A Six-Point Plan to Restore Economic Growth and Prosperity

[bripat9643]

Number 3 is one I have never thought of or heard of before, but the more I think about it, the more I am liking it.

#3 is commonly called a Value Added Tax. Politicians love it because it's hidden from consumers. It's a tax that promotes government.

No thanks.

that isn't what a value added tax is and it isn't why politicians "love it".

the VAT is wrong because it taxes expenditures, not income. lower income people spend more of their income than the wealthy. so middle and working class people end up getting taxed at higher rates.

the rightwingnut corportatists love it.

i'm figuring you didn't understand what it is.

Right wingers are all against it. Leftwingers are the ones who want to adopt it.

 

[g5000]

30% of what? Their off-shore assets? After deductions are counted? Before subsidies are counted? After deferred taxes due to depreciation of equipment and vehicles? After credits for investments? Credit for losses? After stock devaluation?

In other words, 30% of what cash and assets?

30% of income.

Nope. It's a 15% transfer tax.

On top of a 15% income tax. That adds up to what percentage of income?

Do you realize that you just said a 15% transfer tax plus a 15% income tax is a 30% income tax?

What is the equivalent rate on income?

Is a 7 percent sales tax plus a 20 percent income tax a 27% income tax?

Nope.

And a 15% transfer tax is not a 15% income tax.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

30% of income.

Nope. It's a 15% transfer tax.

On top of a 15% income tax. That adds up to what percentage of income?

Do you realize that you just said a 15% transfer tax plus a 15% income tax is a 30% income tax?

What is the equivalent rate on income?

Is a 7 percent sales tax plus a 20 percent income tax a 27% income tax?

I'm more interested in the sum of a 15% transfer tax and a 15% corporate income tax.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

30% of income.

Nope. It's a 15% transfer tax.

On top of a 15% income tax. That adds up to what percentage of income?

Do you realize that you just said a 15% transfer tax plus a 15% income tax is a 30% income tax?

What is the equivalent rate on income?

Is a 7 percent sales tax plus a 20 percent income tax a 27% income tax?

Nope.

And a 15% transfer tax is not a 15% income tax.

That's awesome. So what is the equivalent rate if income was taxed?

 

[Sonny Clark]

Number 3 is one I have never thought of or heard of before, but the more I think about it, the more I am liking it.

That ends up taxing corporations at 30%.

30% of what? Their off-shore assets? After deductions are counted? Before subsidies are counted? After deferred taxes due to depreciation of equipment and vehicles? After credits for investments? Credit for losses? After stock devaluation?

In other words, 30% of what cash and assets?

30% of income.

Ah, but income is hidden, concealed in foreign branches, and rarely reported honestly. You do realize the extent of foreign ownership in American businesses, don't you? Also, you do know that assets can easily find their way to off-shore accounts ( Halliburton ) and moved around, don't you? So, again, what 30% are you speaking of?

What does foreign ownership have to do with it?
A US owned corp makes 1 million in the US, a foreign owned firm does the same. Do you think they pay different rates?

Halliburton has offshore accounts? How did that happen?

Foreign ownership, or partial foreign ownership, means that the profits are harder to trace since assets can be used in any and all branches of operation. Only profits that are reported as being made here in the U.S. are taxed by the U.S. An example would be Exxon. Exxon has operations all over the world. Thus funds are transferred according to need. A lot of those funds never reach American soil.

Halliburton has off-shore offices that does the hiring for over-seas government contracts. It was well publicized during the withdrawal of employees from Iraq. Those employees couldn't draw unemployment after they were released from Halliburton since they did not work for an American company. It was reported by the major news media for weeks.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That ends up taxing corporations at 30%.

30% of what? Their off-shore assets? After deductions are counted? Before subsidies are counted? After deferred taxes due to depreciation of equipment and vehicles? After credits for investments? Credit for losses? After stock devaluation?

In other words, 30% of what cash and assets?

30% of income.

Ah, but income is hidden, concealed in foreign branches, and rarely reported honestly. You do realize the extent of foreign ownership in American businesses, don't you? Also, you do know that assets can easily find their way to off-shore accounts ( Halliburton ) and moved around, don't you? So, again, what 30% are you speaking of?

