Fair taxation.

[Toddsterpatriot]

There are always an abundance of job openings in the highly-skilled areas you mentioned, that is why people earn so much in those roles. These jobs are not adequate to address high unemployment across the nation because most people simply don't qualify. Where we are severely hurting is in manufacturing jobs. Those are never coming back unless there is an incentive to bring them back. As long as it remains cheaper to manufacture elsewhere, that's what most capitalists will do.

Now the left seems to believe the solution is to punish the capitalist for manufacturing abroad by making it more expensive to ship their products back to the US, through tariffs and fees or whatever means the government can manipulate to achieve this objective. The problem is, the capitalist is too smart to be manipulated. They simply find another customer for the intended US production and life (profits) continue on. Eventually, shortage of supply drives prices up and it becomes profitable once again, in spite of the tariffs and fees. This plan will never work to bring back lost manufacturing jobs, it simply drives prices higher for the consumer.

Fixing the problem is really not that hard if we simply apply common sense principles and standards we have already demonstrated will work. For instance, we need to standardize labor costs in the US. Rather than have organized labor constantly pushing for more and more unrealistic wages, we need to have a set base standard which everyone uses with an adjustable parameter for individual production. With computer technology we should be able to obtain information on production output for each individual laborer. So we establish a base rate, then a scaled increase/decrease based on actual individual production. I could write for hours about this, but the bottom line is, we have to change how we're approaching this problem to solve it.

As for capital available, yes... corporations are swimming in cheap money... that's not the problem. There is no demand because we are economically stagnant at the moment and nothing is going to change that until we take some action to affect a change. We can borrow another trillion from China and pump that into the economy to keep it churning along for another year... we haven't fixed the problem. Zero corporate tax combined with a tax moratorium on wealth held abroad would be the sort of thing that would change the dynamics. It's not that capitalists need the money, it's that they have the money available tax free if they want the money... and under that circumstance, many of them would.

It is an opportunity. Some would take it, others would pass, but it would certainly create new jobs and boost economic prosperity. As I said before, it represents a potential $20 trillion private-sector economic stimulus plan that wouldn't cost us a dime.

Our problem is the brainwashed Marxist masses who simply can't see the forest for the trees. I can't tell you how much I enjoyed this month's interview in Rolling Stone with Bob Dylan. He talked about politics as bit... Bob said, the people are sitting around with no jobs and nothing to do, hopeless and in despair, and we keep hearing this anger and rage directed at the billionaires, but the billionaires create the jobs and prosperity. How can anyone reject Dylan's philosophy?

"Zero corporate tax combined with a tax moratorium on wealth held abroad would be the sort of thing that would change the dynamics"

YOUR PREMISE IS IF WE DON'T TAX THEM, THEY'LL SPEND MONEY? LOL

The 'job creators' send their money to money managers, who promptly offshore it to the cheapest labor to make the largest return!

No, my premise is; if you don't tax them, they'll have more money available. They may or may not spend it. Despite what you'e been brainwashed to believe, no group of people always does the same predictable thing... not even screwball liberals. Some voted for Hillary and questioned Obama's birth certificate (before they blamed this on the right) and some voted for Obama.

The primary reason for offshoring US wealth is to avoid US taxation. Stands to logical reason if we remove that taxation there will be less offshoring of wealth.

WHY DIDN'T DUBYA/GOP TAX HOLIDAY THAT BROUGHT BACK $800+ BILLION IN 2004 AT 5% DO THAT THEN? In fact orps that did that actually shed US jobs and cut back on R&D, lol

Mainly because Dubya didn't eliminate the corporate tax and his policies were not conservative. You have no valid data to show that all corporations did any one particular thing. Some cut jobs and R&D, some expanded and created jobs. But since you are a myopic socialist moron, you focus only on the bad and ignore any good.

WHAT DYLAN ACTUALLY SAID (YEAH, I;'M SHOCKED A LIAR LIKE YOU PUSHES A FALSE CATEGORIZATION OF HIS POSIT, LOL)

"The government's not going to create jobs," he said. "It doesn't have to. People have to create jobs, and these big billionaires are the ones who can do it."

But instead of doing that, he said he sees inner cities festering with crime and people "turning to alcohol and drugs." "They could all have work created for them by all these hotshot billionaires," Dylan said. "For sure, that would create lot of happiness. Now, I'm not saying they have to — I'm not talking about communism — but what do they do with their money?"

Again, Dylan is right and he is totally rejecting left-wing socialist nitwits like you. You're still stuck on the notion of the government creating jobs by building roads and bridges.

He later turned his attention back to the underprivileged. "There are good people there, but they've been oppressed by lack of work," Dylan said. "Those people can all be working at something. These multibillionaires can create industries right here in America. But no one can tell them what to do. God's got to lead them."

Bob Dylan The Government s Not Going to Create Jobs. Billionaires Can Rolling Stone

I'LL GET ON TO THE SPAGHETTI MONSTER IN THE SKY RIGHTAWAY, LOL

Wow, Bob's on a fucking roll! Now he's rejected your godless beliefs! Look out Bob, they don't like it when you talk about God!

The 'job creators' haven't had this much wealth or income since the first GOP great depression, why didn't they spend it then? Because like now, they don't NEED to. Of course IF we went back to a HIGHER TAX RATE ON THE 'JOB CREATORS', IT GIVES THEM INCENTIVES TO PUT MONEY INTO THE COMPANIES AND NOT GET TAXED, YOU KNOW CREATE MORE WEALTH THROUGH BUILDING UP, VERSUS STRIPPING OUT AND GAMBLING ON WALL STREET EAST?

