Welfare programs, my argument, your thoughts?

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

We have Fortune 500 companies renouncing their American identity and opening up shell companies all around the world to hide money from the federal government. Why are none of you pissed off about that? No, it's the poor guy that lost his welding job that is bringing down America. WTF???

Why do you think they are leaving? Do you think it is because they are big meanies who hate America? No. They are leaving because our idiot government makes it more profitable to go elsewhere. THE POINT OF BUSINESS IS TO MAKE MONEY. Thanks to our government it is simply not profitable to grow a business here. What part of that concept do you have trouble grasping?

...and the welder lost his job because his company couldn't afford to pay him and his union buddies $75/hr along with mandated healthcare, unemployment costs, etc, etc, etc.

[LATB]

Originally Posted by NotSlo

Do you actually believe the bullshit you spew?

My guess would be yes.

[jaxgator]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

I have no problem increasing taxes on corporations to support those out of work. After all, its the fault of many of these companies that shifted their manufacturing overseas that caused this problem to begin with.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Jim,

Corporations in this country have so many loop holes that they are actually taxed at some of the lowest rates in the industrialized world.

Every time I hear this stuff about companies leaving because of the high taxes, all I have to do is point the finger at Germany. They have one of the highest tax rates in the world and they are doing quite well compared to some of the other first world economies.

The reality is that these companies move their operations overseas because the labor is cheaper, not because of the taxes. Then we allow them to keep the profits overseas where they are not taxed. How god damn crazy is that?

We have Fortune 500 companies renouncing their American identity and opening up shell companies all around the world to hide money from the federal government. Why are none of you pissed off about that? No, it's the poor guy that lost his welding job that is bringing down America. WTF???

No US company gives one single rat fu@k about any of you. Tax the bastards and jail the son of a bitches that try to skirt the system.

So, it's the big old mean and nasty corporations is it? This logic of taxing corporations is absolutely absurd. Corporations shouldn't be taxed at all. Who the fk do you think really pays those taxes? The corporations? Ha! If you think that, then you are a complete and utter imbecile. Those taxes are passed on to you and me, the consumer. You liberals need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Originally Posted by LarsAtTheBeach

The commie has spoken

Without a doubt.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

Why do you think corporations are going overseas? Do you think they are doing it because they are big meanies who hate America? No. They are doing it TO MAKE MONEY. In case you forgot... that is the point of business. You really think taxing the hell out of them is the way to fix it? You can't be that ignorant of business sense.

People like to point the finger at GE because of the ignorant ass NY Times article. Of course Libs love the Times so it is not a surprise.

The article stating that GE paid zero taxes (and actually instead received money) that was originally published by them has been shown time and time again to be simply false.

The truth about GE's tax bill - Fortune Features

The truth about GE’s tax bill - The Washington Post

Personally I believe what the writers at Fortune have to say over the NY Times.

GE uses very aggressive tax avoidance strategies. Nobody would deny that, but that is about where his article stops being correct.

Consider that GE currently has ~135,000 American employees and since the beginning of 2009, with almost every single American corporation downsizing, GE has created ~8,000 new jobs in the U.S. and has invested over a billion dollars into American production facilities.

Seems to me like this is as close to proof as you will ever get that lower corporate taxes drives hiring and leads to more revenue.

- More products made in America
-135,000 people worth of income taxes collected.
-135,000 people not on unemployment.
-135,000 families not on food stamps, welfare, etc.

GE's actual tax record aside, you point at these evil corporations like them as what is wrong with this country. Looks to me like GE is one of the few corporations actually helping the economy right now.

Proctor and Gamble, Boeing, L-3, Siemens, Hewlett-Packard ... you name it... ALL of them are cutting American jobs. Why? Because it is cheaper and more profitible for them to go elsewhere. If you want jobs to stay here or to be created here you have to make it profitible for companies to do so. It is a very simple concept. The point of business is to make money, and they will go to where that is most likely to happen. Don't blame the companies for leaving. Blame the government and the lawmakers that are forcing them to.

Taxing business is simply not the answer. If you tax business, the only thing that happens is that those businesses either A.) pass on that price in their products or B.) pack up and go somewhere else. It is simple economics. We have union workers getting paid $25/hr to do minimum wage jobs. We have forced spending on healthcare programs, unemployment programs, etc, etc, etc. We have made it an absolutely stupid business decision to stay here. Until that changes, businesses will continue to leave, unemployment will continue to rise, and the economy will continue to suffer.

