Tax evasion dictated by the amount of money in your pocket is indeed class warfare. The poor are simply the losers.
I'm not sure what you mean by tax evasion. I know of the off-shore s game corporations like Google and GE play to end up paying nothing. I think that's pretty ed too - so we're in agreement that those "loopholes" should be closed
But loopholes are not what I'm talking about (or what I think is engendered by the "fair share" call). I think that is used as a personal attack on individuals with the understanding that they need to pay more taxes than their fellow citizens.
That's exactly how I see it too. Code words for " the rich."
Bottom line: everyone thinks that everyone ELSE should pay higher taxes.
I'm willing to stand up and say that *I* should pay higher taxes. I'd like for the rest of America to stand up and do the same.
Set the example, scott. Start writing larger checks to the U. S. Treasury. They take gifts.
As for me, I think the government should quit wasting money and stop choking the jobs out of business.
If they'll do that and, still, need more of my money, we'll talk.
But they're not re-investing. They're sitting on cash. And they're sitting on it because (1) they're scared and (2) the incentives to investing don't outweigh the risks of investing.
And we're not talking about health care or the environment. We're talking about a specific tax "incentive" that encourages business to re-funnel their gains into the economy.
Is "big government" to blame for economic problems? if I know. But I don't see a reason why this specific idea is all that bad. And I really don't see how this increases any beuracracy. We already have an IRS that's inundated with forms and papers. Do you honestly think asking a business how many jobs it created creates a morass of paperwork?
You're raping my credibility right now.
Can you start a thread about the ways they are choking the jobs out of business for me?
It's a bad idea for business because they don't like pissing their money away like the government.
They're not pissing anything away. They're given the choice of re-investing money, on their terms, into their own business by expanding and creating more jobs -- or -- giving 20% of their cap gains to Uncle Sam.
I agree. And I surely don't make as much money as you. But, I could shoulder a larger tax burden. I'd love to see the money be spent more efficiently, but that would require money being removed from politics. Not going to happen.
That's what I mean by tax evasion. Dutch sandwich, Double Irish, etc. It's not even a "secret" what they do.
Well, I can only speak for myself, and I'm on the record I would like to see anybody with a positive income chipping in, even if it's a diminutive amount (0.5%). Some of the exemptions should just go away. Other than that, I don't see a problem with the current progressive tax system. A flat tax rate simply shifts the burden to those that have less and have more problems making ends meet, that's why it's a non-solution.
They're sitting on cash because there is no demand. Increase demand and they'll invest. Regardless of current policy.
One example would be the NLRB's decision to not allow Boeing to open up its plant in a right-to-work state. There are several thousand jobs being held up because the Obama administration is doing the unions' bidding.
The thresholds in Obamacare have caused small business to re their growth in order to avoid falling under its onerous regulation and caused others to reduce staff so they would fall under the same thresholds.
Gulf drilling moratorium.
EPA regulations forcing Coal plants to close and spend billions on retrofits.
That's just off the top of my head.
Not allowing child labor is also killing jobs, Yoni. Think of all those children that could be put to work at lower prices which would help stave inflation. Win win, IMO.
Hyperbole; the place to where those losing the argument flee.
I don't believe you know what hyperbole is. The statement I made is factually correct and is not exaggeration. Child labor laws undeniably curtail jobs as that is their main purpose. We would undoubtedly see lower prices for goods if we allowed child labor as the labor pool would grow and there would be more compe ion for the openings allowing manufacturers to lower production costs.
The point you missed was that we make sacrifices economically for value outside of a simple job figure. That is not hyperbole, that is fact. EPA regulations exist for a reason.
Hyperbole ( /haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-pur-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή, 'exaggeration') is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.
It was the "killing jobs" statement that was hyperbolic.
The EPA has gone beyond their mandate in designating CO2 a toxin.
And, what about the NLRB's decision to deny Boeing the right to locate and employ where they choose?
I'm waiting for Yoni to tell you how the govt is choking the jobs out of your business.. He must have missed the question the first time..
I think scott was asking me to explain, to him, how jobs were being choked out by this administration. I didn't take that to mean his business, personally.
Not knowing scott's business, I can't know how he's affected.
But, if you want to see how a successful CEO see's it, see my earlier link to an Investor Business interview with the CEO of Home Depot.
Fairly good examples.
Now, for bonus points, tell me how many jobs in this country are created because of a secure regulatory environment, and the fact that when people decide to invest here, or buy products/services from the US, they can be reasonably sure that the rule of law and those regulations will provide solid reassurance those products are not shoddy, and the services or investments won't vanish in a haze of corruption or bad accounting?
You harp a lot on the costs, but can you be honest about the benefits to the economy of regulation?
If these things that you hate hinder some jobs visibly, but create a stable, less risky environment to do business and create far more economic activity than might otherwise be the case, that is a price I am willing to accept.
I'm pretty sure he owns a brewpub.
Except its not hyperbole. Child labor laws are quite responsible for killing off jobs for children. Thats their purpose. I don't get what you fail to understand about that. We CHOSE to kill those jobs as a society.
Your making a mistake in applying your value judgments to society.The EPA has gone beyond their mandate in designating CO2 a toxin.
And, what about the NLRB's decision to deny Boeing the right to locate and employ where they choose?
The EPA didn't designate CO2 as "a toxin".
That is hyperbole.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress...257685005BF252
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html
They found that CO2 is an
It is something that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare through climate change.air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in [the EPA's] judgment cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
If you want to revisit your flawed arguments on climate change, there is a thread for that already.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
