Tax Burden Shifts to Middle Class

[enjolras]

But the thugs currently in power have gone to the opposite extreme.

That is, corporations are allowed to move offshore, take all their jobs with them, and not pay any taxes. The biggest corporations have doubled and, in some cases, tripled their earnings over the past three years while laying off workers and creating virtually no new jobs at home. This amounts to little more than corporate welfare.

And there is no evidence that these corporations suffered from a "competitive disadvantage" before Smirk's tax cuts were enacted.

They pay taxes on the commerce conducted inside of the United States... just like Toyota, Sony, and any other foreign company. They're leaving because by leaving they greatly decrease the costs of doing business.. yet your arguing we should actually INCREASE those costs?

if Smirk's tax cuts for the super-wealthy have alleviated some perceived "competitive disadvantage" for corporations, then why is our trade deficit spiralling out of control?

1) I never said anything remotely close to that.
2) I know I didn't say that because I don't beleive in trade defecits at all. I beleive trade for cheaper goods from overseas helps to grow our economy here at home. Offshoring of jobs, while painful for some, actually helps to improve our economy and create both local and global wealth. You only have to look at the sudden surge in auto-manufacturing jobs in the United States to see the cycle in action. Modern political economy at almost any University goes into great detail on how this works.

What your suggesting is that we regulate business even more, further increasing the costs of doing business in the United States with the idea of 'keeping jobs at home', when in fact your making it basically impossible for these companies to compete. The way to create meaningful jobs is to make the United States and attractive place to employ people... making it more expensive and difficult to run a business in the United States (by regulating offshoring of jobs) only serves to drive business AWAY from the US and actually deflates the job market.

Oh ya, and right now there are something like 6 US companies that have inverted (moved their HQ's onto foreign soil)... My wife has a fellow PhD student researching inversion, it's fascinating stuff really. Your plan would aim to increase that number exponentially.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by enjolras

Oh ya, and right now there are something like 6 US companies that have inverted (moved their HQ's onto foreign soil)... .

Makes sense since the majority of a lot of companies employees are working in China and, Indonesia, India etc...

[alkemical]

"there aren't countries anymore, just corporations"

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Kerry wants to raise taxes on corporations with international profits that have not been repatriated.

Talk about your silly right-wing spin/gibberish.

Fact: Kerry wants to close the tax loopholes that allow American corporations to move offshore and avoid paying taxes.

They don't avoid paying taxes. They pay the same taxes that the foreign companies located in the same tax jurisdiction pay. To close the loophole is the add a second layer of taxation on only the US companies. This is what puts them at a competitive disadvantage with respect to those foreign competitors.

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

The non-rich will not only survive paying taxes, they will become better citizens when they start paying their fair share of the tax burden.

Um, the "non-rich" are already paying more than their fair share of taxes while the wealthiest Americans are paying fewer taxes under the Idiot in Chief, according the the latest CBO report (which I just posted.)

No matter how many times you post that short article about the report, it will never prove what you want it to prove. The degree of fairness in the system is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, the non-rich (and especially the poor) do not currently pay their fair share of taxes. You are welcome to disagree. I base my view on the principle that I want EVERYONE who earns an income to be subject to an income tax so that we won't have a class of net tax payers and another class of net tax beneficiaries for the politicians to play off against each other.

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Did LABF send you here from one of his left wing propaganda sites?

Yes.

As I matter of fact, I sent everyone at the OM who opposes Forrest Bush here.

It's all a big conspiracy against wingnut America, and I'm the official Emmanuel Goldstien.

That was the dude's first post here at OrangeMane. Although it's not impossible for someone to visit a football forum and make their first post on the political subforum, it's unusual enough to make one wonder whether they are just a political hack that's been recruited as reinforcement by one of the board regulars. Based on the propaganda-quality of his/her post, I naturally thought of you first.

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Do you know anyone who has been denied basic healthcare under our current system?

This is not the issue. The issue is that millions of Americans have lost their health insurance under the Smirking Sociopath and are unable to pay for health care out-of-pocket.

Of course it's the issue. If you complain that healthcare is a right not a privilege, presumably you are suggesting that someone is having what you consider to be their "rights" denied. I asked him if he had any concrete examples.

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

You never get a second chance to make a first impression. Sadly, you wasted yours.

