Does Obama have a "real" jobs plan or just more govt spending?

[NYcarbineer]

Kennedy's?

The joke is, you can't make a tax cut permanent. It can always be legislated away.

Tax cuts aren't the answer. More tax cuts will only make revenue growth even more difficult, which will make balancing the budget more difficult.

You got it backwards, as usual.

Allowing businesses to keep more of their own money allows the business to do better, and thus the government collects more money from them.

Corporations are making record profits. The effective corporate tax rate is 3%.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The joke is, you can't make a tax cut permanent. It can always be legislated away.

Tax cuts aren't the answer. More tax cuts will only make revenue growth even more difficult, which will make balancing the budget more difficult.

You got it backwards, as usual.

Allowing businesses to keep more of their own money allows the business to do better, and thus the government collects more money from them.

Corporations are making record profits. The effective corporate tax rate is 3%.

Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households

I'm glad they're making good money. If they were suffering like the rest of us we would really be in a world of shit.

Cry about it some more

 

[kwc57]

Thinking you have to cut taxes every time the economy turns down is an irrational policy. Eventually you end up with taxes at zero.

Thinking you have to squeeze a little more blood out of the 49% of turnips already carrying the other 51% every time the economy turns down is an irrational policy. Eventually you end up with income at zero.

You're an idiot. The total effective tax rates on the wealthy are lower than they were 30 years ago.

I'm an idiot for using YOUR logic back on you? Well alrighty then!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The joke is, you can't make a tax cut permanent. It can always be legislated away.

Tax cuts aren't the answer. More tax cuts will only make revenue growth even more difficult, which will make balancing the budget more difficult.

You got it backwards, as usual.

Allowing businesses to keep more of their own money allows the business to do better, and thus the government collects more money from them.

Corporations are making record profits. The effective corporate tax rate is 3%.

Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households

So if we cut their top rate to 20%, we won't lose that much revenue!

 

[NYcarbineer]

You got it backwards, as usual.

Allowing businesses to keep more of their own money allows the business to do better, and thus the government collects more money from them.

Corporations are making record profits. The effective corporate tax rate is 3%.

Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households

So if we cut their top rate to 20%, we won't lose that much revenue!

If they're only really paying 3%, then all this talk that cutting corporate tax rates would be an incentive to hire or move jobs back here is baloney.

 

[HenryBHough]

Silly shit never held a job so how would he know what looks like, much less think of anything likely to create one?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Corporations are making record profits. The effective corporate tax rate is 3%.

Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households

So if we cut their top rate to 20%, we won't lose that much revenue!

If they're only really paying 3%, then all this talk that cutting corporate tax rates would be an incentive to hire or move jobs back here is baloney.

There is a lot of paperwork involved setting up offshore entities. It's not cheap.

Ireland cut their corporate rate to 12.5% and their economy boomed.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You got it backwards, as usual.

Allowing businesses to keep more of their own money allows the business to do better, and thus the government collects more money from them.

Indeed, but of course explaining to a leftist that a smaller slice of a huge pie is bigger than a larger slice of a puny pie . . . well, it's counterintuitive for him as the only thing he understands is tax and spend.

Take Obama . . . well, just for a moment, then send him back for a refund. I don't remember who was interviewing him or on what show, but the inquisitor pointed out to him that lower rates of taxation on capital gains, for example, have historically garnered more revenue than higher rates. It was fleeting, barely perceptible, but there was an unmistakable look in his eyes of a deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming new idea, one that had never occurred to him before.

His response was a stumbling incoherency, littered with his signature off-prompter-screen ums and uhs, something to the effect that even if that were true (even if that were true!) higher rates make sure that the more fortunate give their fair share back to society.

Huh?

So even if lower rates encourage more investment, subsequent growth and prosperity, and garner more revenue overall to pay for the burden of governance than higher rates, we should nevertheless impose higher rates because less prosperity and revenue are fair?! Worse, given his wont to actually redistribute the revenue of wealth, he's saying it's better to punish success than spread it around more efficiently. LOL!

Imbecile.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You got it backwards, as usual.

Allowing businesses to keep more of their own money allows the business to do better, and thus the government collects more money from them.

Indeed, but of course explaining to a leftist that a smaller slice of a huge pie is bigger than a larger slice of a puny pie . . . well, it's counterintuitive for him as the only thing he understands is tax and spend.

Take Obama . . . well, just for a moment, then send him back for a refund. I don't remember who was interviewing him or on what show, but the inquisitor pointed out to him that lower rates of taxation on capital gains, for example, have historically garnered more revenue than higher rates. It was fleeting, barely perceptible, but there was an unmistakable look in his eyes of a deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming new idea, one that had never occurred to him before.

His response was a stumbling incoherency, littered with his signature off-prompter-screen ums and uhs, something to the effect that even if that were true (even if that were true!) higher rates make sure that the more fortunate give their fair share back to society.

Huh?

