Tax Amnesty for Big Corps fail to create Jobs.

[Jhhnn]

I agree with you that government handouts create dependency btw....but I don't think that logic stops once you get to poor people, why would it?

Because the consequences of destitution can be fatal or permanently debilitating, particularly for children, and particular for their mental abilities as adults...

Unless you're willing to blame children for circumstances beyond their control...

None of that applies to corporate entities, nor should it...

From the NYT article-

Two years ago, when companies received a big tax break to bring home their offshore profits, the president and Congress justified it as a one-time tax amnesty that would create American jobs.

Obviously, that's not what happened. So Repubs were either wrong, blinded by their ideology, or intentionally lying in pursuit of tax breaks for their biggest contributors.

Which would you choose?

 

[jackace]

When a corporation goes bankrupt people lose jobs and are forced to maybe move or work somewhere else. When a family or person goes bankrupt people starve, turn to illegal methods of earning money, Die, etc.

Corporations are legally their own entity but they are not a living being. We should help living beings, but not all legal entities. Corporations should be forced to be successful in the current economy or go bankrupt. Most the times when we give corporations money to not leave or go out of business, we are only delaying the inevitable and/or lining the pockets of the top execs and such of the company.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

I agree with you that government handouts create dependency btw....but I don't think that logic stops once you get to poor people, why would it?

Because the consequences of destitution can be fatal or permanently debilitating, particularly for children, and particular for their mental abilities as adults...

Unless you're willing to blame children for circumstances beyond their control...

None of that applies to corporate entities, nor should it...

From the NYT article-

Two years ago, when companies received a big tax break to bring home their offshore profits, the president and Congress justified it as a one-time tax amnesty that would create American jobs.

Obviously, that's not what happened. So Repubs were either wrong, blinded by their ideology, or intentionally lying in pursuit of tax breaks for their biggest contributors.

Which would you choose?

None of what you said disproves the fact that government handouts create dependancy, even with poor people. These handouts have been working well in our inner cities wouldn't you say? Or maybe not....

 

[babylon5]

Originally posted by: jackace
When a corporation goes bankrupt people lose jobs and are forced to maybe move or work somewhere else. When a family or person goes bankrupt people starve, turn to illegal methods of earning money, Die, etc.

Corporations are legally their own entity but they are not a living being. We should help living beings, but not all legal entities. Corporations should be forced to be successful in the current economy or go bankrupt. Most the times when we give corporations money to not leave or go out of business, we are only delaying the inevitable and/or lining the pockets of the top execs and such of the company.

Agree

 

[Jhhnn]

From JD50-

None of what you said disproves the fact that government handouts create dependancy, even with poor people. These handouts have been working well in our inner cities wouldn't you say? Or maybe not....

Nice dodge. None of what you said has anything to do with the topic at hand, either-

Tax Amnesty for Big Corps fail to create Jobs

Whereas my comments are entirely On-Topic...

Where are those mythical jobs that this taxcut would supposedly create, anyway?

Or is it terribly unreasonable to think that Repub results should have some honest relationship with Repub rhetoric?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From JD50-

None of what you said disproves the fact that government handouts create dependancy, even with poor people. These handouts have been working well in our inner cities wouldn't you say? Or maybe not....

Nice dodge. None of what you said has anything to do with the topic at hand, either-

Tax Amnesty for Big Corps fail to create Jobs

Whereas my comments are entirely On-Topic...

Where are those mythical jobs that this taxcut would supposedly create, anyway?

Or is it terribly unreasonable to think that Repub results should have some honest relationship with Repub rhetoric?

Umm - yes he was on topic. HACP(the OP) brought up that handouts create dependancy. So the only "dodge" was from hacp and now you.

 

[Jhhnn]

Any issues wrt "dependancy" have been addressed, PJ, whereas the Admin's usual defenders have yet to address the disinformational nature of the Admin's assertion that this tax break would create American jobs.

So I'll repeat my original inquiry wrt the topic of job creation from this tax break-

Obviously, that's not what happened. So Repubs were either wrong, blinded by their ideology, or intentionally lying in pursuit of tax breaks for their biggest contributors.

Which would you choose, PJ? Or you, JD50?

Or is the prospect of thread derailment more appealing?

