Politics

[GoIrish41]

Let's not forget the wars/conflicts he put us in and the fact that the ACA is going to cost us trillions of dollars long after he's gone.

I don't see how that helps your point at all....


Both parties spend too much. Our government has zero accountablity. That is what has to change.

I was responding to NDaccountant's point that Reagan's numbers might have been higher because of the Cold War. Having 2 "hot" wars is not considered when some talk about Obama. The ACA is actually designed to save money. Let's give it a chace beforw we automatically throw it in the garbage. Incidently, you reaction to the ACA does actually help my point.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Are the Poor Getting Poorer? - YouTube


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vDhcqua3_W8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Ndaccountant]

I was responding to NDaccountant's point that Reagan's numbers might have been higher because of the Cold War. Having 2 "hot" wars is not considered when some talk about Obama. The ACA is actually designed to save money. Let's give it a chace beforw we automatically throw it in the garbage. Incidently, you reaction to the ACA does actually help my point.

Obama was dealt a rough hand, no doubt about it. But, I don't think that is what gets conservatives wound it. To me, it was a mix of issues, some his fault some not. For example, there was backlash for TARP (not his fault) and the wars (he didn't start the wars). That boiled over when he went after the Stimulus which many conservatives believed was riddled with political favors and wouldn't work as designed (they were right, while the program spent money, it didn't have the strength as advertised). Finally, he spent a great deal of time going for the ACA. What makes people wound up here is that we have two entitlements that are not self-sufficient as it is and now we added this monster. The three programs combined are going to eat up the federal budget 20 years from now according to the CBO.

What makes it worse is that this does nothing to address quality of care. It gave people access to insurance and care, it didn't guarentee care. That is the elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about. Doctors are already planning to accept only certain types of plans for their service.

That is what bothers conservatives. Yes, he got handed a sh*t storm, but, it is what he has done once in office that makes conservatives upset.

BTW, I do believe in the Keynes that short term gov't spending can be good. But what has been happening is not what Keynes would preach. The problem we have is one a spending stream has been created (new programs), it is nearly impossible to take away. The political line becomes "look at the jobs that will be lost if we end this spending". Politicans are in the business of getting re-elected. You don't get re-elected by cutting out spending. We can't implement the Keynes view in this political world.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

I was responding to NDaccountant's point that Reagan's numbers might have been higher because of the Cold War. Having 2 "hot" wars is not considered when some talk about Obama. The ACA is actually designed to save money. Let's give it a chace beforw we automatically throw it in the garbage. Incidently, you reaction to the ACA does actually help my point.

lol


That is why insurance premiums are soaring now.

Guess what, Dodd-Frank (where 50% hasn't even been written yet) was designed to keep banks from getting to the 'Too big to fail' point but instead is actually doing the opposite. Same as ACA.

 

[GoIrish41]

A new analysis, however, shows that average tax bills for high-income families rarely have been higher since the Congressional Budget Office began tracking the data in 1979.

This is an interesting turn of phrase. The reason tax bills have "rarely been higher" is because of the Reagan tax cuts of 1981 and 1986, which reduced the tax rates for the wealthiest Americans from 70% to 28%. This is really incredible "new" analysis -- he figured out Trickle Down Economics. Before Reagan, the rates were more than twice as high, but he is loading the numbers in such a way that it makes it look like the low rates should be considered the "normal" while the rates that preceded them are not even mentioned. I would argue that the Reagan administration was the beginning of a 30+ year failed experiment that gave us massive income disparity between the rich and the middle class and did nothing to grow the economy. Where are the job creators and why won't they strart trickeling down some wealth to the rest of the country?

 

[irishpat183]

I was responding to NDaccountant's point that Reagan's numbers might have been higher because of the Cold War. Having 2 "hot" wars is not considered when some talk about Obama. The ACA is actually designed to save money. Let's give it a chace beforw we automatically throw it in the garbage. Incidently, you reaction to the ACA does actually help my point.

The ACA will not save us money.


Ever. The numbers have spoken.


Even Obama knows this. How on earth can you add more people to a system, that pay nothing into the system, and maintain that it will "save us money"?

And it's going to cost families more, businesses more....so not only will it cost us money, but jobs as well.

 

[GoIrish41]

lol


That is why insurance premiums are soaring now.

Guess what, Dodd-Frank (where 50% hasn't even been written yet) was designed to keep banks from getting to the 'Too big to fail' point but instead is actually doing the opposite. Same as ACA.

