Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yes! Higher taxes will make us all equal. LOL!
Um... not exactly. But what would help tremendously would be to kill any and all attempts for a corporation to dodge it's tax liabilities by stashing their profits in off-shore accounts. There should never be another Bush-style "American Jobs Act" which gave multinational corporations a 1 year, 1 time, 5% tax rate if they would only bring their money home.
Trickle down could possibly work - but only if the 1% let go of the Franklins a bit.
I think the amount of income inequality is overblown, as are the economic effects. Most inequality studies do not include the tax bite paid by the rich, nor the subsidies given to the poor. Nor is consideration given to the fact that people at both ends of the income ladder do not stay there, there's always a turnover at the top and people at the bottom moving up, replaced by newbies entering the workforce. What we should be focusing on is creating more opportunities for people to move up or into the job market rather than the few mega rich at the top.
I can understand the outrage when a guy like Jon Corzine screws up a company but still walks away with millions. But what about Steve Jobs when he was alive? I dunno what he was making, but it must've been worth it, judging by the value of the company talking a bit hit since he died. What about Tiger Woods, Joe Flacco, Denzel Washington, or whoever the hell is at the top of the music industry these days? Are they not entitled to the wealth their talent brings them, including the gobs of money they get paid for endorsements? Why shouldn't people like them make more money than someone less talented? Or someone less creative, less industrious, less ambitious? Isn't it fair to to let the market decide that rather than somebody who arbitrarily throws out a number and says we'll take all your money or most of it over a certain amount?
IMHO, this whole income inequality issue is mostly a strawman for liberal democrats to advance the cause to raise taxes and spend more money. Most of which doesn't go to the people who need it the most. People would be better served individually and collectively if they stopped worrying about what somebody else has and worked harder on improving their own lot in life. Which BTW isn't and shouldn't be just about money and income.
This is actually achievable. The tax rates go up because there's not enough revenue to support spending. But, if corporations are allowed to continue reporting losses in the US, and declare their profits in foreign countries like Ireland and Poland, domestic tax rates have to go up even more. Bringing US companies back into the domestic revenue stream could result in lower taxes across the board.Yes! Higher taxes will make us all equal. LOL!
Um... not exactly. But what would help tremendously would be to kill any and all attempts for a corporation to dodge it's tax liabilities by stashing their profits in off-shore accounts. There should never be another Bush-style "American Jobs Act" which gave multinational corporations a 1 year, 1 time, 5% tax rate if they would only bring their money home.
Trickle down could possibly work - but only if the 1% let go of the Franklins a bit.
But what would help tremendously would be to kill any and all attempts for a corporation to dodge it's tax liabilities by stashing their profits in off-shore accounts.
Excellent idea! Start by dropping our highest in the world corporate tax rates.
There should never be another Bush-style "American Jobs Act" which gave multinational corporations a 1 year, 1 time, 5% tax rate if they would only bring their money home.
Yes, because 0% of their money is better when our government is starved for revenue.
This is actually achievable. The tax rates go up because there's not enough revenue to support spending. But, if corporations are allowed to continue reporting losses in the US, and declare their profits in foreign countries like Ireland and Poland, domestic tax rates have to go up even more. Bringing US companies back into the domestic revenue stream could result in lower taxes across the board.Um... not exactly. But what would help tremendously would be to kill any and all attempts for a corporation to dodge it's tax liabilities by stashing their profits in off-shore accounts. There should never be another Bush-style "American Jobs Act" which gave multinational corporations a 1 year, 1 time, 5% tax rate if they would only bring their money home.
Trickle down could possibly work - but only if the 1% let go of the Franklins a bit.
But what would help tremendously would be to kill any and all attempts for a corporation to dodge it's tax liabilities by stashing their profits in off-shore accounts.
Excellent idea! Start by dropping our highest in the world corporate tax rates.
There should never be another Bush-style "American Jobs Act" which gave multinational corporations a 1 year, 1 time, 5% tax rate if they would only bring their money home.