Eric Cantor, who has represented a section of Richmond, Va., in Congress since 2001 and now is the House majority leader, appears to want to craft a permanent U.S. tax system that caters exclusively to those at the top. So does Michele Bachmann, the Republican representative from Minnesota, a onetime tax lawyer who hopes to make a run for the White House. Likewise, Tim Pawlenty, the former two-term Republican governor of Minnesota, who also sees himself sitting in the Oval Office. Needless to say, none state their proposals like that. But that's the way their numbers and provisions add up.

Like others in Congress and the media, Cantor, Bachmann, and Pawlenty insist that American businesses are paying too much in corporate income tax. They claim the onerous tax burden is killing jobs and forcing companies to move abroad. To reverse the nation's fortunes, they say, all Washington need do is slash the corporate tax rate, thereby reducing the amount of taxes these businesses are forced to pay. What's scary is a growing number of citizens believe them.

That means a forecast made years ago by William J. Casey, a wily Republican from another era who liked to dabble in the intelligence world's black arts inside and outside the country, and who helped craft the election of Ronald Reagan, is coming true. After taking office, President Reagan installed Casey as head of the CIA in 1981. After his first staff meeting at the agency, Casey was quoted as saying:

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."

One of the more egregious falsehoods being peddled by the corporate tax cutters is that companies doing business in the United States are taxed at an exorbitant rate. Not so. Though the United States has one of the highest statutory rates on the books at 35 percent, the only fair way to measure what companies actually pay is their effective rate - what they ultimately pay after deductions, credits, and assorted write-offs. By that yardstick, companies in the United States consistently pay taxes at rates lower than corporations in Japan and many nations in Europe.

During the 1950s, the decade in which more people joined the middle class than at any time in history - before or since - corporations paid 49 percent of their profits in taxes. Last year, it was about half that rate, a decidedly more modest 26 percent. In 2010, corporate tax collections totaled $191 billion - down 8 percent from $207 billion as recently as 2000.

Perhaps a more telling yardstick, corporate tax revenue in 2009 came to just 1 percent of gross domestic product - the lowest collection level since 1936, or three-quarters of a century ago. In 2010, it edged up to a puny 1.3 percent - the second-lowest since 1940. Even worse, the shriveled tax collections came at a time when corporations were registering an all-time high in profits. At the end of 2010, corporations posted an annualized profit of $1.65 trillion in the fourth quarter. In other words, the more they made, the less they paid.

As for the corporate share of total income taxes paid by businesses and individuals, it has plummeted from 40 percent in 1950, the dawn of Middle America's golden age, to 18 percent last year.

The numbers tell us that a lot of politicians, including would-be presidential candidates, are mathematically challenged.

The corporate numbers also explain why hardworking Americans are on a greased downward slope from which they are unlikely to recover, as long as the lawmakers and deal-makers in Washington not only refuse to ease their plight, but also continue to pile on, compelling them alone to pay for the country's massive deficit while simultaneously chipping away at their safety nets.

In 2008, the latest year for which statistics are available, individuals and families with incomes between $25,000 and $50,000 paid nearly $2,500, on average, in individual income taxes - a tax rate of 7.1 percent. Once again, because select corporations in America know the right people in Washington, they are doing better. Stupendously better, as attested to by documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In its most recent filing, Exxon Mobil Corp., the global energy giant, reported income of $34.8 billion before taxes on total revenue of $310.6 billion for 2009. Its U.S. income tax bill: Zero. Actually, it was a little better than that. Exxon Mobil claimed a tax benefit of $838 million, while it paid $15.8 billion in income taxes to other countries. General Electric Co. did equally well. Its report to the SEC showed income before taxes of $10 billion on total revenue of $155.3 billion. Like Exxon Mobil, GE reported no U.S. income tax paid. And like Exxon Mobil, GE also reported a tax benefit, albeit a little larger at $1.1 billion.

It should be underscored that the financial statements filed with the SEC are different than those submitted to the IRS. That's because corporations maintain so many different sets of financial records that they would keep a bookmaker's head spinning for years. Hence, what corporate America tells the SEC is not exactly what it tells the IRS. Exxon Mobil and GE insist they will pay U.S. income tax. Precisely how much, or more accurately, how little, will remain a secret.

Exxon Mobil and GE have lots of company. A Government Accountability Office study of corporate tax returns for 1998 to 2005 found that in any given year the number of large foreign-controlled domestic corporations that reported no income-tax liability ranged as high as 54 percent. In short, one of every two big corporations operating in the United States under foreign ownership paid no taxes. As for large corporations owned by U.S. citizens, a high of 38 percent reported they owed no federal income tax.

