Government authorized those loans through CRA. You're dodging the issue. Again, what did the tax code do to contribute to the financial crisis?

From one of my primary inspirations, Milton Friedman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

You're talking in circles. Your point was that rich people sitting on gobs of cash aren't stimulating the economy. My counter point is that monetary policy says you are incorrect. Joe Shmo may not be able to afford to take out a loan, but Joe Shmo might be the guy washing cars at the dealership who gets to keep his job because people who can afford to take out loans do so to buy cars from his employer.

Start thinking big picture. MACROeconomics :)

They aren't illegally moving money overseas, so they aren't tax dodgers. Rather, the money they make from overseas operations is not being funneled back into the US economy. There have been a few conservatives in favor for this tax holiday, I don't think anyone would be against domestic spending requirements.

A small company making $250k in profit annually isn't a "big business."

Milton Friedman has a lot of good things to say and his theories have seem to worked in the past. Today, they haven't been. I brought up "what if, 0% tax" for a reason. Taxes are not at historical highs by any means, Taxes in the US has always been an issue but never in time have Companies been sending jobs over seas as they do now. Why? My guess is now they want to pay lower wages (to make more money for themselves). They are FINE and would still be profitable here... GREED for MORE is what drives them. The 2 other Countries Milton mentioned also have very rich with the larger part of the population being poor. I would of asked him about Sweden and is it better to have yourself a billion dollars or a Country with a higher average income. He would call me a socialist and Id call him greedy (which he thinks is fine).

Ok, you think macro I think micro. I see millions of people who can't afford things and you see hundreds of Companies that can't produce "things" cheap enough for those that can't afford. (correct?)

I agree with tax breaks for those actually creating jobs HERE. I get wrecked over Companies sending jobs over seas and you and Milton wanting the USA to change its name to China or Russia ( :lol:). Lets pretend you and I are in charge (I get the bigger office). If I proposed Tax breaks for those ONLY creating jobs here, a 1 year Tax holiday for new hires (a set amount, not fire everyone after 1 year and reclaim), Reform the EPA (goods and bads I would bet in your eyes), and do nothing for Companies sending jobs over seas would you sign?



Dodging non the less, we've both "dodged" each other statements or questions and also did nothing illegal. They are Dodging contributing to this Country and want rewards for it. Regardless, I would be for the whole topic if it was for investing and employing US citizens at fair wages.


Fair enough, I did categorize them as such.

If the difference in a lower tax rate between the USA and China/India meant it would not make financial sense to outsource jobs there, businesses wouldn't outsource jobs there. Until there is a reason to invest in local labor, thing's won't change. Start taxing businesses here more and watch what happens to domestic hiring.

No, I see you pushing for policies that on a macroeconomic level will further destroy American jobs growth. If I'm small business, I'm thinking about hiring an extra employee, and my tax burden is increased, there's a chance that the increase in tax burden offsets my ability to hire 1 more position.

What I would do is allow 100% write-off of domestic capital investment (might be jobs, might be equipment, might be land or property) with no limit for 2 years by expanding Section 179 tax deductions for capital investment on businesses. Currently the limit is something like $125,000 a year + 20% of the depreciable balance. The stipulation is that in order to get the 100% tax write-off on those monies, one would have to prove that money came back into the US from a foreign account. I think this achieves your goal. Rewards those who bring money back into the country tax free as long as it's spent on domestic resources.

Depends on your definition of reform the EPA. If you mean largely defund it and take away their ability to create BS legislation and create cockamamy stories of manmade global warming or climate change to screw businesses, then yes I agree.

Under the two stipulations listed above, I would sign.


I think I'm pretty directly responding to your questions, but I can't be the judge of that because I'm biased. If someone else wants to come into our sparring match as an objective referee to score points, more power to them.

