New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

So...Obama proposes to cut corporate tax rates from 35% to 28%.

fairsheet

Senator
Who cares what "lefties" think? Obama's the leader of the "lefties". The "lefties" will go along. What's far more interesting and relevant - especially in terms of whether or not this becomes law, is what "righties" think of it.
 

fairsheet

Senator
Details....shmetails. There ARE no "details" that'd be acceptable to the GOP, and everyone including Obama, knows it. That's the political beauty - or "arrogance" if you prefer - of what Obama's doing here.

The GOP has no choice but to oppose whatever Obama suggests and their problem is compounded by this being an election season. They're going to have to give Mitt and Santorum room to propose their competing plans.
 
Details....shmetails. There ARE no "details" that'd be acceptable to the GOP, and everyone including Obama, knows it. That's the political beauty - or "arrogance" if you prefer - of what Obama's doing here.

The GOP has no choice but to oppose whatever Obama suggests and their problem is compounded by this being an election season. They're going to have to give Mitt and Santorum room to propose their competing plans.
Typical, if you are worried about the details you'll have to pass it to see what is in it.
 
Details....shmetails. There ARE no "details" that'd be acceptable to the GOP, and everyone including Obama, knows it. That's the political beauty - or "arrogance" if you prefer - of what Obama's doing here.
Well, here are the details: They prove that Obama's so called "cuts' actually increase taxes by 250 billion dollars. If you think that OBAMA is actually interested in cutting taxes, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

>>>The Obama-Geithner plan would establish, according to the New York Times, a minimum tax on multinational corporations’ foreign earnings to discourage “accounting games to shift profits abroad” or actual relocation of production overseas.

So instead of a carrot, Corporate America gets the stick. Instead of lowering the U.S. rate to a competitive level, Obama would raise the penalty on keeping profits overseas. Indeed, the United States is a huge outlier in that it taxes the foreign profits of multinational companies.

Obama's own Jobs Council recommended exactly the OPPOSITE of what Obama is proposing. Of course Obama loves to play political tricks to win support of the economically ignorant and uninformed. And the press happily regurgitates the Obama propaganda and keeps them in the dark.

Here is the Obama Job Councils recommendation, which he has discarded and is doing exactly the reverse of what they recommended.

>>>>While most other developed nations have adopted territorial systems that exempt most or all foreign income from taxes when they are repatriated, the U.S. subjects all worldwide earnings to the corporate income tax when they are brought home to the U.S. This approach actually encourages U.S. companies to KEEP their earnings abroad rather than investing them here at home.<<<

The Obama policy will simply result in more American Companies keeping even more of their money overseas by double taxing it if it comes home and even tries to penalize them when they do keep it overseas, which is actually illegal.

He knows people are oblivious to the facts and he also knows this economically destructive bill will never pass congress.

His sole purpose is to get people blaming Republicans, when in fact they should be thanking them for stopping more Obama destruction.



http://blog.american.com/2012/02/geithner-should-resign-over-obamas-corporate-tax-hike-plan/
 

degsme

Council Member
Well, here are the details: They prove that Obama's so called "cuts' actually increase taxes by 250 billion dollars. If you think that OBAMA is actually interested in cutting taxes, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Correct, what this is, is an election year proposal that is dual pronged:
  • For conservative leaning and moderate "undecideds" its another "tax reform" and "cut taxes" message that also takes the GOP's "highest corporate taxes in the world" mantra off the table. It gives Obama something to point to in the debates and argue persausively against someone like Romney or even Ron Paul
    .
  • For his base, it is a double benefit
    • For manufacturing and other blue collar workers it is an explicit step towards improving business climate for their employers and jobs - although in reality its effects are only at the margins
    • it increases net tax collections from corporations back towards history medians and thus lets Obama say that he is not only simplifying the tax code for business but Making it More Fair so that corporations pay more of their fair share

economically its not a bad proposal, but that doesn't really matter since The Just Say No House won't even take itup.

As long as the Tea Party radicals control Congress, we are stuck with the same GOP Conservative Fiscal policies that gave us a decade of anemic grwoth (22% below average) and then crippled the economy.
 

degsme

Council Member
Typical, if you are worried about the details you'll have to pass it to see what is in it.
And since the Just Say No GOP Congress wouldn't pass a bill recognizing that the sky is blue if Obama suggested it - this doesn't really matter except as political positioning.

And as such its pretty smart. Since it is
1) tax simplification
2) improves tax environment for small MFGs
3) increases net revenues from corporations thus making it a "more fair tax system"
4) closes "loopholes" ie "eliminates bad things".

and having the Just Say No Congress refuse to even consider it, only strengthens it as a proposal
 
Correct, what this is, is an election year proposal that is dual pronged:
  • For conservative leaning and moderate "undecideds" its another "tax reform" and "cut taxes" message that also takes the GOP's "highest corporate taxes in the world" mantra off the table. It gives Obama something to point to in the debates and argue persausively against someone like Romney or even Ron Paul
    .
  • For his base, it is a double benefit
    • For manufacturing and other blue collar workers it is an explicit step towards improving business climate for their employers and jobs - although in reality its effects are only at the margins
    • it increases net tax collections from corporations back towards history medians and thus lets Obama say that he is not only simplifying the tax code for business but Making it More Fair so that corporations pay more of their fair share

economically its not a bad proposal, but that doesn't really matter since The Just Say No House won't even take itup.

