2012 Presidential Campaign

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

What is equity?

If $3.2 million doesn't mean anything to you, I'm afraid we aren't going to come to an agreement on this issue.

3.2 mil on an income of ten million is one thing, but 3.2 mil on an income of one billion is another. Total taxes paid isn't informative, but effective tax rate is.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Ayn Rand is a wonderful substitute for porn.

Atlas Shrugged takes place in a world even more fictional than anything I've come up with today and that includes Mythtopia here and the world where people are freezing and being brought back to life. And her systems and heroes and villains only work in her fictional world with her controls that are nowhere near reality.

John Galt is as fictional as the yellow brick road: a loose symbol that breaks if taken anywhere near too literally or too seriously.

SI

[JPhillips]

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

.

[RainMaker]

I think few people who prop up Atlas Shrugged has actually read it. Even if you are a diehard Libertarian, it's a horrible book and there are plenty of others that mop the floor with it that take similar stances. And in the end, even Ayn Rand didn't believe in that ideology when it came down to it. Her life ended where irony and schadenfreude meet.

It's funny though because there are parts of the world where government doesn't do anything. There are no regulations for making products, no evil collectivism. But the hardcore libertarians don't seem to be talking up countries like Somalia as bastions of greatness. It's almost like their ideas don't quite work in civilization.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Jim has always been a pretty reasonable conservative, but now that he's gone full Rand and liberal media conspiracy, I don't know.

Yes - I always thought of him as a reasonable conservative...but if he's gone off the deep end...I dunno.

[Young Drachma]

Limited government sounds awesome in practice. It's the part of actually being able to execute that is where it's a bit more complicated. Especially in a country of 300+ million people.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

It is my opinion that a majority of the people on welfare have it within themselves to solve their own problems and not rely on the government to give them handouts.

If people make mistakes, fuck em. Educate them so that they don't make mistakes. Make them aware of their opportunities. Don't give them free handouts.

You're under 27 and need a job? Let them know that they have a free job as long as they have a HS diploma and aren't a felon.

So if you were able to eliminate all the freeloaders, what would that accomplish? I don't think there's any hard numbers, but, I would be shocked that if there was some way to exclude those people from any kind of government assistance, it would be such a low number that the amount of savings would be next to nil, if any. Don't get me wrong, of course someone who is able, should be able to fend for themselves, but, that's unfortunately not true 100% of the time, so people will need assistance.

Taxes aren't a bad thing. Could they be implemented better? Yes absolutely, but, we keep electing the same idiots from the same parties over and over and over again and nothing changes. Surprise! We are to blame just as much as we can place the blame on the people that are elected. We elect shit because we make shitty decisions based on shitty rationalizations and dogmatic tribalism.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's funny though because there are parts of the world where government doesn't do anything. There are no regulations for making products, no evil collectivism. But the hardcore libertarians don't seem to be talking up countries like Somalia as bastions of greatness. It's almost like their ideas don't quite work in civilization.

I would say the best argument in favor of limited government is the United States. On a relative scale throughout history, our government has been and still is very limited, and people have a ton of freedom to act and do business the way they want.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I would say the best argument in favor of limited government is the United States. On a relative scale throughout history, our government has been and still is very limited, and people have a ton of freedom to act and do business the way they want.

We aren't that limited though. We have a system that supports the elderly in both finances and in health care. We do have a lot of social safety nets in place. We have a massive military and infrastructure. You can argue that our government is limited compared to what we see out of Europe, but it's not in the same stratosphere as to what the libertarians or Ayn Rand claimed they wanted.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We aren't that limited though. We have a system that supports the elderly in both finances and in health care. We do have a lot of social safety nets in place. We have a massive military and infrastructure. You can argue that our government is limited compared to what we see out of Europe, but it's not in the same stratosphere as to what the libertarians or Ayn Rand claimed they wanted.

But every time someone questions how efficient the federal government is, or whether the federal government is better suited then a state or a private entity to perform some function, they're not necessarily going all Ayn Rand either. That's one thing that really blew about the whole tea party thing. It made questioning the role and performance of federal government a fringe weirdo thing to do. At best, it's seen as a right-wing thing to do (except when it comes to national defense, then the roles swap).