Yes, because 0% of their money is better when our government is starved for revenue.
I'm not sure where you're going with this...
As it stands, multinationals are paying less than 2% on average. Contrast that with the 35% rate that leaves the owners of companies who can't take advantage of off-shoring their revenue streams. That hardly seems fair or equitable to me.
This is actually achievable. The tax rates go up because there's not enough revenue to support spending. But, if corporations are allowed to continue reporting losses in the US, and declare their profits in foreign countries like Ireland and Poland, domestic tax rates have to go up even more. Bringing US companies back into the domestic revenue stream could result in lower taxes across the board.But what would help tremendously would be to kill any and all attempts for a corporation to dodge it's tax liabilities by stashing their profits in off-shore accounts.
Excellent idea! Start by dropping our highest in the world corporate tax rates.
There should never be another Bush-style "American Jobs Act" which gave multinational corporations a 1 year, 1 time, 5% tax rate if they would only bring their money home.
Yes, because 0% of their money is better when our government is starved for revenue.
I'm not sure where you're going with this...
As it stands, multinationals are paying less than 2% on average. Contrast that with the 35% rate that leaves the owners of companies who can't take advantage of off-shoring their revenue streams. That hardly seems fair or equitable to me.
Keep the rates as high as you'd like, corporations will never bring it back to the US.
You get $0 in tax revenues and no jobs from the money coming home. Or you can cut the rates to something reasonable and money returns to the US. You can make the smart choice, or the Obama, bash big business choice.
As it stands, multinationals are paying less than 2% on average.
Link?
Did anyone else notice how the idiot that made this video made some stupid assumptions, misrepresented some facts, and conflated things that are not equivalent?
Which assumptions, misrepresented facts, or conflated things are you referring to, Bags?
This is actually achievable. The tax rates go up because there's not enough revenue to support spending. But, if corporations are allowed to continue reporting losses in the US, and declare their profits in foreign countries like Ireland and Poland, domestic tax rates have to go up even more. Bringing US companies back into the domestic revenue stream could result in lower taxes across the board.
I'm not sure where you're going with this...
As it stands, multinationals are paying less than 2% on average. Contrast that with the 35% rate that leaves the owners of companies who can't take advantage of off-shoring their revenue streams. That hardly seems fair or equitable to me.
Keep the rates as high as you'd like, corporations will never bring it back to the US.
You get $0 in tax revenues and no jobs from the money coming home. Or you can cut the rates to something reasonable and money returns to the US. You can make the smart choice, or the Obama, bash big business choice.
As it stands, multinationals are paying less than 2% on average.
Link?
Start here: We're Not Broke (2012) | Watch Documentary Free Online
Keep the rates as high as you'd like, corporations will never bring it back to the US.
You get $0 in tax revenues and no jobs from the money coming home. Or you can cut the rates to something reasonable and money returns to the US. You can make the smart choice, or the Obama, bash big business choice.
As it stands, multinationals are paying less than 2% on average.
Link?
Start here: We're Not Broke (2012) | Watch Documentary Free Online
So no real source for your claim?
" The tax rates go up because there's not enough revenue to support spending. "
This is the basic liberal mindset when it comes to fiscal policy. Spend as much money as you can get away with and then try to find ways to pay for it, mostly by raising taxes. Revenue chases expenditures, instead of the other way around. When I was growing up the message of living within your means and not going into debt was drilled into me by my parents, grandparents, and every other adult. The priority was to limit spending to your income, and you don't increase spending until you've already increased income. And BTW you're also supposed to be saving something for a rainy day too. That's called fiscal responsibility.
That's not to say you don't take out a loan to buy a house or a car, there are some things for which debt is actually a good idea, particularly if it's going to reap dividends down the road. And perhaps that's where my mindset differs from the basic liberal POV. They think everything reaps dividends down the road; unfortunately most of the "investments" democrats and some republicans make with taxpayer money don't turn out to be all that positive. We don't get enough bang for the buck, like all the "investments" in alternative energy companies and high speed rail that have no chance to be financially viable for quite some time.