As these and other government statistics show, the United States has two tax systems: A flexible, preferential one for multinational corporations and the rich; a rigid, nonnegotiable one for working people. In other words, if you're not lucky enough to be a global business or a wealthy individual, you must pay pretty much what Congress dictates. If, however, you are among the privileged, well, your company makes billions for you and essentially operates tax-free.

To be sure, some corporations pay the maximum 35 percent rate. Like individuals, those companies, often medium-size domestic operations, are unable to make use of the accounting gimmicks available to multinational and select other businesses.

Nonetheless, corporate America collectively has long whined about paying excessive taxes. This even though it derives the largest benefit from government outlays, especially during war years. In 2010, with not one, but two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) in progress, both of which have lasted twice as long as World War II, and with a third war (Libya) under way, corporate tax collections averaged 1.8 percent of GDP. During World War II, it was a little more than three times that rate - 5.7 percent. Each percentage-point difference means individuals must cough up an additional $150 billion. That would be roughly the equivalent of doubling the amount paid by all taxpayers in Connecticut, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Missouri, and Oklahoma. In short, corporate America does not come close to paying its fair share of government's cost. Nor, obviously, is it called upon to make any human sacrifice. As for all those hundreds of billions, they simply were and are added to the national debt, a tab that will be borne disproportionately by working Americans.

What kind of corporation escapes responsibility for any of these bills? Carnival Cruise Lines for one, a Miami company whose glitzy megaships have names like Carnival Fantasy, Ecstasy, Elation, and Paradise. From 2005 to 2010, Carnival - the world's largest cruise carrier - racked up $13 billion in profits. The company's tax bill for those years? Chump change of $191 million. That's million. And that included U.S. income tax, foreign income, and local income tax. The overall tax rate came in at 1.4 percent. This even though the ships sail out of Miami and are inspected by the Coast Guard.

Middle America has not fared nearly so well, thanks to a Congress that likes to sock it to ordinary people, the same people who are and will be hammered even more as lawmakers target them to be a scapegoat for the ballooning deficits. Though corporate profits have continued to climb, the wages of working people remain frozen in time. In 2008, according to IRS data, 10 million working individuals and families filed tax returns reporting incomes of between $30,000 and $40,000. Their effective tax rate: 6.8 percent - nearly five times the Carnival rate.

This helps explain how members of the Arison family who started Carnival have held membership in that exclusive club of global billionaires for two decades.

Ted Arison was born in Tel Aviv, Israel, in 1924 and moved to the United States in 1952. In 1972, he formed a joint venture to establish a shipping business. His partner was Meshulam Riklis, who was born in Turkey but who also grew up in Tel Aviv. Riklis, too, moved to the United States, where he eventually became one of the early-day corporate takeover artists, working alongside famed junk-bond king Michael Milken. His deals were so byzantine that even many on Wall Street had difficulty tracing the money, which seemed to end up in his pocket while others were left holding his debts. He pioneered the use of junk bonds and leveraged buyouts and corporate paper. Lots of paper. Sometimes he raised cash by raiding the pension funds of his employees, like those who worked at McCrory Corp., one of the old five-and-dime chains that were fixtures in small-town America, and where wages were little more than the minimum. Indeed, the wages were so low that many of Riklis' McCrory employees did not even earn enough to qualify for a pension.

The Arison-Riklis arrangement lasted only two years, when Arison bought out Riklis and formed Carnival Cruise Lines in 1974. From then on, he maintained tight control of Carnival. He systematically added ships, passengers, and amenities, like gambling. Each of his ships was a floating casino, featuring slot machines, roulette and "big 6" wheels, and tables for craps and blackjack.

In 1987, Arison took the company public. Keeping with tradition, then and now, a hefty chunk of the proceeds from the sale of stock to the public went to Arison personally. The take, according to SEC records, was a special dividend of $81 million. The next year, Carnival immediately began paying dividends to its new shareholders in each quarter. As that suggests, there is nothing new about Carnival's ability to avoid the tax collector and the Arison family's attendant good fortunes. We first wrote about Carnival's tax-free status in November 1991 as part of our "America: What Went Wrong?" series.

At the time, we noted the fine print in a document filed with the SEC allowed that:

"The company is not subject to United States corporate tax on its income from the operation of ships, and the company does not expect such income to be subject to such tax in the future. This exemption from U.S. corporate income tax will remain in effect under current United States law for as long as the company retains its status as a controlled foreign corporation."

Even better for Arison and his family was yet another provision in the SEC public-offering document that said:

"The company intends to distribute dividends to all shareholders in at least such amounts as are necessary to enable the principal shareholders to pay the income taxes imposed on them with respect to those earnings."