Edit: I think its tough for the Democratic party to ever say, "man, the federal government shouldn't be doing that", or "the federal government did that poorly" when it comes to anything non-military, because it goes against their general side of that base disagreement with Republicans. And Republicans can't really say that the government does anything well. When clearly, there has to be some stuff they do well, some stuff they don't, some stuff they should do, and some stuff they shouldn't do.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

But every time someone questions how efficient the federal government is, or whether the federal government is better suited then a state or a private entity to perform some function, they're not necessarily going all Ayn Rand either. That's one thing that really blew about the whole tea party thing. It made questioning the role and performance of federal government a fringe weirdo thing to do. At best, it's seen as a right-wing thing to do (except when it comes to national defense, then the roles swap).

The Tea Party didn't seem to be questioning government efficiency, they wanted to get rid of parts of it. You can argue that would make things more efficient in certain areas, but I don't think that was their theme. And the only reason I mentioned Rand was the conversation here was steering toward it.

I think there are people who question the efficiency of aspects of government, but I think they end up being more in the middle politically. Talking about efficiency doesn't bode well for the left or the right because such large parts of their plans have emboldened inefficient aspects of government.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The Tea Party didn't seem to be questioning government efficiency, they wanted to get rid of parts of it. You can argue that would make things more efficient in certain areas, but I don't think that was their theme. And the only reason I mentioned Rand was the conversation here was steering toward it.

In my experience with Tea Party supporters, they are worse than Republicans and Democrats for this reason. The typical Tea party supporter wants to get the government out of all of its functions, except for the parts they benefit from.

When I worked in the home-building industry, we had a pretty strong Tea Party group. They talked about the evils of government, rolling back taxes and getting the government out of health care and whatnot.

At the same time, the same people lobbied for a massive tax credit for homebuyers, refused to consider a reduction in the mortgage interest tax credit and for the Federal Reserve to take aggressive action to "force" banks to loan money for developers, speculative home construction and buyers.

Republicans and Democrats are at least adults who are willing to negotiate and understand the value of tradeoffs. Tea Partiers typically are 8 year olds who want their ice cream and couldn't care less about anyone else.

[RainMaker]

Yeah, I never considered the Tea Party a group that wanted limited government. They support expanding the military and keeping massive socialized programs in place. They support welfare for certain groups and government control of sex lives and health care decisions. Both sides want big spending and big government, just for their own things.

This summed up the movement.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I've always been a fan of Rand's, but I recognize it for what it is: an extreme view for those who lean libertarian - just as porn is an extreme view for those who like being intimate with women (as I do).

As for the liberal media conspiracy? There isn't one. It's just that surveys consistently show that 90-95% of those who enter the profession are liberal in their politics. Interviews with editors a few years ago illustrated that many feel they have an obligation to steer the public, for its own good. That's just the way it is.

The funny thing is that 20 years ago the only people I know who liked Ayn Rand were flaming liberal English teachers. My mom loves Atlas Shrugged, and she thinks it supports a liberal viewpoint, not conservative. Ironically, she was virulent anti-Libertarian, yet many self-proclaimed Libertarians today hail her. Most conservatives of her time hated her. Her political views were complex, and perhaps at times conflicting.

I don't disagree that the journalism profession seems more appealing to liberal-leaning personalities than conservatives. I don't think the breakdown is 90-95 percent, and I've never seen a survey that says that, but that doesn't mean it's not out there.

What is usually missing from the equation is to ask the political leaning of the true gatekeepers, the owners. I've worked for a number of different journalism outlets, and I've never worked for a liberal owner. They were all conservative, and often aggressively so. I worked for one owner who wrote a conservative column on the front page of the paper, and the we all understood the editorial needed to tilt conservatively. I worked for a station owner who once ordered us to not report on a scandal involving a prominent Republican.

For people who are railed against a perceived liberal bias in the media, they should be happy today. The media is more market-driven today than ever before. In cable TV, Fox is conservative, MSNBC is liberal and CNN is in the middle because that's where the marketplace has dictated they go to make the most money.

[larrymcg421]

I loved when Paul Ryan talked about being such a big Ayn Rand fan, not realizing that Rand would completely detest almost everything about the modern Republican party.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I loved when Paul Ryan talked about being such a big Ayn Rand fan, not realizing that Rand would completely detest almost everything about the modern Republican party.

Yes, that was fun. He gave out copies of Atlas Shrugged to his workers at one time. But her view of religion makes that impossible today for a Republican.

