Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
I can't really get behind that.

It also took me about a minute of thinking after I suggested it to realize "what do you do with conglomerates?" So many corporations are all over the place in terms of what they own. McDonalds owned a large portion of Chipotle for years, to help it grow nationally and to get their return. How do you tax that?

All things considered, closing the loopholes and lowering the rate is the best option, which goes back to Romney being correct. He is, after all, regarded as a genius in the business world.

For what its worth closing loopholes isn't just Romney idea.

Address by the President to a Joint Session of Congress | The White House

From Barack Obama's address to Congress trying to get American Jobs Act passed, back in September 2011. 14 months prior to the election.

I am also -- I’m also well aware that there are many Republicans who don’t believe we should raise taxes on those who are most fortunate and can best afford it. But here is what every American knows: While most people in this country struggle to make ends meet, a few of the most affluent citizens and most profitable corporations enjoy tax breaks and loopholes that nobody else gets. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary -- an outrage he has asked us to fix. (Laughter.) We need a tax code where everyone gets a fair shake and where everybody pays their fair share. (Applause.) And by the way, I believe the vast majority of wealthy Americans and CEOs are willing to do just that if it helps the economy grow and gets our fiscal house in order.

I’ll also offer ideas to reform a corporate tax code that stands as a monument to special interest influence in Washington. By eliminating pages of loopholes and deductions, we can lower one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. (Applause.) Our tax code should not give an advantage to companies that can afford the best-connected lobbyists. It should give an advantage to companies that invest and create jobs right here in the United States of America. (Applause.)

So we can reduce this deficit, pay down our debt, and pay for this jobs plan in the process. But in order to do this, we have to decide what our priorities are. We have to ask ourselves, “What’s the best way to grow the economy and create jobs?”

Should we keep tax loopholes for oil companies? Or should we use that money to give small business owners a tax credit when they hire new workers? Because we can’t afford to do both. Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires? Or should we put teachers back to work so our kids can graduate ready for college and good jobs? (Applause.) Right now, we can’t afford to do both.

Granted Obama isn't interested in lowering the rates for individuals and wouldn't lower rates for corporations as much as Romney's plan but I don't see that as a bad thing. Romney would have to close so many loopholes that middle class families would effectively see a tax hike.
 
Last edited:

Black Irish

Wise Guy
Messages
3,769
Reaction score
602
I still scratch my head at liberal logic on taxes:

Tax increases on the working & middle class = punitive & unfair
Tax increases on the rich = fairness & justice
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
I still scratch my head at liberal logic on taxes:

Tax increases on the working & middle class = punitive & unfair
Tax increases on the rich = fairness & justice

Middle class is where the mass demand in an economy comes from.

The idea behind twickle down economics is that if you cut taxes on the "job creators" they will have more capital to grow and expand their businesses. Actualy to an extent this is true especially for small business, I would argue that mega-corps making record breaking profits already have more than enough capital in reserve to expand. Hence Obama's plan is to give tax breaks to the middle class and small business (the American Jobs Act (which was not passed) and the Affordable Care Act are full of small business tax breaks or tax credits) and then raise revenue from close the loopholes on the mega corps has well as go back to the Clinton rate for top income earners.

What are the "job creators" going to do if they have all this capital from various tax breaks but nobody can afford to buy any of their goods or services because middle class families have to spend 100% of their paychecks on food, gas, health care, rent/mortgage, paying off credit card debt, etc? If there is no demand that "capital" from the tax breaks doesn't do the business any good. They are not going to expand or high people they don't need just because they got a tax break. They are going to hire someone because that individual can help meat their demand for whatever good or service they sell.

Romney to his credit wanted to close loopholes as well but you can't close enought loopholes to make up 5 trillion dollars and to even get close you have close deductions for the middle class thus taking away from mass demand in the econonmy.
 
