Thanks for checking. You could have just taken my word for it. :)
It is Congress. This isn't a point of opinion, it is a point of fact. Congress passes the budgets.
Granted, the President signs (and sometimes proposes) the (budget) bills, so there is shared responsibility. But to look at some data and look at who is president (and which party) without looking at how Congress is composed is disingenuous.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
It is Congress. This isn't a point of opinion, it is a point of fact. Congress passes the budgets.
Granted, the President signs (and sometimes proposes) the (budget) bills, so there is shared responsibility. But to look at some data and look at who is president (and which party) without looking at how Congress is composed is disingenuous.
In other words, he wants to be able to pick and choose who to blame at any specific time.
In other words, he wants to be able to pick and choose who to blame at any specific time.
Don't be a dick.
Who do you "pick and choose" and why?
The fact is the Congress passes the budgets. This is a fact.
The President also signs then. This is a fact.
The post implied the president was the sole party involved here. This is factually wrong.
But if you wish to ignore these fact, I understand. Because it probably makes the people you support look bad.
Of course, all of this is really a distraction. The fact is that both parties continually increase spending. Both parties are merely two branches of the same party. Pretending these two parties are substantially different from one another (in this way or most other ways) is an exercise in denial.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Except that claim is disingenuous. Sure some of the spending is a result of this. But you conveniently ignore the $800B in additional spending that Obama's administration proposed immediately after entering office. That is not a "bill coming due." Obama doesn't get a pass here, however consistently and deftly he's tried to pass the buck for everything negative that's happened.
The reality here is that both parties are spenders. Neither of them has reduced spending. Neither. At least not in modern (the last 100 years) history. They are two factions of the same criminal gang.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Except that claim is disingenuous. Sure some of the spending is a result of this. But you conveniently ignore the $800B in additional spending that Obama's administration proposed immediately after entering office.
You mean the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the ~$800B that kept us from sinking into a 2nd Great Depression.
Yeah, that pesky Obama, keeping us out of an economic depression, the nerve!. That $800B is exactly the same as all other spending. It's even worse! Who cares if the money kept the economy from completely imploding. Who cares if the recovery has been slow because it wasn't even enough. It's not the government's business to prevent economic disaster. They should have let the banks fail too!
Originally, I didn't think you could possibly be as utterly clueless as you seem. Now I realize I was wrong.
Flat tax is not the solution. The Transaction Tax: 1% on every transaction has been mathematically shown to be the answer that NO CORPORATION, FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, etc., wants.
In 2011 nearly $900 Trillion in transactions happened in and within the US and all its business entities. 1% is $9 Trillion in tax revenues. It's been proposed as a replacement to Income Tax and Sales Tax by several Democrats in the US House of Representatives. The GOP has blocked it at after turn.
It's a purely progressive tax. You spend $6 Billion, take 1% of that off the transaction. You spend $20 million on a yacht, take 1% off that transaction. You fill your tank for fuel, take 1% of that transaction.
No loop holes, not special favors. Just straight up tax on every transaction.
They will never do it. It's the most balanced and fair tax possible. It cuts the Tax Code down to size [nothing]. It restructures Tax Revenue laws at the State and Federal Government down to a simple and concise standard, while covering more than the nation's necessary expenses.
Corporations have been burying the idea for decades, in lobbying. It targets actual transactions, not pre/post tax revenues and incomes.
1. How is this different than sales taxes we already have?
2. How is this tax progressive? The poor and middle class spend a higher percentage of their income (just to live), so why wouldn't they end up paying an effectively higher tax rate? (Well, because I don't see how this is different than a sales tax.)
You mean the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the ~$800B that kept us from sinking into a 2nd Great Depression.
Oh, I see, now you're choosing to beg the question. 
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
No, I like data just fine. But we need to be careful what data we use and how we use it, because it can be used to mislead. You know the whole lies, damn lies and statistics thing.
Sadly your link doesn't do anything to refute what I said.
As for that analysis that Obama is not a big spender, here is an alternative analysis of the spending.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
So, who pays the tax? The buyer, the seller, both? It would seem like it would generate a lot of revenue from equity and bond transactions, particularly if both sides pay. And, at first glance, it looks like it might have a positive effect on programmed trading, by making it more costly. Has anyone done an analysis of possible side-effects, since it does seem a certainty that it would affect behavior? (And, yes, with any tax plan, the devil is always in the details.)
For instance, assuming it's all transactions, if you were to buy a house with a mortgage, there would be a 1% tax on the home purchase, a 1% tax on the mortgage, possibly another 2% for the other side (sale, mortgage payoff), 1% on the commission, and 1% on a number of other things like appraisals and inspections. Then 1% on every mortgage payment and any home improvements, and so on...