What do you mean "if we went back to a higher tax rate?" We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. What's their incentive to put money in a corporation so it can generate more tax revenue? You want to see them use their wealth to build up the corporation and create more jobs? Eliminate corporate taxation!

lol

"Mainly because Dubya didn't eliminate the corporate tax"

YEAH, I GUESS 5% WASN'T LOW ENOUGH, LOL

According to a study by the Internal Revenue Service, 842 of the 9,700 businesses with foreign subsidiaries transferred a total of $362 billion from their foreign subsidiaries to their U.S. parent companies

The evidence clearly shows that these repatriated earnings did not increase domestic investment, job creation, or research and development (R&D). As the authors of the leading paper on the subject concluded in 2010, “repatriations did not lead to an increase in domestic investment, domestic employment, or R&D.”The authors continued:

Instead, estimates indicate that a $1 increase in repatriations was associated with a $0.60–$0.92 increase in payouts to shareholders—despite regulations stating that such expenditures were not a permitted use of repatriations qualifying for the tax holiday. The results indicate the U.S. multinationals were not financially constrained and were reasonably well-governed. The fungibility of money appears to have undermined the effectiveness of the regulations.

LOL

RIGHT WING HERITAGE

Would Another Repatriation Tax Holiday Create Jobs


Oct 3, 2011


Giving U.S. companies a tax break for bringing home profits held overseas likely won’t create more jobs or spur domestic investment, an influential conservative think tank will argue in a report to be released Tuesday.

In a break from many Republican lawmakers and a host of major U.S. companies including Google Inc., Apple Inc., Pfizer Inc. and Microsoft Corp., the Heritage Foundation said in a new study that a repatriation tax holiday would not motivate companies to hire new workers.

Heritage Repatriation Tax Holiday Wouldn 8217 t Create Jobs - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The Institute for Policy Studies looked at fifty-eight corporations that accounted for 70 percent of overseas profits repatriated under the last tax repatriation holiday, in 2004 and 2005. It found that the companies cut 600,000 jobs.

Corporate Tax Holidays Might Not Create Jobs


"What do you mean "if we went back to a higher tax rate?" We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world."

ANOTHER RIGHT WING KLOWN ARGUING THE USUAL RIGHT WING MYTHS, FORGETTING THE AVG EFFECTIVE RATE IS ABOUT 1/3 OF THE 'RATE' LOL,

12% IS WHAT CORPS PAY, ONLY MEXICO AND CHILE IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD PAY LOWER RATES, LOL


The corporate tax myth

U.S. businesses might face the highest corporate tax rate in the world, but what they pay isn't nearly as bad in comparison to other countries.


In fact, the United States collects less corporate tax relative to the overall economy than almost any other country in the world.

And that's a more objective measure of tax burden. Different accounting rules around the world means what's counted as income in one country isn't counted in another -- that makes comparisons of tax rates misleading.

The corporate tax myth - Feb. 23 2012




Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High

CARRY ON LIAR!

Instead, estimates indicate that a $1 increase in repatriations was associated with a $0.60–$0.92 increase in payouts to shareholders

So the government got 5% off the top, the shareholders got more dividends and then the government got the tax on those dividends as well.

Yeah, that sounds like a horrible idea. Let's never do that again. LOL!
Idiot.

Well according to Heritage Foundation, the right wing think tank, it didn't accomplish the STATED goal Dubya/GOP had, which was job creation and new investment that included R&D. Weird right? Gave a 5% tax rate to Corps and what they do is just give the owners a larger income, WHILE they cut 600,000+ jobs in the US?? lol

Well according to Heritage Foundation, the right wing think tank, it didn't accomplish the STATED goal Dubya/GOP had,

So all it did was give stock holders more dividends to spend and invest and give government more revenue to waste.
I can understand why you don't want that again. LOL!

 

[Dad2three]

Corp taxes don't stop job creation, and economists assign 80% of Corp tax liability to owners of capital

Dad2Three,
The manufacturing industry has moved out completely outside the US. There are a lot of reasons behind this : lower wages, cheaper raw materials, and lower taxes.

The baseline is that the US is no longer a manufacturing powerhouse. Now, the taxes are only one part of the component, but a 0% tax for the manufacturing industry should attract some investors ... even chinise investors, awkard as it may sound.

The other alternative would be letting the government create the manufacturing jobs. My only objection to this alternative is that the government should handle such investments with a 100% transparency to avoid resource squandering. Nevertheless I am sure that this second option will get the fierest oposition from the GOP.

Conservative policies (low taxes, 'free trade', etc) created the TARGET to offshore US jobs


ONCE MORE:

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.




Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation

It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program. The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.


Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.


The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.


American School economics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



INSTEAD RIGHT WING POLICIES WANT TO, AND ONLY BENEFIT, A FEW THOUSAND FAMILIES AT THE VERY TOP!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Corp taxes don't stop job creation, and economists assign 80% of Corp tax liability to owners of capital

Dad2Three,
The manufacturing industry has moved out completely outside the US. There are a lot of reasons behind this : lower wages, cheaper raw materials, and lower taxes, less environmental regulations.

The baseline is that the US is no longer a manufacturing powerhouse. Now, the taxes are only one part of the component, but a 0% tax for the manufacturing industry should attract some investors ... even chinese investors, awkard as it may sound.

The other alternative would be letting the government create the manufacturing jobs. My only objection to this alternative is that the government should handle such investments with a 100% transparency to avoid resource squandering. Nevertheless I am sure that this second option will get the fierest oposition from the GOP.

The manufacturing industry has moved out completely outside the US.

That's not true. The US is a huge manufacturer.

Manufacturing’s current-dollar share of GDP increased for the second consecutive year, to 11.5 percent, its highest share since 2007.


http://bea.gov/newsreleases/industry/gdpindustry/2012/gdpind11_rev.htm

 

[Dad2three]

"Zero corporate tax combined with a tax moratorium on wealth held abroad would be the sort of thing that would change the dynamics"

YOUR PREMISE IS IF WE DON'T TAX THEM, THEY'LL SPEND MONEY? LOL

The 'job creators' send their money to money managers, who promptly offshore it to the cheapest labor to make the largest return!

No, my premise is; if you don't tax them, they'll have more money available. They may or may not spend it. Despite what you'e been brainwashed to believe, no group of people always does the same predictable thing... not even screwball liberals. Some voted for Hillary and questioned Obama's birth certificate (before they blamed this on the right) and some voted for Obama.