What does foreign ownership have to do with it?
A US owned corp makes 1 million in the US, a foreign owned firm does the same. Do you think they pay different rates?

Halliburton has offshore accounts? How did that happen?

Foreign ownership, or partial foreign ownership, means that the profits are harder to trace since assets can be used in any and all branches of operation. Only profits that are reported as being made here in the U.S. are taxed by the U.S. An example would be Exxon. Exxon has operations all over the world. Thus funds are transferred according to need. A lot of those funds never reach American soil.

Halliburton has off-shore offices that does the hiring for over-seas government contracts. It was well publicized during the withdrawal of employees from Iraq. Those employees couldn't draw unemployment after they were released from Halliburton since they did not work for an American company. It was reported by the major news media for weeks.

The IRS can't figure out what the domestic earnings are?

What does Exxon's or Halliburton's offshore earnings have to do with the taxation of their domestic earnings?

 

[Sonny Clark]

30% of what? Their off-shore assets? After deductions are counted? Before subsidies are counted? After deferred taxes due to depreciation of equipment and vehicles? After credits for investments? Credit for losses? After stock devaluation?

In other words, 30% of what cash and assets?

30% of income.

Ah, but income is hidden, concealed in foreign branches, and rarely reported honestly. You do realize the extent of foreign ownership in American businesses, don't you? Also, you do know that assets can easily find their way to off-shore accounts ( Halliburton ) and moved around, don't you? So, again, what 30% are you speaking of?

What does foreign ownership have to do with it?
A US owned corp makes 1 million in the US, a foreign owned firm does the same. Do you think they pay different rates?

Halliburton has offshore accounts? How did that happen?

Foreign ownership, or partial foreign ownership, means that the profits are harder to trace since assets can be used in any and all branches of operation. Only profits that are reported as being made here in the U.S. are taxed by the U.S. An example would be Exxon. Exxon has operations all over the world. Thus funds are transferred according to need. A lot of those funds never reach American soil.

Halliburton has off-shore offices that does the hiring for over-seas government contracts. It was well publicized during the withdrawal of employees from Iraq. Those employees couldn't draw unemployment after they were released from Halliburton since they did not work for an American company. It was reported by the major news media for weeks.

The IRS can't figure out what the domestic earnings are?

What does Exxon's or Halliburton's offshore earnings have to do with the taxation of their domestic earnings?

What makes you think they report earnings correctly? Do you trust them to report earnings honestly? FYI - The IRS can't keep my taxes straight. How well do you think they do with complicated and sophisticated tax returns?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

30% of income.

Ah, but income is hidden, concealed in foreign branches, and rarely reported honestly. You do realize the extent of foreign ownership in American businesses, don't you? Also, you do know that assets can easily find their way to off-shore accounts ( Halliburton ) and moved around, don't you? So, again, what 30% are you speaking of?

What does foreign ownership have to do with it?
A US owned corp makes 1 million in the US, a foreign owned firm does the same. Do you think they pay different rates?

Halliburton has offshore accounts? How did that happen?

Foreign ownership, or partial foreign ownership, means that the profits are harder to trace since assets can be used in any and all branches of operation. Only profits that are reported as being made here in the U.S. are taxed by the U.S. An example would be Exxon. Exxon has operations all over the world. Thus funds are transferred according to need. A lot of those funds never reach American soil.

Halliburton has off-shore offices that does the hiring for over-seas government contracts. It was well publicized during the withdrawal of employees from Iraq. Those employees couldn't draw unemployment after they were released from Halliburton since they did not work for an American company. It was reported by the major news media for weeks.

The IRS can't figure out what the domestic earnings are?

What does Exxon's or Halliburton's offshore earnings have to do with the taxation of their domestic earnings?

What makes you think they report earnings correctly? Do you trust them to report earnings honestly? FYI - The IRS can't keep my taxes straight. How well do you think they do with complicated and sophisticated tax returns?

You don't have faith in a huge, powerful government bureaucracy?
What are you, some sort of Tea Party guy?