So, who pays the tax? The buyer, the seller, both?
Ultimately the buyer pays all the taxes. This may be hard to detect because of who is actually cutting the check and what balance sheets are debited and credited, but ultimately it is the consumer of products and services that pays all the taxes. Renters pay the property taxes. Customers of Apple pay Apple's taxes. When you go to a restaurant or a clothing store and buy something...you are paying the property, income and sales taxes. Etc.
Ultimately all taxes trickle down to the consumer.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Ultimately the buyer pays all the taxes. This may be hard to detect because of who is actually cutting the check and what balance sheets are debited and credited, but ultimately it is the consumer of products and services that pays all the taxes. Renters pay the property taxes. Customers of Apple pay Apple's taxes. When you go to a restaurant or a clothing store and buy something...you are paying the property, income and sales taxes. Etc.
Ultimately all taxes trickle down to the consumer.
That wasn't the question, nor does your "answer" address it.
That wasn't the question, nor does your "answer" address it.
Sorry that you're unable to see that my answer is the answer to the question. I know that the tax thieves (and their useful idiots) don't like to admit this reality (that all taxes are born by the people, by the consumers) but it is an ugly reality of what you advocate.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Sorry that you're unable to see that my answer is the answer to the question. I know that the tax thieves (and their useful idiots) don't like to admit this reality (that all taxes are born by the people, by the consumers) but it is an ugly reality of what you advocate.
a) I didn't advocate a transaction tax, I was asking questions about it, you know, trying to learn something. You might consider doing it yourself sometime. I know you aren't in the habit, but it's really not that hard.
b) Your "answer", not only doesn't address the question, it provides zero useful information in regard to it. Again, try to learn something. Ignorance isn't something to wear like a badge of honor, despite the Tea Party's belief that ignorance is bliss.
Unfortunately for you, you won't be able to find a reputable economist who will support your position.
So now you're moving the goal posts?
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
a) I didn't advocate a transaction tax,
I didn't claim you did.
you know, trying to learn something. You might consider doing it yourself sometime. I know you aren't in the habit, but it's really not that hard.
Still insist on being a dick huh?
b) Your "answer", not only doesn't address the question, it provides zero useful information in regard to it.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
Again, try to learn something. Ignorance isn't something to wear like a badge of honor, despite the Tea Party's belief that ignorance is bliss.
I guess the answer is yes. BTW, the **** does the Tea Party have to do with this?! Oh...I know...you'er arguing against the caricature of me that you've created in your head.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
BTW, the **** does the Tea Party have to do with this?! Oh...I know...you'er arguing against the caricature of me that you've created in your head.
It doesn't matter if you are a member or not, you share the same ignorantly simplistic and misguided outlook. So, it's entirely appropriate to paint you with the same brush if you walk like Tea Partier and quack like a Tea Partier. When it comes to caricature of you, you've already done the self portrait.
I'm having some serious issues with these numbers.
Either Apple is exaggerating to make much of that $6bn number, or else something is seriously wrong with our tax system (that's probably true regardless, but specifically regarding corporate taxes).
Here's what's troubling me:
If Apple's $6bn is 1/40 of all corporate taxes paid, then the total of all corporate taxes paid was $240bn.
Our GDP is about $14 TRILLION. $240bn is a bit less than 2% of that.
Corporations, therefore, contributed a bit less than 2% of GDP to the Federal Budget. The Federal Budget typically needs to bring in about 18% of GDP to remain a desirable and functional government (and that % is normal, it isn't indicative of 'overspending' at that level). With our current revenue shortfalls due to the weak economy, we're collecting only 14% of GDP as tax. Thus our wild deficits.
If corporations are paying only 2% of GDP in tax, then they are only contributing 10% ~ 12% of all taxes. But what is the total corporate contribution to GDP? An effective corporate tax rate of 2% of GDP is surely unsustainable. If Corporations are generating a higher percentage of GDP they must pay taxes accordingly, and even a but more, since our taxpayer dollars are spent to sustain the roads and other infrastructure they use and enjoy to do their commerce...
Whatever the answers to these questions, if I hear another GOP politico saying Corporations (and their rich human parents) are over-taxed, I'm going to ask this question again… because it's clear that they are paying too little, regardless...
It doesn't matter if you are a member or not, you share the same ignorantly simplistic and misguided outlook. So, it's entirely appropriate to paint you with the same brush if you walk like Tea Partier and quack like a Tea Partier. When it comes to caricature of you, you've already done the self portrait.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Actually, if you look back, my point was that both parties are big spenders. Which, I thought, was what you were responding to and attempting to refute. I disagree that the data refutes this in any way at all. I also disagree that the links I presented conclusively suggest Obama is a more conservative spender. It depends on what numbers you use.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Absolutely. That "foreign" subsidiary was created by, wholly controlled by, receives support by, and benefits, an American company.