So even if lower rates encourage more investment, subsequent growth and prosperity, and garner more revenue overall to pay for the burden of governance than higher rates, we should nevertheless impose higher rates because less prosperity and revenue are fair?! Worse, given his wont to actually redistribute the revenue of wealth, he's saying it's better to punish success than spread it around more efficiently. LOL!

Imbecile.

Obama is as dumb economically as those that support him.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I don't see how Obama allows an election in 2012, my guess is he declares Martial Law

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You got it backwards, as usual.

Allowing businesses to keep more of their own money allows the business to do better, and thus the government collects more money from them.

Indeed, but of course explaining to a leftist that a smaller slice of a huge pie is bigger than a larger slice of a puny pie . . . well, it's counterintuitive for him as the only thing he understands is tax and spend.

Take Obama . . . well, just for a moment, then send him back for a refund. I don't remember who was interviewing him or on what show, but the inquisitor pointed out to him that lower rates of taxation on capital gains, for example, have historically garnered more revenue than higher rates. It was fleeting, barely perceptible, but there was an unmistakable look in his eyes of a deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming new idea, one that had never occurred to him before.

His response was a stumbling incoherency, littered with his signature off-prompter-screen ums and uhs, something to the effect that even if that were true (even if that were true!) higher rates make sure that the more fortunate give their fair share back to society.

Huh?

So even if lower rates encourage more investment, subsequent growth and prosperity, and garner more revenue overall to pay for the burden of governance than higher rates, we should nevertheless impose higher rates because less prosperity and revenue are fair?! Worse, given his wont to actually redistribute the revenue of wealth, he's saying it's better to punish success than spread it around more efficiently. LOL!

Imbecile.

Obama is as dumb economically as those that support him.

Liberals and their zero-sum idiocy.

 

[CMike]

The joke is, you can't make a tax cut permanent. It can always be legislated away.

Tax cuts aren't the answer. More tax cuts will only make revenue growth even more difficult, which will make balancing the budget more difficult.

You got it backwards, as usual.

Allowing businesses to keep more of their own money allows the business to do better, and thus the government collects more money from them.

Corporations are making record profits. The effective corporate tax rate is 3%.

Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households

You must have missed the memo.

Businesses are doing horrible under the Obama regime.

 

[Steelplate]

Employers demand for employees is down because of Obamacare.

Employers would hire more if they weren't spending so much money on the paperwork required by ridiculous regulations.

Translation: Companies aren't hiring.

Employers demand for employees is down because of outsourcing and also the practice of downsizing and forcing the rest of the employees to pick up the slack of their laid off Co-workers...often with no extra compensation.

The whole problem with the economy is directly related to that. Less people working means less people with money in their pockets, less money means less spending, less spending means less products sold and less services rendered, less products sold and less services rendered means less profit, less profit means more people laid off.... Rinse and Repeat.

You see, the problem is that the common laborer has been reduced from a once valuable, decently paid asset to a business, to the role of "you ought to be glad you just have a job...get the **** back to work!" kind of role. A lot of the Conservatives among us want to further kneecap the workforce by getting rid of the Minimum wage and other labor protections.

They are so bent on this ideology that they are blind to the fact that they are shooting themselves in the foot and hurting their often hurting themselves in the long run....which is another issue I have with this Neo-economic business model.... there doesn't seem to be a long term strategy(unless that strategy is exactly to reduce the American Workforce into a slave labor situation like China). It's all about the quick buck now...worry about tomorrow when it gets here.

 

[Annie]

Employers demand for employees is down because of Obamacare.

Employers would hire more if they weren't spending so much money on the paperwork required by ridiculous regulations.

Translation: Companies aren't hiring.

Employers demand for employees is down because of outsourcing and also the practice of downsizing and forcing the rest of the employees to pick up the slack of their laid off Co-workers...often with no extra compensation.

The whole problem with the economy is directly related to that. Less people working means less people with money in their pockets, less money means less spending, less spending means less products sold and less services rendered, less products sold and less services rendered means less profit, less profit means more people laid off.... Rinse and Repeat.

You see, the problem is that the common laborer has been reduced from a once valuable, decently paid asset to a business, to the role of "you ought to be glad you just have a job...get the **** back to work!" kind of role. A lot of the Conservatives among us want to further kneecap the workforce by getting rid of the Minimum wage and other labor protections.

They are so bent on this ideology that they are blind to the fact that they are shooting themselves in the foot and hurting their often hurting themselves in the long run....which is another issue I have with this Neo-economic business model.... there doesn't seem to be a long term strategy(unless that strategy is exactly to reduce the American Workforce into a slave labor situation like China). It's all about the quick buck now...worry about tomorrow when it gets here.

I thought you were for the minimum wage? Hello!

 

[NYcarbineer]

So if we cut their top rate to 20%, we won't lose that much revenue!

If they're only really paying 3%, then all this talk that cutting corporate tax rates would be an incentive to hire or move jobs back here is baloney.

