Obama & The Treasury Go After "inversions"

[martybegan]

I just wish Obama would stopping such a pussy and raise corporate tax rates to 50% or 70% or so.

Cuz then we'd have a lot more money 'n stuff.



.

Nah...we couldn't do that...the majority of Americans want that so it'll never happen. Besides...nobody is proposing we go all the way back to the rates of Republican President Dwight Eisenhower...Clinton rates would suffice.

Dwight D. Eisenhower
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $400,000: 92% - 91%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 25%

Bill Clinton
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: over $250,000: 39.6% - over $288,350: 39.6%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 29.19% - 21.19%

Barack Obama
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: over $372,950 - over 388,350: 35%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 15%

In 1955 $400,000 was the equivalent of almost $3.5 million dollars. How many people do you think actually made that much?

It was a tax on a few hundred people, that's it. It was mostly for symbolism, not for income. It was also a legacy of WWII and the need to fund the Marshall Plan.

And we need to fund the rebuilding of our infrastructure. As well as scientific R and D.

There is enough money out there for that, the problem is excessively sized government sucks up too much of it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I just wish Obama would stopping such a pussy and raise corporate tax rates to 50% or 70% or so.

Cuz then we'd have a lot more money 'n stuff.



.

If you want to argue for a lower corporate rate, go ahead. But I don't think you'd get much sympathy from working Americans who pay more as a percentage than big corporations do.

Here's what I'd like to do to offshoring companies.

"This is Bob. Bob moved his operations to China to save a few bucks and make bigger dollars."

Picture of Corporate guy.

"These are the nice people Bob Put out of jobs!"

Group picture of employees.

"This is where Bob lives."

Picture of Bob's mansion and the address printed below.

"This is Bob's Wife."

Picture of his Trophy Wife.

"THis is where she gets her hair done."

Picture of Hair salon.

That would be totally cool. I'm sure a lot of average Americans would like to let Bob know what a great businessman he is.

Uh oh..here's Joe..Trotting out class envy.....And a real stupid straw man argument.
This crap you people throw out about "jobs going to China" is a myth.
For example. The John Deere company got ripped in the media over "Chinese tractors"....Turns out that not only is this false, but the equipment made by John Deere in China is not sold here.. Also, John Deere maintains 59 manufacturing and other facilities. A grand total of TWO are outside the US and Canada.
But this is the kind of bullshit hysteria stories on which you lefties live and die. So be it.
Wring your hands and wet your beds. Who cares.
Oh yes. I forgot. Joe has been a victim his entire working career. We all OWE Joe.

 

[martybegan]

In 1955 $400,000 was the equivalent of almost $3.5 million dollars. How many people do you think actually made that much?

It was a tax on a few hundred people, that's it. It was mostly for symbolism, not for income. It was also a legacy of WWII and the need to fund the Marshall Plan.

Yeah? Let's take a look at Mitt Romney's tax bill under each President since Eisenhower then shall we?

Barack Obama

Romney's Tax Bill: $3,150,000

Romney's actual 2011 Tax Rate: 15.3%

Romney's actual 2011 Tax Contribution: $3,213,000


Eisenhower

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill: $5,250,000

Kennedy

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$5,250,000

Johnson

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$5,649,000

Nixon

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$7,665,000

Ford

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$8,373,750

Carter

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$8,373,750

St. Reagan

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$5,880,000

Bush I

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$6,075,300

Bubba
Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$6,129,900

Bush II

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$4,445,700 - $3,150,000

You know you are not taking into account any deductions for the other ones right? You know you are being mathematically dishonest, right?

 

[Ernie S.]

I just wish Obama would stopping such a pussy and raise corporate tax rates to 50% or 70% or so.

Cuz then we'd have a lot more money 'n stuff.



.

Nah...we couldn't do that...the majority of Americans want that so it'll never happen. Besides...nobody is proposing we go all the way back to the rates of Republican President Dwight Eisenhower...Clinton rates would suffice.