 

[Sonny Clark]

Ah, but income is hidden, concealed in foreign branches, and rarely reported honestly. You do realize the extent of foreign ownership in American businesses, don't you? Also, you do know that assets can easily find their way to off-shore accounts ( Halliburton ) and moved around, don't you? So, again, what 30% are you speaking of?

What does foreign ownership have to do with it?
A US owned corp makes 1 million in the US, a foreign owned firm does the same. Do you think they pay different rates?

Halliburton has offshore accounts? How did that happen?

Foreign ownership, or partial foreign ownership, means that the profits are harder to trace since assets can be used in any and all branches of operation. Only profits that are reported as being made here in the U.S. are taxed by the U.S. An example would be Exxon. Exxon has operations all over the world. Thus funds are transferred according to need. A lot of those funds never reach American soil.

Halliburton has off-shore offices that does the hiring for over-seas government contracts. It was well publicized during the withdrawal of employees from Iraq. Those employees couldn't draw unemployment after they were released from Halliburton since they did not work for an American company. It was reported by the major news media for weeks.

The IRS can't figure out what the domestic earnings are?

What does Exxon's or Halliburton's offshore earnings have to do with the taxation of their domestic earnings?

What makes you think they report earnings correctly? Do you trust them to report earnings honestly? FYI - The IRS can't keep my taxes straight. How well do you think they do with complicated and sophisticated tax returns?

You don't have faith in a huge, powerful government bureaucracy?
What are you, some sort of Tea Party guy?

No, not associated with the tea party.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

why not force all americans with an IQ under 35 to move to California. then maybe we can accomplish our economic goals in the other 56 states.

 

[rdean]

The last time Republicans deregulated, we had a disastrous recession.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

A Six-Point Plan To Restore Economic Growth And Prosperity - Investors.com

That's a subscription site, so I am going to copy and paste the meat of the article. Not something I ordinarily do.

This plan, for the most part, jibes with my personal beliefs of what we need to do to "get the economy going again".

All bold face and coloring, other than the title of the piece, are mine.




A Six-Point Plan to Restore Economic Growth and Prosperity

<snip>

1. Streamline the federal bureaucracy. Government has become much like the neighbor who has hoarded every magazine and odd knick-knack for 50 years. The attic and every room are stuffed with items no one would miss. The size of the US code has multiplied by over 18 times in 65 years. There are more than 1 million restrictive regulations.

Enough already. It's time to clean out the attic. The president, with some flexibility, should require each agency to reduce the number of regulations under its purview by 20%, at the rate of 5% a year. And then Congress should pass a sunset law for the remaining regulations, requiring them to be reviewed at some point in order to be maintained.

Further, if new rules are needed, then remove some old ones. Stop the growth of the federal regulatory code. We have enough rules today; let's just make sure they're the right ones.

2. Simplify and flatten the income tax. Make the individual income rate 20% (at most) for all income over $50,000, with no deductions for anything. Reduce the corporate tax to 15%, again eliminating all deductions other than what is allowed by standard accounting practice. No perks, no special benefits.

Further, tax foreign corporate income at 5%–10%, and let companies bring it back home to invest here. This strategy will actually increase tax revenues.

3. Replace the payroll tax with a business transfer tax of 15%, which will give lower-income workers a big raise. Companies would pay tax on their gross receipts, minus allowable expenses in the conduct of producing goods and services.

Nearly every economist agrees that consumption taxes are better than income taxes. Further, this tax can be rebated at the border, so it should encourage domestic production and be popular with union workers since it makes US products more competitive internationally.

4. Provide certainty by keeping tax rates low through a tax-limitation constitutional amendment that would require future tax increases to be passed by 60% of the Congress, in combination with a balanced-budget amendment.

We realize that implementation of these measures could be somewhat jarring, so we'd suggest phasing them in over four to five years – more than enough time for everyone to adjust.

5. Roll back the regulatory state. Recognize that many federal agencies are still mired in the mid-20th century if not the 19th. It's time to design a regulatory system that fosters jobs and growth while protecting citizens.