Last edited:

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
This pretty much explains what is wrong the Romney and now Paul Ryan's plan which is even more tilted toward the 1%. Ryan's top rates are lower than Romney's so the Ryan cuts are near $6 trillion. Ryan claims in his budget that these rate cuts are going to be "revenue neutral". Again the plan would have to effectively raise taxes on working families to even come close to being revenue neutral.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mB7I0vpwT7M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If you closed all these corporate loopholes below it would get you $737 billion dollars in revenue over 10 years not even close to the 5.7 trillion from Paul Ryan's tax cut.

• 28 Percent Limitation on Certain Deductions and Exclusions ($482 billion) – Sec. 201

Lowers the cap on individual income tax breaks to 28%, providing a flat rate benefit for itemized deductions. Only 30% of taxpayers itemize their deductions. Further, the value of a deduction corresponds to an individual’s marginal tax rate – making itemization highly regressive. For example, itemized deductions totaling $10,000 reduce taxes for a person in the 15 percent bracket by $1,500 (15 percent of $10,000) but cut taxes by $3,900 for a person in the 39 percent bracket (39 percent of $10,000). While “itemizers” include individuals from all income levels, this proposal holds lower earners completely harmless, only affecting households earning above $223,000 annually.

• Close Carried Interest Loophole ($17 billion) – Sec. 201

Ensures that carried interest income from service partnerships is taxed as ordinary income. Hedge fund executives and other investment managers can currently count their share of the firms’ profits as an investment in the partnership rather than as a fee for service. This allows some of the highest-income Americans to pay much lower tax rates (15% in 2012 and 23% in 2013) than they would pay if their fee was correctly taxed as ordinary income (up to 39%), even though the funds they manage are not their own and managing the money is their job.

• Close Loopholes for Jets and Yachts ($4 billion) – Secs. 251 & 421

Removes tax advantages provided to owners of private jets and yacht owners. Current law enables owners of private airplanes to receive a more generous five-year depreciation instead of the seven years provided to commercial airlines. This provision allows a seven-year depreciation for all jet owners. Also, about 500,000 boat owners nationwide can decrease their income-tax bill every year by declaring their vessels a second home. This provision only permits people who use their boats as their primary residence to receive a tax benefit. (includes bill text from Rep. Quigley)

• Close International Tax System Loopholes ($161 billion) – Secs. 401-405

Closes corporate tax loopholes and cracks down on offshore tax abuses that encourage corporations to move jobs offshore. Offshore corporations that are managed from the United States would no longer be able to claim foreign status and dodge taxes on their non-U.S. income. In addition, the bill eliminates tax incentives for moving U.S. jobs offshore and transferring intellectual property offshore. The bill gives the Treasury Department stronger authority to take tough new actions to combat tax haven banks and jurisdictions that help U.S. clients evade taxes. (includes bill text from Sen. Levin and Rep. Neal)

• End Fossil Fuel Subsidies ($94 billion) – Secs. 301-311

Repeals tax breaks, financial assistance, exploration and development expensing, preferential tax treatment of royalties, and domestic manufacturing deductions, for oil, natural gas, and coal producers. Despite the fossil fuel industries being among the most profitable on earth, the U.S. government gives them tens of billions of dollars in subsidies through the tax code. The five largest U.S. oil companies earned about $1 trillion in profits over the past decade, yet in recent years, companies like Exxon Mobil and Chevron paid zero federal income taxes. These subsidies distort markets and are detrimental to creating a clean energy economy, reducing our reliance on oil, and cutting carbon pollution.

• Close Exclusion of Foreign-Earned Income Loophole ($71 billion) – Sec. 231

Closes an exclusion enabling U.S. citizens working abroad to avoid paying any federal U.S. taxes on incomes below $95,100 for individuals and $190,200 for couples. This allows citizens to shelter income and violates the principle that U.S. citizens with similar income should incur similar tax liabilities. This measure closes the exclusion, but retains the tax deductions and credits for taxes paid to a foreign government and housing benefits for U.S. citizens working abroad. (bill text from Rep. Tierney)

• Close Corporate Deductions for Stock Options Loophole ($25 billion) – Secs. 331-332

Repeals the “Facebook loophole” that allows a company to deduct stock options cashed in by an employee at the inflated current market value, rather than the original cost to the corporation. In addition, this provision would impose a $1 million cap on deductions related to stock options, the current standard applied to other types of executive compensation. (bill text from Sen. Levin)

