(03-16-2015 01:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 01:09 PM)VA49er Wrote:  IMO, the govt had no idea it's new tax policy would futher put US companies at at disadvantage and eventually lead to job losses.

I think they knew and didn't care. Obama has made it pretty clear that if it's part of the mantra, he doesn't care what the impacts are. He's said that about energy, about capital gains taxes, and other subjects as well.

How is he going to reconcile the lost taxes AND lost jobs? At least beforehand it was US companies buying other companies and not the other way around.

(03-16-2015 01:53 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 01:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 01:09 PM)VA49er Wrote:  IMO, the govt had no idea it's new tax policy would futher put US companies at at disadvantage and eventually lead to job losses.

I think they knew and didn't care. Obama has made it pretty clear that if it's part of the mantra, he doesn't care what the impacts are. He's said that about energy, about capital gains taxes, and other subjects as well.

How is he going to reconcile the lost taxes AND lost jobs? At least beforehand it was US companies buying other companies and not the other way around.

He's doing it now It's called PRINTING MONEY.

(03-16-2015 01:53 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 01:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 01:09 PM)VA49er Wrote:  IMO, the govt had no idea it's new tax policy would futher put US companies at at disadvantage and eventually lead to job losses.

I think they knew and didn't care. Obama has made it pretty clear that if it's part of the mantra, he doesn't care what the impacts are. He's said that about energy, about capital gains taxes, and other subjects as well.

How is he going to reconcile the lost taxes AND lost jobs? At least beforehand it was US companies buying other companies and not the other way around.

He's not going to acknowledge them.

This is what Hambone and I have been predicting for years. It's going to get worse, because now the only alternative is to tax the remaining ones more, which is simply going to encourage even more to find foreign suitors.

If Elizabeth Warren gets elected and implements her proposals, it is pretty much going to be economically impossible to compete in the global market as a US-based company. That's when we become Argentina (if we're lucky) or Zimbabwe (if we're not).

(03-16-2015 02:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  He's not going to acknowledge them.

Exactly.

With thousands of moving parts and some moves taking years to come to fruition, it is very easy to deflect and distract and mislead, especially when the average voter can't relate to, much less understand the issues at hand.

It won't be until Obama is long out of office before anyone could prove anything beyond an INTELLIGENT debate, and the vast majority of the people who would debate it aren't capable of intelligent debate on the issue.

I mean, it's been demonstrated pretty clearly that the difference between the gains and income tax rates has caused a shift in the 'reported' income of the wealthy from near 50/50 to be over 90% 'gains' and only close to 5% 'income'....

Yet the concept of 'taxing the rich' by increasing income tax rates still sells... as does the idea of fixing things by 'closing loopholes', despite the fact that ownership is an entirely different asset class than 'income'... and thus not a loophole at all, but an economic definition.

Note: some seem to think/imply that higher tax rates == higher tax revenue.

There are 2 tax rates with known tax revenue 0% and 100% will get tax revenue of 0.

30% of 1 million is less than 11% of 3 million.

(03-16-2015 05:29 PM)sparkomemphis Wrote:  Note: most on the left and a few on the right seem to think/imply that higher tax rates == higher tax revenue.

There are 2 tax rates with known tax revenue 0% and 100% will get tax revenue of 0.

30% of 1 million is less than 11% of 3 million.

fify


As many have alluded to, the optimal rate depends on numerous factors outside our control. We don't have to be the lowest tax rate because we are also the largest consumer and investor, and thus there are often numerous additional costs... including simple currency or sovereign risk... but we can't simply ignore the alternatives available to companies and the wealthy.

(03-16-2015 05:29 PM)sparkomemphis Wrote:  Note: some seem to think/imply that higher tax rates == higher tax revenue.

There are 2 tax rates with known tax revenue 0% and 100% will get tax revenue of 0.

30% of 1 million is less than 11% of 3 million.

Somehow, math is hard for many that espouse "making the rich pay their fair share".

Besides, the ignorant lap it up.