I've read all of her books, even We the Living. I enjoy it for what it is - a cartoon-like world where government and religion are the villains. I wish the world operated more like that. I would like a world where the inventor of Rearden Metal was as close to a god figure as there exists.

But by limited government I mean less dependence, not absence.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I loved when Paul Ryan talked about being such a big Ayn Rand fan, not realizing that Rand would completely detest almost everything about the modern Republican party.

Rand likely detests the world in her own books. At least she seemed to later in life by her actions.

[JPhillips]

Nice photo op:

The [Ryan] family put on aprons and washed several large pans, though they did not appear to need washing, according to a pool reporter. There also was no one to serve at the soup kitchen, as breakfast had ended.

[stevew]

I think it's funny that the common wisdom is that we're supposed to reduce spending so that our Kids and grandkids aren't bogged down by it.

Even though it's patently obvious that our grandparents and parents didn't give a fuck about leaving us screwed over....

[mckerney]

Obama Excited To Participate In First Debate | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[sterlingice]

Gold

SI

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

So you're saying, we're all in this together? For good or bad, we are all on the same boat. I don't mind paying slightly more in taxes. Until we live in the Star Trek universe where money no longer is needed, there's never going to be a system that satisfies 100% of the people 100% of the time.

Yes. If nearly half of American taxpayers don't pay (and even get more back than they pay in) federal income taxes, then it's a problem. The reality is even if we taxed the rich at 75% like France (hypothetical here) on all their income, it won't solve our deficit problems at all.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

3.2 mil on an income of ten million is one thing, but 3.2 mil on an income of one billion is another. Total taxes paid isn't informative, but effective tax rate is.

Going to my above post, should we all pitch in at least a certain % of our taxes?

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Yes. If nearly half of American taxpayers don't pay (and even get more back than they pay in) federal income taxes, then it's a problem. The reality is even if we taxed the rich at 75% like France (hypothetical here) on all their income, it won't solve our deficit problems at all.

If you soaked those evil rich people and took 100% of their income, it would fund the federal government for about four months.

It's a popular talking point for the Occupy Wall Street anarchists, but in reality, taxing the rich at a higher rate would have a miniscule effect on the national debt. It's counter-intuitive to many, but promoting business friendly policies that would create millions of jobs (and hence new taxpayers) would increase tax revenues and decrease the national debt.

Adjusted for inflation, the highest tax revenue collected by the Federal Government was in 2007, when George W. Bush was president.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

[cartman]

Business friendly policies does not automatically equal more jobs. Companies are recording record profits, but that isn't translating to much of a move downward in the unemployment numbers. It is doing wonders for the stock market, but not the job seeker.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

If you soaked those evil rich people and took 100% of their income, it would fund the federal government for about four months.

It's a popular talking point for the Occupy Wall Street anarchists, but in reality, taxing the rich at a higher rate would have a miniscule effect on the national debt. It's counter-intuitive to many, but promoting business friendly policies that would create millions of jobs (and hence new taxpayers) would increase tax revenues and decrease the national debt.

Adjusted for inflation, the highest tax revenue collected by the Federal Government was in 2007, when George W. Bush was president.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

We did push for business friendly policies over the years. Heck, we have some of the most business friendly policies in the world for the major industries. And don't get me wrong, I'm all for more jobs and less beauracracy. But Í'm just wondering where are all the jobs? We lowered taxes, removed regulations, unemployment rate goes up. At some point, don't those talking points have to show results someday?

I'm also not for the super high tax rates of Europe or what the Tea Party wants. But I do think the top income earners should pay at least the same rate as the middle class.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by cartman

Business friendly policies does not automatically equal more jobs. Companies are recording record profits, but that isn't translating to much of a move downward in the unemployment numbers. It is doing wonders for the stock market, but not the job seeker.

I believe that the availability of cheap money is the reason for the stock market's success, but that might be a different thread. Also, the profits seem to be coming from developing parts of the world, and that is the new global economic focus.

Don't you think that the advances of technology and globalization have made the unemployment the new norm? I just can't our way of life and economy going back to the way of before.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We did push for business friendly policies over the years. Heck, we have some of the most business friendly policies in the world for the major industries. And don't get me wrong, I'm all for more jobs and less beauracracy. But Í'm just wondering where are all the jobs? We lowered taxes, removed regulations, unemployment rate goes up. At some point, don't those talking points have to show results someday?