Clearly, the notion that "tax cuts create jobs" is a cornerstone of the Repub pitch. When the truth of that proposition proves lacking, wandering off into a discussion of dependancy is a pretty transparent attempt to avoid questioning the underlying ideology.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Any issues wrt "dependancy" have been addressed, PJ, whereas the Admin's usual defenders have yet to address the disinformational nature of the Admin's assertion that this tax break would create American jobs.

So I'll repeat my original inquiry wrt the topic of job creation from this tax break-

Obviously, that's not what happened. So Repubs were either wrong, blinded by their ideology, or intentionally lying in pursuit of tax breaks for their biggest contributors.

Which would you choose, PJ? Or you, JD50?

Or is the prospect of thread derailment more appealing?

Clearly, the notion that "tax cuts create jobs" is a cornerstone of the Repub pitch. When the truth of that proposition proves lacking, wandering off into a discussion of dependancy is a pretty transparent attempt to avoid questioning the underlying ideology.

So you admit that if one believes "handouts" create dependancy then it should logically be applied to all handouts? Great to hear if so. We may be making some progress.

I am not for tax amnesty, but your question is along the lines of "did you stop beating your wife". You can not narrow the answers to it to only 2-3 as most likely none of them are fully correct and likely there are other answers more correct and less hyperbolic.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: jackace
When a corporation goes bankrupt people lose jobs and are forced to maybe move or work somewhere else. When a family or person goes bankrupt people starve, turn to illegal methods of earning money, Die, etc.

Corporations are legally their own entity but they are not a living being. We should help living beings, but not all legal entities. Corporations should be forced to be successful in the current economy or go bankrupt.

Most the times when we give corporations money to not leave or go out of business, we are only delaying the inevitable and/or lining the pockets of the top execs and such of the company.

That is the primary goal by Politicians and Republicans have taken that to a whoile new level as is supported by the resident ones in here.

They must be raking in the big bucks from such lobbying efforts.

Maybe P&N should be renamed to "Lobbyists Central".

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: jackace
When a corporation goes bankrupt people lose jobs and are forced to maybe move or work somewhere else. When a family or person goes bankrupt people starve, turn to illegal methods of earning money, Die, etc.

Corporations are legally their own entity but they are not a living being. We should help living beings, but not all legal entities. Corporations should be forced to be successful in the current economy or go bankrupt. Most the times when we give corporations money to not leave or go out of business, we are only delaying the inevitable and/or lining the pockets of the top execs and such of the company.

Pretty funny read.

BTW what color is the sky in your world?

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp
The New York Times agrees with me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/opinion/25weds2.html

Guess what? More unneeded subsudies for the farmers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/opinion/25weds3.html

Wow, the NYTimes agrees with a liberal!?!?! Call the press!(oh wait they are).

Going to answer my question?

BTW, you have no idea what my take on subsidies is. I just want to see how consistent you are with your logic. Answer the question:

So it only applies to farmers and corporations?

No, if you don't need tax amnesty, you don't deserve it. Unless everyone in the corporation is living in the streets, without work, and drinking sewage water, they shouldn't get any handouts.

I never said they did deserve it. YOU brought up "handouts" and the "dependancy on the government" Does this only apply to tax amensty(or other corporate welfare) and ag subsidies(IE farm payments)?

Of course not. The government should not be giving handouts to anyone who lives the high life. Unless they are living in on the streets, and starving, you should not hand out money to people who don't need it.

So the logic of "dependancy" only applies to businesses and farmers?

Have you ever been to farm country? I'm not sure you have if you think they are living "the high life".

So the point here is you need to rethink your rational for being against subsidies and corporate welfare because you don't follow the logic you used all the way through.

I don't need to rethink anything. Unless the farmers, corporations, or anyone else are living in horrid conditions, getting threatened with eviction, living with malnutrition, or any other horrible condition, they should not get government handouts.

So government handouts don't create dependancy if you are poor?

Who knows, but I sure won't be satisfied if I were eating three slices of bread per day instead of garbage dump.

But, we're going off topic here. We need to crack down on these Corporate Thieves. We need to increase funding for the IRS, so they can catch the people that cheat taxes.

We're on the topic you started. It is your "logic" that handouts create dependancy but you seem to limit that only to corporations and ag subsidies. Follow your logic through or rethink and amend it.

BTW, I fully support the reduction/elimination(in all but a few areas) of corporate and Ag welfare. Because, yes, it creates dependancy and a sense of entitlement. But you see, the difference is though that I follow that logic through all welfare/handouts.