The primary reason for offshoring US wealth is to avoid US taxation. Stands to logical reason if we remove that taxation there will be less offshoring of wealth.

WHY DIDN'T DUBYA/GOP TAX HOLIDAY THAT BROUGHT BACK $800+ BILLION IN 2004 AT 5% DO THAT THEN? In fact orps that did that actually shed US jobs and cut back on R&D, lol

Mainly because Dubya didn't eliminate the corporate tax and his policies were not conservative. You have no valid data to show that all corporations did any one particular thing. Some cut jobs and R&D, some expanded and created jobs. But since you are a myopic socialist moron, you focus only on the bad and ignore any good.

WHAT DYLAN ACTUALLY SAID (YEAH, I;'M SHOCKED A LIAR LIKE YOU PUSHES A FALSE CATEGORIZATION OF HIS POSIT, LOL)

"The government's not going to create jobs," he said. "It doesn't have to. People have to create jobs, and these big billionaires are the ones who can do it."

But instead of doing that, he said he sees inner cities festering with crime and people "turning to alcohol and drugs." "They could all have work created for them by all these hotshot billionaires," Dylan said. "For sure, that would create lot of happiness. Now, I'm not saying they have to — I'm not talking about communism — but what do they do with their money?"

Again, Dylan is right and he is totally rejecting left-wing socialist nitwits like you. You're still stuck on the notion of the government creating jobs by building roads and bridges.

He later turned his attention back to the underprivileged. "There are good people there, but they've been oppressed by lack of work," Dylan said. "Those people can all be working at something. These multibillionaires can create industries right here in America. But no one can tell them what to do. God's got to lead them."

Bob Dylan The Government s Not Going to Create Jobs. Billionaires Can Rolling Stone

I'LL GET ON TO THE SPAGHETTI MONSTER IN THE SKY RIGHTAWAY, LOL

Wow, Bob's on a fucking roll! Now he's rejected your godless beliefs! Look out Bob, they don't like it when you talk about God!

The 'job creators' haven't had this much wealth or income since the first GOP great depression, why didn't they spend it then? Because like now, they don't NEED to. Of course IF we went back to a HIGHER TAX RATE ON THE 'JOB CREATORS', IT GIVES THEM INCENTIVES TO PUT MONEY INTO THE COMPANIES AND NOT GET TAXED, YOU KNOW CREATE MORE WEALTH THROUGH BUILDING UP, VERSUS STRIPPING OUT AND GAMBLING ON WALL STREET EAST?

What do you mean "if we went back to a higher tax rate?" We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. What's their incentive to put money in a corporation so it can generate more tax revenue? You want to see them use their wealth to build up the corporation and create more jobs? Eliminate corporate taxation!

lol

"Mainly because Dubya didn't eliminate the corporate tax"

YEAH, I GUESS 5% WASN'T LOW ENOUGH, LOL

According to a study by the Internal Revenue Service, 842 of the 9,700 businesses with foreign subsidiaries transferred a total of $362 billion from their foreign subsidiaries to their U.S. parent companies

The evidence clearly shows that these repatriated earnings did not increase domestic investment, job creation, or research and development (R&D). As the authors of the leading paper on the subject concluded in 2010, “repatriations did not lead to an increase in domestic investment, domestic employment, or R&D.”The authors continued:

Instead, estimates indicate that a $1 increase in repatriations was associated with a $0.60–$0.92 increase in payouts to shareholders—despite regulations stating that such expenditures were not a permitted use of repatriations qualifying for the tax holiday. The results indicate the U.S. multinationals were not financially constrained and were reasonably well-governed. The fungibility of money appears to have undermined the effectiveness of the regulations.

LOL

RIGHT WING HERITAGE

Would Another Repatriation Tax Holiday Create Jobs


Oct 3, 2011


Giving U.S. companies a tax break for bringing home profits held overseas likely won’t create more jobs or spur domestic investment, an influential conservative think tank will argue in a report to be released Tuesday.

In a break from many Republican lawmakers and a host of major U.S. companies including Google Inc., Apple Inc., Pfizer Inc. and Microsoft Corp., the Heritage Foundation said in a new study that a repatriation tax holiday would not motivate companies to hire new workers.

Heritage Repatriation Tax Holiday Wouldn 8217 t Create Jobs - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The Institute for Policy Studies looked at fifty-eight corporations that accounted for 70 percent of overseas profits repatriated under the last tax repatriation holiday, in 2004 and 2005. It found that the companies cut 600,000 jobs.

Corporate Tax Holidays Might Not Create Jobs


"What do you mean "if we went back to a higher tax rate?" We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world."

ANOTHER RIGHT WING KLOWN ARGUING THE USUAL RIGHT WING MYTHS, FORGETTING THE AVG EFFECTIVE RATE IS ABOUT 1/3 OF THE 'RATE' LOL,

12% IS WHAT CORPS PAY, ONLY MEXICO AND CHILE IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD PAY LOWER RATES, LOL


The corporate tax myth

U.S. businesses might face the highest corporate tax rate in the world, but what they pay isn't nearly as bad in comparison to other countries.


In fact, the United States collects less corporate tax relative to the overall economy than almost any other country in the world.

And that's a more objective measure of tax burden. Different accounting rules around the world means what's counted as income in one country isn't counted in another -- that makes comparisons of tax rates misleading.

The corporate tax myth - Feb. 23 2012




Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High

CARRY ON LIAR!

Instead, estimates indicate that a $1 increase in repatriations was associated with a $0.60–$0.92 increase in payouts to shareholders

So the government got 5% off the top, the shareholders got more dividends and then the government got the tax on those dividends as well.

Yeah, that sounds like a horrible idea. Let's never do that again. LOL!
Idiot.