The profits from the foreign subsidiary are included in who's quarterly reports which are filed where?
Legal or illegal is irrelevant. The tax law is screwed up and it needs to be fixed.
If other companies are using the loophole, then they are just as slimy as Apple.
Who needs numbers? They currently pay near $0, it obviously needs to be more than that.
Again, the profits from the foreign subsidiary are included in who's quarterly reports which are filed where?
We only need to tax overseas profits at the same rates as if the profit was made here, minus what they already paid to the hosting country.
Companies threatening to move is just posturing. Their employees will not follow them. Political stability, standard of living, abundance of talent, the US is still the best place to have a business.
He said the rich needs to pay more taxes and he's disgusted by wealthy people and corporations using tax havens.
"...I support President Obama’s proposal to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for high-income taxpayers. However, I prefer a cutoff point somewhat above $250,000 — maybe $500,000 or so.Additionally, we need Congress, right now, to enact a minimum tax on high incomes. I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that. A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultrarich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny fraction of ours.
Above all, we should not postpone these changes in the name of “reforming” the tax code. True, changes are badly needed. We need to get rid of arrangements like “carried interest” that enable income from labor to be magically converted into capital gains. And it’s sickening that a Cayman Islands mail drop can be central to tax maneuvering by wealthy individuals and corporations."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/buffett-a-minimum-tax-for-the-wealthy.html?_r=0
Quote:
Remember this on Dec 2,2012? Some new iMacs marked as being 'Assembled in USA'. You were the 4th person to reply to that thread.
Or this on Dec 6th? Apple will invest $100M to produce one line of Macs in the US in 2013.
Quote:
Um, I know that. That's why I'm advocating the removal of loopholes for US companies that have foreign subsidiaries.
Long time ago, our nation's economy stopped at our borders. Today, our economy is intertwined with nations around the world. Our tax laws need to reflect this change.
No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages
look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad
No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages
look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad
Depends on how you count. The american-held part of the american debt actually
1- relies on american financial health (obvious, dead companies/institutions/broke loners aren't likely to claim a bond), which makes things already shaky, but let's ignore this detail as it's anecdotic compared to 2-
2- has been argued by some economist to rely on an accounting trick for part(1/3 belongs to Federal agencies, which is the US government), and 1/6 belongs to either the Federal reserve (which can be considered "Government", whatever its actual "legal" status, given its role and prerogatives -- just imagine if it was Russia or England or Saudi Arabia... suddenly, its obviously "Government") or "State or local Government"... which is "Government" all right.
So very roughly half (let's not go into 1457/3167 style fractions...) of the american debt is owned by "Government", and the part purely belonging to Federal Reserve or Federal agencies is _massive_.
This casts a very different eye on the "10%" owned by China and Japan.
Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.
Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.
To be fair, all of the Liberal media outlets (I guess you could say all news outlets except Fox News) sure didn't mind taking Romney's "47%" clip out of context by playing 20 seconds of a 2 minute conversation. If Romney can be crucified by that, then Obama is fair game.
When will everyone wake up and see it is not about Republicans versus Democrats, or Rich versus Poor, or Black versus White, or Gay versus Straight? It is about the American people versus the greedy, corrupt politicians who do everything to serve themselves and their contributors, but do not serve the American people. They constantly get us fighting each other to conceal their underhanded back-room dealings. This election time it was the Rich versus Poor class warfare. Next election it will be something similar. Our forefathers saw serving in Congress as a civic duty, a job they did because they felt they had to. Those guys had farms to run and other businesses, which they wanted to get back to, not serve in Congress forever. Once politics became a career in this country instead of a duty, that view changed and the now sole goal of today's politician is to remain in power. I am over-generalizing to make a point, but the message should be clear. Quit fighting each other.
Once politics became a career in this country instead of a duty, that view changed and the now sole goal of today's politician is to remain in power. I am over-generalizing to make a point, but the message should be clear.
Which is why a two-consecutive term limit for Congressmen and Senators would be helpful for America.
Not that the career politicians will ever let it happen.
Which is why a two-consecutive term limit for Congressmen and Senators would be helpful for America.
Not that the career politicians will ever let it happen.
Term limits are a dumb idea, The problems in this country are not related to multiple term Congressmen. The problems are related to corporate and private wealth corrupting the democratic process. Term limits would just make that problem worse.
