2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vacante

[pirate]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

So am I to take the unwillingness of our righty friends to address the fact that wealthy people take tax cuts and invest it overseas as a concession that this indeed happens and therefore top level tax cuts along the lines of Romney-Ryan proposal are useless for stimulating the American economy? They might do wonders for the Chinese economy but that's not the focus of the discussion here.

Whether they undo the tax reductions or not, your litmus test that it depends on where they spend it might be a good start to reaching an agreement between the parties. If the CEO of a company agreed to invest all his/her money in the US, are you saying you'd oppose raising the tax rate on them? Pretty sure you'd get the conversation started with that proposal.

To a guy making $20k, you don't spend your money 'wisely' either so I don't think what people do with the money left after taxes ishould be the heaviest weighted variable for the tax rate itself.

Good news is the computers we are using for this dialog are constructed in the US, comprised entirely of US made components. Otherwise, we are stimulating the wrong economy.

I've never heard anybody say that 100% of every dollar not taken via taxes would go directly into US hands. Heck, if we give it to the government they can't say that either. By your logic, we shouldn't have to pay any taxes, because the money doesn't go exclusively to US interests. That would further stimulate the conversation.

 

[Rover]

Whether they undo the tax reductions or not, your litmus test that it depends on where they spend it might be a good start to reaching an agreement between the parties. If the CEO of a company agreed to invest all his/her money in the US, are you saying you'd oppose raising the tax rate on them? Pretty sure you'd get the conversation started with that proposal.

To a guy making $20k, you don't spend your money 'wisely' either so I don't think what people do with the money left after taxes ishould be the heaviest weighted variable for the tax rate itself.

Good news is the computers we are using for this dialog are constructed in the US, comprised entirely of US made components. Otherwise, we are stimulating the wrong economy.

I've never heard anybody say that 100% of every dollar not taken via taxes would go directly into US hands. Heck, if we give it to the government they can't say that either. By your logic, we shouldn't have to pay any taxes, because the money doesn't go exclusively to US interests. That would further stimulate the conversation.

Some good points and some nonsense. I'll address the good points and leave the nonsense to stand on its own...

Tax breaks should definitely be slanted towards investment back into the US economy. So the question becomes, what's our starting point? Our starting point is going back to the tax rates during the last time the budget was balanced and the economy was humming. That would be the 1990's. With that established as our baseline, now you can do some tweaking. For example, student loan interest deductions, as well as mortage interest deductions for domestic owned properties are tailored towards investing in the US economy, so they fit the criteria. Top level rate reductions? No. Business tax cuts? Well, that depends. If you want to go to GE and say for every year you increase US based employment you get a corresponding break on your tax bill, I'm all for that. Just cut their rate in half with no offsetting benefit? No. Tax breaks have to stop being used as a pay off for campaign contributors, and more to grow the economy. States have to do this all the time if they're smart.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Tax breaks have to stop being used as a pay off for campaign contributors, and more to grow the economy.

This can never happen until corporate money is removed from elections, and that can never happen until either (1) this Court is reconfigured, or (2) we amend the Constitution to take popular sovereignty back from the plutocrats.

(2) is impossible because it's blocked by the very problem we need to solve. So, we're waiting on (1). Until then, welcome back to 1880.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

"Corporations are people." - Mitt Romney

 

[pirate]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Some good points and some nonsense. I'll address the good points and leave the nonsense to stand on its own...

Tax breaks should definitely be slanted towards investment back into the US economy. So the question becomes, what's our starting point? Our starting point is going back to the tax rates during the last time the budget was balanced and the economy was humming. That would be the 1990's. With that established as our baseline, now you can do some tweaking. For example, student loan interest deductions, as well as mortage interest deductions for domestic owned properties are tailored towards investing in the US economy, so they fit the criteria. Top level rate reductions? No. Business tax cuts? Well, that depends. If you want to go to GE and say for every year you increase US based employment you get a corresponding break on your tax bill, I'm all for that. Just cut their rate in half with no offsetting benefit? No. Tax breaks have to stop being used as a pay off for campaign contributors, and more to grow the economy. States have to do this all the time if they're smart.

Mr Rover, that was a lucid, intelligent and well thought out response. Over-ruled!!

Hey, if you are telling me anybody down there is willing to put some basic logic into this issue, I'm for it as well.

I don't read a lot of logic on here. I read a lot of political volleyball where one side (and I include you here) or the other wouldn't agree we should do anything if it was the other party's idea. You say I had nonsense in my response...only in response to the nonsense you started with.