Well according to Heritage Foundation, the right wing think tank, it didn't accomplish the STATED goal Dubya/GOP had, which was job creation and new investment that included R&D. Weird right? Gave a 5% tax rate to Corps and what they do is just give the owners a larger income, WHILE they cut 600,000+ jobs in the US?? lol

Well according to Heritage Foundation, the right wing think tank, it didn't accomplish the STATED goal Dubya/GOP had,

So all it did was give stock holders more dividends to spend and invest and give government more revenue to waste.
I can understand why you don't want that again. LOL!

lol, Yeah, something that helped lose 600,000+ jobs in the US. I'm sure those 'job creators' needed more income (at record low rates of 15%) and the Gov't got about 15% of what they would've IF the GOP hadn't decided to cut the tax bills!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Corp taxes don't stop job creation, and economists assign 80% of Corp tax liability to owners of capital

Dad2Three,
The manufacturing industry has moved out completely outside the US. There are a lot of reasons behind this : lower wages, cheaper raw materials, and lower taxes.

The baseline is that the US is no longer a manufacturing powerhouse. Now, the taxes are only one part of the component, but a 0% tax for the manufacturing industry should attract some investors ... even chinise investors, awkard as it may sound.

The other alternative would be letting the government create the manufacturing jobs. My only objection to this alternative is that the government should handle such investments with a 100% transparency to avoid resource squandering. Nevertheless I am sure that this second option will get the fierest oposition from the GOP.

Conservative policies (low taxes, 'free trade', etc) created the TARGET to offshore US jobs


ONCE MORE:

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.




Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation

It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program. The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.


Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.


The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.


American School economics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



INSTEAD RIGHT WING POLICIES WANT TO, AND ONLY BENEFIT, A FEW THOUSAND FAMILIES AT THE VERY TOP!!!

Conservative policies (low taxes, 'free trade', etc) created the TARGET to offshore US jobs

Lower taxes would encourage job growth here, not job loss. Idiot.

 

[Dad2three]

Gave the most top end tax cuts for the longest period of time of any president?
LOL!
Laughably false.

Weird you don't know the top tax rate was cut under Dubya that lasted 10 years? In FACT the EFFECTIVE tax rates of the 'job creators' haven't had aa sustained low rate like this since before the GOP great depression of the 1920's

Weird you don't know the top tax rate was cut under Dubya that lasted 10 years?

10 years? That's awful!!!
So what rate did it start at and what rate was it after his cut?

That wasn't the posit Bubba. Oh right THAT never enters your comments, lol

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, my premise is; if you don't tax them, they'll have more money available. They may or may not spend it. Despite what you'e been brainwashed to believe, no group of people always does the same predictable thing... not even screwball liberals. Some voted for Hillary and questioned Obama's birth certificate (before they blamed this on the right) and some voted for Obama.

The primary reason for offshoring US wealth is to avoid US taxation. Stands to logical reason if we remove that taxation there will be less offshoring of wealth.

Mainly because Dubya didn't eliminate the corporate tax and his policies were not conservative. You have no valid data to show that all corporations did any one particular thing. Some cut jobs and R&D, some expanded and created jobs. But since you are a myopic socialist moron, you focus only on the bad and ignore any good.

Again, Dylan is right and he is totally rejecting left-wing socialist nitwits like you. You're still stuck on the notion of the government creating jobs by building roads and bridges.

Wow, Bob's on a fucking roll! Now he's rejected your godless beliefs! Look out Bob, they don't like it when you talk about God!

What do you mean "if we went back to a higher tax rate?" We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. What's their incentive to put money in a corporation so it can generate more tax revenue? You want to see them use their wealth to build up the corporation and create more jobs? Eliminate corporate taxation!

lol

"Mainly because Dubya didn't eliminate the corporate tax"

YEAH, I GUESS 5% WASN'T LOW ENOUGH, LOL

According to a study by the Internal Revenue Service, 842 of the 9,700 businesses with foreign subsidiaries transferred a total of $362 billion from their foreign subsidiaries to their U.S. parent companies

The evidence clearly shows that these repatriated earnings did not increase domestic investment, job creation, or research and development (R&D). As the authors of the leading paper on the subject concluded in 2010, “repatriations did not lead to an increase in domestic investment, domestic employment, or R&D.”The authors continued:

Instead, estimates indicate that a $1 increase in repatriations was associated with a $0.60–$0.92 increase in payouts to shareholders—despite regulations stating that such expenditures were not a permitted use of repatriations qualifying for the tax holiday. The results indicate the U.S. multinationals were not financially constrained and were reasonably well-governed. The fungibility of money appears to have undermined the effectiveness of the regulations.

LOL

RIGHT WING HERITAGE

Would Another Repatriation Tax Holiday Create Jobs


Oct 3, 2011


Giving U.S. companies a tax break for bringing home profits held overseas likely won’t create more jobs or spur domestic investment, an influential conservative think tank will argue in a report to be released Tuesday.

In a break from many Republican lawmakers and a host of major U.S. companies including Google Inc., Apple Inc., Pfizer Inc. and Microsoft Corp., the Heritage Foundation said in a new study that a repatriation tax holiday would not motivate companies to hire new workers.

Heritage Repatriation Tax Holiday Wouldn 8217 t Create Jobs - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The Institute for Policy Studies looked at fifty-eight corporations that accounted for 70 percent of overseas profits repatriated under the last tax repatriation holiday, in 2004 and 2005. It found that the companies cut 600,000 jobs.

Corporate Tax Holidays Might Not Create Jobs


"What do you mean "if we went back to a higher tax rate?" We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world."

ANOTHER RIGHT WING KLOWN ARGUING THE USUAL RIGHT WING MYTHS, FORGETTING THE AVG EFFECTIVE RATE IS ABOUT 1/3 OF THE 'RATE' LOL,

12% IS WHAT CORPS PAY, ONLY MEXICO AND CHILE IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD PAY LOWER RATES, LOL


The corporate tax myth

U.S. businesses might face the highest corporate tax rate in the world, but what they pay isn't nearly as bad in comparison to other countries.


In fact, the United States collects less corporate tax relative to the overall economy than almost any other country in the world.

