Loopholes closed. 28% collected. Sounds good to me.Ummm......is that a GOOD thing? Or not? Will OWS'ers be happy about it? Will lefties?
Wondering....
Yep, the devil is in the details and we haven't seen the details yet.It is hard to say without analyzing all of it and seeing what "loopholes" they are talking about.
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.
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.
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.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.
Correct, what this is, is an election year proposal that is dual pronged: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.
Nope - doesn't matter. The Just Say No Congress won't even look at it.Yep, the devil is in the details and we haven't seen the details yet.
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.Typical, if you are worried about the details you'll have to pass it to see what is in it.
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.
Then guess who pays the tax increase? You the consumer.Loopholes closed. 28% collected. Sounds good to me.
I'm skeered.Then guess who pays the tax increase? You the consumer.
Other than you making this claim - do you have anything to back up this nonsense?Since American Corporations use overseas profits to Compensate for higher priced American labor at their US locations
um hint, pay is part of COGS, and does not come out of profit., this tax will lower their foreign profits leaving less money to pay for their American workers.
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.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
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.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.
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?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.
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.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?