• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Lost in the noise: a tax holiday is a bad idea

C

Craig234

Lifer
Matt Taibbi explains:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/22-14

Anyone get tired of 'the laws don't apply if you're rich enough'?

Here we have businesses who really don't want to pay their share of taxes, so they keep the money off shore.

But they really want the money onshore, to pay themselves and make more money with it.

So what do they lobby for? 'Let us have our cake and eat it too - not pay the taxes, and still bring the money back'.

Why should we?

'Well it's a lot of money and it's not helping the US for it to be offshore. And oh ya, our campaign contributions and lobbying'.

Who's the boss, the people or the corporations? The answer should be 'no'.

What we SHOULD be doing is ending loopholes of things like *incenting* companies to invest overseas instead of the US.

Rumors have this new 'deal' including a tax holiday. Of course like anything bad they do they say things like 'it means jobs!' It's a bad idea.

Why would it be popular? Republicans are under huge pressure to agree to 'revenue increases' without increasing taxes. This would allow them to do that - while at the same time giving corporations what they want. Obama is probably happy to go along with it because it gives him the political win of 'getting the revenue increases he wanted' while he also gets to give corporations what they want.

And those who are anti-tax ideologues, remember every dollar you cut in these taxes is another dollar added to what you owe in the public debt.
 
Last edited:
You should be embarrassed to post anything written by Matt Taibbi.

The guy is a complete hack and nothing more.
 
Craig234 said:
And those who are anti-tax ideologues, remember every dollar you cut in these taxes is another dollar added to what you owe in the public debt.
Click to expand...

🙄

Wrong again... Every dollar the government SPENDS adds to the public debt. For the 14 Trillionth time... The Fed does not have an income problem, it has a massive spending problem.
 
Whoozyerdaddy said:
🙄

Wrong again... Every dollar the government SPENDS adds to the public debt. For the 14 Trillionth time... The Fed does not have an income problem, it has a massive spending problem.
Click to expand...

As the first reply not on ignore, you're wrong. Your post is the usual misguided right-wing ideology implying there should be no taxes.

No matter what level of spending we have, from what I see from people like you, your little mantra 'not a revenue problem' will ALWAYS be your response. It's nuts.

Get a clue: taxes actually have to be paid.

When your little utopia of low spending happens, we'll talk about that. It hasn't. We owe money, and someone has to pay. The corporations who have fortunes offshore, or you?
 
Whoozyerdaddy said:
🙄

Wrong again... Every dollar the government SPENDS adds to the public debt. For the 14 Trillionth time... The Fed does not have an income problem, it has a massive spending problem.
Click to expand...


So your deaf dumb blind and STUPID!

If you can't see the bush tax cuts sunk the ship your beyond help.

Your local utilities are wasting money by the handfuls, I think you should stop paying your electric and water bills to prevent them from continuing their blatant overspending of your hard earned money.
 
GuitarDaddy said:
So your deaf dumb blind and STUPID!

If you can't see the bush tax cuts sunk the ship your beyond help.

Your local utilities are wasting money by the handfuls, I think you should stop paying your electric and water bills to prevent them from continuing their blatant overspending of your hard earned money.
Click to expand...


If we go back to 1998 spending levels and adjust them for inflation and population growth, we would have an almost balanced budget, and this is with our low revenue in a recession. Our spending has gotten out of control.

Spending problem.

I'm for closing loopholes, simplifying the tax code, etc though.
 
Last edited:
matt0611 said:
If we go back to 1998 spending levels and adjust them for inflation and population growth, we would have an almost balanced budget, and this is with our low revenue in a recession. Our spending has gotten out of control.

Spending problem.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

scott_data.jpg
 
Posting an article by that idiot Matt Taibbi: Fail
Inability to recognize that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem: Fail

I want loopholes closed and companies to have to pay taxes, but lets look at this issue objectively for a second. Right now, the money is overseas, and we are not getting anything from it. Zero taxes, zero use. If the companies are given a "loophole" and can bring the money back, they'll use it for something. Investments, jobs, big bonuses for fat cats, whatever. That means we'll get some benefits from it, in the forms of taxes or investments. In summary, we currently get nothing, and if we create the "loophole" we get something. Something is better than nothing.

Sounds like it's something worth investigating. Perhaps there are other factors that play into it that need to be evaluated, but it's certainly not something you want to dismiss offhand.
 
Double Trouble said:
Posting an article by that idiot Matt Taibbi: Fail
Inability to recognize that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem: Fail

I want loopholes closed and companies to have to pay taxes, but lets look at this issue objectively for a second. Right now, the money is overseas, and we are not getting anything from it. Zero taxes, zero use. If the companies are given a "loophole" and can bring the money back, they'll use it for something. Investments, jobs, big bonuses for fat cats, whatever. That means we'll get some benefits from it, in the forms of taxes or investments. In summary, we currently get nothing, and if we create the "loophole" we get something. Something is better than nothing.

Sounds like it's something worth investigating. Perhaps there are other factors that play into it that need to be evaluated, but it's certainly not something you want to dismiss offhand.
Click to expand...

That's nice - however those amazing loopholes have been and are still there - and it hasn't affected the job market in the U.S. - except in the negative...

\hey, if I can get a crack whore in China to build my iPad for less, then jolly good for me!
 
Last edited:
UberNeuman said:
So, besides attacking the OP and Matt Taibbi - is not looking to close the various loopholes something worthwhile?
Click to expand...
Worthwhile would be the plan floating around to deep six most of the tax code and start over.

The Cato plan removes $1 trillion in write offs and drops rates across the board.