Translation: Whatever taxes Arison or his family incurred would be covered by a payment to them from the Carnival Corp.

To fully appreciate this scheme, when you receive your W-2 from your employer next January, ask if the company would write you a check for the taxes withheld from your paycheck. This is a perk way beyond the reach of those who toil from 9 to 5.

If you still have any doubts about the existence of two distinctly different tax systems, or whether members of Congress have structured one set of rules for the benefit of the ruling class and another for everyone else, consider that Arison renounced his U.S. citizenship in 1990 to further insulate himself personally from the U.S. income tax and returned to Israel. Years earlier, his son Micky, a fixture in Miami, had assumed day-to-day control of the business empire, which also includes the Miami Heat, the NBA team. The elder Arison died in 1999. Son Micky and daughter Shari inherited their father's tax freebies, meaning a second generation of the Arison family continues to enjoy the benefits of a company that pays only token taxes, thanks to American lawmakers.

Along the way, Micky and Shari also secured their own slots on Forbes magazine's global list of 1,210 billionaires in 54 countries. He is No. 169; she is No. 200.

America's two-class tax system | Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/17/2011

[jaxgator]

Phil,

Actually, it's a combination of cheaper labor and higher corporation taxes. Companies are leaving the country to stay competitive in their prices.

You still don't get it. Here, let me make this as simple as I can for you.

I'm a corporation and I make widgets.

I sell said widgets for $1.00.

The government decides that I now have to pay 3¢ per widget.

I now sell my widgets for $1.03.

However, if I leave the country so that I don't have to pay the additional 3¢ per widget, I can undersell my competitor by 3¢.

Get it?

Phil, IIRC you are a man of money (pretty well off). If that is the case, how did you get that way? Inheritance I presume.

[RedLS1GTO]

What's your point?

Until it becomes profitable for businesses to be here, they will continue to leave. Until businesses decide to grow here, the economy will continue to go to shit. Period.

What do you think raising taxes on businesses will accomplish? The answer is NOTHING. If you raise taxes on them, all they will do is pass that on to the consumer. Raise taxes 5% on GE... your refrigerator costs 5% more. Take away 10 million in tax credits, the cost of their aircraft engines goes up. The airlines pay more for them, then the cost of your ticket goes up. No matter what, the cost always comes back to the consumer.

Or... the more likely option, the one that we are seeing now, is that they simply pack up and leave because it is more profitable to go elsewhere.

You said earlier:

We have Fortune 500 companies renouncing their American identity and opening up shell companies all around the world to hide money from the federal government. Why are none of you pissed off about that?

Why do you think they are doing this? What do you think raising taxes will do? Do you think the corporations are evil meanies who hate America? They are trying to make money. The point of business is TO MAKE MONEY, not to support the government (to then hand out in dumbass "social programs") as you seem to think.

It is actually entertaining to see you so pissed off at the businesses and at the same time apparently be completely oblivious as to why they are leaving, heading overseas, and "renouncing their American identity".

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by jaxgator

Get it?

My guess is no.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

What's your point?

Until it becomes profitable for businesses to be here, they will continue to leave. Until businesses decide to grow here, the economy will continue to go to shit. Period.

By your logic, it won't be attractive to employ Americans until the same conditions that exist in India and China exist here.

Businesses flock to overseas manufacturing and profit centers because we don't have regulations to prevent them from doing so.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

By your logic, it won't be attractive to employ Americans until the same conditions that exist in India and China exist here.

No. By my logic it won't be attractive to employ Americans until it becomes financially beneficial. Again, you show that you have no comprehension of that simple fact. Your answer is what... force them to stay?? Yea, good luck with that.

As long as businesses are forced to pay union workers 10 times what they should make, forced to pay healthcare, Forced to pay unemployment, and the other infinite mandated spending, forced to pay to the point that a minimum wage worker costs them WAY more than the value add, business here will not be profitable. Yet you Liberals for some reason can't figure this out. They are the "evil corporations" and should be dealt with accordingly.

Let's take GE again for example. (all numbers are for example only, but close to reality). It takes a total of 4 man hours to assemble a refrigerator. The union line workers make $40 an hour + another 25% of that in benefits, healthcare, etc. Material cost = $300 per unit. Of course you have to use overseas suppliers because the American ones can't be competative thanks to these same forced expenditures. Tooling cost = $50/unit (divided over total made). You still haven't counted in manufacturing space, tooling, R&D costs, marketing, logistics, etc, etc, etc, much less taxes.