Dwight D. Eisenhower
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $400,000: 92% - 91%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 25%

Bill Clinton
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: over $250,000: 39.6% - over $288,350: 39.6%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 29.19% - 21.19%

Barack Obama
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: over $372,950 - over 388,350: 35%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 15%

In 1955 $400,000 was the equivalent of almost $3.5 million dollars. How many people do you think actually made that much?

It was a tax on a few hundred people, that's it. It was mostly for symbolism, not for income. It was also a legacy of WWII and the need to fund the Marshall Plan.

And we need to fund the rebuilding of our infrastructure. As well as scientific R and D.

We could fund infrastructure if we weren't funding illegal immigrants and supporting bastard children.

 

[Stephanie]

....and the war on the private sector continues.

yep, they're going to take us down to our knees one way or another
everyday it's something new out of them on how to TAKE AWAY OUR FREEDOMS

 

[mudwhistle]

In 1955 $400,000 was the equivalent of almost $3.5 million dollars. How many people do you think actually made that much?

It was a tax on a few hundred people, that's it. It was mostly for symbolism, not for income. It was also a legacy of WWII and the need to fund the Marshall Plan.

Yeah? Let's take a look at Mitt Romney's tax bill under each President since Eisenhower then shall we?

Barack Obama

Romney's Tax Bill: $3,150,000

Romney's actual 2011 Tax Rate: 15.3%

Romney's actual 2011 Tax Contribution: $3,213,000


Eisenhower

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill: $5,250,000

Kennedy

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$5,250,000

Johnson

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$5,649,000

Nixon

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$7,665,000

Ford

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$8,373,750

Carter

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$8,373,750

St. Reagan

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$5,880,000

Bush I

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$6,075,300

Bubba
Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$6,129,900

Bush II

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$4,445,700 - $3,150,000

Romney isn't the hypocrite.

Let's look at all of the loopholes Obama used. You'll discover he nor his friends practice what they preach.

 

[Mac1958]

Legal mandate? I'd like to see that legislation. Please provide a link.

Thanks.

It's not in legislation. Its part of the US Tax Code
You can google search the US Tax code. If you dare.
No one is going to do your homework for you.
The fact is, these companies are using the Tax Code to its fullest advantage.
This would not be happening if the Code were not loaded up with confiscatory( as compared to other nations) tax burdens on business.
I find it laughable the reasons you libs are interested in this. Mainly it is greed on your part. All you are interested in is feeding the federal govt with MORE tax money so that YOU can satisfy your greed for other people's money.
I also am amused that in your minds( as evidenced by your side's postings) that somehow money to the federal government will somehow find it's way either to you or to your benefit.
This of course is accompanied by the same old argument that if business or individuals oppose additional taxation, your side labels them as greedy and selfish. And that they 'don't want to help the children'. Or some other group in your cause du jour.

I'm gonna guess you're responding to Lone Laugher, my little stalker. Did you quote him? I think this new board format also stops me from seeing his posts even when someone else quotes him.

Awwww. Too bad.

Hey LL, perhaps you can have one of your little friends pass me a note in class.



Anyway, I know how intellectually lazy and incurious folks can be, so here's some help on fiduciary legal responsibility:

From: Fiduciary Responsibilities Corporations - Lawyers.com which I found in a quick little Google search:

Fiduciary Duties of Board of Directors
Every board member owes a legal duty of good faith, full disclosure, fair dealing and undivided loyalty to the corporation.

It wouldn't be tough to find a lot more, if folks would just be a little curious.

.

 

[mudwhistle]

I just wish Obama would stopping such a pussy and raise corporate tax rates to 50% or 70% or so.

Cuz then we'd have a lot more money 'n stuff.



.

Nah...we couldn't do that...the majority of Americans want that so it'll never happen. Besides...nobody is proposing we go all the way back to the rates of Republican President Dwight Eisenhower...Clinton rates would suffice.