No, we don't need to increase funding for the IRS - that's like paying a robber to catch a thief. How about we just end/reduce these funds so fraud becomes a non-issue?

Yes, some people may become depandant on government handouts. But, I doubt that anyone would want to live their lives eating 4 slices of bread every deay, and living in a homeless shelter. Coporations use government handouts to increase their profits, or continue to justify a bad buisiness model. They aren't starving, the guys on top are probably well off. Regular people use these handouts to make ends meet, barely.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: JD50
Wow Hacp, you've got yourself in quite a little bind here haven't you? I agree with you that government handouts create dependency btw....but I don't think that logic stops once you get to poor people, why would it?

Not really, since its hard to make ends meet if you're poor. If a corporation loses some cash, their investors lose money in stocks, and they might fire a few college educated people, who can get new jobs anyways. If a poor person looses his/her food stamps, he/she dies. I think thats a good incentive to not become dependant on government handouts.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: JD50
Wow Hacp, you've got yourself in quite a little bind here haven't you? I agree with you that government handouts create dependency btw....but I don't think that logic stops once you get to poor people, why would it?

Not really, since its hard to make ends meet if you're poor. If a corporation loses some cash, their investors lose money in stocks, and they might fire a few college educated people, who can get new jobs anyways. If a poor person looses his/her food stamps, he/she dies. I think thats a good incentive to not become dependant on government handouts.

So it's ok for poor people that get handouts become dependant on them but not corporations and farmers? A person's "wealth" has nothing to do with the logic of dependancy.

BTW, have you ever been to farm country?(I think I asked this before) If you think farmers are "well off" then you haven't a clue about agriculture. But lets try your twisted logic here for a minute. If you have a poor farmer - can they get subsidies? Without them, their farm will die and then so will they. Right?

 

[ayabe]

Farm subsidies also includes gigantic corporate farms, they get the bulk of the money. Mom and pop farmers get very little in comparison. This is a direct handout from our pockets to theirs(the corps).

"Under this mistargeted system, agriculture policy has become America's largest corporate welfare program. According to the Environmental Working Group, two-thirds of all farm subsidies go to the top 10 percent of subsidy recipients while the bottom 80 percent of recipients receive less than one-sixth of farm subsidies. A full 60 percent of America's farmers do not qualify for any assistance. In 2000 alone, more than 57,500 farms received subsidies totaling over $100,000, and subsidies of at least 154 farms topped $1 million. Among these beneficiaries are fifteen Fortune 500 companies, including Westvaco, Chevron, and John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance, which receive as much as 58 times as much as the median annual subsidy of $935.8

The current system has caused hardship not only for the taxpayers who pay this enormous subsidy tab, but also for unsubsidized farmers with small farms. Many of the largest, most profitable farms and agribusinesses that have received the lion's share of subsidies have used these funds to buy out smaller farms. In what one agriculture official calls the "plantation effect," family farms with less than 100 acres of land are being bought out by larger agribusinesses, which then convert them into tenant farms. To date, three-quarters of the nation's rice farms have already become tenant farms, and the ownership of other types of farms is beginning to trend in that same direction.9

In other words, far from saving America's family farms, the current farm subsidy system is destroying them."

Text

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: JD50
Wow Hacp, you've got yourself in quite a little bind here haven't you? I agree with you that government handouts create dependency btw....but I don't think that logic stops once you get to poor people, why would it?

Not really, since its hard to make ends meet if you're poor. If a corporation loses some cash, their investors lose money in stocks, and they might fire a few college educated people, who can get new jobs anyways. If a poor person looses his/her food stamps, he/she dies. I think thats a good incentive to not become dependant on government handouts.

So it's ok for poor people that get handouts become dependant on them but not corporations and farmers? A person's "wealth" has nothing to do with the logic of dependancy.

BTW, have you ever been to farm country?(I think I asked this before) If you think farmers are "well off" then you haven't a clue about agriculture. But lets try your twisted logic here for a minute. If you have a poor farmer - can they get subsidies? Without them, their farm will die and then so will they. Right?

Yes, the farmers are well off. The richest farmers get most of the subsudies, leaving the poor ones the scraps.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp
The New York Times agrees with me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/opinion/25weds2.html

Guess what? More unneeded subsudies for the farmers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/opinion/25weds3.html

Wow, the NYTimes agrees with a liberal!?!?! Call the press!(oh wait they are).

Going to answer my question?