A liberal doesn't consider the idea that maybe less gov't spending is actually a good idea in the long run. There are many examples of countries that have done so and managed to get their economies moving and reduce their debt. Canada in the mid 90s comes to mind. There are no examples of any country spending itself out of a hole, and borrowing gobs of money in the process.
So no real source for your claim?
So... can't figure out Google?
What The Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes - Forbes.com
Corporation That Paid Nothing In Taxes For Four Years Tells Congress It Pays Too Much In Taxes | ThinkProgress
10 Most Profitable U.S. Corporations Paid Average Tax Rate Of Just 9 Percent Last Year: Report
Study: Many corporations pay no income taxes - Nov. 3, 2011
26 Major Corporations Paid No Taxes For The Last Four Years
Depending on which study you look at, the rates change from 2% to as much as 18% paid in taxes. I've noticed that the higher numbered rates mix in completely domestic corporations, and since there's no place to hide their cash they tend to cause the tax rate to skew a bit.
And finally:
https://www.google.com/ using the search term "taxes paid by corporations" will provide you with more reading than I can documenting tax dodgers for many years and quite a few years to come.
" The tax rates go up because there's not enough revenue to support spending. "
This is the basic liberal mindset when it comes to fiscal policy. Spend as much money as you can get away with and then try to find ways to pay for it, mostly by raising taxes. Revenue chases expenditures, instead of the other way around. When I was growing up the message of living within your means and not going into debt was drilled into me by my parents, grandparents, and every other adult. The priority was to limit spending to your income, and you don't increase spending until you've already increased income. And BTW you're also supposed to be saving something for a rainy day too. That's called fiscal responsibility.
That's not to say you don't take out a loan to buy a house or a car, there are some things for which debt is actually a good idea, particularly if it's going to reap dividends down the road. And perhaps that's where my mindset differs from the basic liberal POV. They think everything reaps dividends down the road; unfortunately most of the "investments" democrats and some republicans make with taxpayer money don't turn out to be all that positive. We don't get enough bang for the buck, like all the "investments" in alternative energy companies and high speed rail that have no chance to be financially viable for quite some time.
A liberal doesn't consider the idea that maybe less gov't spending is actually a good idea in the long run. There are many examples of countries that have done so and managed to get their economies moving and reduce their debt. Canada in the mid 90s comes to mind. There are no examples of any country spending itself out of a hole, and borrowing gobs of money in the process.
I guess you missed the point. "Not enough revenues" can also refer to the loss of the tax stream, and not on spending at all. If the GDP rises, it's safe to say that businesses are doing significantly better which (in the fixed 35% business rate we have had for a few years now) ought to mean MORE revenue. If employment is down, the tax stream suffers. Likewise, if major companies like Exxon Mobil (who had earnings of $73 bn in 2011) get to pay 2% ($1.5 bn as opposed to the $31bn @35%) that shortfall has to be made up somewhere. Bush 41 realized that, and became a 1 term Republican for increasing revenues rather than applying pressure to corporations (the Reagan legacy, I presume) - so this isn't a "liberal only" approach.
You're making a huge mistake trying to equate household finances with the national economy - a lot of people do it, but it makes no sense at all. Your household, for instance, doesn't set the budget terms for 10 years down the road. It doesn't have to account for the unexpected (you might, granted, but only if you're lucky enough not to be living paycheck to paycheck as an awful lot of us do). And - this is most important - you can't live off the bank as our economic system mandates that the government must.
1797, after the Revolutionary war, the US went into a recession and was on the verge of defaulting on European loans that got us through the war. The US government began subsidizing corporations in order to capitalize on the industrial boom that was beginning. That spending pulled us out of a recession and stopped the default.
