Tax Amnesty for Big Corps fail to create Jobs.

[Hacp]

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/business/24drugtax.html?hp">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.

Drug makers were the biggest beneficiaries of the amnesty program, repatriating about $100 billion in foreign profits and paying only minimal taxes. But the companies did not create many jobs in return. Instead, since 2005 the American drug industry has laid off tens of thousands of workers in this country.

And now drug companies are once again using complex strategies, many of them demonstrably legal, to shelter billions of dollars in profits in international tax havens, according to their financial statements and independent tax experts.</a>

When will we stop this abuse of the American Tax System. We give a big tax amnesty to these corporations, then they continue to raid and rape the IRS.

 

[senseamp]

Why would giving a tax break on foreign earnings create American jobs?

 

[Genx87]

Your argument is going to fall on deaf ears considering we have been running at under 4.5% unemployment for ~24 months. In effect we are at full employment.

Hard to complain about jobs not being created when chances are there arent many applicants to fill these jobs.

And dont give me any excuse about the unemployment means nothing, because that is a line o crap.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Your argument is going to fall on deaf ears considering we have been running at under 4.5% unemployment for ~24 months. In effect we are at full employment.

Hard to complain about jobs not being created when chances are there arent many applicants to fill these jobs.

And dont give me any excuse about the unemployment means nothing, because that is a line o crap.

Instead, since 2005 the American drug industry has laid off tens of thousands of workers in this country.

We need to stop corporate welfare, now. Giving these corporations handouts will only lead to dependancy on the government.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Genx87
Your argument is going to fall on deaf ears considering we have been running at under 4.5% unemployment for ~24 months. In effect we are at full employment.

Hard to complain about jobs not being created when chances are there arent many applicants to fill these jobs.

And dont give me any excuse about the unemployment means nothing, because that is a line o crap.

Instead, since 2005 the American drug industry has laid off tens of thousands of workers in this country.

According to Genx these tens of thousands have found comparable jobs and wages working at Wally World and Mickey D's.

You should be as thrilled as he is.

 

[yankeesfan]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Genx87
Your argument is going to fall on deaf ears considering we have been running at under 4.5% unemployment for ~24 months. In effect we are at full employment.

Hard to complain about jobs not being created when chances are there arent many applicants to fill these jobs.

And dont give me any excuse about the unemployment means nothing, because that is a line o crap.

Instead, since 2005 the American drug industry has laid off tens of thousands of workers in this country.

According to Genx these tens of thousands have found comparable jobs and wages working at Wally World and Mickey D's.

You should be as thrilled as he is.

You think that the people laid off by drug companies are now serving food for you at McDonalds and greeting you at the door of Walmarts? That is utterly deluded.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: yankeesfan

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Genx87
Your argument is going to fall on deaf ears considering we have been running at under 4.5% unemployment for ~24 months. In effect we are at full employment.

Hard to complain about jobs not being created when chances are there arent many applicants to fill these jobs.

And dont give me any excuse about the unemployment means nothing, because that is a line o crap.

Instead, since 2005 the American drug industry has laid off tens of thousands of workers in this country.

According to Genx these tens of thousands have found comparable jobs and wages working at Wally World and Mickey D's.

You should be as thrilled as he is.

You think that the people laid off by drug companies are now serving food for you at McDonalds and greeting you at the door of Walmarts? That is utterly deluded.

So where are they???

 

[StageLeft]

Giving these corporations handouts will only lead to dependancy on the government.

There is a correlation between taxes and dependency. The benefits of these tax breaks may not be great or even notable at all, but a reduction in taxes will rarely increase government dependency.

So where are they???

Probably working elsewhere. I don't have a single co-worker or friend with a degree who's ever been laid off (and there have been some, myself included) who went on to do brain-dead menial labor like working at Walmart. All eventually found jobs (better ones, in fact).

 

[jackace]

I know for a fact that Micron got HUGE tax breaks from both the state of Idaho and the city of Boise. What did they do? They laid off 1100 people. Those tax breaks were supposed to help Micron bring more jobs to Idaho, but instead we lost jobs and most will never come back. In fact I would not be surprised if within 5 years Micron has moved most if not all their production overseas.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Giving these corporations handouts will only lead to dependancy on the government.

This only applies to corporations?

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp
Giving these corporations handouts will only lead to dependancy on the government.

This only applies to corporations?

You're avoiding the real issue. If we keep giving these corporations handouts, they'll rely on it. Look at farmers for an example.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Why would giving a tax break on foreign earnings create American jobs?

I think the idea would be that encouraging them to transfer all that capital/money and invest in it the USA would invariably lead to more jobs.

I'm a tax CPA and worked for many years in international taxation. It's a terribly complex area and I don't feel that any of thses articles, or utterences by polititions are very accurate.

The IRS does have tools (laws) available to foil these ploys. The real story IMO is that they are badly understaffed in the corporate int'l tax area.

Fern

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp
Giving these corporations handouts will only lead to dependancy on the government.

This only applies to corporations?

You're avoiding the real issue. If we keep giving these corporations handouts, they'll rely on it. Look at farmers for an example.

So it only applies to farmers and corporations?

 

[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

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[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)?

 

[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.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp
Giving these corporations handouts will only lead to dependancy on the government.

This only applies to corporations?

You're avoiding the real issue. If we keep giving these corporations handouts, they'll rely on it. Look at farmers for an example.

Or the poor in our country.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[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?