(03-16-2015 05:43 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 05:29 PM)sparkomemphis Wrote:  Note: some seem to think/imply that higher tax rates == higher tax revenue.

There are 2 tax rates with known tax revenue 0% and 100% will get tax revenue of 0.

30% of 1 million is less than 11% of 3 million.

Somehow, math is hard for many that espouse "making the rich pay their fair share".

Besides, the ignorant lap it up.

It's not about the math. If that was the case then things would have changed long ago. It's about playing people against people. It' about votes.

(03-17-2015 08:08 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 05:43 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 05:29 PM)sparkomemphis Wrote:  Note: some seem to think/imply that higher tax rates == higher tax revenue.

There are 2 tax rates with known tax revenue 0% and 100% will get tax revenue of 0.

30% of 1 million is less than 11% of 3 million.

Somehow, math is hard for many that espouse "making the rich pay their fair share".

Besides, the ignorant lap it up.

It's not about the math. If that was the case then things would have changed long ago. It's about playing people against people. It' about votes.

Oh I agree. My point was that when they play people against people, far, far too many people don't understand the math and what that math leads those with money to do.

The easiest thing in politics to do is play the "take from the rich - it's fair" game. Doing so ingratiates the politician to a large number of people that can mentally say "Yeah - the rich guy has plenty - take more from him, it won't be coming out of my pocket anyway".

What they fail to consider is that the truly rich can just move their money somewhere out of the country - which is what they are doing - then we get none of the rich's money.

Looks like Obama's plan to make tax inversions difficult isn't working out. Maybe Congress will actually take a look at the bigger picture.

From the Financial Times.


Snippet:

Quote:US clampdown on M&A deals aimed at escaping tax fails to halt exodus

Last Modified: 08:24 PM, Thu Aug 06, 2015


By Arash Massoudi in London, James Fontanella-Khan in New York and Barney Jopson in Washington

Financial Times. 07 August 2015, Pages: 01
FRONT PAGE - FIRST SECTION

An Obama administration crackdown to stop US businesses pursuing take-overs that let them escape the country's high corporate tax regime was dealt a sharp blow yesterday, as two deals paved the way for more companies to move their domiciles to Europe.

Three of Coca-Cola's bottlers operating in Europe, including US-based Coca-Cola Enterprises, agreed a $27.5bn merger to form the region's largest distributor of Coke products. Meanwhile, fertiliser maker CF Industries acquired assets from Netherlands-based rival OCI for $8bn including debt.


Both will create UK-based companies in so-called tax inversion deals, highlighting corporate America's desire to move its tax base overseas. The deals are a further indication that efforts last year by the US Treasury, backed by President Barack Obama who labelled inversions as "unpatriotic", have failed to stop the manoeuvre.

At least 15 companies struck inversions last year before the Treasury took action to limit the attractiveness of such deals. Including yesterday's deals, five large inversions have been agreed this year and several more are under way, including Monsanto's $45bn pursuit of Switzerland's Syngenta.

Why replacing corporate income taxes with a VAT isn't an obvious answer is beyond me.

If you understand that corporate income taxes are just another 'cost' that must be passed onto consumers, you realize that consumers are already paying this cost... not the corporations... so this is nothing new... nor a new expense to consumers. I understand that corporations may not immediately lower their prices, but they could... OR they could raise wages and still have the same profit.

The difference comes when we start talking about buying something made in the US or something made overseas. Over-simplifying, but VAT isn't charged on exported goods, meaning that if the EU makes something that including their profit costs 80 cents, that they sell in the UK for $1 incl vat... They are indifferent to selling that to us for 80 cents...

If we make that same item here with the same costs, it costs $1.00 because the US company has to factor in income taxes. If we ship it overseas, they charge $1.20 for our item (20 cent VAT) and our product isn't competitive.

If we eliminate corporate taxes and replace it with a vat, we are selling our product for the same $1 here, but now our products are exported at 80 cents (less the VAT), not at $1 and we are more competitive with the European products both here AND there.