At the same time, you have an economy in the shitter so while you are being forced to increase spending, you are also selling LESS product at a lower price.

Your solution is really to raise taxes and force them to increase spending?? Are you really too oblivious to see what this does to businesses? The only way this economy will get better is to expand businesses. Contrary to your beliefs, you can't force them to grow with government regulations. Thinking you can is just plain ignorant.

...and saying that we need to go to the conditions of India and China is, well...

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Businesses flock to overseas manufacturing and profit centers because we don't have regulations to prevent them from doing so.

Based on posts like this, I'm truly amazed that you manage to wake up in the morning and take a piss without the government telling you how many times you have to shake it.

[Blademaker]

Wicked_C6 - heartless capitalist.

Welcome to my world.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

No. By my logic it won't be attractive to employ Americans until it becomes financially beneficial. Again, you show that you have no comprehension of that simple fact. Your answer is what... force them to stay?? Yea, good luck with that.

Your argument holds no water as corporation in this country today are setting records for the profits they rake in here.

As long as businesses are forced to pay union workers 10 times what they should make,

Ten times what they SHOULD make? Clearly you can provide many examples of this.

forced to pay health care, Forced to pay unemployment, and the other infinite mandated spending, forced to pay to the point that a minimum wage worker costs them WAY more than the value add, business here will not be profitable.

No company is forced to hire anyone. American businesses are extremely profitable right now with the current regulations in place.

Yet you Liberals for some reason can't figure this out. They are the "evil corporations" and should be dealt with accordingly.

Corporations are not "evil". They just don't give a shit (with very few exceptions) about their employees. They answer to their share holders who are only interested in profits even at the direct expense of the workers. Explain to me why a wealthy share holder should have the ability to influence corporate management to cut back on employee benefits so they can put even more money in their pockets. Explain to me why wealthy share holders can tell management to reduce staff, middle class Americans who support their families and pay income taxes so they can take in more capital gains taxed at a measly 15%. Why do the share holders have all the rights?

Let's take GE again for example. (all numbers are for example only, but close to reality). It takes a total of 4 man hours to assemble a refrigerator. The union line workers make $40 an hour + another 25% of that in benefits, health care, etc. Material cost = $300 per unit. Of course you have to use overseas suppliers because the American ones can't be competitive thanks to these same forced expenditures. Tooling cost = $50/unit (divided over total made). You still haven't counted in manufacturing space, tooling, R&D costs, marketing, logistics, etc, etc, etc, much less taxes.

Your numbers are bullshit, but even if true they sell the shit out of said refrigerators. If they didn't, they would still make them.

At the same time, you have an economy in the shitter so while you are being forced to increase spending, you are also selling LESS product at a lower price.

You act like there are new regulations out there that are forcing major corporations to spend more money now. What new labor / tax laws have changed? Businesses today pay less in taxes as a percentage of GDP since 1936. Did you not even bother to read the article I posted above? You have bought the bullshit propaganda corporate lobbyist and Faux News has put out hook line and sinker.

Your solution is really to raise taxes and force them to increase spending??

My solution is to close the tax loop holes, stop rewarding companies that renounce their American heritage, and penalize the shit out of any company that moves its work force off American soil.

Are you really too oblivious to see what this does to businesses?

Are you really too oblivious to see what businesses have done to the American middle class?

The only way this economy will get better is to expand businesses. Contrary to your beliefs, you can't force them to grow with government regulations. Thinking you can is just plain ignorant.

Yet Canada, Germany, Australia, all have far more regulations on their businesses and much higher actual taxes and all of them are functioning just fine. They have universal health care too.

...and saying that we need to go to the conditions of India and China is, well...

Again, by your logic.

Based on posts like this, I'm truly amazed that you manage to wake up in the morning and take a piss without the government telling you how many times you have to shake it.

And I'm amazed that you don't tell your employer you make too much and don't really need your health benefits.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Your argument holds no water as corporation in this country today are setting records for the profits they rake in here.

What American companies using American resources with American workers are raking in record profits? The ones turning the profits are using overseas resources.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Ten times what they SHOULD make? Clearly you can provide many examples of this.

See pretty much any union, unskilled manufacturing worker. I have people on a factory floor 50 feet from me getting paid $40 an hour plus full healthcare and retirement benefits to put in screws. To top it off, the company can't streamline the manufacturing process and reduce the number of workers because they are union. They are doing a job that could be done for minimum wage by a high school dropout. If I have to explain this any further, you have obviously never dealt with unions.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

No company is forced to hire anyone. American businesses are extremely profitable right now with the current regulations in place.