In the 1930's we suffered through the Great Depression, and although Lord Keynes was only just coming to the forefront as the top economist of the time, FDR used massive amounts of federal spending to get people back to work and end the depression. WWII helped as well, since the government - at the height of private prosperity - capped the economy by instituting rationing, which forced savings and investments until 1947 - and that began 30 years of solid prosperity. So, you really don't have to look too far to see at least one country save it's ass tomorrow by spending like crazy today.
" The tax rates go up because there's not enough revenue to support spending. "
This is the basic liberal mindset when it comes to fiscal policy. Spend as much money as you can get away with and then try to find ways to pay for it, mostly by raising taxes. Revenue chases expenditures, instead of the other way around. When I was growing up the message of living within your means and not going into debt was drilled into me by my parents, grandparents, and every other adult. The priority was to limit spending to your income, and you don't increase spending until you've already increased income. And BTW you're also supposed to be saving something for a rainy day too. That's called fiscal responsibility.
That's not to say you don't take out a loan to buy a house or a car, there are some things for which debt is actually a good idea, particularly if it's going to reap dividends down the road. And perhaps that's where my mindset differs from the basic liberal POV. They think everything reaps dividends down the road; unfortunately most of the "investments" democrats and some republicans make with taxpayer money don't turn out to be all that positive. We don't get enough bang for the buck, like all the "investments" in alternative energy companies and high speed rail that have no chance to be financially viable for quite some time.
A liberal doesn't consider the idea that maybe less gov't spending is actually a good idea in the long run. There are many examples of countries that have done so and managed to get their economies moving and reduce their debt. Canada in the mid 90s comes to mind. There are no examples of any country spending itself out of a hole, and borrowing gobs of money in the process.
I guess you missed the point. "Not enough revenues" can also refer to the loss of the tax stream, and not on spending at all. If the GDP rises, it's safe to say that businesses are doing significantly better which (in the fixed 35% business rate we have had for a few years now) ought to mean MORE revenue. If employment is down, the tax stream suffers. Likewise, if major companies like Exxon Mobil (who had earnings of $73 bn in 2011) get to pay 2% ($1.5 bn as opposed to the $31bn @35%) that shortfall has to be made up somewhere. Bush 41 realized that, and became a 1 term Republican for increasing revenues rather than applying pressure to corporations (the Reagan legacy, I presume) - so this isn't a "liberal only" approach.
You're making a huge mistake trying to equate household finances with the national economy - a lot of people do it, but it makes no sense at all. Your household, for instance, doesn't set the budget terms for 10 years down the road. It doesn't have to account for the unexpected (you might, granted, but only if you're lucky enough not to be living paycheck to paycheck as an awful lot of us do). And - this is most important - you can't live off the bank as our economic system mandates that the government must.
1797, after the Revolutionary war, the US went into a recession and was on the verge of defaulting on European loans that got us through the war. The US government began subsidizing corporations in order to capitalize on the industrial boom that was beginning. That spending pulled us out of a recession and stopped the default.
In the 1930's we suffered through the Great Depression, and although Lord Keynes was only just coming to the forefront as the top economist of the time, FDR used massive amounts of federal spending to get people back to work and end the depression. WWII helped as well, since the government - at the height of private prosperity - capped the economy by instituting rationing, which forced savings and investments until 1947 - and that began 30 years of solid prosperity. So, you really don't have to look too far to see at least one country save it's ass tomorrow by spending like crazy today.
Likewise, if major companies like Exxon Mobil (who had earnings of $73 bn in 2011) get to pay 2% ($1.5 bn as opposed to the $31bn @35%) that shortfall has to be made up somewhere.
Your math is a bit off.
In 2011, Exxon's operating income was $73.5 billion, income tax expense was $31 billion.
In 2012, Exxon's operating income was $79 billion, income tax expense was $31 billion.
Looks like 42% and 39%. A bit more than your 2% claim.