Thus if our labor rates or other taxes or whatever are still a few pennies higher, we are still 'net' more competitive and still taking in the same revenue... and possibly creating more jobs here, which creates more tax revenue AND less need for assistance.

There are too many moving parts to describe a perfect scenario, but there should be plenty of data between us and Europe to come up with some pro-formas. It seems that something around 15-25% seems to be the hot spot... so start it at 20 and see how it goes. cut corpotate rates in half and see what the reaction is.

(09-24-2014 05:52 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Just gonna speed the race for the exits. If their goal is to make this Country as business unfriendly as they possibly can, they are doing a fine job.

And these clowns want to argue the virtue of paying some entry level slob another buck an hour or so.

This was from page 1, nearly 2 years ago. Soooo easily predicted and I'm just some guy in a pair of gym shorts reading along on a sports message board.

You telling me NONE of these geniuses in DeeCee could have guessed this.

Good grief what a band of incompetent fools we have.

Just re read through this. I'm sick of us being the dumb country. In last nights debate was anything like this brought up? Hell no! Let's argue about abortion and political correctness. We are so screwed. Fixing our tax code is a bipartisan deal but it's going to have to come from the people not the politicians.

(08-07-2015 07:22 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Just re read through this. I'm sick of us being the dumb country. In last nights debate was anything like this brought up? Hell no! Let's argue about abortion and political correctness. We are so screwed. Fixing our tax code is a bipartisan deal but it's going to have to come from the people not the politicians.

This is why I'm not a republican.

(08-07-2015 07:22 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Just re read through this. I'm sick of us being the dumb country. In last nights debate was anything like this brought up? Hell no! Let's argue about abortion and political correctness. We are so screwed. Fixing our tax code is a bipartisan deal but it's going to have to come from the people not the politicians.

No politician will ever fix the tax code. Why you refuse to see that obvious point astounds me.

And spare me the 'it's going to have to come from the people' bullcrap!! It was tried in Obama's first year in office and you saw how well THAT worked out.

(08-07-2015 09:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-07-2015 07:22 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Just re read through this. I'm sick of us being the dumb country. In last nights debate was anything like this brought up? Hell no! Let's argue about abortion and political correctness. We are so screwed. Fixing our tax code is a bipartisan deal but it's going to have to come from the people not the politicians.

This is why I'm not a republican.

Why did you choose them? Democrats are worse when it comes to the economy, but your first shot is across the GOP's bow?

(08-07-2015 09:54 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(08-07-2015 09:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-07-2015 07:22 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Just re read through this. I'm sick of us being the dumb country. In last nights debate was anything like this brought up? Hell no! Let's argue about abortion and political correctness. We are so screwed. Fixing our tax code is a bipartisan deal but it's going to have to come from the people not the politicians.

This is why I'm not a republican.

Why did you choose them? Democrats are worse when it comes to the economy, but your first shot is across the GOP's bow?

Because I was responding to a comment about last night's debate, which last time I checked was a republican debate. I think most everybody knows I'm not a democrat, and the reasons why not.

I've posted my ideas about what we need. The closest anybody else has come to those ideas were the Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin groups, both of which we bipartisan. First party to get close to my ideas gets my vote.

Tone down the rhetoric DefConn. You do yourself no favors. You're having a tough night.

(07-07-2014 07:54 AM)VA49er Wrote:  I don't blame them. Maybe one day Congress will wake up.

that's a large one on the xmas list.....

but yeah, that is easily the crew that can force change....

(08-07-2015 07:22 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Just re read through this. I'm sick of us being the dumb country. In last nights debate was anything like this brought up? Hell no! Let's argue about abortion and political correctness. We are so screwed. Fixing our tax code is a bipartisan deal but it's going to have to come from the people not the politicians.

I will agree that economics (the lack of) discussion during the debate pissed me the fk off....

if you go through the debate thread, you will see that sentiment displayed.....

line 1 of sig is playing out much faster than I wish to see.....