BTW, you have no idea what my take on subsidies is. I just want to see how consistent you are with your logic. Answer the question:

So it only applies to farmers and corporations?

No, if you don't need tax amnesty, you don't deserve it. Unless everyone in the corporation is living in the streets, without work, and drinking sewage water, they shouldn't get any handouts.

I never said they did deserve it. YOU brought up "handouts" and the "dependancy on the government" Does this only apply to tax amensty(or other corporate welfare) and ag subsidies(IE farm payments)?

Of course not. The government should not be giving handouts to anyone who lives the high life. Unless they are living in on the streets, and starving, you should not hand out money to people who don't need it.

So the logic of "dependancy" only applies to businesses and farmers?

Have you ever been to farm country? I'm not sure you have if you think they are living "the high life".

So the point here is you need to rethink your rational for being against subsidies and corporate welfare because you don't follow the logic you used all the way through.

I don't need to rethink anything. Unless the farmers, corporations, or anyone else are living in horrid conditions, getting threatened with eviction, living with malnutrition, or any other horrible condition, they should not get government handouts.

So government handouts don't create dependancy if you are poor?

Welfare reform in the 90's limited welfare recipients to 5 years benefits over a lifetime.
I think this is stupid, but if we are interested in fairness, this should be applied across the board.
Five years limit on agricultural payments in the farmers lifetime, five year limit on corporate subsidies for the life of the corporation, five year limit on govt contracts.
We need to extend this "reform" to many govt programs.


Text
Federal reforms in 1996 eliminated the entitlement to welfare and limited benefits to a maximum of five years in a lifetime. States can exempt up to 20 percent of their caseload from the federal time limit. Moreover, they can extend the time limit beyond five years, as long as benefits are paid with state dollars. In 2002 only two states?Michigan and Vermont?did not have any type of time limit on benefits (Bloom, Farrell, and Fink 2002). Seventeen states had time limits of less than five years.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

From the NYT article-

Two years ago, when companies received a big tax break to bring home their offshore profits, the president and Congress justified it as a one-time tax amnesty that would create American jobs.

Obviously, that's not what happened. So Repubs were either wrong, blinded by their ideology, or intentionally lying in pursuit of tax breaks for their biggest contributors.

Which would you choose?

or it made the loss of jobs smaller. how much of that job loss had to do with all the cox-2 inhibitors being pulled? it's nearly impossible in something as complex as the economy to say that any one factor didn't work as thought it should when other factors could easily mask the effect.

study after study has shown, however, that when a tax is on a corporation, it's the workers that bear the brunt of it. think about it, there are 3 groups of people that could bear the brunt of a tax: consumers, workers, and shareholders. of the 3, guess which is the easiest to ring money out of when the industry has competitive product and capital markets? workers. and of the workers, who do you think is taking the paycut? the guy at the top certainly isn't.

and given how easy it is for corporations to move money around and game the tax system, it simply doesn't make any sense to me that you would tax them when you can tax shareholders directly. but i guess if it's the big, faceless corporation being taxed rather than you (regardless of the fact that you're the one that ends up paying in the end, and at a higher rate to make up for the hidden money), you'll feel better about yourself.

Originally posted by: jackace
When a corporation goes bankrupt people lose jobs and are forced to maybe move or work somewhere else. When a family or person goes bankrupt people starve, turn to illegal methods of earning money, Die, etc.

you obviously have no clue what bankruptcy is.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

From the NYT article-

Two years ago, when companies received a big tax break to bring home their offshore profits, the president and Congress justified it as a one-time tax amnesty that would create American jobs.

Obviously, that's not what happened. So Repubs were either wrong, blinded by their ideology, or intentionally lying in pursuit of tax breaks for their biggest contributors.

Which would you choose?

or it made the loss of jobs smaller. how much of that job loss had to do with all the cox-2 inhibitors being pulled? it's nearly impossible in something as complex as the economy to say that any one factor didn't work as thought it should when other factors could easily mask the effect.

study after study has shown, however, that when a tax is on a corporation, it's the workers that bear the brunt of it. think about it, there are 3 groups of people that could bear the brunt of a tax: consumers, workers, and shareholders. of the 3, guess which is the easiest to ring money out of when the industry has competitive product and capital markets? workers. and of the workers, who do you think is taking the paycut? the guy at the top certainly isn't.

and given how easy it is for corporations to move money around and game the tax system, it simply doesn't make any sense to me that you would tax them when you can tax shareholders directly. but i guess if it's the big, faceless corporation being taxed rather than you (regardless of the fact that you're the one that ends up paying in the end, and at a higher rate to make up for the hidden money), you'll feel better about yourself.