Dwight D. Eisenhower
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $400,000: 92% - 91%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 25%

Bill Clinton
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: over $250,000: 39.6% - over $288,350: 39.6%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 29.19% - 21.19%

Barack Obama
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: over $372,950 - over 388,350: 35%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 15%

In 1955 $400,000 was the equivalent of almost $3.5 million dollars. How many people do you think actually made that much?

It was a tax on a few hundred people, that's it. It was mostly for symbolism, not for income. It was also a legacy of WWII and the need to fund the Marshall Plan.

And we need to fund the rebuilding of our infrastructure. As well as scientific R and D.

We could fund infrastructure if we weren't funding illegal immigrants and supporting bastard children.

Funding terrorism.....

 

[Seawytch]

In 1955 $400,000 was the equivalent of almost $3.5 million dollars. How many people do you think actually made that much?

It was a tax on a few hundred people, that's it. It was mostly for symbolism, not for income. It was also a legacy of WWII and the need to fund the Marshall Plan.

Yeah? Let's take a look at Mitt Romney's tax bill under each President since Eisenhower then shall we?

Barack Obama

Romney's Tax Bill: $3,150,000

Romney's actual 2011 Tax Rate: 15.3%

Romney's actual 2011 Tax Contribution: $3,213,000


Eisenhower

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill: $5,250,000

Kennedy

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$5,250,000

Johnson

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$5,649,000

Nixon

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$7,665,000

Ford

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$8,373,750

Carter

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$8,373,750

St. Reagan

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$5,880,000

Bush I

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$6,075,300

Bubba
Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$6,129,900

Bush II

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$4,445,700 - $3,150,000

Romney isn't the hypocrite.

Let's look at all of the loopholes Obama used. You'll discover he nor his friends practice what they preach.

Yo distractameister...it's not about Romeny, it's about fucking taxes and what Americans have paid before...you know, like after war and stuff. But hey, just put on the card!

 

[dilloduck]

oh ya--and now we're funding an air war too.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I just wish Obama would stopping such a pussy and raise corporate tax rates to 50% or 70% or so.

Cuz then we'd have a lot more money 'n stuff.



.

Nah...we couldn't do that...the majority of Americans want that so it'll never happen. Besides...nobody is proposing we go all the way back to the rates of Republican President Dwight Eisenhower...Clinton rates would suffice.

Dwight D. Eisenhower
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $400,000: 92% - 91%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 25%

Bill Clinton
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: over $250,000: 39.6% - over $288,350: 39.6%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 29.19% - 21.19%

Barack Obama
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: over $372,950 - over 388,350: 35%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 15%

The amusing part is that while you people view these rates as a panacea, almost NO ONE was paying them.
In fact the federal government collects more money per capita in total revenue than it ever did.
In light of that no one can explain or is willing to explain how it is our pals in DC cannot stop borrowing to the tune of 50 cents for every dollar they spend.
Solve that problem and then you can examine taxation. Until them, the bank( our accounts) are CLOSED.
Question....Based on your deliberate posting of "Republican" before the name Eisenhower, is it your conclusion that these rates were introduced and mandated by an Eisenhower executive order or as a matter of his policy to have the US Tax Code amended to reflect these rates?

 

[zeke]

Funny shit you all write. Hey someone show me where the POTUS has a legal obligation to protect corporate profits.

Seems to me those job creators failed in their duty to produce jobs for Americans. And seems to me the POTUS (of any party) has a responsibility to protect the well being of ALL American citizens. If the POTUS determines that allowing corporations to further reduce their tax obligations is working against the citizens, he is obligated to try and stop it.

Cry about it all you want. But if you want to claim CEO's have this "obligation" then certainly Presidents have an obligation as well. Just not to the corporations.

 

[thereisnospoon]

[

I'm not really sure what that story means.

But whatever we can do to punish American corporations is OK by me!

.

The problem with your premise is that they are "American" corporations.

"American" implies they put the interests of America above anything else.

You know, that they wouldn't do things like, oh, move our industrial infrastructure to an enemy country that harvests its citizens for transplant organs.