And that's a more objective measure of tax burden. Different accounting rules around the world means what's counted as income in one country isn't counted in another -- that makes comparisons of tax rates misleading.

The corporate tax myth - Feb. 23 2012




Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High

CARRY ON LIAR!

Instead, estimates indicate that a $1 increase in repatriations was associated with a $0.60–$0.92 increase in payouts to shareholders

So the government got 5% off the top, the shareholders got more dividends and then the government got the tax on those dividends as well.

Yeah, that sounds like a horrible idea. Let's never do that again. LOL!
Idiot.

Well according to Heritage Foundation, the right wing think tank, it didn't accomplish the STATED goal Dubya/GOP had, which was job creation and new investment that included R&D. Weird right? Gave a 5% tax rate to Corps and what they do is just give the owners a larger income, WHILE they cut 600,000+ jobs in the US?? lol

Well according to Heritage Foundation, the right wing think tank, it didn't accomplish the STATED goal Dubya/GOP had,

So all it did was give stock holders more dividends to spend and invest and give government more revenue to waste.
I can understand why you don't want that again. LOL!

lol, Yeah, something that helped lose 600,000+ jobs in the US. I'm sure those 'job creators' needed more income (at record low rates of 15%) and the Gov't got about 15% of what they would've IF the GOP hadn't decided to cut the tax bills!

Yeah, something that helped lose 600,000+ jobs in the US.

Cutting taxes to encourage repartiation of profits led to job loss? LOL!

Your Marxist book of economics sure has some stupid ideas.

 

[Dad2three]

Corp taxes don't stop job creation, and economists assign 80% of Corp tax liability to owners of capital

Dad2Three,
The manufacturing industry has moved out completely outside the US. There are a lot of reasons behind this : lower wages, cheaper raw materials, and lower taxes.

The baseline is that the US is no longer a manufacturing powerhouse. Now, the taxes are only one part of the component, but a 0% tax for the manufacturing industry should attract some investors ... even chinise investors, awkard as it may sound.

The other alternative would be letting the government create the manufacturing jobs. My only objection to this alternative is that the government should handle such investments with a 100% transparency to avoid resource squandering. Nevertheless I am sure that this second option will get the fierest oposition from the GOP.

Conservative policies (low taxes, 'free trade', etc) created the TARGET to offshore US jobs


ONCE MORE:

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.




Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation

It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program. The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.


Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.


The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.


American School economics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



INSTEAD RIGHT WING POLICIES WANT TO, AND ONLY BENEFIT, A FEW THOUSAND FAMILIES AT THE VERY TOP!!!

Conservative policies (low taxes, 'free trade', etc) created the TARGET to offshore US jobs

Lower taxes would encourage job growth here, not job loss. Idiot.

Sure Bubba,m Sure THAT'S why Dubya had the lowest rate of job creation in the private sector EVEN if we stop counting Dec 2007, BEFORE his subprime mess showed up. LOL

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Gave the most top end tax cuts for the longest period of time of any president?
LOL!
Laughably false.

Weird you don't know the top tax rate was cut under Dubya that lasted 10 years? In FACT the EFFECTIVE tax rates of the 'job creators' haven't had aa sustained low rate like this since before the GOP great depression of the 1920's

Weird you don't know the top tax rate was cut under Dubya that lasted 10 years?

10 years? That's awful!!!
So what rate did it start at and what rate was it after his cut?

That wasn't the posit Bubba. Oh right THAT never enters your comments, lol

That wasn't the posit Bubba.

The posit was something stupid about Bush tax cuts. So how much did the rate drop for dem ebil rich guys?
Or are you unable to perform simple subtraction?

 

[Dad2three]

lol

"Mainly because Dubya didn't eliminate the corporate tax"

YEAH, I GUESS 5% WASN'T LOW ENOUGH, LOL

According to a study by the Internal Revenue Service, 842 of the 9,700 businesses with foreign subsidiaries transferred a total of $362 billion from their foreign subsidiaries to their U.S. parent companies

The evidence clearly shows that these repatriated earnings did not increase domestic investment, job creation, or research and development (R&D). As the authors of the leading paper on the subject concluded in 2010, “repatriations did not lead to an increase in domestic investment, domestic employment, or R&D.”The authors continued:

Instead, estimates indicate that a $1 increase in repatriations was associated with a $0.60–$0.92 increase in payouts to shareholders—despite regulations stating that such expenditures were not a permitted use of repatriations qualifying for the tax holiday. The results indicate the U.S. multinationals were not financially constrained and were reasonably well-governed. The fungibility of money appears to have undermined the effectiveness of the regulations.

LOL

RIGHT WING HERITAGE

Would Another Repatriation Tax Holiday Create Jobs


Oct 3, 2011


Giving U.S. companies a tax break for bringing home profits held overseas likely won’t create more jobs or spur domestic investment, an influential conservative think tank will argue in a report to be released Tuesday.

In a break from many Republican lawmakers and a host of major U.S. companies including Google Inc., Apple Inc., Pfizer Inc. and Microsoft Corp., the Heritage Foundation said in a new study that a repatriation tax holiday would not motivate companies to hire new workers.

Heritage Repatriation Tax Holiday Wouldn 8217 t Create Jobs - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The Institute for Policy Studies looked at fifty-eight corporations that accounted for 70 percent of overseas profits repatriated under the last tax repatriation holiday, in 2004 and 2005. It found that the companies cut 600,000 jobs.

Corporate Tax Holidays Might Not Create Jobs


"What do you mean "if we went back to a higher tax rate?" We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world."

ANOTHER RIGHT WING KLOWN ARGUING THE USUAL RIGHT WING MYTHS, FORGETTING THE AVG EFFECTIVE RATE IS ABOUT 1/3 OF THE 'RATE' LOL,

12% IS WHAT CORPS PAY, ONLY MEXICO AND CHILE IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD PAY LOWER RATES, LOL


The corporate tax myth

U.S. businesses might face the highest corporate tax rate in the world, but what they pay isn't nearly as bad in comparison to other countries.