Reduce top rates to the 25% range. Remove nearly all loopholes. Raise more tax revenue than we do today with a tax system that is far simpler and far easier for people to comply with.

I believe the plan also includes reforming corporate taxes as well. Eliminate all the loopholes that allow GE to skip out on taxes, but also lower the rates so they are more inline with what the rest of the world taxes them at.
 
UberNeuman said:
That's nice - however those amazing loopholes have been and are still there - and it hasn't affected the job market in the U.S. - except in the negative...
Click to expand...

From what I can tell they are discussing something temporary, not permanent. How do you know what the impact on the US job market is or has been? I'm not aware of any study specifically examining that particular question.

Like I said, maybe there are other factors to consider, but I don't see a major downside: we're not getting anything from that money now. If we let it back in tax free we're going to see at least something from it (taxes or investment or jobs)
 
Double Trouble said:
From what I can tell they are discussing something temporary, not permanent. How do you know what the impact on the US job market is or has been? I'm not aware of any study specifically examining that particular question.

Like I said, maybe there are other factors to consider, but I don't see a major downside: we're not getting anything from that money now. If we let it back in tax free we're going to see at least something from it (taxes or investment or jobs)
Click to expand...

No, you won't... Business is and will always be about the bottom line...
 
http://www.latimes.com/travel/deals/la-trb-air-ticket-tax-fares-20110723,0,7265347.story?track=rss

Airline ticket tax holiday is windfall-- for airlines

USAirways, American Airlines and other are not passing on the savings of the FAA temporarily not collecting the air tax but instead are pocketing the difference which can be up to $30 per ticket. Conservatives love to claim that business will pass on the savings if we all just lower their tax burden. Looks like this is false in this case and in many others i.e. GE doesn't even pay taxes. Seems like they will continue to privatize profits and socialize losses.
 
UberNeuman said:
No, you won't... Business is and will always be about the bottom line...
Click to expand...

Ok, explain to me how we could possibly not see any effect if the money comes back to this country. No matter how they use it, it has a positive impact. How positive depends on how they use it (investing in growth and creating jobs, very positive. Paying bonuses to CEO's, not so much), but I don't see any situation where we collectively wouldn't see some positive impact of that money being brought back. Can you explain how the money could be brought back to the US without us seeing any impact?
 
chowderhead said:
http://www.latimes.com/travel/deals/la-trb-air-ticket-tax-fares-20110723,0,7265347.story?track=rss

Airline ticket tax holiday is windfall-- for airlines

USAirways, American Airlines and other are not passing on the savings of the FAA temporarily not collecting the air tax but instead are pocketing the difference which can be up to $30 per ticket. Conservatives love to claim that business will pass on the savings if we all just lower their tax burden. Looks like this is false in this case and in many others i.e. GE doesn't even pay taxes. Seems like they will continue to privatize profits and socialize losses.
Click to expand...

We currently get NOTHING from the money overseas. It's not a matter of saying "ok, we'll tax you less, we'll give you a break", we get nothing right now. Anything we get is a positive.
 
Double Trouble said:
. Can you explain how the money could be brought back to the US without us seeing any impact?
Click to expand...

You ask this as if "Business" were human - Business is solely about profit - which I don't find abhorrent - a company must survive if it wishes to go on...

But it is about business in the end - as long as business can take as much as it can - it will...
 
Craig234 said:
As the first reply not on ignore, you're wrong. Your post is the usual misguided right-wing ideology implying there should be no taxes.

No matter what level of spending we have, from what I see from people like you, your little mantra 'not a revenue problem' will ALWAYS be your response. It's nuts.

Get a clue: taxes actually have to be paid.

When your little utopia of low spending happens, we'll talk about that. It hasn't. We owe money, and someone has to pay. The corporations who have fortunes offshore, or you?
Click to expand...

to argue that there is no spending problem is ridiculous. taxes have to be paid, yes, but the government should be spending within its budgetary limits regardless of how much income is actually realized. that'd be like the average person spending at a level according to their gross income rather than their net income - you will ALWAYS be in debt until you cut spending.
 
Fenixgoon said:
to argue that there is no spending problem is ridiculous. taxes have to be paid, yes, but the government should be spending within its budgetary limits regardless of how much income is actually realized. that'd be like the average person spending at a level according to their gross income rather than their net income - you will ALWAYS be in debt until you cut spending.
Click to expand...

What spending would you cut first...?

\ah, that Gordian knot...
 
Last edited:
Fiddling with taxes isn't going to help much either way. The elephant in the room is third world international competition that threatens lower class and middle class jobs in this country.
 
don't forget that home mortgage deduction "loop hole" or that dependent deduction "loop hole" or property tax deduction "loop hole" or vehicle registration deduction "Loop Hole" You took the bate. You call compliance with existing tax law "Loop Holes" so now the tax law that benefits you and be considered a "loop hole" and used to strangle more tax revenue out of you and other bottom feeder "loop hole" parasites.
 
UberNeuman said:
What spending would you cut first...?

\ah, that Gordian knot...
Click to expand...
I saw a chart that showed how to cut $1 trillion off spending in 10 years. These were actual cuts, not reductions in spending. If the plan was put into place spending in 2020 would be $1 trillion less than what is now planned.

It includes cuts in ALL kinds of things. $150 billion off defense, cuts in SS via reduced COLAs, cutting NPR, PBS. NEA etc. Reducing the refunded part of earned income by 50%.

It was as Obama like to say "shared sacrifice" that would lead to a balanced budget.

I will try to find the chart. It was interesting and relatively detailed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top