Oh, wait. No. THey totally do that. So I guess we really can't use the word "American" to describe them, can we?

They are. BY avoiding confiscatory US taxes, these companies believe it or not have the money to spend on expansion which in turn creates job growth.
The problem with these companies now is they do not want to expand here because there is no incentive to do so.
Also, companies that are expanding are not in need of nearly as many employees. This is due to increased productivity through the use of technology.
The bottom line is government needs to be a partner of business. Not an adversary. That you don't understand.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I just wish Obama would stopping such a pussy and raise corporate tax rates to 50% or 70% or so.

Cuz then we'd have a lot more money 'n stuff.



.

Nah...we couldn't do that...the majority of Americans want that so it'll never happen. Besides...nobody is proposing we go all the way back to the rates of Republican President Dwight Eisenhower...Clinton rates would suffice.

Dwight D. Eisenhower
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $400,000: 92% - 91%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 25%

Bill Clinton
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: over $250,000: 39.6% - over $288,350: 39.6%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 29.19% - 21.19%

Barack Obama
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: over $372,950 - over 388,350: 35%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 15%

In 1955 $400,000 was the equivalent of almost $3.5 million dollars. How many people do you think actually made that much?

It was a tax on a few hundred people, that's it. It was mostly for symbolism, not for income. It was also a legacy of WWII and the need to fund the Marshall Plan.

And we need to fund the rebuilding of our infrastructure. As well as scientific R and D.

Cut the crap....There are literally hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on things such as the sex lives of certain bird species while under the influence of cocaine.
The federal government takes in plenty. The problem is not revenue. It is a lack of fiscal responsibility.

 

[Mac1958]

[

I'm not really sure what that story means.

But whatever we can do to punish American corporations is OK by me!

.

The problem with your premise is that they are "American" corporations.

"American" implies they put the interests of America above anything else.

You know, that they wouldn't do things like, oh, move our industrial infrastructure to an enemy country that harvests its citizens for transplant organs.

Oh, wait. No. THey totally do that. So I guess we really can't use the word "American" to describe them, can we?

They are. BY avoiding confiscatory US taxes, these companies believe it or not have the money to spend on expansion which in turn creates job growth.
The problem with these companies now is they do not want to expand here because there is no incentive to do so.
Also, companies that are expanding are not in need of nearly as many employees. This is due to increased productivity through the use of technology.
The bottom line is government needs to be a partner of business. Not an adversary. That you don't understand.

Bingo.

They're so consumed by their politics that they simply will not see this.

.

 

[JimH52]

And away we go:

Treasury unveils measures to combat tax inversions - MarketWatch

That'll teach those corporations to follow their legal mandate to maximize shareholder value.

Good thing this administration is so business-friendly.



.

You WR loons are so conflicted. On one hand you scream and cry over the deficit and when the administration tries to curb corporations taking their businesses to other countries to avoid paying taxes, you yell fowl.

You cry over he deficit and at the same time continue to defend unwarranted tax breaks for oil companies and the insanely rich.

The only thing you are not conflicted about is, "I am against ANYTHING he Obama administration does!"

That is your game plan...sad.

 

[Mac1958]

And away we go:

Treasury unveils measures to combat tax inversions - MarketWatch

That'll teach those corporations to follow their legal mandate to maximize shareholder value.

Good thing this administration is so business-friendly.



.

You WR loons are so conflicted. On one hand you scream and cry over the deficit and when the administration tries to curb corporations taking their businesses to other countries to avoid paying taxes, you yell fowl.

You cry over he deficit and at the same time continue to defend unwarranted tax breaks for oil companies and the insanely rich.

The only thing you are not conflicted about is, "I am against ANYTHING he Obama administration does!"

That is your game plan...sad.

Here we go again.

You obviously don't know my politics, but that doesn't stop you from making simplistic assumptions.

Sad.

.