In fact, the United States collects less corporate tax relative to the overall economy than almost any other country in the world.

And that's a more objective measure of tax burden. Different accounting rules around the world means what's counted as income in one country isn't counted in another -- that makes comparisons of tax rates misleading.

The corporate tax myth - Feb. 23 2012




Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High

CARRY ON LIAR!

Instead, estimates indicate that a $1 increase in repatriations was associated with a $0.60–$0.92 increase in payouts to shareholders

So the government got 5% off the top, the shareholders got more dividends and then the government got the tax on those dividends as well.

Yeah, that sounds like a horrible idea. Let's never do that again. LOL!
Idiot.

Well according to Heritage Foundation, the right wing think tank, it didn't accomplish the STATED goal Dubya/GOP had, which was job creation and new investment that included R&D. Weird right? Gave a 5% tax rate to Corps and what they do is just give the owners a larger income, WHILE they cut 600,000+ jobs in the US?? lol

Well according to Heritage Foundation, the right wing think tank, it didn't accomplish the STATED goal Dubya/GOP had,

So all it did was give stock holders more dividends to spend and invest and give government more revenue to waste.
I can understand why you don't want that again. LOL!

lol, Yeah, something that helped lose 600,000+ jobs in the US. I'm sure those 'job creators' needed more income (at record low rates of 15%) and the Gov't got about 15% of what they would've IF the GOP hadn't decided to cut the tax bills!

Yeah, something that helped lose 600,000+ jobs in the US.

Cutting taxes to encourage repartiation of profits led to job loss? LOL!

Your Marxist book of economics sure has some stupid ideas.

Yes, it helped because Corps chose to offshore MORE jobs and profits offshore HOPING for ANOTHER GOP tax cut for Corps, lol

 

[Dad2three]

Bottom 50% of US received 11% of ALL US income, that is an AVERAGE of less than $15,000 PER FAMILY. Top 1% (50 TIMES more families) received 18% of
income If the bottom 50% kept the same SHARE of the pie they had in 1980, the families would have nearly $5,000 MORE per family (plus SS taxes Reagan increased to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich)

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation


Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

Poor Americans Pay Double The State Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent




Reagan strongly supported the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which sends checks to Americans who work but earn less than around $46,000 a year, depending on family size. Recipients of the credit are among those who don’t pay income tax, but Reagan never regarded that as a problem. His administration estimated that the 1986 reform of the tax code would remove 6 million working poor from the tax rolls. Reagan called the reform a “sweeping victory for fairness” and “perhaps the biggest antipoverty program in our history.”

Ronald Reagan and the 47 Percent - Businessweek

Bottom 50% of US received 11% of ALL US income, that is an AVERAGE of less than $15,000 PER FAMILY. Top 1% (50 TIMES more families) received 18% of
income If the bottom 50% kept the same SHARE of the pie they had in 1980, the families would have nearly $5,000 MORE per family (plus SS taxes Reagan increased to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich)

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation


Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

Poor Americans Pay Double The State Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent




Reagan strongly supported the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which sends checks to Americans who work but earn less than around $46,000 a year, depending on family size. Recipients of the credit are among those who don’t pay income tax, but Reagan never regarded that as a problem. His administration estimated that the 1986 reform of the tax code would remove 6 million working poor from the tax rolls. Reagan called the reform a “sweeping victory for fairness” and “perhaps the biggest antipoverty program in our history.”

Ronald Reagan and the 47 Percent - Businessweek

I have zero problem with lower wage earners paying no federal tax, I have a problem with them getting more back then they paid in.
Right now the problem is the tax rate for the middle class.
When you get old enough to earn a pretty good salary, this is what happens.
When you realize you could buy 3 or 4 new cars a year with what you pay in taxes - you will sing a different tune.

Been there, done that. I'm 54 years old

Why have the middle classes taxes went up? Oh right Reagan increased SS taxes to "save SS" (not hide the REAL costs of tax cuts to the rich, lol)

You probably don't support a living wage, nor most social safety nets NOW you want to get rid of one of the programs that helps the bottom half of US?

Why have the middle classes taxes went up? Oh right Reagan increased SS taxes to "save SS"

Yeah, that was awful. He pushed the rate from 5.35% all the way up to 6.2%. Just awful!

Yep, OVER $2 trillion since Ronnie increased SS taxes to 'save' SS? LOL

Of course he also doubled the rate on the self employed, made SS income taxable

"The 1977 amendments to the Social Security Act advanced the scheduled increases in the Social Security tax rate. For 1979-80, the rate increased to 10.16 percent, for 1981, the rate increased to 10.7 percent, and for 1982-1984, the rate increased to 10.8, or at least it was supposed to. The 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act – signed into law by Reagan in April of 1983 – increased the rate for 1984 to 11.4 percent, and kept it there until 1987. For 1988-89, the rate increased to 12.12 percent. The 1983 amendments – which Reagan signed – also mandated that the rate increase to 12.4 percent beginning in 1990. So Reagan was responsible for raising the rate from 10.8 percent to 12.4 percent – a 14.81 percent increase"


Reagan the Tax Raiser 8211 LewRockwell.com

" The Social Security Amendments of 1983 laid the foundation for 30-years of federal embezzlement of Social Security money in order to use the money to pay for wars, tax cuts and other government programs. The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. "
Ronald Reagan and the Great Social Security Heist Dissident Voice




Weird, you can't refute the REASON Reagan did it was to hide the REAL costs of his tax cuts for the rich, you know my original posit? lol

So Reagan was responsible for raising the rate from 10.8 percent to 12.4 percent

I know, just awful!

I guess the EXTRA $2+ TRILLION it raised and was spent the past 30+ years to hide Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, don't really matter right? lol

 

[CultureCitizen]

That's not true. The US is a huge manufacturer.

To be fair : Productivity per worker has increased, at the same time some industries have been offsored , the net result is that there are many unemployed workers who lack the skills for the current job offerings.
Public investment could alleviate part of the problem , as well as free education .