If they are so profitable, why are they leaving?

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Corporations are not "evil". They just don't give a shit (with very few exceptions) about their employees. They answer to their share holders who are only interested in profits even at the direct expense of the workers. Explain to me why a wealthy share holder should have the ability to influence corporate management to cut back on employee benefits so they can put even more money in their pockets. Explain to me why wealthy share holders can tell management to reduce staff, middle class Americans who support their families and pay income taxes so they can take in more capital gains taxed at a measly 15%. Why do the share holders have all the rights?

THE POINT OF BUSINESS IS TO MAKE MONEY. PERIOD.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Your numbers are bullshit, but even if true they sell the shit out of said refrigerators. If they didn't, they would still make them.

How exactly are my numbers bullshit?

Originally Posted by Joecooool

You act like there are new regulations out there that are forcing major corporations to spend more money now. What new labor / tax laws have changed? Businesses today pay less in taxes as a percentage of GDP since 1936. Did you not even bother to read the article I posted above? You have bought the bullshit propaganda corporate lobbyist and Faux News has put out hook line and sinker.

...and you live in a liberal dream world.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

My solution is to close the tax loop holes, stop rewarding companies that renounce their American heritage, and penalize the shit out of any company that moves its work force off American soil.

Yea. The tax codes need to be redone. Flat tax across the board. Flat tax for corporations as well as individuals... INCLUDING THE 50% WHO PAY NOTHING NOW.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Are you really too oblivious to see what businesses have done to the American middle class?

Are you too oblivious to see WHY?

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Yet Canada, Germany, Australia, all have far more regulations on their businesses and much higher actual taxes and all of them are functioning just fine. They have universal health care too.

Please, feel free to go live there if you think it's so great. What's stopping you?

Originally Posted by Joecooool

And I'm amazed that you don't tell your employer you make too much and don't really need your health benefits.

The difference is that I don't think I deserve them simply for existing. I have taken jobs where I had no benefits, where I got paid by the hour, and where I busted my ass to bring home a paycheck that barely covered rent. Not once did I think life was unfair. Not once did I think that somebody should support me. Not once did I think that the government should write me a check.

I busted my ass. I got an education and I bettered myself to the point where I got a job that provided me these things.

You, on the other hand seem to think that the guy putting in screws deserves a mansion and a Mercedes.

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by mrvette

The elimination of ALL welfare would eliminate the illegal and drug problems all in one fell swoop.....

No it wouldn't Gene. There are plenty of people who are willing to spend their hard earned money on an illegal high.

[Blademaker]

The difference is that I don't think I deserve them simply for existing. I have taken jobs where I had no benefits, where I got paid by the hour, and where I busted my ass to bring home a paycheck that barely covered rent. Not once did I think life was unfair. Not once did I think that somebody should support me. Not once did I think that the government should write me a check.

Bingo.
Nail/Head

Interesting thread

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

What American companies using American resources with American workers are raking in record profits? The ones turning the profits are using overseas resources.

How about all the oil companies for one.

And a shell office isn't an overseas "resource". Its a tax dodge. These companies have used lobbyist to push for legislation that allows them to get away with not paying billions in taxes at the expense of the United States of America and you seem to be OK with this.

See pretty much any union, unskilled manufacturing worker. I have people on a factory floor 50 feet from me getting paid $40 an hour plus full health care and retirement benefits to put in screws. To top it off, the company can't streamline the manufacturing process and reduce the number of workers because they are union. They are doing a job that could be done for minimum wage by a high school dropout. If I have to explain this any further, you have obviously never dealt with unions.

So $40 an hour as you put is, is ten times what they are worth? You think your workers deserve less than half of minimum wage to put the products your company makes together? How much does your management make? Bet its a shit load more than the workers. They make money ONLY because of the workers putting together the products.

If they are so profitable, why are they leaving?

Most are not leaving. They are simply opening up shell offices to hide their profits from the government.

THE POINT OF BUSINESS IS TO MAKE MONEY. PERIOD.

At what cost? This is the point so many neoconservatives miss. The loss of unions in this country can be directly correlated with the shrinking middle class. Will you not be happy until we have reverted back to people being either fabulously wealthy or dirt poor?

How exactly are my numbers bullshit?

Because you pulled them out of your ass.

Yea. The tax codes need to be redone. Flat tax across the board. Flat tax for corporations as well as individuals... INCLUDING THE 50% WHO PAY NOTHING NOW.

If you look to see who it is that opposes tax reform, it isn't the poor. They don't even have a voice in the debate. It stays the way it does because the wealthy pay very little as a percentage of income and that's the way they want to keep it.