I'm also not for the super high tax rates of Europe or what the Tea Party wants. But I do think the top income earners should pay at least the same rate as the middle class.

I believe the US has among the highest corporate tax rates in the world. I also think we've added regulations, not removed them. I could be wrong though, as I'm just taking a guess on everything I've read.

A small, but rather dumb, move. New York State has imposed an unemployment surcharge on each employee that a company has-on top of the state's current unemployment payroll tax, because the state borrowed too much from the federal government to pay the unemployment payments. So, in order to spur businesses to hire, the state makes it even MORE expensive to hire and keep people with the "surcharge". How does this make sound economic sense?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I believe that the availability of cheap money is the reason for the stock market's success, but that might be a different thread. Also, the profits seem to be coming from developing parts of the world, and that is the new global economic focus.

Don't you think that the advances of technology and globalization have made the unemployment the new norm? I just can't our way of life and economy going back to the way of before.

It all goes back to who gains from technology advances and globalization. Over the past 30 years, there the purported trickle-down just has not happened. Bush Sr. has been proved right when he called it "Voodoo Economics". GDP is growing, and is back above where it was before the banking crisis hit. You'd think that would be good for the overall economy, but the numbers aren't bearing that out. The money is going somewhere. It is staying at the top, and isn't being circulated back down through the rest of the economy. Instead of policies to just help companies and the super-rich make/keep more money, there needs to be policies to help them do that, but also have some sort of incentive to re-invest/spend it instead of just holding on to it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I believe the US has among the highest corporate tax rates in the world. I also think we've added regulations, not removed them. I could be wrong though, as I'm just taking a guess on everything I've read.

A small, but rather dumb, move. New York State has imposed an unemployment surcharge on each employee that a company has-on top of the state's current unemployment payroll tax, because the state borrowed too much from the federal government to pay the unemployment payments. So, in order to spur businesses to hire, the state makes it even MORE expensive to hire and keep people with the "surcharge". How does this make sound economic sense?

The corporate tax rate is sort of a myth. No one really pays that rate and it's incredibly easy to avoid. Especially with all the tax breaks out there. For instance, the 10 biggest companies in the country paid 9%. Plus we have tax holidays where companies can bring money back into the country for free.

I do agree that it should be lower simply because I'd rather companies funnel their money through the U.S. than through Ireland. But as of now, the effective tax rate for companies in the U.S. is low for companies, it just doesn't appear that way on paper. There's a reason companies aren't lobbying hard for a lower corporate tax rate, none of them are paying the high one anyway.

Unemployment tax is a pass through expense to employees. The employers aren't paying it, the employees are. They are the ones that should be complaining as it means they take home less cash.

Other than that, there has been a bevy of deregulation over the years in the biggest industries. Whether it be financial, energy, or other large ones. Even a lot of corporate welfare in things like Medicare Part D or Obamacare. Basically any regulation being put in benefits the companies. There are entire industries like pharmaceuticals that rely on regulation to stay profitable. They definitely don't want a free market.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I believe that the availability of cheap money is the reason for the stock market's success, but that might be a different thread. Also, the profits seem to be coming from developing parts of the world, and that is the new global economic focus.

Don't you think that the advances of technology and globalization have made the unemployment the new norm? I just can't our way of life and economy going back to the way of before.

I believe you are on the right track. Exxon/Mobil (and the like) are making huge profits on foreign leases and shipping refined petroleum to the developing countries. Should you force that one company and its 82,000 workers and its investors (which includes school districts, pension funds, regular folks, etc.) to do something punitive? Should we then punish China and India for growing, just as we had earlier in our history? Should we also force 70% of our economy (consumer spending) to pay its "fair share" (higher prices)? Not easy questions.

Vegas Vic is correct. Raising taxes on the wealthy will only alter their behavior (they can afford good CPA and tax attorneys) and will result in little or no net taxation revenues. Taking to an absurd extreme, taxing them (or anyone) at 100% wil result in no revenues or production - what would be the incentive for free people?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The corporate tax rate is sort of a myth. No one really pays that rate and it's incredibly easy to avoid. Especially with all the tax breaks out there. For instance, the 10 biggest companies in the country paid 9%. Plus we have tax holidays where companies can bring money back into the country for free.