Originally posted by: jackace
When a corporation goes bankrupt people lose jobs and are forced to maybe move or work somewhere else. When a family or person goes bankrupt people starve, turn to illegal methods of earning money, Die, etc.

you obviously have no clue what bankruptcy is.

That arguement can not be made anymore. Not when you have globalization, and millions of workers hired by american companies in forgein countries.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Yes, the farmers are well off. The richest farmers get most of the subsudies, leaving the poor ones the scraps.

Uh, you need to come to fly-over country. Then we'll drive around looking for the rich farmers. :laugh:

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ElFenix

study after study has shown, however, that when a tax is on a corporation, it's the workers that bear the brunt of it.

That arguement can not be made anymore. Not when you have globalization, and millions of workers hired by american companies in forgein countries.

actually, that would exacerbate it.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ElFenix

study after study has shown, however, that when a tax is on a corporation, it's the workers that bear the brunt of it.

That arguement can not be made anymore. Not when you have globalization, and millions of workers hired by american companies in forgein countries.

actually, that would exacerbate it.

Yea right.

 

[Jhhnn]

From CSG-

I am not for tax amnesty, but your question is along the lines of "did you stop beating your wife". You can not narrow the answers to it to only 2-3 as most likely none of them are fully correct and likely there are other answers more correct and less hyperbolic.

Yeh, right. If there's some other answer, you could offer it up.... But, uhh, err, yeh- you got nothin'...

Once again, the Repubs have pissed down our collective leg, told us it was raining. Some of their dimmer fans even took out umbrellas...

 

[HGC]

If we want big corps to create more jobs, eliminate the corporate income tax.

Individuals buy stocks in corporations, mostly in the form of mutual funds and pension funds, with after tax funds. Corporations pay tax on any profits. When the corporations' owners (teachers with 401Ks or parents saving for kids' college, typically) receive a dividend or capital gain, tax is paid again.

What is the reason for the same money to be taxed three times? Simple. Most people are fooled into thinking that the corporate tax doesn't fall on them, but on greedy fat cats lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills. This is an easier sell for politicians lookng for revenue to finance their re-elections than raising personal tax rates. In fact, the corporate tax is paid by employees in lower wages, stock holders in lower returns, and consumers in higher prices.

Dump the corporate tax, dump corporate welfare, and the market will more efficiently allocate investment funds bringing higher prosperity to all, especially to lower income folks.

 

[jackace]

My stand on how corporations should be dealt with is the government should make the rules (laws and such to protect the environment, workers, etc) for the corporations and then hands off from there. Let the market sort out whether the corporation lives or dies. If the corporation dies (and there is a true economic need for the product) another corporation will start. People who loose their jobs might be forced to change industries or move to find a job, but they should have some savings to help them through the hard times. If they do not have any savings or have run it dry finding work thats when we as society should step in and help.

As far as people who have no income to support themselves, I feel they need some form of support. I would like to see it not be mandated and controlled by the government, but by charities and local communities looking out for their neighbors. This however is probably not a realistic approach in this day and age so it would need to be "forced" on the public through a government program of some sort.

Corporations that provide a desired product and at a competitive price will always have a demand. They should not need our government to bail them out for "bad" management. Most instance I have seen where the government stepped in and helped a corporation financially it only delayed the inevitable, which was bankruptcy, selling the business, etc.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: HGC
If we want big corps to create more jobs, eliminate the corporate income tax.

Individuals buy stocks in corporations, mostly in the form of mutual funds and pension funds, with after tax funds. Corporations pay tax on any profits. When the corporations' owners (teachers with 401Ks or parents saving for kids' college, typically) receive a dividend or capital gain, tax is paid again.

What is the reason for the same money to be taxed three times? Simple. Most people are fooled into thinking that the corporate tax doesn't fall on them, but on greedy fat cats lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills. This is an easier sell for politicians lookng for revenue to finance their re-elections than raising personal tax rates. In fact, the corporate tax is paid by employees in lower wages, stock holders in lower returns, and consumers in higher prices.

Dump the corporate tax, dump corporate welfare, and the market will more efficiently allocate investment funds bringing higher prosperity to all, especially to lower income folks.

Dump the corporate tax, allow them to hire more offshore workers. Great!