• Close Estate Tax Loopholes ($23 billion) – Secs. 501-504

Closes estate tax loopholes to ensure that the value of the property is recorded consistently between estates and beneficiaries. It requires that all estates’ values be reported to the IRS, that grantor retained annuity trusts have a minimum ten year basis, and that generation skipping trusts have minimum and maximum terms. (bill text from Rep. McDermott)

• Close S Corporation Loophole ($13 billion) – Sec. 241

Closes a loophole that allows wealthy professionals, like lobbyists or lawyers, to avoid paying Medicare tax on their earnings. Under current law, businesses organized as S-corporations do not pay corporate taxes, and income earned is passed through to shareholders who report that income on their personal tax returns. But if these shareholders are also employees, they can choose to treat some of their income as business profit, which lets them escape payroll taxes. Newt Gingrich used this loophole to avoid paying $69,000 in Medicare taxes in 2010, by declaring much of his income as S Corporation profits.

• Reduce Corporate Meal and Entertainment Deduction to 25% ($70 billion) – Sec. 341

Lowers the corporate deduction of the cost of meals and entertainment to 25%. Current law allows businesses to write off 50% of the cost of meals and entertainment, even though eating and entertaining are personal expenses and this exception is subject to frequent abuse.
 
Last edited:

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
Tiger is #1 again.
Tougher gun laws are coming soon.
Polls show the majority of Americans approve of same sex marriage and it looks as if the Supreme Court Justices will soon give them equality.
There's a Democrat in the Whitehouse.
The economy is improving.
The Republicans are lost.

Things are really looking up! :)
 

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
Tiger is #1 again.
Tougher gun laws are coming soon.
Polls show the majority of Americans approve of same sex marriage and it looks as if the Supreme Court Justices will soon give them equality.
There's a Democrat in the Whitehouse.
The economy is improving.
The Republicans are lost.

Things are really looking up! :)

Tougher gun laws aren't coming. Especially with liberal states losing manufacturing because of idiotic legislation (CO and NY are already backing down)

LOL. What a distraction gay marriage is.

I can assure you...the economy is NOT improving. It's a farce. The worst is yet to come.
 
Last edited:

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
283425_166420586846078_1634158539_n_zpsb236f58a.jpg
[/IMG]
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Tougher gun laws aren't coming. Especially with liberal states losing manufacturing because of idiotic legislation (CO and NY are already backing down)

LOL. What a distraction gay marriage is.

I can assure you...the economy is NOT improving. It's a farce. The worst is yet to come.

Pat I'll bet you all my vbucks minus v$1 (I get to keep my dignity with that v$1 after I lose lol) that even with the sequester locked in place unemployment falls under 6.0 percent before Obama leaves office.

With conditions:
If there is some type of government shutdown or debt ceiling default the deal is off.

I'll move the number to 5.7% (number Reagan left office with) if at any point in prior to July of 2015 (I need at least a full year for it to take effect) the American Jobs Act gets passed.
 

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
Pat I'll bet you all my vbucks minus v$1 (I get to keep my dignity with that v$1 after I lose lol) that even with the sequester locked in place unemployment falls under 6.0 percent before Obama leaves office.

With conditions:
If there is some type of government shutdown or debt ceiling default the deal is off.

I'll move the number to 5.7% (number Reagan left office with) if at any point in prior to July of 2015 (I need at least a full year for it to take effect) the American Jobs Act gets passed.

There are no "conditions". Typical democrat, looking for a handout! LOL

I bet it gets back to above 8%. The early stages of the ACA is gonna hit employment hard. I think this next year companies with 30 or more have to start offering health care....look for some cuts there over the next year or so. And we haven't even discussed insurance provider job loss.

No way he leaves office with better emploment numbers. And what does that tell you that we much rely on another piece of legislation to "create jobs"?? (cause the stimulus did sooooo well)
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,944
Reaction score
11,224
When enough people fall out of the reporting entirely... I'm sure the numbers will start to come down.............
 