Please, feel free to go live there if you think it's so great. What's stopping you?

Those places are great. Its my patriotic duty as an American to make our country great again too.

The difference is that I don't think I deserve them simply for existing. I have taken jobs where I had no benefits, where I got paid by the hour, and where I busted my ass to bring home a paycheck that barely covered rent. Not once did I think life was unfair. Not once did I think that somebody should support me. Not once did I think that the government should write me a check.

"Deserves" and "needs" are two different things. Some people are not as fortunate as you were. I'm pretty sure someone getting social security because they were born with Downs Syndrome might tell you life is unfair. I'm pretty sure the family of a coal miner who died at work because his employer took short cuts might tell you life is unfair. I'm pretty sure that the small market investors who lost their life savings because corporations lied on their books might tell you life is unfair.

I think you are also forgetting that while you were working these peon positions, you were still protected by the very labor laws you now rail against.

You only look at the world through your own life experiences. There are many other experiences you have been fortunate not to have had to live through.

I busted my ass. I got an education and I bettered myself to the point where I got a job that provided me these things.

Good for you. Me too. That doesn't make you right and me wrong.

You, on the other hand seem to think that the guy putting in screws deserves a mansion and a Mercedes.

No, I think he deserves a livable wage.

[Joecooool]

A look at the world's new corporate tax havens - CBS News

[NotSlo]

The loss of unions in this country can be directly correlated with the shrinking middle class. Will you not be happy until we have reverted back to people being either fabulously wealthy or dirt poor?

Show me a correlation that is not opinion, and also show me a definition of the "middle class"

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

How about all the oil companies for one.

And a shell office isn't an overseas "resource". Its a tax dodge. These companies have used lobbyist to push for legislation that allows them to get away with not paying billions in taxes at the expense of the United States of America and you seem to be OK with this.

OK... oil companies. You just included about .001% of the corporations in America. On the same note, most of them are importing oil which last I checked eliminates them from the "American resources" part of my statement.

I'm not talking about shell offices. I am talking about American jobs. The jobs that need to be here for this economy to work. Let's look at the actual manufacturing companies. The companies that actually make something and employ Americans. GE, P&G, GM, Ford, HP, IBM... the list goes on and on. ALL of them are expanding or relocating their actual manufacturing facilities overseas (or Mexico). All of them use sourced goods from overseas instead of American companies.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

So $40 an hour as you put is, is ten times what they are worth? You think your workers deserve less than half of minimum wage to put the products your company makes together? How much does your management make? Bet its a shit load more than the workers. They make money ONLY because of the workers putting together the products.

Is it 10 times? No. 5 times? Absolutely. What does it matter what management makes? What is the value add of management compared to unskilled labor? A person should be compensated based on their value add to the process. That is the simple point that you seem to fail to comprehend.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Most are not leaving. They are simply opening up shell offices to hide their profits from the government.

Wrong.

I listed the top 6 American manufacturing companies by revenue above. EVERY ONE OF THEM has opened factories and facilities overseas (not shell offices) and every one of them has cut American jobs in the last 5 years.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

At what cost? This is the point so many neoconservatives miss. The loss of unions in this country can be directly correlated with the shrinking middle class. Will you not be happy until we have reverted back to people being either fabulously wealthy or dirt poor?

Will you not be happy until the guy doing a mindless, unskilled task makes as much as the upper management?

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Because you pulled them out of your ass.

No actually... I didn't. Feel free to try to prove me wrong.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

If you look to see who it is that opposes tax reform, it isn't the poor. They don't even have a voice in the debate. It stays the way it does because the wealthy pay very little as a percentage of income and that's the way they want to keep it.

Simple question. Who employs Americans? Who keeps this country running? Who drives the economy? Who actually contributes to our economy rather than taking from it? Is it the rich or the poor?

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Those places are great. Its my patriotic duty as an American to make our country great again too.

Which is the typical liberal answer. Your idea of "great" is a Socialist/Communist dream world paradise full of sunshine and rainbows where everybody is equal that simply cannot exist in the real world.

When you say "great again" what point of history are you referring to? Were there more or less government regulations than we have now?

Originally Posted by Joecooool

"Deserves" and "needs" are two different things. Some people are not as fortunate as you were. I'm pretty sure someone getting social security because they were born with Downs Syndrome might tell you life is unfair. I'm pretty sure the family of a coal miner who died at work because his employer took short cuts might tell you life is unfair. I'm pretty sure that the small market investors who lost their life savings because corporations lied on their books might tell you life is unfair.