If I open a widget shop in Brazil and I put all my profits into a bank in the Cayman Islands where I don't touch that money but rather let it amass in an overseas account, how is that commerce being conducted in the USA? Because I live here? If I don't touch the money or move it into the USA, how is that consider earned income in the USA? Your argument is not sound.

Also - How do you feel about Jeff Immelt as Obama's jobs advisor? You know, the CEO from GE that didn't pay a single penny in corporate taxes last year and shifted tens of thousands of jobs overseas while shutting down entire plants in the USA?

http://images.memegenerator.net/inst...0x/9495234.jpg

Reagen - tax rate was 69% at its highest (I still can't believe this so double check)

Obama - Its at 35% (Not directed at you at all, but why the f&%k are people complaining now? Greed?)

Why are Businesses sending jobs over seas at a MUCH higher rate now then during the "best presidency ever who got us out of a recession, created jobs" @ 69% tax. I personally think its strictly because of greed! Businesses like I mentioned are showing record profits, they don't NEED to send jobs over seas, they want to (more money for them, F country). Lowering our tax/Labor rate to match those of China / India turns us into China / India (class wise).

My main focus is on Big Business already profiting big time and still sending jobs over seas. I think we're def. on the same page when it comes to small Businesses and their need for lower taxes.

When it comes to the EPA I have strict views on waste, pollutants, and whats put in our food. I can be Mr. hippie clean Earth although I drive a modified car, so do understand they over react in a lot of areas.

Sparring match, eh, I think this has been our best conversation to date. I think we're finally at a healthy discussion level.


Its earned income by a US citizen. You live here and reap the benefits of Police, fire, security, "freedom", and although you don't want it medicare, social security, etc. Because of this you pay taxes. Now if 100% of that money was used start Businesses here (that included employees) that's a different story, I'd be for your tax Holiday.

Republican Jeff Immelt, working hard on job creation!! (over seas). You gotta know how I feel about him. To be fair though, I think Obama was an idiot for hiring him not necessarily a Republican..

0% Corporate taxes and they STILL sent jobs over seas? How much more should they be coddled? Jeff Immelt makes ruffly 10 million a year, because of this move I wonder how much more he'll make (he's exactly whats wrong with this Country, greed)

Classic

Let's say we open competing widget manufacturing companies next door to each other. Let's assume our costs of production and the prices we charge customers per widget are similar. I spend my time figuring out how I can sell more widgets, and you spend your time doing the same about me.

Therefore, when I learn that I can produce widgets somewhere else at a fraction of the price, increase profitability, and provide the same product as you to customers for a cheaper price than you, I ship jobs overseas.

This is all we are talking about. When your competitors are able to steal business by delivering a similar product at a cheaper price due to lower cost of production, you need to adapt. The only way to adapt is internationally due to domestic regulations and tax policy.

See above.

Sounds like we have some agreement here. My point is that whenever EPA tightens their reign with regulations, businesses must collectively spend tons of money to adapt or be fined or shut down. This adds more motivation to move operations to areas that are less restrictive with environmental policies.

I agree. Sparring is when the gloves are still on :mrgreen:

How is it earned income if I open a business completely overseas where I don't touch the money? Now, if I transfer money into the USA, that's income. No cashy, no splashy.

If you re-read what I said, my idea does only allow for a tax holiday for domestic capital investment (could be people, places, or things). This would allow for the purchase of equipment and property in addition to hiring people, which as you know would require domestic labor to build, deliver, service, etc.

I agree with everything aside from the last statement. I do agree that greed exists, but to paint large businesses with a broad brush of being evil is disingenuous.

You type your responses on a machine that would likely cost 500-1000% more if all the components were manufactured domestically due to government intervention of business.

Speaking purely from the consumer perspective, not all parts of the global economy are bad. I'm sure a fair contingent of those chastising big businesses over the perception of widespread evil and greed would change their tune if the items we purchase and use on a day to day basis cost 5-10 times more.

Doesn't Warren Buffett's company owe something around $1 billion in back taxes that he is fighting to not pay??