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
Tougher gun laws aren't coming. Especially with liberal states losing manufacturing because of idiotic legislation (CO and NY are already backing down)

LOL. What a distraction gay marriage is.

I can assure you...the economy is NOT improving. It's a farce. The worst is yet to come.

Oh they're getting better, just not for you. That saying is true "you can't make everyone happy".
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
The macroeconomy really isn't getting much better, and won't be doing so in the near future. (Of course, individual results may vary).

Asset managers and finance are doing well, thanks to Helicopter Ben creating the current asset/equity/bond bubble. But once the QE music stops even those guys will be hurting.

Heretofore all the monteary easing has gone into the S&P, but once the inflation starts (which it will eventually) and the easing stops, hold on to your hats.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
When enough people fall out of the reporting entirely... I'm sure the numbers will start to come down.............

+1

Anyone who thinks unemployment falling means we are getting better needs to adjust their eyeglasses.

The employment to population ratio is the same in Feb 2013 as it was in Feb 2012. The gains in employment are keeping up with population growth.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
This thread is still active?

Don't knock the thread this thread has been epic.

We make more sense than Congress most of the time. We could probably come up with a better grand bargain than Congress can if they ever do..

Sure we go around in circles a bit like a dog chasing its tail but it is pretty much the same debate as the federalist vs democratic republicans have been having since the days of the Constitution.
 

enrico514

New member
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
45
Pat I'll bet you all my vbucks minus v$1 (I get to keep my dignity with that v$1 after I lose lol) that even with the sequester locked in place unemployment falls under 6.0 percent before Obama leaves office.

With conditions:
If there is some type of government shutdown or debt ceiling default the deal is off.

I'll move the number to 5.7% (number Reagan left office with) if at any point in prior to July of 2015 (I need at least a full year for it to take effect) the American Jobs Act gets passed.

No way in hell (minute probability) the number is anywhere near 5.7%!
 
Last edited:

enrico514

New member
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
45
When enough people fall out of the reporting entirely... I'm sure the numbers will start to come down.............

This!

with U6 around 15% and U7 estimated to be close to 25% the official number (U3) is a sorry proxy for the health of US employment.
 

DSully1995

New member
Messages
1,103
Reaction score
74
The macroeconomy really isn't getting much better, and won't be doing so in the near future. (Of course, individual results may vary).

Asset managers and finance are doing well, thanks to Helicopter Ben creating the current asset/equity/bond bubble. But once the QE music stops even those guys will be hurting.

Heretofore all the monteary easing has gone into the S&P, but once the inflation starts (which it will eventually) and the easing stops, hold on to your hats.

I think expansionary monetary policy is just a big trick, your fooling people into think theyre richer than they really are and then one day everyone wakes up and says **** all our presumed growth was inflation.


Do you all think this is the new normal?
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
I think expansionary monetary policy is just a big trick, your fooling people into think theyre richer than they really are and then one day everyone wakes up and says **** all our presumed growth was inflation.


Do you all think this is the new normal?

There is no evidence that the deficit spending causes inflation. Reagan inherited a low defict and high inflation and ended with the opposite. I agree we have to bring the deficit down but there is no evidence moderate budget deficits bring about inflation.

Inflation is a rise in prices of goods and services in an economy. When there is something like an oil or a food shortage that's when you see large scale inflation. Giving every single American 100 grand would probably cause inflation but spending money to employ construction workers to fix some of more critical and more deficient roads isn't going cause inflation. Deficit spending to put some of laid off teachers, fire fighters, and police back to work will not cause inflation.
 

DSully1995

New member
Messages
1,103
Reaction score
74
There is no evidence that the deficit spending causes inflation. Reagan inherited a low defict and high inflation and ended with the opposite. I agree we have to bring the deficit down but there is no evidence moderate budget deficits bring about inflation.

Inflation is a rise in prices of goods and services in an economy. When there is something like an oil or a food shortage that's when you see large scale inflation. Giving every single American 100 grand would probably cause inflation but spending money to employ construction workers to fix some of more critical and more deficient roads isn't going cause inflation. Deficit spending to put some of laid off teachers, fire fighters, and police back to work will not cause inflation.