Somehow you manage to twist from an unskilled laborer to a dead coal miner and someone with Down's Syndrome? I'm surprised you didn't manage to add an abandoned child in there somehow. Please spare the liberal drama.

I am talking about the typical uneducated, unskilled American who you think should be handed a house and a new car.

Do people NEED a car? Do they NEED to own a house? Do they NEED steak and lobster? Do they NEED TV? Do they NEED nice furnature? Do they NEED designer clothes? Do they NEED jewlery? Only in your liberal fantasy land.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

I think you are also forgetting that while you were working these peon positions, you were still protected by the very labor laws you now rail against.

I'm not against all labor laws. Where did I say I was? I am all for a safe workplace. There was a time and a place for labor unions. 2011 America is not that place.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

You only look at the world through your own life experiences. There are many other experiences you have been fortunate not to have had to live through.

...and you look at the World with a ridiculously skewed idealist mentality without any care or concern for reality.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Good for you. Me too. That doesn't make you right and me wrong.

Right back at you.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

No, I think he deserves a livable wage.

The problem is that your idea of a "livable wage" is absolutely ludacrous.

I'm curious... how much money per year do you think is a "livable wage" for an individual?

[Joecooool]

Historically, the term “tax rate” has meant the average or effective tax rate — that is, taxes as a share of income. The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product.

By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan’s administration; the lowest percentage during that administration was 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984.

In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time. Revenues were 14.9 percent of G.D.P. in both 2009 and 2010.

Yet if one listens to Republicans, one would think that taxes have never been higher, that an excessive tax burden is the most important constraint holding back economic growth and that a big tax cut is exactly what the economy needs to get growing again.

Just last week, House Republicans released a new plan to reduce unemployment. Its principal provision would reduce the top statutory income tax rate on businesses and individuals to 25 percent from 35 percent. No evidence was offered for the Republican argument that cutting taxes for the well-to-do and big corporations would reduce unemployment; it was simply asserted as self-evident.

One would not know from the Republican document that corporate taxes are expected to raise just 1.3 percent of G.D.P. in revenue this year, about a third of what it was in the 1950s.

The G.O.P. says global competitiveness requires the United States to reduce its corporate tax rate. But the United States actually has the lowest corporate tax burden of any of the member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.



Revenue Statistics of O.E.C.D. Member Countries, 2010

If taxes are low historically and in comparison with our global competitors, how are Republicans able to maintain that taxes are excessively high? They do so by ignoring the effective tax rate and concentrating solely on the statutory tax rate, which is often manipulated to make it appear that rates are much higher than they really are.

For example, Stephen Moore of The Wall Street Journal recently asserted that Democrats were trying to raise the top income tax rate to 62 percent from 35 percent. But most of the difference between these two rates is the payroll tax and state taxes that are already in existence. The rest consists largely of assuming tax increases that no one has formally proposed and that would be politically impossible to enact at the present time.

Ryan Chittum, in Columbia Journalism Review, responded with a commentary that called the Moore analysis “deeply disingenuous.”

Nevertheless, one routinely hears variations of the Moore argument from conservative commentators. By contrast, one almost never hears that total revenues are at their lowest level in two or three generations as a share of G.D.P. or that corporate tax revenues as a share of G.D.P. are the lowest among all major countries. One hears only that the statutory corporate tax rate in the United States is high compared with other countries, which is true but not necessarily relevant.

The economic importance of statutory tax rates is blown far out of proportion by Republicans looking for ways to make taxes look high when they are quite low. And they almost never note that the statutory tax rate applies only to the last dollar earned or that the effective tax rate is substantially lower even for the richest taxpayers and largest corporations because of tax exclusions, deductions, credits and the 15 percent top rate on dividends and capital gains.

The many adjustments to income permitted by the tax code, plus alternative tax rates on the largest sources of income of the wealthy, explain why the average federal income tax rate on the 400 richest people in America was 18.11 percent in 2008, according to the Internal Revenue Service, down from 26.38 percent when these data were first calculated in 1992. Among the top 400, 7.5 percent had an average tax rate of less than 10 percent, 25 percent paid between 10 and 15 percent, and 28 percent paid between 15 and 20 percent.

The truth of the matter is that federal taxes in the United States are very low. There is no reason to believe that reducing them further will do anything to raise growth or reduce unemployment.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Those places are great. Its my patriotic duty as an American to make our country great again too.

In case you missed it... I will ask this twice. What time period are you referring to when our country was great?

Was there more or less regulation than now?

Was there more government or less?




Out of curiosity, what is different between your vision of a great America and communism?