Get real. Insurance premiums were soaring long before Obama came into office, rising at far rates above the those of inflation. Insurance companies need little excuse to raise premiums. The GOP just handed them an excuse on a silver platter when they started ripping the ACA from the beginning.

 

[chicago51]

Mar 3, 12:55 PM EST

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
Associated Press

News from The Associated Press

For example, the Internal Revenue Service tracks tax returns for the 400 highest-paid filers each year. Those taxpayers made an average of $202 million in 2009, the latest year available. Their average federal income tax rate: 19.9 percent.

The Buffett rule targets these people. I agree things are hard enough for the 500k small business owner. When facebook can pay zero income tax because they issue stock options, take a whole boat load of deductions and by the time it is time to pay their is not much left.

This article does nothing to mention the income that is hidden in off shore tax havens.

Also this article does nothing to address the corporate tax income. Many of the loopholes are corporate loopholes. If a company decides to move to Mexico, they get write off their expenses of leasing, and moving off on their taxes. So you get a tax break for moving jobs out of the coutry? What is up with that.

This guy is a writer that has always mislead to tought the GOP party line. He mentioned how taxes were going up on almost every American at the begining of the year. What he failed to mention was that the payroll tax holiday was part of Obama'a American Jobs Act (which as a whole did not pass), yes Obama is the one who got America they payroll tax holiday and then this guy tried to blaim him when it expires.

This writer responds to this article:

Associated Press Laments Tragic Plight Of The Very Wealthy | ThinkProgress

By Igor Volsky on Mar 4, 2013 at 12:49 pm

The Associated Press’ Stephen Ohlemacher is out with an article lamenting the tax burden levied on the richest Americans who are “paying some of their biggest federal tax bills in decades even as the rest of the population continues to pay at historically low rates.”

The piece, which seeks to contextualize the political debate surrounding the deficit in economic data, devotes its first eight paragraphs to “the poor rich,” characterizing the current tax structure as a great burden on higher income Americans. It’s not until paragraph 16 that Ohlemacher departs from the article’s opening premise to mention that the income gap between the rich and everyone else has exploded, helping to create the difference in tax rates.

Ohlemacher kicks off his article about the “new analysis” from the Tax Policy Center by lamenting that “families with incomes in the top 20 percent of the nation will pay an average of 27.2 percent of their income in federal taxes,” while “The average family in the bottom 20 percent of households won’t pay any federal taxes” and can claim “more in credits than they owe in taxes.”

A quote from a fellow at the Center, which is described as a nonpartisan “research organization,” succinctly sums up the problem: “My sense is that high-income people feel abused by being targeted always for more taxes,” Roberton Williams tells Ohlemacher. “You can understand why they feel that way.”

To learn if middle class families feel “abused” in the current economy or why high income families pay as much as they do, the reader must skip past seven full paragraphs of political context about President Obama calling on Congress to close a “bunch of tax loopholes that are benefiting the well-off and the well-connected” (an idea that sounds absurd in light of the already unbearable tax burden), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) rejecting that premise, and Democrats proposing a tax on “people making more than $1 million” to replace the sequester.

In paragraph 24, Ohlemacher finally presents a reason for the higher tax rates — though even this is delivered as an opinion from “Liberals and Democrats” and is not accorded the factual tone of Williams’ observation that the rich feel “abused.”

“Liberals and many Democrats say rich families can afford to pay higher taxes because their incomes have grown much more than incomes for middle- and low-income families,” Ohlemacher writes, quoting CBO data showing that “after-tax incomes for the top 1 percent of households more than doubled from 1979 to 2009, increasing by 155 percent,” while “incomes for those in the middle increased by just 32 percent during the same period.”

The author then consults Chuck Marr, director of federal tax policy for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who, he points out is employed by “a liberal think tank.” Marr finally explains that higher taxes on the rich are the result of “three decades in the United States where we had a tremendous increase in inequality” and tells Ohlemacher that this “disparity in income is a big reason why tax bills for the rich are approaching 30-year highs. As the rich get richer, a greater share of their income is taxed at the top rate, he said.”

It’s almost as though the author is upset to learn of this simple explanation, for he immediately follows it up with a quote from a representative from the Heritage Foundation, who predictably argues that “raising taxes again on the wealthy would reduce their incentive to save and invest, hurting long-term economic growth.”

With that, the conventional wisdom is restored and Ohlemacher can tell his readers that raising revenue is a liberal solution that will hurt the rich, while tough spending cuts to entitlements and discretionary programs are necessary to stabilize the national debt.

[QUOTE/]

 

[irishpat183]

Get real. Insurance premiums were soaring long before Obama came into office, rising at far rates above the those of inflation. Insurance companies need little excuse to raise premiums.

You get real. They see the writing on the wall. As do the rest of us. Not to mention, their costs and taxes have been hiked.


Individual Mandate Excise Tax(Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following







1 Adult


2 Adults


3+ Adults




2014


1% AGI/$95


1% AGI/$190


1% AGI/$285




2015


2% AGI/$325


2% AGI/$650


2% AGI/$975




2016 +


2.5% AGI/$695


2.5% AGI/$1390


2.5% AGI/$2085



Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS)

Employer Mandate Tax(Jan 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. This provision applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).

Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years

Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013): This increase involves the creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income







Capital Gains


Dividends


Other*




2010-2012


15%


15%


35%




2013+ (current law)


23.8%


43.4%


43.4%




2013+ (Obama budget)


23.8%


23.8%


43.4%


*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.

Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). For early retirees and high-risk professions exists a higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family). CPI +1 percentage point indexed.

Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax($86.8 bil/Jan 2013): Current law and changes:







First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee


All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee




Current Law


1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed


1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed




Obamacare Tax Hike


1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed


1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed



Medicine Cabinet Tax($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)

HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka“Special Needs Kids Tax”($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap of $2500 (Indexed to inflation after 2013) on FSAs (now unlimited). . There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exemptions include items retailing for less than $100.

Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI; it is waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only.

Tax on Indoor Tanning Services($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons

Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D($4.5 bil/Jan 2013)

Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services

Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals(Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS

Tax on Innovator Drug Companies($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.

Tax on Health Insurers($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. The stipulation phases in gradually until 2018, and is fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits.

$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives($0.6 bil/Jan 2013)

Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2(Min$/Jan 2011): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting($17.1 bil/Jan 2012): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers

“Black liquor” tax hike(Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel.

Codification of the “economic substance doctrine”(Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Get real. Insurance premiums were soaring long before Obama came into office, rising at far rates above the those of inflation. Insurance companies need little excuse to raise premiums. The GOP just handed them an excuse on a silver platter when they started ripping the ACA from the beginning.

Oh please. Guess that is why businesses are just now deciding to cut their work forces, slash hours and benefits too.

 

[irishpat183]

Oh please. Guess that is why businesses are just now deciding to cut their work forces, slash hours and benefits too.

And ask companies why they're cancelling out post retirment health care plans and why small health care insurance offices are closing all over the country.

Companies won't hire becaus they understand that they're on the hook for the cost if they hit 50 or more employees....so guess whta the company with 55 employees does?

It's not gonna save anybody anything.....BUT HEY! EVERYONE IS COVERED AND THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS!!

 

[GoIrish41]

Oh please. Guess that is why businesses are just now deciding to cut their work forces, slash hours and benefits too.

If you are being sarcastic, you should use italics.

If you are not, you have clearly not been paying attention to what has been going on in this country since 2006-07. If you think that businesses are just now deciding to cut their work forces, slash hours and benefits, you might want to read up on this big financial crisis this country just went through.

 

[Ndaccountant]

For example, the Internal Revenue Service tracks tax returns for the 400 highest-paid filers each year. Those taxpayers made an average of $202 million in 2009, the latest year available. Their average federal income tax rate: 19.9 percent.

The Buffett rule targets these people. I agree things are hard enough for the 500k small business owner. When facebook can pay zero income tax because they issue stock options, take a whole boat load of deductions and by the time it is time to pay their is not much left.



[QUOTE/]

Interesting thing on the Buffett rule. He was on SB this morning and was talking about everything, including taxes. There was one thing about the Buffett rule that nobody talks about and that is his view on the right size of gov't. He believes that revenue to GDP should be 18.5% and spending should be 21.5%. He believes what conservatives have been saying, which is that we need to broaden the base (as in, getting loop holes closed) and lower rates for others. He does not believe that we should using said rule to finance more gov't, in fact we need to reduce it from the 23% it is now.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

If you are being sarcastic, you should use italics.

If you are not, you have clearly not been paying attention to what has been going on in this country since 2006-07. If you think that businesses are just now deciding to cut their work forces, slash hours and benefits, you might want to read up on this big financial crisis this country just went through.

I think you mean 2008. You should probably read up as well.


Do I really need to start posting link after link about companies who are JUST NOW cutting their work forces and hours and SPECIFICALLY state Obamacare.

Use Google, it's your friend.

 

[GoIrish41]

Interesting thing on the Buffett rule. He was on SB this morning and was talking about everything, including taxes. There was one thing about the Buffett rule that nobody talks about and that is his view on the right size of gov't. He believes that revenue to GDP should be 18.5% and spending should be 21.5%. He believes what conservatives have been saying, which is that we need to broaden the base (as in, getting loop holes closed) and lower rates for others. He does not believe that we should using said rule to finance more gov't, in fact we need to reduce it from the 23% it is now.

If that is what conservatives want to do, why are they blocking it in Congress? That is the sticking point that is keeping the sequester in place.

 

[irishpat183]

I think you mean 2008. You should probably read up as well.


Do I really need to start posting link after link about companies who are JUST NOW cutting their work forces and hours and SPECIFICALLY state Obamacare.

Use Google, it's your friend.

He'd just say they're lying or its fake.


Rather than just admit that it's going to kill small biz and cost the average family a ton in taxes.

 

[chicago51]

Obamacare really has not even gone into effect yet. The exchanges which are supposed to lower the cost by the strength of bidding in numbers don't take place to JAN 2014.

However while the health care cost are increasing the rate at which the cost are increasing is going down. It saving us billions in the deficit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/us/politics/sharp-slowdown-in-us-health-care-costs.html?hp

Republicans Don't Want You to Know That Obamacare Is Working

 

[chicago51]

He'd just say they're lying or its fake.


Rather than just admit that it's going to kill small biz and cost the average family a ton in taxes.

Yes I always that saving money would be bad for small business.

STUDY: Obamacare Reduces Costs For Small Businesses | ThinkProgress

 

[Ndaccountant]

If that is what conservatives want to do, why are they blocking it in Congress? That is the sticking point that is keeping the sequester in place.

No, what is in Congress is a piece of that, not the whole thing. Conservatives are saying if we are going to do reform, lets do reform. No piecemeal BS that fails to ever end up as originally thought.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Yes I always that saving money would be bad for small business.

STUDY: Obamacare Reduces Costs For Small Businesses | ThinkProgress

Who the hell is the 'Urban Institute'?

 

[GoIrish41]

I think you mean 2008. You should probably read up as well.


Do I really need to start posting link after link about companies who are JUST NOW cutting their work forces and hours and SPECIFICALLY state Obamacare.

Use Google, it's your friend.

No I mean 2006 or 2007 when the recession was starting. Probably a few years before that. The practice of companies reducing people's hours to avoid paying benefits is older than you are and it has been more and more over the past decade. It is not an outcropping of Obamacare. I've seen a couple of stories about businesses saying they will cut back on workers because of Obamacare -- the Papa John's CEO comes to mind. Of course he was a huge GOP supporter during the election and was trying to take a swipe at the president. I suspect that many other examples you can cite are not far off from this example.

 

[chicago51]

I have a proposal. Delay the sequester until the start of 2014 and put in a public option. The public option over 10 years would save more than enough to offset the cost of the sequester.

Public Option Resurfaced By House Democrats As Deficit Reduction Measure

New Public Option Bill Lowers Families’ Health Costs and the Deficit

Couple articles on the public option. Again its an option if you are happy with your Cigna, Aetna, Blue Cross, Humanna, United Healthcare, etc you can keep what you have. THE PUBLIC OPTION IS NOT A SINGLE PAYOR!

The public option would bid down the cost of health care, and would reduce the deficit by 104 billion over 10 years.

 

[irishpat183]

Yes I always that saving money would be bad for small business.

STUDY: Obamacare Reduces Costs For Small Businesses | ThinkProgress

ThinkProgress and the "Urban institute" are such great sources for an unbiased take.....

Sheesh. Just forward me a memo from the White House desk next time.


Look at the REAL WORLD. Not charts and graphs from some liberal think tank that is paid to skew numbers. Companies all over the country are laying off workers and preparing for a 30-40% prem hike because of the ACA.

Families are expected to pay 20k (for the CHEAPEST PLAN) by 2016 according to the IRS.

 

[chicago51]

No, what is in Congress is a piece of that, not the whole thing. Conservatives are saying if we are going to do reform, lets do reform. No piecemeal BS that fails to ever end up as originally thought.

Is that why in the 111th Congress Senate Republicans filibustered the creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act (not to be confused with American Jobs Act), which end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas?

 

[RallySonsOfND]

No I mean 2006 or 2007 when the recession was starting. Probably a few years before that. The practice of companies reducing people's hours to avoid paying benefits is older than you are and it has been more and more over the past decade. It is not an outcropping of Obamacare. I've seen a couple of stories about businesses saying they will cut back on workers because of Obamacare -- the Papa John's CEO comes to mind. Of course he was a huge GOP supporter during the election and was trying to take a swipe at the president. I suspect that many other examples you can cite are not far off from this example.