Yes it will. You are arbitrarily adding money to an ecnonomy, a 10% increase in money supply will result eventually in inflation by that same amount.
 

enrico514

New member
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
45
There is no evidence that the deficit spending causes inflation. Reagan inherited a low defict and high inflation and ended with the opposite. I agree we have to bring the deficit down but there is no evidence moderate budget deficits bring about inflation.

Inflation is a rise in prices of goods and services in an economy. When there is something like an oil or a food shortage that's when you see large scale inflation. Giving every single American 100 grand would probably cause inflation but spending money to employ construction workers to fix some of more critical and more deficient roads isn't going cause inflation. Deficit spending to put some of laid off teachers, fire fighters, and police back to work will not cause inflation.

Deficit spending can be good. Unfortunately, high inflation has always followed when a county passes a certain threshold.
 

enrico514

New member
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
45
Yes it will. You are arbitrarily adding money to an ecnonomy, a 10% increase in money supply will result eventually in inflation by that same amount.

But Bernake is certain he will be able to control the situation when things start to get out of hand.
 
Last edited:

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Yes it will. You are arbitrarily adding money to an ecnonomy, a 10% increase in money supply will result eventually in inflation by that same amount.

Show me a long term forecast. According to the Fed we don't have any long term inflation problems. People don't like the Fed sometimes I don't either so you are welcome to show some sort of forecast that shows inflation being an issue. Last I checked even with these deficits which are falling by the way inflation is holding steady at about 2 percent.

One could make the case a bit more inflation actually may not be terrible it would help our trade deficit.
 

DSully1995

New member
Messages
1,103
Reaction score
74
Show me a long term forecast. According to the Fed we don't have any long term inflation problems. People don't like the Fed sometimes I don't either so you are welcome to show some sort of forecast that shows inflation being an issue. Last I checked even with these deficits which are falling by the way inflation is holding steady at about 2 percent.

One could make the case a bit more inflation actually may not be terrible it would help our trade deficit.

I can give you a forecast, but an analogy, if we live in a village of 4 people (butcher/farmer/baker/smelter). If lets say everything costs 2$(bread/potatoes etc). If we give everyone 20$, what will happen?

Gold_Chart_2000-2008_July.gif
 

enrico514

New member
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
45
Show me a long term forecast. According to the Fed we don't have any long term inflation problems. People don't like the Fed sometimes I don't either so you are welcome to show some sort of forecast that shows inflation being an issue. Last I checked even with these deficits which are falling by the way inflation is holding steady at about 2 percent.

One could make the case a bit more inflation actually may not be terrible it would help our trade deficit.

FYI: It's estimated that if inflation was calculated as it was in 1990 the CPI would be between 5.5 and 6%.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
I can give you a forecast, but an analogy, if we live in a village of 4 people (butcher/farmer/baker/smelter). If lets say everything costs 2$(bread/potatoes etc). If we give everyone 20$, what will happen?

Gold_Chart_2000-2008_July.gif

We are not talking about giving everyone money we are talking about putting people back to work.

By your argument low unemployment isn't good because more people got money so it is going to cause inflation.

I am believer in Modern Monetary Theory

Warren Mosler: MMT to Washington: There Is No Long-term Deficit Problem!

What Is Modern Monetary Theory, or "MMT"?
 
Last edited:

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Not sure what people think of this but it worked for Germany;

Instead of laying off people when things go bad in the business cycle Germany urges companies by incentives to cut hours rather than lay people off. People on reduce hours get an unemployment check based on how much their hours are cut. Germany did this and they are way better off than the rest of Europe.

Basically $400 worker gets about a $200 unemployment check. Under a work sharing plan instead of laying off one worker you cut the hours of 10 workers by 4 hours. So $400 a week worker would lose $40 but would get an unemployment check for $20 so they would have $380. I guess doing it this way keeps demand higher limiting severity of the recession.

Don't know enough about this idea to judge but it is something to think about.
 
Top