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Instead, estimates indicate that a $1 increase in repatriations was associated with a $0.60–$0.92 increase in payouts to shareholders

So the government got 5% off the top, the shareholders got more dividends and then the government got the tax on those dividends as well.

Yeah, that sounds like a horrible idea. Let's never do that again. LOL!
Idiot.

Well according to Heritage Foundation, the right wing think tank, it didn't accomplish the STATED goal Dubya/GOP had, which was job creation and new investment that included R&D. Weird right? Gave a 5% tax rate to Corps and what they do is just give the owners a larger income, WHILE they cut 600,000+ jobs in the US?? lol

Well according to Heritage Foundation, the right wing think tank, it didn't accomplish the STATED goal Dubya/GOP had,

So all it did was give stock holders more dividends to spend and invest and give government more revenue to waste.
I can understand why you don't want that again. LOL!

lol, Yeah, something that helped lose 600,000+ jobs in the US. I'm sure those 'job creators' needed more income (at record low rates of 15%) and the Gov't got about 15% of what they would've IF the GOP hadn't decided to cut the tax bills!

Yeah, something that helped lose 600,000+ jobs in the US.

Cutting taxes to encourage repartiation of profits led to job loss? LOL!

Your Marxist book of economics sure has some stupid ideas.

Yes, it helped because Corps chose to offshore MORE jobs and profits offshore HOPING for ANOTHER GOP tax cut for Corps, lol

Yes, it helped because Corps chose to offshore MORE jobs and profits offshore

Cutting the taxes on offshore, repatriated profits helped corporations move more profits offshore?
But your link showed they brought profits home.
Are you posting links that disagree with your claims again? That's funny!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have zero problem with lower wage earners paying no federal tax, I have a problem with them getting more back then they paid in.
Right now the problem is the tax rate for the middle class.
When you get old enough to earn a pretty good salary, this is what happens.
When you realize you could buy 3 or 4 new cars a year with what you pay in taxes - you will sing a different tune.

Been there, done that. I'm 54 years old

Why have the middle classes taxes went up? Oh right Reagan increased SS taxes to "save SS" (not hide the REAL costs of tax cuts to the rich, lol)

You probably don't support a living wage, nor most social safety nets NOW you want to get rid of one of the programs that helps the bottom half of US?

Why have the middle classes taxes went up? Oh right Reagan increased SS taxes to "save SS"

Yeah, that was awful. He pushed the rate from 5.35% all the way up to 6.2%. Just awful!

Yep, OVER $2 trillion since Ronnie increased SS taxes to 'save' SS? LOL

Of course he also doubled the rate on the self employed, made SS income taxable

"The 1977 amendments to the Social Security Act advanced the scheduled increases in the Social Security tax rate. For 1979-80, the rate increased to 10.16 percent, for 1981, the rate increased to 10.7 percent, and for 1982-1984, the rate increased to 10.8, or at least it was supposed to. The 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act – signed into law by Reagan in April of 1983 – increased the rate for 1984 to 11.4 percent, and kept it there until 1987. For 1988-89, the rate increased to 12.12 percent. The 1983 amendments – which Reagan signed – also mandated that the rate increase to 12.4 percent beginning in 1990. So Reagan was responsible for raising the rate from 10.8 percent to 12.4 percent – a 14.81 percent increase"


Reagan the Tax Raiser 8211 LewRockwell.com

" The Social Security Amendments of 1983 laid the foundation for 30-years of federal embezzlement of Social Security money in order to use the money to pay for wars, tax cuts and other government programs. The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. "
Ronald Reagan and the Great Social Security Heist Dissident Voice




Weird, you can't refute the REASON Reagan did it was to hide the REAL costs of his tax cuts for the rich, you know my original posit? lol

So Reagan was responsible for raising the rate from 10.8 percent to 12.4 percent

I know, just awful!

I guess the EXTRA $2+ TRILLION it raised and was spent the past 30+ years to hide Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, don't really matter right? lol

I know, raising the rate from 10.8 percent to 12.4 percent. Just awful!

 

[Dad2three]

That's not true. The US is a huge manufacturer.

To be fair : Productivity per worker has increased, at the same time some industries have been offsored , the net result is that there are many unemployed workers who lack the skills for the current job offerings.
Public investment could alleviate part of the problem , as well as free education .

"there are many unemployed workers who lack the skills for the current job offerings. "

The Myth of the Science and Engineering Shortage
American students need to improve in math and science—but not because there's a surplus of jobs in those fields.

The truth is that there is little credible evidence of the claimed widespread shortages in the U.S. science and engineering workforce. How can the conventional wisdom be so different from the empirical evidence?

The Myth of the Science and Engineering Shortage - The Atlantic


Far from “falling behind,” Teitelbaum shows that the U.S. currently has a surplus of people with STEM education. After surveying the research, he writes that America “produces far more science and engineering graduates annually than there are S&E job openings—the only disagreement is whether it is 100 percent or 200 percent more.”


True Or False America Desperately Needs More STEM Workers - Forbes

• For every two students that U.S. colleges graduate with STEM degrees, only one is hired into a STEM job.
  
  

• In computer and information science and in engineering, U.S. colleges graduate 50 percent more students than are hired into those fields each year; of the computer science graduates not entering the IT workforce, 32 percent say it is because IT jobs are unavailable, and 53 percent say they found better job opportunities outside of IT occupations. These responses suggest that the supply of graduates is substantially larger than the demand for them in industry.

Guestworkers in the high-skill U.S. labor market An analysis of supply employment and wage trends Economic Policy Institute

 

[Dad2three]

Well according to Heritage Foundation, the right wing think tank, it didn't accomplish the STATED goal Dubya/GOP had, which was job creation and new investment that included R&D. Weird right? Gave a 5% tax rate to Corps and what they do is just give the owners a larger income, WHILE they cut 600,000+ jobs in the US?? lol

Well according to Heritage Foundation, the right wing think tank, it didn't accomplish the STATED goal Dubya/GOP had,

So all it did was give stock holders more dividends to spend and invest and give government more revenue to waste.
I can understand why you don't want that again. LOL!

lol, Yeah, something that helped lose 600,000+ jobs in the US. I'm sure those 'job creators' needed more income (at record low rates of 15%) and the Gov't got about 15% of what they would've IF the GOP hadn't decided to cut the tax bills!