There is a lot of paperwork involved setting up offshore entities. It's not cheap.

Ireland cut their corporate rate to 12.5% and their economy boomed.

Ireland? Wingnuts are citing the nearly bankrupt Ireland as their utopian model??? that's genuinely funny.

 

[Seawytch]

You must have missed the memo.

Businesses are doing horrible under the Obama regime.

Then how is it that all these companies are making record breaking profits? Apple is doing great. Oil companies? Not hurting. Banks? Nope, not hurting. Wait, I know...Health Insurance companies. "Obamacare" must be killing them? Nope, apparently not.


And still we give them TAX BREAKS for outsourcing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You got it backwards, as usual.

Allowing businesses to keep more of their own money allows the business to do better, and thus the government collects more money from them.

Corporations are making record profits. The effective corporate tax rate is 3%.

Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households

You must have missed the memo.

Businesses are doing horrible under the Obama regime.

Just for the record, that chart I posted is misleading and I was misled. My bad. The effective corporate tax rate is higher.

The problem is, if overseas companies are paying 50 cents an hour for labor, or a buck an hour, or whatever outrageously low wage they're paying,

how much tax relief can you offer to overcome that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Employers demand for employees is down because of Obamacare.

Employers would hire more if they weren't spending so much money on the paperwork required by ridiculous regulations.

Translation: Companies aren't hiring.

Employers demand for employees is down because of outsourcing and also the practice of downsizing and forcing the rest of the employees to pick up the slack of their laid off Co-workers...often with no extra compensation.

The whole problem with the economy is directly related to that. Less people working means less people with money in their pockets, less money means less spending, less spending means less products sold and less services rendered, less products sold and less services rendered means less profit, less profit means more people laid off.... Rinse and Repeat.

You see, the problem is that the common laborer has been reduced from a once valuable, decently paid asset to a business, to the role of "you ought to be glad you just have a job...get the **** back to work!" kind of role. A lot of the Conservatives among us want to further kneecap the workforce by getting rid of the Minimum wage and other labor protections.

They are so bent on this ideology that they are blind to the fact that they are shooting themselves in the foot and hurting their often hurting themselves in the long run....which is another issue I have with this Neo-economic business model.... there doesn't seem to be a long term strategy(unless that strategy is exactly to reduce the American Workforce into a slave labor situation like China). It's all about the quick buck now...worry about tomorrow when it gets here.

"Employers demand for employees is down because of outsourcing and also the practice of downsizing and forcing the rest of the employees to pick up the slack of their laid off Co-workers..."

Obamacare is going to make employees a lot more expensive.
Kinda going in the wrong direction.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If they're only really paying 3%, then all this talk that cutting corporate tax rates would be an incentive to hire or move jobs back here is baloney.

There is a lot of paperwork involved setting up offshore entities. It's not cheap.

Ireland cut their corporate rate to 12.5% and their economy boomed.

Ireland? Wingnuts are citing the nearly bankrupt Ireland as their utopian model??? that's genuinely funny.

I realize you're an idiotic assclown, but the housing crisis wasn't caused by lower corporate tax rates.

In case you forgot, we have the highest corporate tax rates in the world and we also had a housing crisis, dummy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You must have missed the memo.

Businesses are doing horrible under the Obama regime.

Then how is it that all these companies are making record breaking profits? Apple is doing great. Oil companies? Not hurting. Banks? Nope, not hurting. Wait, I know...Health Insurance companies. "Obamacare" must be killing them? Nope, apparently not.


And still we give them TAX BREAKS for outsourcing.

Please explain this supposed tax break.

"The tax code is written in a way that allows companies not to pay the full 35% U.S. corporate tax rate on foreign income when that money remains invested overseas"

Why would a company pay tax to a country they don't reside in?

"Most jurisdictions tax foreign corporations differently than domestic corporations.[30] No international laws limit the ability of a country to tax its nationals and residents (individuals and entities). However, treaties and practicality impose limits on taxation of those outside its borders, even on income from sources within the country.

Most jurisdictions tax foreign corporations on business income within the jurisdiction when earned through a branch or permanent establishment in the jurisdiction. This tax may be imposed at the same rate as the tax on business income of a resident corporation or at a different rate.[31]

Upon payment of dividends, corporations are generally subject to withholding tax only by their country of incorporation. Many countries impose a branch profits tax on foreign corporations to prevent the advantage the absence of dividend withholding tax would otherwise provide to foreign corporations. This tax may be imposed at the time profits are earned by the branch or at the time they are remitted or deemed remitted outside the country.[32]

Branches of foreign corporations may not be entitled to all of the same deductions as domestic corporations. Some jurisdictions do not recognize inter-branch payments as actual payments, and income or deductions arising from such inter-branch payments are disregarded.[33] Some jurisdictions impose express limits on tax deductions of branches. Commonly limited deductions include management fees and interest"

Corporate tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia