy/



why is everyone pushing the payroll tax cut to be continued? the people that move 'helps' have jobs; it dosn't create them. it's been around a few years now-what purpose does it serve?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44416268...s_and_economy/



why is everyone pushing the payroll tax cut to be continued? the people that move 'helps' have jobs; it dosn't create them. it's been around a few years now-what purpose does it serve?

Any proposal that spends more tax dollars trying to incent instead of taking punitive actions on companies shipping jobs overseas is simply more money taken out of your pockets and handed over to the elite who have gamed the system. These fukers do not understand compromise and fairplay. How about severe taxes on companies shipping jobs abroad as incentive to keeping them here. How about major tariffs on goods produced elsewhere. Inflation? Last I Checked you can only sell a product for what people are willing to pay. Its called free market.

[Danzig]

i posted a link in another thread talking about how many companies say they'd be back tomorrow if the govt changed the corporate tax structure, something obama has suggested in this proposal. currently those companies are better off having moved-that's what needs to change. they were being punished by our govt thru increased operating costs. just think-the tax changes, they come back, employment increases, a winwinwin situation. you say punish them for leaving, they were being punished for staying.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i posted a link in another thread talking about how many companies say they'd be back tomorrow if the govt changed the corporate tax structure, something obama has suggested in this proposal. currently those companies are better off having moved-that's what needs to change. they were being punished by our govt thru increased operating costs. just think-the tax changes, they come back, employment increases, a winwinwin situation. you say punish them for leaving, they were being punished for staying.

Just because they say they will come back in order to get "incented" doesn't mean they will. Just another opportunity to line the pockets of those at the top. We are acting like an abused spouse always giving one more chance. Your argument as to taxes is very weak when companies like GE pay no taxes and many more receive huge tax refunds. But like an abused spouse we have to accept a plausible reason to give them another chance and that is reducing corporate taxes. We are fuked and will look at today as the good ole days in 20 years. We are now to the point where we are driving our economy via government funding... This is the same gameplan of a third world country.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.examiner.com/finance-exam...oving-overseas

US corporate tax rates the primary cause for companies moving overseas

The US corporate tax rate has become a new cause for companies to move overseas to avoid what is the largest tax burden in the industrialized world. At 35%, the US tax rate on companies and businesses is nearly triple the rates in some places, and well above the tax requirements of countries such as Ireland and Switzerland.
In an expose on March 27th by CBS's 60 Minutes, hundreds of companies, and over $1.1 trillion dollars, are now being kept overseas providing nothing to the US economy due to stringent tax laws and regulations which make it difficult to invest, create new jobs, and find profitability if incorporated in America.

Cisco alone has moved eight different companies to Ireland, where the tax rate is at 12.5%. On top of this, google, Facebook, and several other technical firms employ over 100,000 workers in Ireland, which they might otherwise employ in the US if the tax code was changed or adjusted.

While many companies moved to China, India, and other places around the world for cheaper labor, one of the main reasons for the move offshore was the draconian tax rates the US government imposes on businesses headquartered domestically. In an poll taken in January on the Fair Tax, over 500 companies said they would instantly move back to the United States if this tax structure were implemented in the economy.

i went and found the post from the other thread...

now, you want to say we'd be giving them too much, i say we'd be levelling the playing field. you can't ask them to move here, and charge them far more than they'd pay elsewhere.
companies move to save money. what can we do to change that? the above is a big start.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i went and found the post from the other thread...

now, you want to say we'd be giving them too much, i say we'd be levelling the playing field. you can't ask them to move here, and charge them far more than they'd pay elsewhere.
companies move to save money. what can we do to change that? the above is a big start.

Fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me.. At what point will you stop believing what you read and pay attention to what is actually happening?

To summarize someone is saying reduce my tax burden by hundreds of millions of dollars and I will create jobs... I ask what is the penalty if you don't create jobs? Answer: None. Proable outcome? They will outsource a million jobs paying 100 K and create 200K jobs paying 25K with no benefits and Obama and business will declare victory.

[Danzig]

you know what, you're right. even tho businesses said they moved to a friendlier climate, and would move back if we met other countries lower rates, they're just lying. we absolutely should penalize the hell out of them, that way whatever business they have here will surely stay. they would meekly accept all that punishment.

[clyde]

NOTE TO USUAL SUSPECTS SELVES:



There is a reason government heads and corporate heads are said to "be in bed."

6 a one, half dozen a the othah.

Simple is...is not always as simple does.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you know what, you're right. even tho businesses said they moved to a friendlier climate, and would move back if we met other countries lower rates, they're just lying. we absolutely should penalize the hell out of them, that way whatever business they have here will surely stay. they would meekly accept all that punishment.

I know I am right but it sure as hell must feel better in your fantasy land.. There you can feel good until you get pounded again only to feel good again when you are promised something else. Did I say abused spouse already?

[Danzig]

abused spouse? lol me or tony?

no, i just figure if companies say they left because of taxes, which the article above says is higher than anywhere else, perhaps they are correct?

i just think of our govt wishes to get companies to come back, or to get companies to hire, they might want to look at things from a companies point of view.

now, of course businesses are all the devil, but who else creates jobs? do you work? even if you're self employed, you're still in 'a business'. if businesses find they can't make money, they either change things to make money, or they shut down. many companies have found that they can make more elsewhere. now, we can either punish them-which doesn't make them suddenly want to help out here, or we can consider what they say-which in this case has to do with corporate taxes. are they higher? were they lower? can we lower them to bring them back?