Yeah, something that helped lose 600,000+ jobs in the US.

Cutting taxes to encourage repartiation of profits led to job loss? LOL!

Your Marxist book of economics sure has some stupid ideas.

Yes, it helped because Corps chose to offshore MORE jobs and profits offshore HOPING for ANOTHER GOP tax cut for Corps, lol

Yes, it helped because Corps chose to offshore MORE jobs and profits offshore

Cutting the taxes on offshore, repatriated profits helped corporations move more profits offshore?
But your link showed they brought profits home.
Are you posting links that disagree with your claims again? That's funny!

Weird you don't know, or more likely just being the usual dishonest guy you are, that since Dubya's/GOP tax amnesty at 5% over $2+ MORE trillion has been off shored, lol

 

[Dad2three]

Been there, done that. I'm 54 years old

Why have the middle classes taxes went up? Oh right Reagan increased SS taxes to "save SS" (not hide the REAL costs of tax cuts to the rich, lol)

You probably don't support a living wage, nor most social safety nets NOW you want to get rid of one of the programs that helps the bottom half of US?

Why have the middle classes taxes went up? Oh right Reagan increased SS taxes to "save SS"

Yeah, that was awful. He pushed the rate from 5.35% all the way up to 6.2%. Just awful!

Yep, OVER $2 trillion since Ronnie increased SS taxes to 'save' SS? LOL

Of course he also doubled the rate on the self employed, made SS income taxable

"The 1977 amendments to the Social Security Act advanced the scheduled increases in the Social Security tax rate. For 1979-80, the rate increased to 10.16 percent, for 1981, the rate increased to 10.7 percent, and for 1982-1984, the rate increased to 10.8, or at least it was supposed to. The 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act – signed into law by Reagan in April of 1983 – increased the rate for 1984 to 11.4 percent, and kept it there until 1987. For 1988-89, the rate increased to 12.12 percent. The 1983 amendments – which Reagan signed – also mandated that the rate increase to 12.4 percent beginning in 1990. So Reagan was responsible for raising the rate from 10.8 percent to 12.4 percent – a 14.81 percent increase"


Reagan the Tax Raiser 8211 LewRockwell.com

" The Social Security Amendments of 1983 laid the foundation for 30-years of federal embezzlement of Social Security money in order to use the money to pay for wars, tax cuts and other government programs. The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. "
Ronald Reagan and the Great Social Security Heist Dissident Voice




Weird, you can't refute the REASON Reagan did it was to hide the REAL costs of his tax cuts for the rich, you know my original posit? lol

So Reagan was responsible for raising the rate from 10.8 percent to 12.4 percent

I know, just awful!

I guess the EXTRA $2+ TRILLION it raised and was spent the past 30+ years to hide Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, don't really matter right? lol

I know, raising the rate from 10.8 percent to 12.4 percent. Just awful!

I guess $2+ trillion in new revenues from the middle class didn't matter, AS Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich were in place, lol

 

[Dad2three]

That's not true. The US is a huge manufacturer.

To be fair : Productivity per worker has increased, at the same time some industries have been offsored , the net result is that there are many unemployed workers who lack the skills for the current job offerings.
Public investment could alleviate part of the problem , as well as free education .

The STEM Crisis Is a Myth
Forget the dire predictions of a looming shortfall of scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians

One study found, for example, that wages for U.S. workers in computer and math fields have largely stagnated since 2000. Even as the Great Recession slowly recedes, STEM workers at every stage of the career pipeline, from freshly minted grads to mid- and late-career Ph.D.s, still struggle to find employment as many companies, including Boeing, IBM, and Symantec, continue to lay off thousands of STEM workers.

The STEM Crisis Is a Myth - IEEE Spectrum

Judge rejects $324.5M wage-fixing deal struck by Apple, Google, others as too low


Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe revealed in April they had reached a deal with employees who accused them of using noncompetitive hiring practices to keep wages low.

Judge rejects 324.5M wage-fixing deal struck by Apple Google others as too low - CNET

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

$2+ MORE trillion has been off shored, lol

yes liberals unions taxes and deficits provide great incentive and even a legal obligation to move off shore.

IF we made Democrats illegal as our founders intended we could bring back 30 million new jobs and provide a real capitalist incentive to stimulate the economy!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well according to Heritage Foundation, the right wing think tank, it didn't accomplish the STATED goal Dubya/GOP had,

So all it did was give stock holders more dividends to spend and invest and give government more revenue to waste.
I can understand why you don't want that again. LOL!

lol, Yeah, something that helped lose 600,000+ jobs in the US. I'm sure those 'job creators' needed more income (at record low rates of 15%) and the Gov't got about 15% of what they would've IF the GOP hadn't decided to cut the tax bills!

Yeah, something that helped lose 600,000+ jobs in the US.

Cutting taxes to encourage repartiation of profits led to job loss? LOL!

Your Marxist book of economics sure has some stupid ideas.

Yes, it helped because Corps chose to offshore MORE jobs and profits offshore HOPING for ANOTHER GOP tax cut for Corps, lol

Yes, it helped because Corps chose to offshore MORE jobs and profits offshore

Cutting the taxes on offshore, repatriated profits helped corporations move more profits offshore?
But your link showed they brought profits home.
Are you posting links that disagree with your claims again? That's funny!

Weird you don't know, or more likely just being the usual dishonest guy you are, that since Dubya's/GOP tax amnesty at 5% over $2+ MORE trillion has been off shored, lol

that since Dubya's/GOP tax amnesty at 5% over $2+ MORE trillion has been off shored, lol

Sounds like a good reason to eliminate worldwide taxation of American firms.