Oh, the irony.

I'll take that as a compliment.

[broncogary]

Geez, I agree with patteeu on everything but football.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

They don't avoid paying taxes.

They avoid paying American taxes.

Sorry--I guess I should have been more specific.

This is what puts them at a competitive disadvantage with respect to those foreign competitors.

But there is no evidence that such a 'disadvantage' is created when these corporations are asked to carry their fair share of the tax burden. Moreover, most big corporations have doubled and tripled their profits since Smirk was appointed, and have created no new jobs (one of the many indicators that trickle-down and voodoo economics don't work any better for Junior than they did for Poppy.) And, just for the sake of arguments, if Smirk's tax cuts and tax loopholes are the best way to alleviate "competitive disadvantage" then why has our trade deficit been spiraling out of control since AWOL Boy's tax cuts were enacted?

No matter how many times you post that short article about the report, it will never prove what you want it to prove.

Wrong.

The article proves exactly what critics of BushCo's economic "policies" have always claimed, i.e., that these policies favor the rich at the expense of the middle class. Read the headline again, and note also that the report comes from the CBO--not some Herritage Foundation-like source.

Of course it's the issue. If you complain that healthcare is a right not a privilege, presumably you are suggesting that someone is having what you consider to be their "rights" denied.

Change this sentence to read "affordable healthcare" instead of merely "healthcare" (which is really the issue) and your argument implodes.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by broncogary

Geez, I agree with patteeu on everything but football.

You're like the guy who acts all macho but is really confused about his sexuality. Deep down, I know you want to be a Chiefs fan, don't you?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

They don't avoid paying taxes.

They avoid paying American taxes.

Sorry--I guess I should have been more specific.

No need to be specific, I knew what you meant. It's just that you conveniently left out the fact that they were already paying foreign taxes on their income.

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

This is what puts them at a competitive disadvantage with respect to those foreign competitors.

But there is no evidence that such a 'disadvantage' is created when these corporations are asked to carry their fair share of the tax burden. Moreover, most big corporations have doubled and tripled their profits since Smirk was appointed, and have created no new jobs (one of the many indicators that trickle-down and voodoo economics don't work any better for Junior than they did for Poppy.) And, just for the sake of arguments, if Smirk's tax cuts and tax loopholes are the best way to alleviate "competitive disadvantage" then why has our trade deficit been spiraling out of control since AWOL Boy's tax cuts were enacted?

Any additional cost that is imposed on one competitor but not on another is a competitive disadvantage. I don't think that is debateable. How that disadvantage affects the US corporation I can't say. In some cases, the US corp may be competitive enough that they can absorb the extra costs. In others, the US corp may not be competitive even with the tax break. It is the third group that lies somewhere in between where it makes a difference. I don't know how to measure how large each of the three groups are, I'm just explaining the rationale for the so-called loophole that Kerry wants to eliminate.

As for your trade balance question, I have no idea. Maybe the tax cuts and loopholes aren't big enough.

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

No matter how many times you post that short article about the report, it will never prove what you want it to prove.

Wrong.

The article proves exactly what critics of BushCo's economic "policies" have always claimed, i.e., that these policies favor the rich at the expense of the middle class. Read the headline again, and note also that the report comes from the CBO--not some Herritage Foundation-like source.

You used it as evidence of two things: (1) that the "non-rich" are already paying their fair share of taxes, and (2) that the wealthiest Americans are paying fewer taxes.

I've already discussed number 1 and we will have to agree to disagree. IMO the "non-rich" continue to pay less than their fair share of taxes. I know you think otherwise. The CBO report doesn't help us resolve this difference of opinion.

I agree with number 2. Since non-rich and wealthy alike are paying lower marginal rates (which is what I presume you are talking about), I agree that the CBO report supports this assertion.

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Of course it's the issue. If you complain that healthcare is a right not a privilege, presumably you are suggesting that someone is having what you consider to be their "rights" denied.

Change this sentence to read "affordable healthcare" instead of merely "healthcare" (which is really the issue) and your argument implodes.

No it doesn't. How much cheaper can healthcare get than free? No one goes without necessary, basic healthcare in this country even if they don't have a dime to their name.

[Needa Pass Rush]

LABF isn't going to like this! More wingnut conspiracy! DON'T READ THIS LABF!!!