The recession started in 06/07? My stocks were at record highs at that time.

According to Wikipedia (yeah I'm using Wikipedia) it started in December 2007.


A couple stories? lol

 

[irishpat183]

I have a proposal. Delay the sequester until the start of 2014 and put in a public option. The public option over 10 years would save more than enough to offset the cost of the sequester.

Public Option Resurfaced By House Democrats As Deficit Reduction Measure

New Public Option Bill Lowers Families’ Health Costs and the Deficit

Couple articles on the public option. Again its an option if you are happy with your Cigna, Aetna, Blue Cross, Humanna, United Healthcare, etc you can keep what you have. THE PUBLIC OPTION IS NOT A SINGLE PAYOR!

The public option would bid down the cost of health care, and would reduce the deficit by 104 billion over 10 years.

It will be a single payor. Governmetn will eventually force all private companies outta biz.

When you have an endless supply of money to burn, you will force your competitiors (the ones that actually rely on doing business for a living) out of biz.

 

[irishpat183]

Is that why in the 111th Congress Senate Republicans filibustered the creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act (not to be confused with American Jobs Act), which end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas?

Let me ask you...do you know what was in that bill?

 

[chicago51]

ThinkProgress and the "Urban institute" are such great sources for an unbiased take.....

Sheesh. Just forward me a memo from the White House desk next time.


Look at the REAL WORLD. Not charts and graphs from some liberal think tank that is paid to skew numbers. Companies all over the country are laying off workers and preparing for a 30-40% prem hike because of the ACA.

Families are expected to pay 20k (for the CHEAPEST PLAN) by 2016 according to the IRS.

It is more unbiased than STEPHEN OHLEMACHER.

 

[GoIrish41]

No, what is in Congress is a piece of that, not the whole thing. Conservatives are saying if we are going to do reform, lets do reform. No piecemeal BS that fails to ever end up as originally thought.

Is that what they meant when they said "revenues are off the table" in the negotiations? Come on man, you don't believe that the GOP wants meaningful reform if they are saying sh*t like this in public. Obama has stated that he is willing to go against his party and talk about substanative entitlement reform, they don't want to negotiate for it. Instead, they throw a tantrum and threaten the economy just as it is getting ready to spring forward. They don't want a solution, they want the Dems to solve it on the backs of the middle class so the rich can keep more of their money.

 

[chicago51]

Let me ask you...do you know what was in that bill?

From the Senator that sponsored the bill:

Fact Sheet: Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act (S. 3816) - Newsroom: Bernie Sanders - U.S. Senator for Vermont

September 27, 2010

The Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act (S. 3816) would provide tax cuts to companies that bring back outsourced jobs to the United States. This bill would provide 24 months of payroll tax relief to employers for each job brought from overseas to the United States. To be eligible, businesses must certify that the U.S. employee is replacing an employee who had been performing similar duties overseas. The legislation will also close loopholes that provide companies with tax breaks for outsourcing manufacturing jobs.

This bill does three things:

1.Encourages businesses to create jobs in the United States. The legislation exempts businesses from paying the Social Security payroll tax on wages paid to new U.S. employees performing services in the United States. To be eligible, businesses must certify that the U.S. employee is replacing an employee who had been performing similar duties overseas. This payroll tax relief is available for 24 months for employees hired during the three-year period beginning September 22, 2010.

2.Ends Subsidies for Plant Closing Costs. The legislation eliminates subsidies that U.S. taxpayers provide to firms that move facilities offshore. The bill prohibits a firm from taking any deduction, loss or credit for amounts paid in connection with reducing or ending the operation of a trade or business in the U.S. and starting or expanding a similar trade or business overseas. The bill would not, however, apply to any severance payments or costs associated with outplacement services or employee retraining provided to any employees that lose their jobs as a result of the offshoring.

3.Ends Tax Break for Runaway Plants. The legislation ends the federal tax subsidy that rewards U.S. firms that move their production overseas. Under current law, U.S. companies can defer paying U.S. tax on income earned by their foreign subsidiaries until that income is brought back to the United States. This is known as "deferral." Deferral has the effect of putting these firms at a competitive advantage over U.S. firms that hire U.S. workers to make products in the United States. The bill repeals deferral for companies that reduce or close a trade or business in the U.S. and start or expand a similar business overseas for the purpose of importing their products for sale in the United States. U.S. companies that locate facilities abroad in order to sell their products overseas are unaffected by this proposal.