obamas job proposal
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44416268...s_and_economy/



why is everyone pushing the payroll tax cut to be continued? the people that move 'helps' have jobs; it dosn't create them. it's been around a few years now-what purpose does it serve?

Any proposal that spends more tax dollars trying to incent instead of taking punitive actions on companies shipping jobs overseas is simply more money taken out of your pockets and handed over to the elite who have gamed the system. These fukers do not understand compromise and fairplay. How about severe taxes on companies shipping jobs abroad as incentive to keeping them here. How about major tariffs on goods produced elsewhere. Inflation? Last I Checked you can only sell a product for what people are willing to pay. Its called free market.

i posted a link in another thread talking about how many companies say they'd be back tomorrow if the govt changed the corporate tax structure, something obama has suggested in this proposal. currently those companies are better off having moved-that's what needs to change. they were being punished by our govt thru increased operating costs. just think-the tax changes, they come back, employment increases, a winwinwin situation. you say punish them for leaving, they were being punished for staying.

Just because they say they will come back in order to get "incented" doesn't mean they will. Just another opportunity to line the pockets of those at the top. We are acting like an abused spouse always giving one more chance. Your argument as to taxes is very weak when companies like GE pay no taxes and many more receive huge tax refunds. But like an abused spouse we have to accept a plausible reason to give them another chance and that is reducing corporate taxes. We are fuked and will look at today as the good ole days in 20 years. We are now to the point where we are driving our economy via government funding... This is the same gameplan of a third world country.

i went and found the post from the other thread...

now, you want to say we'd be giving them too much, i say we'd be levelling the playing field. you can't ask them to move here, and charge them far more than they'd pay elsewhere.
companies move to save money. what can we do to change that? the above is a big start.

Fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me.. At what point will you stop believing what you read and pay attention to what is actually happening?

To summarize someone is saying reduce my tax burden by hundreds of millions of dollars and I will create jobs... I ask what is the penalty if you don't create jobs? Answer: None. Proable outcome? They will outsource a million jobs paying 100 K and create 200K jobs paying 25K with no benefits and Obama and business will declare victory.

you know what, you're right. even tho businesses said they moved to a friendlier climate, and would move back if we met other countries lower rates, they're just lying. we absolutely should penalize the hell out of them, that way whatever business they have here will surely stay. they would meekly accept all that punishment.

NOTE TO USUAL SUSPECTS SELVES:



There is a reason government heads and corporate heads are said to "be in bed."

6 a one, half dozen a the othah.

Simple is...is not always as simple does.

I know I am right but it sure as hell must feel better in your fantasy land.. There you can feel good until you get pounded again only to feel good again when you are promised something else. Did I say abused spouse already?

:rolleyes:

abused spouse? lol me or tony?

no, i just figure if companies say they left because of taxes, which the article above says is higher than anywhere else, perhaps they are correct?

i just think of our govt wishes to get companies to come back, or to get companies to hire, they might want to look at things from a companies point of view.

now, of course businesses are all the devil, but who else creates jobs? do you work? even if you're self employed, you're still in 'a business'. if businesses find they can't make money, they either change things to make money, or they shut down. many companies have found that they can make more elsewhere. now, we can either punish them-which doesn't make them suddenly want to help out here, or we can consider what they say-which in this case has to do with corporate taxes. are they higher? were they lower? can we lower them to bring them back?

an excerpt from an article about corporate taxes:

"The U.S. has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Only Brazil, Uzbekistan, Chad and Argentina have higher corporate tax rates than the U.S. According to a research study by the Cato Institute, the effective U.S. corporate tax on new investment was 34.6% in 2010. This was higher than the average OECD rate of 18.6% and the average rate for 83 countries at 17.7%.