Let's start with the easy target: the Food and Drug Administration. The United States is the wellspring of biotechnological research, yet more and more of our original research is being taken overseas for further development, producing jobs outside the US

A bipartisan commission can design a new agency with a new regulatory regime and bring it to the floor of Congress for a vote. Instead of a system that makes drug-creation prohibitively expensive, favors Big Pharma and exports jobs, let's harness the power of US entrepreneurs.

Streamline the process so healthcare can keep up with research, thereby lowering healthcare costs and providing healthier outcomes for everyone. Then start with the next regulatory agency until all have been updated.

6. Drill for America's domestic energy and use the royalties on federal lands to retire the debt and/or fund needed infrastructure repair instead of raising taxes. An estimated $2 trillion of royalties and other fees could be raised by drilling on non-environmentally sensitive lands, and this would reduce US reliance on foreign oil while breaking the financial back of many terrorist networks.

Growth is the solution to nearly every social, economic, and financial problem in America, and we aren't getting enough of it. This is a plan that puts US competitiveness first and brings middle-class jobs back to America. We are eager to see which candidates – in either party – embrace this prosperity agenda.

I like this... you pretty much nailed it G.

 

[rdean]

why not force all americans with an IQ under 35 to move to California. then maybe we can accomplish our economic goals in the other 56 states.

California brings in more than twice the revenue than any other state, including Texas. The movie industry alone brings in billions. Then add in High Tech and agriculture. I think right wingers are just jealous at liberal success. Red States are all 150 years of conservative policies and each and everyone one a basket case needing money that comes in from, get this, "California".

 

[Staidhup]

The last time Republicans deregulated, we had a disastrous recession.

Keep smoking the pot and drinking the Koolaid.

 

[bripat9643]

The last time Republicans deregulated, we had a disastrous recession.

There wasn't any "de-regulation," numskull.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

Number 3 is one I have never thought of or heard of before, but the more I think about it, the more I am liking it.

and not allowing lazy bums who live off of our tax dollars to vote for democrats. but if they want to vote for republicans/conservatives, go right ahead.

 

[bendog]

The last time Republicans deregulated, we had a disastrous recession.

There wasn't any "de-regulation," numskull.

yes there was, obscene child. In banking and investing ... gambling. But, reducing the number of fed regulations by 20% would not necessarily have anything to do with "deregulation."

 

[g5000]

Nope. It's a 15% transfer tax.

On top of a 15% income tax. That adds up to what percentage of income?

Do you realize that you just said a 15% transfer tax plus a 15% income tax is a 30% income tax?

What is the equivalent rate on income?

Is a 7 percent sales tax plus a 20 percent income tax a 27% income tax?

I'm more interested in the sum of a 15% transfer tax and a 15% corporate income tax.

But you are ignoring the reduction of the employer's cost share of payroll taxes, and all the payroll taxes of the employees.

 

[bripat9643]

The last time Republicans deregulated, we had a disastrous recession.

There wasn't any "de-regulation," numskull.

yes there was, obscene child. In banking and investing ... gambling. But, reducing the number of fed regulations by 20% would not necessarily have anything to do with "deregulation."

I suppose you have some evidence for this claim?

 

[g5000]

The last time Republicans deregulated, we had a disastrous recession.

There wasn't any "de-regulation," numskull.

yes there was, obscene child. In banking and investing ... gambling. But, reducing the number of fed regulations by 20% would not necessarily have anything to do with "deregulation."

I suppose you have some evidence for this claim?

I refer you to section 117 of the CFMA. To wit:

This Act shall supersede and preempt the application of any State or local law that prohibits or regulates gaming or the operation of bucket shops

Perhaps you will take some time to explain why banks needed exemptions from state gaming laws for casinos. Why does a bank need to be exempted from state laws prohibiting bucket shops?

Hmmmm...

Those in the know understand exactly why. The banks wanted fraud legalized. And later on, their apologists would ask stupid questions like, "What laws did they break when they ripped off their clients?"

Federal pre-emption of state regulatory laws is deregulation, by definition. And how come no states rights people screamed over this? Why didn't Fox News play some doom music and shout from the rooftops over this federal pre-emption? Huh? Huh? Huh?