I do agree that it should be lower simply because I'd rather companies funnel their money through the U.S. than through Ireland. But as of now, the effective tax rate for companies in the U.S. is low for companies, it just doesn't appear that way on paper. There's a reason companies aren't lobbying hard for a lower corporate tax rate, none of them are paying the high one anyway.

Unemployment tax is a pass through expense to employees. The employers aren't paying it, the employees are. They are the ones that should be complaining as it means they take home less cash.

Other than that, there has been a bevy of deregulation over the years in the biggest industries. Whether it be financial, energy, or other large ones. Even a lot of corporate welfare in things like Medicare Part D or Obamacare. Basically any regulation being put in benefits the companies. There are entire industries like pharmaceuticals that rely on regulation to stay profitable. They definitely don't want a free market.

A tricky question. The corporate tax rate is based on US income, not global income, correct? If so, then the high tax rate is "actually" correct, the overall profits of a company are just lowered because they're taxed at lower rates of other countries they have subsidiaries in?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

A tricky question. The corporate tax rate is based on US income, not global income, correct? If so, then the high tax rate is "actually" correct, the overall profits of a company are just lowered because they're taxed at lower rates of other countries they have subsidiaries in?

Yeah, but they shift the US income overseas. For instance Apple pays taxes on domestic sales as a royalty to a shell company setup in Ireland. It's why I'm a fan of lowering the corporate tax rate (while raising capital gains) so that we'd at least get something out of the deal. But my point was more that it doesn't stop companies from opening here because most can easily avoid paying taxes here. What Apple does is relatively easy to setup for corporate accountants. It's not hurting businesses since no one pays that 35% rate. We have a ton of businesses here and bring in the 2nd lowest corporate tax per GDP out of any industrialized nation.

There are a billion other ways to offset taxes and billions of subsidies politicians put together for certain industries. Even recently we put in a law that lets businesses write off 100% of new equipment immediately (instead of depreciating it over years). Companies just don't pay a lot in taxes here.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I believe the US has among the highest corporate tax rates in the world. I also think we've added regulations, not removed them. I could be wrong though, as I'm just taking a guess on everything I've read.

We have a high marginal rate, but the effective rate(what is actually paid) is pretty low.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Vegas Vic is correct. Raising taxes on the wealthy will only alter their behavior (they can afford good CPA and tax attorneys) and will result in little or no net taxation revenues. Taking to an absurd extreme, taxing them (or anyone) at 100% wil result in no revenues or production - what would be the incentive for free people?

Why, then, was there a boom when the top marginal rate was 90%?

It isn't nearly as simple as taxes up = bad, taxes down = good.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Adjusted for inflation, the highest tax revenue collected by the Federal Government was in 2007, when George W. Bush was president.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Population growth.

As a percentage of GDP the Clinton years were higher than the Bush years, mostly because the rates were higher. The Laffer curve may work at very high levels of taxation, but when taxes are already low, lowering the rates = less money.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by cartman

The money is going somewhere. It is staying at the top, and isn't being circulated back down through the rest of the economy.

The government made it cheap for companies to borrow money, so banks get it from the federal government dirt cheap to hand it out to companies (and mortgages to individuals, which has proved a curse as well as a blessing). The problem is that means that any money you deposit in a bank is just an annoyance to them now, since they can get what they want so cheaply from the federal government. That means higher bank fees, but most importantly very little interest on traditional passbook savings.

Thanks to lowering interest rates to help businesses get money they need and let people get mortgages, nearly all incentive to save money has gone out the window, and it's much more difficult for the little guy to build up enough cushion to let them enter other investment vehicles such as mutual funds.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by stevew

I think it's funny that the common wisdom is that we're supposed to reduce spending so that our Kids and grandkids aren't bogged down by it.

Even though it's patently obvious that our grandparents and parents didn't give a fuck about leaving us screwed over....

It's wrong but I like this post

SI

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Why, then, was there a boom when the top marginal rate was 90%?

It isn't nearly as simple as taxes up = bad, taxes down = good.

Population growth.

Didn't say anything about lowering taxes, just the effect of raising taxes on a small percentage of the population in these times (with the added volumes of tax laws, rules and regulations).