So, if the corporate rate is 34.6%, what's with the claims that companies don't pay taxes, or at least don't pay enough? In some cases it's deliberate lying, but in others it's just an exaggeration based on a failure to understand how taxes work for corporations. PriceWaterhouseCoopers prepared a study from 2006 through 2009 examining Global Effective Tax Rates, which provides some insights. By the way, an 'effective tax rate' is what a company really pays, not the rate assigned by a government. The effective rate can be lower, or higher, than the official rate declared by the government. The PWC study discovered that US-based companies operating globally pay more than eight percentage points more in ETR than companies operating globally with a headquarters outside the US. Consequently, this demonstrates not only that corporations pay a higher effective tax rate than individuals in the United States, the rates charged by the U.S. government are among the highest in the world, and US-based companies are penalized for putting their head office here.

when i see stuff like this article:

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/13/...uncompetitive/

what else can one think but that the current environment isn't conducive to job growth? adding punitive costs to those here won't make the environment better. it certainly won't encourage anyone else to head over here either. if our taxes are higher than other countries, the first question i would have to ask is why? the second would be what can we do to change it? if the companies in the article above actually moved back, as they said they would, how many jobs does that add? if we don't lower, they don't move back, well obviously we are no better off.

so, jms, are our taxes where they should be for corporations?

Thanks for the article from such an unbiased source.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten...age-foundation

What the "job creators" want, as ransom for "bringing back jobs", is to make their workforce and corporate costs in America the same as in India, China, etc. Remove all worker minimum wage and age restrictions. Forbid worker protections by removing ability to unionize. Remove all workplace worker protection regulations from OSHA, EPA. Remove all taxes on bringing money back into the US (let the rich pay nothing, let the poor pay for what we need).

These laws are currently being actively pushed by the Republican party, with the very workers these laws will harm tricked into supporting it: "Right to work", "demonize unions", "tax cuts for the job creators", "repeal minimum wage", "government is too big and expensive get rid of the EPA and OSHA", "47% of the country pays no taxes".

Yeah, as soon as we are the worker equivalent of a third world country, manufacturing jobs will return to the US so $5.00 per hour workers can paint more ceramic crap to sell at Cracker Barrel and cheap shirts to sell at Wal Mart.

Except the workers in the US won't even be able to afford it. So we'll export it to the countries who still have a middle class, with spending power, as their industry changed to 21st century types of production: energy, technology, innovation, professional growth, etc.

First world countries where taxes are paid, healthcare, workplace and retirement security are provided to all, education is supported and encouraged (kind of like what the USA was in the 1950's-1960's, our huge growth period)

Can some of you really not see this happening in this country? Does the massive, increasing wealth distribution disparity in this country mean good things? Listen to the GOP "debate" tonight, and hear the dog whistles.

Besides GE(can't imagine why...), poor people, illegal immigrants and those with "excellent accountants" I would like to know who isn't paying taxes in this country?

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...y/#more-116417

Based on this we certainly seem like a first world country where taxes are paid by almost everyone who ought to be paying them.

Yes. Thus I find it strange that the Republican party, GOP-TV (Faux News), Heritage Foundation, etc. has been actively demonizing that 47%, those nearly all with incomes below $33,000 or so, and demanding they pay more federal income tax. While those very same people demand the wealthiest "job creators" get more tax cuts, they fight against closing tax loopholes the wealthiest use to lower their effective tax rates, and they demand decreases in capital gains taxes.

Those evil poor people! Holding back the wealthy job creators of this great country!

Makes no sense. Can't wait for the GOP debate tonight to see some of them try and justify that position.

"First world countries where taxes are paid, healthcare, workplace and retirement security are provided to all, education is supported and encouraged"

So where is the problem? You agreed that those who are supposed to pay are paying.
Could it be that the money collected is not being spent as well as it could be?

My tax comment was made in a completely different context. You've changed the subject. Re-read my post for what "problem" I was discussing. All the paragraphs go together.

BTW - did you read the article I referenced, or just look at the chart posted here? Read the article, too.

And no, I didn't agree that "all those who are supposed to pay are paying". Not in the least. I said, "yes", to your statement that it "... seem like a first world country where taxes are paid by almost everyone who ought to be paying them ... ". No, I do not agree with that statement. Yes, it "seems" like that, though, on the surface, doesn't it?' It is not the reality that would reflect my interpretation of who "ought" to be paying taxes.

i didnt ask what you thought of the source. is the info they put up correct? and when i googled us corporate taxes and used that link, there were plemty of other with the same story. i guess they are all biased?

if the releases are correct and over half the $300 billion is dedicated to extending unemployment benefits and payroll taxes this is more of another giveaway rather than a job creator.