 

[Freewill]

And away we go:

Treasury unveils measures to combat tax inversions - MarketWatch

That'll teach those corporations to follow their legal mandate to maximize shareholder value.

Good thing this administration is so business-friendly.



.

From your provided article:

Three of the moves are aimed at blocking inverted companies from using techniques – sometimes known as “hopscotching” – to get access to their offshore cash without paying U.S. tax on it. Those would apply to deals closed on or after Sept. 22.
Another move makes it more difficult for U.S. firms to skirt current ownership standards in inverting. Still another move would make it harder for U.S. firms to spin off subsidiaries overseas.

Taken together, the administration’s moves are likely to remove at least some of the economic appeal of inversions, which have become more common in recent years, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. Noticeably absent, however, was a much-discussed idea to limit inverted companies’ ability to ship U.S. profits overseas tax free.

Now could you tell me what problem you find with these changes in regards to the products you sell? It seems to me that with Banks and Corporations posting record profits I don't see them in trouble. Not until the bubble burst then these changes really will not matter.

 

[Mac1958]

And away we go:

Treasury unveils measures to combat tax inversions - MarketWatch

That'll teach those corporations to follow their legal mandate to maximize shareholder value.

Good thing this administration is so business-friendly.



.

From your provided article:

Three of the moves are aimed at blocking inverted companies from using techniques – sometimes known as “hopscotching” – to get access to their offshore cash without paying U.S. tax on it. Those would apply to deals closed on or after Sept. 22.
Another move makes it more difficult for U.S. firms to skirt current ownership standards in inverting. Still another move would make it harder for U.S. firms to spin off subsidiaries overseas.

Taken together, the administration’s moves are likely to remove at least some of the economic appeal of inversions, which have become more common in recent years, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. Noticeably absent, however, was a much-discussed idea to limit inverted companies’ ability to ship U.S. profits overseas tax free.

Now could you tell me what problem you find with these changes in regards to the products you sell? It seems to me that with Banks and Corporations posting record profits I don't see them in trouble. Not until the bubble burst then these changes really will not matter.

Off the top of my pointy head I don't see significant effect on what I do personally. I think we're clearly headed towards the Euro-social democracy the Left wants, with far more powerful and authoritarian central planning. And I've pretty much come to terms with it, so I'll just watch as other countries take further economic advantage of our decay.

.

 

[Freewill]

And away we go:

Treasury unveils measures to combat tax inversions - MarketWatch

That'll teach those corporations to follow their legal mandate to maximize shareholder value.

Good thing this administration is so business-friendly.



.

From your provided article:

Three of the moves are aimed at blocking inverted companies from using techniques – sometimes known as “hopscotching” – to get access to their offshore cash without paying U.S. tax on it. Those would apply to deals closed on or after Sept. 22.
Another move makes it more difficult for U.S. firms to skirt current ownership standards in inverting. Still another move would make it harder for U.S. firms to spin off subsidiaries overseas.

Taken together, the administration’s moves are likely to remove at least some of the economic appeal of inversions, which have become more common in recent years, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. Noticeably absent, however, was a much-discussed idea to limit inverted companies’ ability to ship U.S. profits overseas tax free.

Now could you tell me what problem you find with these changes in regards to the products you sell? It seems to me that with Banks and Corporations posting record profits I don't see them in trouble. Not until the bubble burst then these changes really will not matter.

Off the top of my pointy head I don't see significant effect on what I do personally. I think we're clearly headed towards the Euro-social democracy the Left wants, with far more powerful and authoritarian central planning. And I've pretty much come to terms with it, so I'll just watch as other countries take further economic advantage of our decay.

.

You get all of that out of the fed trying to stop inversions? Really? My thoughts are that the corporations are showing record profits and they are hiding cash that for me, maybe not you, would be hard to do. If we are going to have a tax system to pay for things we all need. Like roads, bridges and defense then all US companies should be made to pay the same as we the people. That said, revenue to the federal government is also at record levels. Too bad the fed can't live within their means as we the people are expected.