As long as the Tea Party radicals control Congress, we are stuck with the same GOP Conservative Fiscal policies that gave us a decade of anemic grwoth (22% below average) and then crippled the economy.

Since American Corporations use overseas profits to Compensate for higher priced American labor at their US locations, this tax will lower their foreign profits leaving less money to pay for their American workers.

It will do exactly the opposite of what it 'says' and is exactly the opposite of what Obama's own job council recommended.

But you'll no doubt keep trying to excuse the inexcusable, and keep trying to prove that fact is fiction and fiction is fact.

You are excused however, because Obama supporters and facts are allergic to each other.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
Then guess who pays the tax increase? You the consumer.
I'm skeered.

This is such a tired and simplistic argument. We're in debt. Everybody. You...me...Mitt Romney...as a citizen of the United States...we all bear the burden of our long standing and long accruing debt made possible by every President and Congress of every political stripe n our history.

I really don't understand. Are there solutions that the Republicans are willing to offer? Besides cutting off aid for poor people, I mean. For example, the right doesn't want welfare...and derides welfare queens...then stands in the way of federally funded contraception that would help limit welfare. What are we to make of such approaches? They seem intransigent.

I want sensible policy and such promoted fears of paying more just don't scare me. Don't phase me in the slightest, really. In the future I'll also use even less fuel, as my car's efficiency increases and my consumption decreases. hardly use any these days anyway. I fill my tank once a month..12 gallons max.

And FYI...gasoline, adjusted for inflation...is about the same price now as it was in 1981.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/gasoline_inflation.asp
 

degsme

Council Member
Since American Corporations use overseas profits to Compensate for higher priced American labor at their US locations
Other than you making this claim - do you have anything to back up this nonsense?

, this tax will lower their foreign profits leaving less money to pay for their American workers.
um hint, pay is part of COGS, and does not come out of profit.


FACTS MATTER
got any?
 

fairsheet

Senator
It's sorta funny that a guy is serial posting above, with his PROOF that this proposed scheme will INCREASE revenues. I guess all I can say to that is..."Well, Duh!"
 

anti.reptile

Council Member
I'm skeered.

This is such a tired and simplistic argument. We're in debt. Everybody. You...me...Mitt Romney...as a citizen of the United States...we all bear the burden of our long standing and long accruing debt made possible by every President and Congress of every political stripe n our history.

I really don't understand. Are there solutions that the Republicans are willing to offer? Besides cutting off aid for poor people, I mean. For example, the right doesn't want welfare...and derides welfare queens...then stands in the way of federally funded contraception that would help limit welfare. What are we to make of such approaches? They seem intransigent.

I want sensible policy and such promoted fears of paying more just don't scare me. Don't phase me in the slightest, really. In the future I'll also use even less fuel, as my car's efficiency increases and my consumption decreases. hardly use any these days anyway. I fill my tank once a month..12 gallons max.

And FYI...gasoline, adjusted for inflation...is about the same price now as it was in 1981.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/gasoline_inflation.asp
The problem with your post is that no we all don't bear the burden of our national debt. Only those who pay taxes do. The solution is to spend less while seeing everyone has some skin in the game not just the top 5 percent who pay most of the income tax.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
The problem with your post is that no we all don't bear the burden of our national debt. Only those who pay taxes do. The solution is to spend less while seeing everyone has some skin in the game not just the top 5 percent who pay most of the income tax.
Boring. You're solid on the shallow arguments, that's for sure. If one is going to avail themselves of corporate products...they will be paying taxes.

More people would be paying taxes...had not Reagan signed EITC and the Bush tax cuts been implemented and ....yes...and...extended. And more people would be paying more income taxes...if better wages were paid. It's not some lame screech about protecting or punishing the rich.
 

fairsheet

Senator
Boring. You're solid on the shallow arguments, that's for sure. If one is going to avail themselves of corporate products...they will be paying taxes.

More people would be paying taxes...had not Reagan signed EITC and the Bush tax cuts been implemented and ....yes...and...extended. And more people would be paying more income taxes...if better wages were paid. It's not some lame screech about protecting or punishing the rich.
In a functioning free market, the consumer always ends up paying the tax. It only makes sense. If the consumer doesn't pay it, who should?
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
In a functioning free market, the consumer always ends up paying the tax. It only makes sense. If the consumer doesn't pay it, who should?
Exactly. Who else can? Even in the flat tax world some support, transactions are taxed at each level of consumption. The consumer of resources pays a tax...then the consumer of the product made from those resources pays the tax. Some are sales, some are excise...I admit it is a complex structure, but too many merely attempt to demonize taxes, no matter their source or use.

I have this weird idea that wages take taxes into consideration....i.e...a 28% tax is levied on wages...then the pay reflects that as a cost of doing business....and is somewhere close to 28% more than the employee would receive if taxes didn't play a part.
 
Top