The first $800 plus billion package failed. To propose it again shows the true purpose of this President and it has little to do with jobs and less to do with the financial condition of the country.

Less than two months ago he was crying he’d be unable to pay seniors and the military their benefits and pay despite the fact they've paid and or worked for them unless we raised the debt ceiling. Now having $1.2 trillion more he can't keep himself from throwing their money away once again all in less than a couple months. Sorry this is dead on arrival.

BTW even as a Bear fan, I'll watch the Packer pre-game show that NBC Milwaukee has chosen to air over the hot air coming out of the President.

If he came to WI and visited one of the many reservations I suspect he'd be given the Indian name Lame Duck.

Posting **** from the Internet to support your position is a joke. Anyone that can type can find hundreds of "articles" supporting thier position. Talk to me in a year when we are NO better off and are 300 more million in debt.

No, it did not fail. I recently posted multiple financial analytic sources that say yes, it created plenty of jobs.

Give potential employers an incentive say $2K for every new hire, payable after 2 years employment. That $300 billion would represent a minimum of 15 million jobs if collected. (Or 40 million jobs for $800 billion which shows just how much the first stimulus failed.) It would also reward successful companies in that they would be the ones needing and hiring new employees. As an additional bonus, the incentive would be due in two years. No immediate outlay of any cash, thus no new financial burden for the American taxpayer today and for years to come.

With the added personal income and payroll taxes over two years employment more than covering the $300 billion or any portion collected, it's sure-fire.

But that will never happen with this guy because jobs are far down on the list of priorities as demonstrated by this newest giveaway.

well, at any rate thanks for answering my questions about the corporate tax rates.
oh, wait...you didn't.
and i also don't want us to be no better off and 300 more million or billion in debt in a year. that we agree on.

Brilliant right wing rag..

They brought you the Savings and Loan collapse in the 80's,LTCM,Enron,Worldcom in the 90's, Internet Bubble,and brought theworld to near financial collapse in th 00's. Received massive bailouts and proceeded to give bonuses to those that caused the collapse. Now they are saying reduce my tax rates becuase I will bring jobs back. And like a beaten spouse you say they have changed, this time it will be different. It scares me that they allow you to vote.

You ask me if our corporate tax rates are too high and I ask you if countries with lower rates have all the loopholes that allow corps to pay no taxes and get massive refunds. If you give them the option of cutting their rate in half with Zero deductions or the current system, what so you think they will choose? They probably will ask for both becaue without it they can't create
jobs. :zz:

Wow you found a fuking editorial that agrees with your position. I am truly impressed.

all business did that?

at any rate, i appreciate you taking digs at me rather than answering the simple question. thanks for staying above board with your debate skills. of course, i don't recall you saying such things during the times i held the same opinion as yourself on an issue being discussed.
i'm taking it that you know our corporate rates are indeed higher than other countries since you didn't just say yay or nay. i have no doubt that when businesses look in this direction, see that number, that they don't just go elsewhere, rather than see if they can beat the system.
i have no doubt that businesses who say they left because of the tax rate are just making that up since it makes no sense. why leave if they could exploit all those loopholes and pay less? matter of fact, if it's so easy to buck the sytem, why aren't more companies moving here to reap all those rewards?


moving on...what do we need to do to generate jobs? small businesses are hurting, so are large, and everything in between. investors aren't investing, they are holding cash in huge amounts. how do we spur investment? how do we help start ups?