XOM Income Statement | Exxon Mobil Corporation Common Stock - Yahoo! Finance
ReallyMeow,
We have to strike a balance from let-the-chips-fall-were-they-may, but the minimummust not be set beyond allowing for opportunity. Other than that. a door opens for parasites which (or who), you can be rest assured, will take every advantage of. Human compassion has limits which is something many liberals cannot come to terms with.
Can I assume that by equality of wealth you don't mean equal distribution, as in communism? I am a strong proponent of equitable distribution of wealth, which sometimes is misunderstood as advocating for equality.Equality of wealth doesn't happen in real life.
Considering the absolutely punishing negative effects of being without money in such a money-oriented culture as ours, anyone who, as you've described, chooses to lead a destitute lifestyle is pathologically self-destructive and probably would be hospitalized were it not for Ronald Reagan's cruelty.Some poeple choose to be poor - pennyless in fact. I have interviewed people who choose to be homeless, on the street and begging to get by. One of these people was an ex-lawyer! He chose to get out of a successful career and become a "bum".
My parents (and grandparents) suffered through the Great Depression. The stories they told about that experience made a strong impression on me. My father's advice to us was to get an education, use it to obtain a high-level civil service job, avoid debt, and invest in nothing but U.S. Savings Bonds.Some people choose to work for someone else - you will never get more than a very moderate wage when you are working for someone else. They are, after all, paying all the expenses for your job to be possible. They are charging their customers a rate that pays the mortgage (or rent), the power, water, gas, tooling, taxes, your wages and benifits and all the record-keeping that goes along with a business and only net about 3 - 5% more than it costs to be in business.
Some people are motivated by entrepreneural spirit, most are not. Some people like sports, some do not. And so on.People who are in business for themselves risk everything they have to start a business. If they have planned well, manage it correctly and provide a service or a product that remains in demand survive for more than 3 years. 50% of all new businesses fail in the first year. Only 10% of new businesses are successful.
Under ideal conditions, such as existed during the decades between the late 1940s and Ronald Reagan, The Man From General Electric, the Nation's wealth resources will be equitably distributed, meaning poverty in the lower class will be minimal, the middle class will achieve the American Dream, and there will exist a reasonably opulent upper class with a minimum of excessive (hoarded) wealth.Under ideal conditions the top 10% will always control 90% of the money.
The factor of greed, i.e., the Gordon Gekko orientation, plays a major part in the nature and practices of this category. Many (most?) financially successful people are motivated by the same energy that drives compulsive gamblers. And as with gamblers the factor of luck also has much to do with their success or failure.Why is that? It boils down to money management. You can "have things" or have money. If you are smart and invest your money in the right way you can go from pennyless to millionaire in less than a week - there are those who do just that! Most of us are unwilling to risk that much because sometimes those same people go from millionaires to pennyless in the same amount of time. The difference is they plan for that and just start over.
Not all rich people start with nothing but quite a few do. The difference between them and us is how they use money.
So no real source for your claim?
So... can't figure out Google?
What The Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes - Forbes.com
Corporation That Paid Nothing In Taxes For Four Years Tells Congress It Pays Too Much In Taxes | ThinkProgress
10 Most Profitable U.S. Corporations Paid Average Tax Rate Of Just 9 Percent Last Year: Report
Study: Many corporations pay no income taxes - Nov. 3, 2011
26 Major Corporations Paid No Taxes For The Last Four Years
Depending on which study you look at, the rates change from 2% to as much as 18% paid in taxes. I've noticed that the higher numbered rates mix in completely domestic corporations, and since there's no place to hide their cash they tend to cause the tax rate to skew a bit.
And finally:
https://www.google.com/ using the search term "taxes paid by corporations" will provide you with more reading than I can documenting tax dodgers for many years and quite a few years to come.
I'm supposed to Google to prove your silly claim? LOL!
Depending on which study you look at, the rates change from 2% to as much as 18% paid in taxes.
18% is a bit more than 2%.