One challenge to your approach on corporate taxes..can be that often a company will agree to keep employment at a certain level in order to qualify for a state tax reduction because the state has done the math...some people, less enlightened than you obviously, scream "Corporate Welfare" when that happens. Heck, we may even have a few regular posters that know the issue is more complicated but respond to every instance such as this as corporate welfare or paying off people. Well, it may be corporate welfare to some, but it also keeps people off welfare while contributing something for those who are unfortunate enough to need welfare. Could it have been more had the company paid 100% of the possible taxes? Sure, but that scenario wouldn't play out, the company would just go to the second state on their list.

It is why I liken political parties to organized religion...you have to believe only one gospel and all others must be debunked...there can't be middle ground...either Jesus was or wasn't the son of god for instance, and the lines are drawn. You can't be a good catholic and walk around saying maybe the muslims are right.

So you sure can't walk around in congress and say, "you know, we probably could raise taxes to a lesser extent if at the same time we worked to lessen waste in government". Or you could say it up until your party refused to support you in your next election and you were put on zero committees.

Before you or OP start calling me names for not agreeing completely with you on every issue, I really don't care. Nothing I say on here will change any opinions, but sometimes I can't come up with a song association so I walk into the church. Kinda like arguing with the Jehovah's Witnesses at your door...doesn't accomplish anything but it is fun to try to get them to see they might not have all the answers.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Pirate

Good points. I would add one more -- if a State / municipality gives a "break" to a corporation its because it wants the employees of that corporation living and spending (and paying taxes) in that location. Further, if your taxes are lower than a neighbor, you may poach a few businesses and people from the neighbor. I wish my governor would realize this.

 

[Foxton]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Pirate

Good points. I would add one more -- if a State / municipality gives a "break" to a corporation its because it wants the employees of that corporation living and spending (and paying taxes) in that location. Further, if your taxes are lower than a neighbor, you may poach a few businesses and people from the neighbor. I wish my governor would realize this.

This doesn't solve any problem, it just moves it around, and in the end is a "**** my neighbor" policy.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

This doesn't solve any problem, it just moves it around, and in the end is a "**** my neighbor" policy.

Yep. To quote the late Tip O'Neil "All politics is local." If it means that I improve my tax base at your expense - so be it. My people, not your people, vote for me.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Mr Rover, that was a lucid, intelligent and well thought out response. Over-ruled!!

Hey, if you are telling me anybody down there is willing to put some basic logic into this issue, I'm for it as well.

I don't read a lot of logic on here. I read a lot of political volleyball where one side (and I include you here) or the other wouldn't agree we should do anything if it was the other party's idea. You say I had nonsense in my response...only in response to the nonsense you started with.

One challenge to your approach on corporate taxes..can be that often a company will agree to keep employment at a certain level in order to qualify for a state tax reduction because the state has done the math...some people, less enlightened than you obviously, scream "Corporate Welfare" when that happens. Heck, we may even have a few regular posters that know the issue is more complicated but respond to every instance such as this as corporate welfare or paying off people. Well, it may be corporate welfare to some, but it also keeps people off welfare while contributing something for those who are unfortunate enough to need welfare. Could it have been more had the company paid 100% of the possible taxes? Sure, but that scenario wouldn't play out, the company would just go to the second state on their list.

It is why I liken political parties to organized religion...you have to believe only one gospel and all others must be debunked...there can't be middle ground...either Jesus was or wasn't the son of god for instance, and the lines are drawn. You can't be a good catholic and walk around saying maybe the muslims are right.

So you sure can't walk around in congress and say, "you know, we probably could raise taxes to a lesser extent if at the same time we worked to lessen waste in government". Or you could say it up until your party refused to support you in your next election and you were put on zero committees.

Before you or OP start calling me names for not agreeing completely with you on every issue, I really don't care. Nothing I say on here will change any opinions, but sometimes I can't come up with a song association so I walk into the church. Kinda like arguing with the Jehovah's Witnesses at your door...doesn't accomplish anything but it is fun to try to get them to see they might not have all the answers.

By an odd coincidence, I don't care that you don't care. But thanks for thinking of me. A little obsession goes a long way. BTW, I'm planning to knock on your door around 6:30 some morning, okay?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

In other news, a herpa-derp derps.

You wouldn't be such a smart a*s if Perry were Muslim. Well, not for long at any rate. But then, ripping on Christians is funny (especially Mormons). But ripping on head choppers is "offensive."