If the only way you can understand is via yay or nay answer then i feel sorry for you. But you are like most Americans are too simple to understand the nuances of a specific issue and the dowstream consequences involved render this issue non binary. I will dumb it down. Given that our tax code has such generous writeoffs corporate tax rate is fine where it is. How long has it been in place 50-100 years? Now all of a sudden it is the reason companies are shipping jobs overseas? It is an excuse nothing more nothing less as a justification for class warfare against the middleclass by upper management in order to salvage as much of the diminishing pool of assets as they can. Business is taking advantage of our dire straights to gain further leverage by blaming their actions on their tax rate. Their actions are treasonous.

the yea or nay answer was for the question...

are our corporate tax rates higher?


if so, why? when did they go up? are they too high? is it a legit problem or not?

It's pretty basic stuff, historical numbers and such. Since you want to generalize things and lump every company in the US with Enron or any other distasteful occurence I would think you would enjoy the simplicity.

I don't bother to read them as I know the net is they support the posters position. If you are reading them you are spending too much time. Time that may better be spent training your horses... Just sayin ;)

Your broad strokes ignore far too much to speak of nuances. What exactly is your plan? Make huge corporations pay more taxes? OK fine how does that help the economy? The huge bonuses paid to executives surely would be more economically stimulating than sending that money to the gov't no? Do they not spend large sums of money? Their wives do. If Riot can claim that food stamps are stimulus then how isn't bonus pay? LOL!

But seriously you can't browbeat or tax business into expansion. Business doesn't exist to create jobs, jobs are a by product of business. You can't threaten companies into providing jobs, you have to foster an atmosphere of economic growth in order for them to risk capital to expand with a realistic chance to provide profits. Corporations aren't jobs programs even if they produce the lionshare of employment. Getting mad at them is silly and even childish. The heads of fortune 500 companies didnt meet in secret and say "lets screw the middle class"! They are playing the hand dealt, measured by porfits their company makes. Lefties love the class warfare card but lets not act like Fortune 500 companies don't fire their executives when they underperform. And lets not pretend that the retirment accounts of millions of Americans aren't anchored by stock in the same companies that you seek to demonize. People like you aren't bashful about making a profit investing in big corporations while at the same time complaining about them operating a call center in India.

Wow you are smart. That is some talent, being able to critique articles that you didn't even bother reading. Maybe you should be reading the help wanted ads...

Here this should help

http://corp.7-eleven.com/Careers/tabid/136/Default.aspx

Dude. I have a job and always have had a job but since you are getting personal maybe you should look at the ad. And as far as your economics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLweQe3ZprE

The Big O's job proposal is very simple. Half the people get up and go to work everyday and the other half's job is to stay home and let us support them.
Then the half that doesn't work, or pay taxes, votes for him. Very simple.

Actually no, they don't. You only spend so much on living. The more money you make, you just end up saving it. Not spending it.

If you want to be serious about it, yes, food stamps - aside from literally keeping people alive by allowing them to, you know, eat, which is sorta important - is instant local economy money churn. It's money spent immediately and fully in the local economy. Executive bonuses are not. LOL.

True - but business needs consumers. Businesses do not create jobs out of nowhere just for "growths" sake, unless there is a demand by consumers of their products and services for that growth.

You need to create consumers, create a middle class with disposable income above food and basic life necessities, for "business growth". We don't have that now. We have destroyed the middle class in the United States. We don't even have spending on basic necessities any more, as so many are out of work and unable to do even that.

That's why the meme of "tax cuts for the rich to allow them to foster growth" is complete nonsense. Businesses don't grow first, then look for consumers. Businesses grow only in response to consumer demand.

Food stamps, btw, create instant consumers. Jobless benefits enable instant consumers. Payroll tax cuts create instant consumers. All of that money, when given to someone without money, without food, is spent instantly for substenance living. Executive bonuses are not.

And most of those executives still get million dollar golden parachutes. Not exactly incentive to perform, when getting fired and doing well still has your ass covered very generously.

Whoa - let's be realistic. Millions of investors may have stock in a company, but the very investment firms that sold them that stock also short against their investors making a profit. Wall Street doesn't invest in growing companies any more, they don't care if the company makes profit - they invest in being on the right side of the move. But the common investor is hoping on the company growing.

As we can see, the common investor has been screwed the past 10 years, while Wall Street, taking the opposite position, has made billions.