[Warhammer]

The problem with the US is that the money doesn't stay here any more. Sure, company X develops a product, the money is spent by the US consumer, but the supply chain for said product means that the dollars spent do not wind up here as they did in the past, but go overseas to China, Japan, Mexico, etc.

To make up for this effect, we must create more wealth than the outflow of dollars to these other countries. I don't believe we are doing this anymore.

Also, in response to the "record profits" I think much of that is due to many companies pulling back spending where they can and trying to set up a buffer of cash. Most people I talk to are scared to death right now. Construction spending has pulled back sharply the past 3-4 months. I have one project that is bidding over the next month and a half that is over $1 million. Not even 2009 was that bad.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Didn't see it mentioned here, but two polls that came out this week now have Todd Akin holding a lead in the U.S. Senate race in Missouri.

I'm pretty sure there will be plenty of people outside the state wondering how this could happen. I'll say it again: these polls have nothing to do with Akin and everything to do with Claire McCaskill. I still think she'll win, but only she could manage to create a level of discontent that would allow a candidate like Akin to have a shot at winning.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yeah, but they shift the US income overseas. For instance Apple pays taxes on domestic sales as a royalty to a shell company setup in Ireland. It's why I'm a fan of lowering the corporate tax rate (while raising capital gains) so that we'd at least get something out of the deal. But my point was more that it doesn't stop companies from opening here because most can easily avoid paying taxes here. What Apple does is relatively easy to setup for corporate accountants. It's not hurting businesses since no one pays that 35% rate. We have a ton of businesses here and bring in the 2nd lowest corporate tax per GDP out of any industrialized nation.

There are a billion other ways to offset taxes and billions of subsidies politicians put together for certain industries. Even recently we put in a law that lets businesses write off 100% of new equipment immediately (instead of depreciating it over years). Companies just don't pay a lot in taxes here.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We have a high marginal rate, but the effective rate(what is actually paid) is pretty low.

So, basically companies pay US tax rates (minus deductions) on their US income, but they don't pay US tax rates on foreign income, so the overall effective tax rates that US-based companies pay on total income (global) are lower?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Why, then, was there a boom when the top marginal rate was 90%?

It isn't nearly as simple as taxes up = bad, taxes down = good.

No one ever paid those tax rates.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Also, in response to the "record profits" I think much of that is due to many companies pulling back spending where they can and trying to set up a buffer of cash. Most people I talk to are scared to death right now. Construction spending has pulled back sharply the past 3-4 months. I have one project that is bidding over the next month and a half that is over $1 million. Not even 2009 was that bad.

I think companies have learned to do more with less, invested in technology, and I'm sure that the uncertainty plays a role as well.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Nice photo op:

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

So, basically companies pay US tax rates (minus deductions) on their US income, but they don't pay US tax rates on foreign income, so the overall effective tax rates that US-based companies pay on total income (global) are lower?

No. Effective tax rates are only measured against taxable income. Income earned that isn't taxable in the U.S. would not count towards the calculation of effective tax rates.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

No one ever paid those tax rates.

But they paid a lot more on very high incomes than they do now and the economy flourished. If you can ever prove it's as simple as taxes up=bad and taxes down=good you'll win a Nobel in economics.

[JPhillips]

Sen. Coburn has released his wastebook.

http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/...5-8522c7e1a40e

It's clearly self-serving(the Senate is the biggest waste of money, but the GOP is blameless), but it's still a fun read.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Yes. If nearly half of American taxpayers don't pay (and even get more back than they pay in) federal income taxes, then it's a problem. The reality is even if we taxed the rich at 75% like France (hypothetical here) on all their income, it won't solve our deficit problems at all.

If people are working at a job that is deducting taxes properly, even if that person gets a refund, they have still paid income tax. It's not like the government takes in all these taxes from peoples paychecks and puts it in a warehouse where it sits there doing nothing until refund time comes along.

Anyone proposing that taxing the wealthy a ridiculous rate will solve the deficit problem is a fool. If I pay 35%, then someone making 1 million dollars should have no problem paying 35%. One of the problems is, is the wealthy have an advantage of hiding their money offshore and (legally) avoiding paying the rate that I pay.

Higher taxes are not a magic bullet to fix the economy. Taxes are, however, one way to help balance things out.

[DaddyTorgo]

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

About time they start giving specifics.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

About time they start giving specifics.

I presume you checked out the website?