[Danzig]

an excerpt from an article about corporate taxes:

"The U.S. has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Only Brazil, Uzbekistan, Chad and Argentina have higher corporate tax rates than the U.S. According to a research study by the Cato Institute, the effective U.S. corporate tax on new investment was 34.6% in 2010. This was higher than the average OECD rate of 18.6% and the average rate for 83 countries at 17.7%.

So, if the corporate rate is 34.6%, what's with the claims that companies don't pay taxes, or at least don't pay enough? In some cases it's deliberate lying, but in others it's just an exaggeration based on a failure to understand how taxes work for corporations. PriceWaterhouseCoopers prepared a study from 2006 through 2009 examining Global Effective Tax Rates, which provides some insights. By the way, an 'effective tax rate' is what a company really pays, not the rate assigned by a government. The effective rate can be lower, or higher, than the official rate declared by the government. The PWC study discovered that US-based companies operating globally pay more than eight percentage points more in ETR than companies operating globally with a headquarters outside the US. Consequently, this demonstrates not only that corporations pay a higher effective tax rate than individuals in the United States, the rates charged by the U.S. government are among the highest in the world, and US-based companies are penalized for putting their head office here.

[Danzig]

when i see stuff like this article:

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/13/...uncompetitive/

what else can one think but that the current environment isn't conducive to job growth? adding punitive costs to those here won't make the environment better. it certainly won't encourage anyone else to head over here either. if our taxes are higher than other countries, the first question i would have to ask is why? the second would be what can we do to change it? if the companies in the article above actually moved back, as they said they would, how many jobs does that add? if we don't lower, they don't move back, well obviously we are no better off.

so, jms, are our taxes where they should be for corporations?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

when i see stuff like this article:

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/13/...uncompetitive/

what else can one think but that the current environment isn't conducive to job growth? adding punitive costs to those here won't make the environment better. it certainly won't encourage anyone else to head over here either. if our taxes are higher than other countries, the first question i would have to ask is why? the second would be what can we do to change it? if the companies in the article above actually moved back, as they said they would, how many jobs does that add? if we don't lower, they don't move back, well obviously we are no better off.

so, jms, are our taxes where they should be for corporations?

Thanks for the article from such an unbiased source.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten...age-foundation

[Riot]

What the "job creators" want, as ransom for "bringing back jobs", is to make their workforce and corporate costs in America the same as in India, China, etc. Remove all worker minimum wage and age restrictions. Forbid worker protections by removing ability to unionize. Remove all workplace worker protection regulations from OSHA, EPA. Remove all taxes on bringing money back into the US (let the rich pay nothing, let the poor pay for what we need).

These laws are currently being actively pushed by the Republican party, with the very workers these laws will harm tricked into supporting it: "Right to work", "demonize unions", "tax cuts for the job creators", "repeal minimum wage", "government is too big and expensive get rid of the EPA and OSHA", "47% of the country pays no taxes".

Yeah, as soon as we are the worker equivalent of a third world country, manufacturing jobs will return to the US so $5.00 per hour workers can paint more ceramic crap to sell at Cracker Barrel and cheap shirts to sell at Wal Mart.

Except the workers in the US won't even be able to afford it. So we'll export it to the countries who still have a middle class, with spending power, as their industry changed to 21st century types of production: energy, technology, innovation, professional growth, etc.

First world countries where taxes are paid, healthcare, workplace and retirement security are provided to all, education is supported and encouraged (kind of like what the USA was in the 1950's-1960's, our huge growth period)

Can some of you really not see this happening in this country? Does the massive, increasing wealth distribution disparity in this country mean good things? Listen to the GOP "debate" tonight, and hear the dog whistles.

[Clip-Clop]

Besides GE(can't imagine why...), poor people, illegal immigrants and those with "excellent accountants" I would like to know who isn't paying taxes in this country?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Besides GE(can't imagine why...), poor people, illegal immigrants and those with "excellent accountants" I would like to know who isn't paying taxes in this country?

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...y/#more-116417

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...y/#more-116417

Based on this we certainly seem like a first world country where taxes are paid by almost everyone who ought to be paying them.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Based on this we certainly seem like a first world country where taxes are paid by almost everyone who ought to be paying them.

Yes. Thus I find it strange that the Republican party, GOP-TV (Faux News), Heritage Foundation, etc. has been actively demonizing that 47%, those nearly all with incomes below $33,000 or so, and demanding they pay more federal income tax. While those very same people demand the wealthiest "job creators" get more tax cuts, they fight against closing tax loopholes the wealthiest use to lower their effective tax rates, and they demand decreases in capital gains taxes.

Those evil poor people! Holding back the wealthy job creators of this great country!

Makes no sense. Can't wait for the GOP debate tonight to see some of them try and justify that position.

[Clip-Clop]

"First world countries where taxes are paid, healthcare, workplace and retirement security are provided to all, education is supported and encouraged"

So where is the problem? You agreed that those who are supposed to pay are paying.
Could it be that the money collected is not being spent as well as it could be?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

"First world countries where taxes are paid, healthcare, workplace and retirement security are provided to all, education is supported and encouraged"

So where is the problem? You agreed that those who are supposed to pay are paying.
Could it be that the money collected is not being spent as well as it could be?

My tax comment was made in a completely different context. You've changed the subject. Re-read my post for what "problem" I was discussing. All the paragraphs go together.

BTW - did you read the article I referenced, or just look at the chart posted here? Read the article, too.

And no, I didn't agree that "all those who are supposed to pay are paying". Not in the least. I said, "yes", to your statement that it "... seem like a first world country where taxes are paid by almost everyone who ought to be paying them ... ". No, I do not agree with that statement. Yes, it "seems" like that, though, on the surface, doesn't it?' It is not the reality that would reflect my interpretation of who "ought" to be paying taxes.