IT'S WHAT THEY DON'T TELL YOU

The Congressional Budget Office has produced a new set of statistics showing who pays what taxes in America. The lyin' left has seized on these statistics to say that the CBO figures show that the George Bush tax cuts shifted a good bit of the tax burden from the rich to the middle class.

Not so fast. Just in case you run across some of these news stories, and in case you actually believe that the federal income tax burden has been shifted from the rich to the middle class, there's something you need to know.

The media wanted to take these CBO numbers and report them in a way that would make the Bush tax cuts look bad. It's all part of the template. If you can spin a story so that it looks favorable to Kerry, and bad for Bush ... do it. How do you monkey with the CBO figures to accomplish this? Simple ... you include Social Security and Medicare taxes in your equation. The Bush tax cuts cut income tax rates, not Social Security or Medicare rates. The only fair way to report on how these tax cuts affected the various income levels would be to cite income tax rates only. Guess what? If you only include numbers from who is paying what federal income taxes you will find that the rich are paying a higher percentage of income taxes collected by the federal government now than they were before the tax cuts!!! Now those of you educated in government schools may think that it's impossible to cut tax rates on the rich and then have them pay an even higher percentage of the taxes. Try to think outside the government school box. It has been proven time and time again that when you lower tax rates on the rich ... when you allow the rich to keep a higher percentage of the money that they work for and earn ... they will work even harder to earn even more! As they work harder they end up paying more income taxes than before, even though their actual tax rate is lower.

It's simple. Reward the rich for their efforts, and they'll work even harder. The harder they work, the more taxes they pay. Now, after the tax cuts, they're shouldering an even higher percentage of the burden then before. This is a message the media doesn't want to convey, because it's a message that supports Bush's tax cuts. That's why they're playing with the numbers.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The media wanted to take these CBO numbers and report them in a way that would make the Bush tax cuts look bad.

LMFAO.

It doesn't take any spin to make the pretzel-dent's tax cuts for millionaires look bad.

All it takes is an ability to comprehend English and to do simple arithmetic.

What a funny little man.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No it doesn't. How much cheaper can healthcare get than free? No one goes without necessary, basic healthcare in this country even if they don't have a dime to their name.

You are suggesting that health care is free to all Americans?

How does this work?

[watermock]

Moreover, most big corporations have doubled and tripled their profits since Smirk was appointed,

First I doubt that, it's a total assertion. Second, wouldn't that be good? Don't more profits mean they pay more taxes?

They avoid paying American taxes.

So what do you propose? Protectionism? Lowering corporate taxes has produced and increas in revenue. Do you suppose we raise taxes so the last companies will leave?

You think we can somehow "prevent" corporations from moving operations? How do you suppose you do that? Wouldn't it be logical to create a more level playing field?

You don't get it. There isn't anything to keep any company from changing it's manufacturing headquarters almost anywhere!

What are you going to do if Toyota pulls out of North American Operations? Hmm? Complain? Why not listen to the reasons these corporations list for leaving!

Commonly heard is "We can't compete" another is "Overregulation" another is "High Labor Costs".

But you seem to think it is what? The USA can't legislate what other countries do! WTF. You have to step up to the table and compete mano mano.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

No it doesn't. How much cheaper can healthcare get than free? No one goes without necessary, basic healthcare in this country even if they don't have a dime to their name.

You are suggesting that health care is free to all Americans?

How does this work?

Nope. I'm suggeting exactly what I posted. Ask someone to help interpret if you are having difficulty with it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Nope. I'm suggeting exactly what I posted. Ask someone to help interpret if you are having difficulty with it.

So now you're claiming you didn't say that health care was free?

Let's check your statement again:

"How much cheaper can healthcare get than free? No one goes without necessary, basic healthcare in this country even if they don't have a dime to their name."

You said "no one" goes w/o necessary, basic health care in the country--even if they have no money.

This is the same thing as saying health care is free to all Americans.

What's to "interpret?"

[watermock]

Emergency medical services are given regardless, even to illegal aliens.

I love the turning of the shrew. All of a sudden it's a mantra. Clinton, Kennedy or Carter didn't bring universal health care. The biggest reform has come in the past 18 months.

Sit down.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Nope. I'm suggeting exactly what I posted. Ask someone to help interpret if you are having difficulty with it.

So now you're claiming you didn't say that health care was free?

Let's check your statement again:

"How much cheaper can healthcare get than free? No one goes without necessary, basic healthcare in this country even if they don't have a dime to their name."

You said "no one" goes w/o necessary, basic health care in the country--even if they have no money.

This is the same thing as saying health care is free to all Americans.

What's to "interpret?"

"No one goes without necessary, basic healthcare" means that if you need it you will get it. If you have no money, then it is effectively free. If you do have money then you have to pay for it. See how that works? It's free if it needs to be but it doesn't have to be free in all cases to be available. What's so hard to understand? If you still have questions, you can review my existing posts because I'm not going to explain it again.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by patteeu

"No one goes without necessary, basic healthcare" means that if you need it you will get it. If you have no money, then it is effectively free. If you do have money then you have to pay for it. See how that works? It's free if it needs to be but it doesn't have to be free in all cases to be available. What's so hard to understand? If you still have questions, you can review my existing posts because I'm not going to explain it again.

Millions go without basic healthcare in this country because they CAN'tT afford it, even if they need it! For those who are treated that don't have money and don't lie about their name and address, they are billed and expected to pay their bill.

[bendog]

Originally Posted by amesj523

"there aren't countries anymore, just corporations"

Josh, you do have a way of cutting through the bs,

[enjolras]

Makes sense since the majority of a lot of companies employees are working in China and, Indonesia, India etc...

But those companies are still paying a large amount in taxes here at home.. that was the whole point.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Millions go without basic healthcare in this country because they CAN'tT afford it, even if they need it! For those who are treated that don't have money and don't lie about their name and address, they are billed and expected to pay their bill.

Cry me a river.

They may go without it, but they don't have to. To get it, all they have to do is be willing to stiff the hospital and live with the non-medical consequences of that action.

Why don't you give me some examples of people who have been denied necessary and basic healthcare since there are "millions" of them?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by enjolras

But those companies are still paying a large amount in taxes here at home.. that was the whole point.

Some do, some don't.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by bendog

Josh, you do have a way of cutting through the bs,

lol dog!


really though, look at some of what companies do or did until the general public became aware...

corvair... meat (did you know that pet food is made from 4d meat... which is made from downed/diseased animals) -

or how coke manipulates workers in south america by hiring gangs to keep them in line...

i mean really we deserve it if this country goes to ****.

look at this thread. divide & conquer works well.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Cry me a river.

What does that mean, are you telling people how compassionate you are?

Originally Posted by patteeu

They may go without it, but they don't have to. To get it, all they have to do is be willing to stiff the hospital and live with the non-medical consequences of that action.

Why don't you give me some examples of people who have been denied necessary and basic healthcare since there are "millions" of them?

Yes they do have to go without it unless they show up at an emergency room with some kind of serious injury or disease. The burden of payment is then passed on to everyone who can pay through higher insurance premiums. Basic health-care is not available to everyone as most people in the U.S. already know except you and who else?

[orinjkrush]

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

So, if the "middle class taxpayer" earns $51k to $75k does that mean double for household income? So the middle class is from 102 to 150k a year?

Everybody knows the Reflubs protect the rich and the Demoniacs, the odd. When can we have a REAL middle class party not headed by some egomaniac like Ross Poirot or Ralph Unsafeatanyspeed? If we really had a middle class party, watch out top and bottom of the socio economic strata: your free riding days are over!

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Yes they do have to go without it unless they show up at an emergency room with some kind of serious injury or disease. The burden of payment is then passed on to everyone who can pay through higher insurance premiums. Basic health-care is not available to everyone as most people in the U.S. already know except you and who else?

That's my point. We don't turn people away from hospitals to die in the gutter in the good ole USA, even if they have no ability to pay. But you are wrong about having to have a serious injury or disease to get treatment. Hospital emergency rooms are filled with people who have sore throats and the flu. Those people get treated just like car accident victims do. You are right about how the burden of payment is shifted, but that's not the point that's being discussed.

No one in the US (including citizens, legal immigrants, and even illegal immigrants) is denied necessary, basic healthcare here. That's a fact. If you want to start another debate about the best method of paying for this universal care, that's fine. But don't confuse the two issues.