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

The Daily Show just destroyed Romney, Fox and the "49% on the government Teet" meme. I would recommend everybody watch it

That Jon S. Liebowitz is a funny dude. And he's sooooo sensitive to the problems of the "little guy" and the outrages of the wealthy, too. At ten (or is it 15?) million dollars a year, he surely should be.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Pirate, one of my favorite movies! Good show!

Yes you will have idiots demogauging the situation. So be it. I don't have time for idiots and neither does the country. My affinity for Clinton era economics has nothing to do with his love of overweight interns, but because the country for the first time embarked on smart fiscal and tax policy.

The right has to lose its obsession with broad based tax reductions and get back to what we all learn when dating, which is you gotta give something to get something.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

How can that be? It is not complicated. You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth — and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated.

How trite. I've never met a single person that didn't attempt to produce more simply because a chunk of it would be withheld.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Business tax cuts? Well, that depends. If you want to go to GE and say for every year you increase US based employment you get a corresponding break on your tax bill, I'm all for that. Just cut their rate in half with no offsetting benefit? No. Tax breaks have to stop being used as a pay off for campaign contributors, and more to grow the economy. States have to do this all the time if they're smart.

What purpose is served by corporate taxes?

I'd like to see them zeroed (except on money that goes outside the country) with capital gains and dividend income treated as ordinary income. Corporate income that isn't invested back into the company should be captured by those taxes.

 

[geezer]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

What purpose is served by corporate taxes?

I'd like to see them zeroed (except on money that goes outside the country) with capital gains and dividend income treated as ordinary income. Corporate income that isn't invested back into the company should be captured by those taxes.

This oughta make some heads explode. Did the evilscary Koch brothers force you to say that?

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

This oughta make some heads explode. Did the evilscary Koch brothers force you to say that?

I'm all for it as long as we have a fully graduated income tax that ascends into the stratosphere (say, 70% or so...) after about $1M per year, all income from all sources treated the same. Get owners to reinvest in their businesses. Darn good living, and actually help the community rather than rape it.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

This oughta make some heads explode. Did the evilscary Koch brothers force you to say that?

Think accounting (you know, a-one, a-two, a-three, etc.)

Income $1,000

Expenses 400
Taxes 200

Profit 400

If you increase taxes, you lower profit which means the corporation has to increase income (higher prices to me) to pay the taxes, which means increased taxes, which means higher prices, etc. If you eliminate corporate taxes, in theory, the corporation could lower prices to achieve the same profit.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Think accounting (you know, a-one, a-two, a-three, etc.)

Income $1,000

Expenses 400
Taxes 200

Profit 400

If you increase taxes, you lower profit which means the corporation has to increase income (higher prices to me) to pay the taxes, which means increased taxes, which means higher prices, etc. If you eliminate corporate taxes, in theory, the corporation could lower prices to achieve the same profit.

The big advantage is it returns competition on price. Right now the gubbmint imposes a tax on all corporations while giving investors a tax holiday. Companies can only escape taxes by cheating or bribing, er, lobbying. Move the federal revenue burden off the company and then a company paying leaner salaries and non-ridiculous benefits to its upper management will undercut the old fat boys on price. Creative destruction at its finest -- the top 400 either start providing earned value (what? perfect smiles? smooth after dinner banter? advice for riding to the hounds?) or they get cut off. There will be another top 400 of course, but they will either be smart, quick, and useful, or they too will sink back into the social Darwinian swamp.

Every team needs a few 100-million dollar players at the top of their game. But our team has a whole bench of .150 / .175 / .200 billionaires who either provide nothing useful beyond their Rolodex to other equally useless scrubs, or guys who are the great grand sons of the last person in their line who actually got a hit.

In addition, there is actually a reasonable argument that high corporate taxes cost jobs, whereas if the taxes fall on the inheritocracy the argument is Romney's weak, trickle-down stretch.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

GfK Roper may want to work on their sampling methodology a bit.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Think accounting (you know, a-one, a-two, a-three, etc.)

Income $1,000

Expenses 400
Taxes 200

Profit 400

If you increase taxes, you lower profit which means the corporation has to increase income (higher prices to me) to pay the taxes, which means increased taxes, which means higher prices, etc. If you eliminate corporate taxes, in theory, the corporation could lower prices to achieve the same profit.

You obviously haven't seen the numbers over the last 30 years where profits are up, upper income is up, and lower and middle class income is stagnant. But you go ahead and spout your platitudes.