Lowering Taxes does NOT create jobs?

[Helix]

Moderator's Warning:

Threads merged.

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: Start Up New York !

Exactly. How unpatriotic of them !

Yet, if we look at the rhetoric coming from the White House?

President Barack Obama says a loophole that lets companies dodge U.S. taxes by moving their headquarters overseas is unpatriotic.

Obama is denouncing "tax inversions" in his weekly radio and Internet address. He says companies are essentially renouncing their citizenship to avoid paying their fair share.

Obama says the best way to address the problem is through tax reform that lowers the corporate tax rate. But he says the problem can't wait. He's urging lawmakers to join the effort to close the loophole.

Obama: Offshore 'Tax Inversions' Are Unpatriotic - ABC News

Obama's first reaction? Put a fence up to force corporations to stay in the US. How? One guess is:

By invoking a 1969 tax law, Obama could bypass congressional gridlock and restrict foreign tax-domiciled U.S companies from using inter-company loans and interest deductions to cut their U.S. tax bills, said Stephen Shay, former deputy assistant Treasury secretary for international tax affairs in the Obama administration. He also served as international tax counsel at Treasury from 1982 to 1987 in the Reagan administration.

Obama could curb corporate 'inversions' on his own: ex-U.S. official

Again, always with cohersion, and never with the carrot. What's with this guy? Has he no clue about business? (Rhetorical question. Of course he's got no clue about business).

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: Start Up New York !

Again, always with cohersion, and never with the carrot.

Always with the race to the bottom....

 

[Fenton]

How does homogenous rates "pick" winners and losers?

Do you think about what you write before you post?

Now if you had said that corps that are able to avoid property tax re-assessments by creating shells that shift ownership artificially and avoid rate increase thanks to the way prop 13 was written...picks winners and losers.....you might have had a point.....but you didn't...so you don't.

oh, by the way.....are you abandoning your duplicate thread on this topic....to post here?

It's not that difficult to comprehend.

AGAIN, California's stupid tax policies means that there will be no threat of new businesses moving in and competing with existing Businesses. California's tax policies are protecting existing Businesses from NEW competition.

Also, duplicate thread or not, it was worth seeing you show up and tattle like 5 year old.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

It's not that difficult to comprehend.

Apparently, it is impossible to explain how a homogeneous tax rate picks "W & L".

AGAIN, California's stupid tax policies means that there will be no threat of new businesses moving in and competing with existing Businesses. California's tax policies are protecting existing Businesses from NEW competition.

You keep on repeating the same thing.....and NOT explaining how "stupid" homogeneous tax rates cause "W & L".

Also, duplicate thread or not....

LOL....you don't if it was or not...LOL.

 

[Fenton]

Apparently, it is impossible to explain how a homogeneous tax rate picks "W & L".

You keep on repeating the same thing.....and NOT explaining how "stupid" homogeneous tax rates cause "W & L".

LOL....you don't if it was or not...LOL.

" I don't if it ..." ??? Huh ?

Anyway, if you could have controlled your impulses earlier I wouldn't have to ask you this question.

So New York's iniative to woo new investment via tax exemptions is a good idea or a bad idea ?

 

[MTAtech]

what they do though is vote for big spending parasite enablers.

You mean like when Congress votes to buy hundreds of millions of dollars worth of tanks that the Generals say they don't need?

 

[haymarket]

I feel I owe my share of the government expenses

which is the cost of government divided by all the citizens. I suspect I pay far more than that share

So you have changed your previous position then where you stated that a person should pay for the services they consume?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

" I don't if it ..." ??? Huh ?

LOL...you are STILL confused!

Anyway, if you could have controlled your impulses earlier I wouldn't have to ask you this question.

So New York's iniative to woo new investment via tax exemptions is a good idea or a bad idea ?

Jeez, what is going on with you? I already answered that

HERE


and you quoted it and responded

HERE

...but are STILL at the point where you still have not been able to explain the followup question:


How does homogeneous rates "pick" winners and losers?

does that show up on your little screen?

Stop going in circles and answer the frigging question. I ALREADY answered YOURS.

 

[TurtleDude]

So you have changed your previous position then where you stated that a person should pay for the services they consume?

I have explained to you several times that such a system is ideal but unable to be measured so the default position, which can easily be measured, is costs divided by citizens

 

[TurtleDude]

You mean like when Congress votes to buy hundreds of millions of dollars worth of tanks that the Generals say they don't need?

that is bad but at least constitutional and it doesn't create parasite voters

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I have explained to you several times that such a system is ideal but unable to be measured so the default position, which can easily be measured, is costs divided by citizens

That is taking the easy, convenient way out so that you do not have to face up to the fact that the wealthy utilize, draw greater benefit from and enjoy greater levels of protection from the federal and state governments.

 

[MTAtech]

that is bad but at least constitutional and it doesn't create parasite voters

First, there is no constitutional issue here. It's interesting that any policy that you don't like you think is not only a bad idea but also unconstitutional.

Second, what you are really saying is that there is something wrong with people voting for candidates that promise to make their lives better. You think there is nothing wrong with voting for candidates that promise to lower your taxes, even though that means the cost of government will now be heavier borne upon by other people. Yet, you think it is unseemly for poor people to vote for candidates who will provide them with a few bucks in SNAP so that their children don't go hungry. What I am reading is that government policies that benefit you are just while government policies that benefit 'those people' are not.

 

[haymarket]

I have explained to you several times that such a system is ideal but unable to be measured so the default position, which can easily be measured, is costs divided by citizens

It is interesting that you would take two very opposite and very contrary positions. In one you take the position that people should only pay for the services they use regardless of their personal income or anything else for that matter. In the opposite you take the position that all citizens should share equally no matter how much they use or what their income is.

Of course, in both opposite and contrary positions you end up paying less don't you Turtle? That is the common thread in your positions and that seems to be the obvious "principle" that guides your positions.

 

[MTAtech]

It is interesting that you would take two very opposite and very contrary positions. In one you take the position that people should only pay for the services they use regardless of their personal income or anything else for that matter. In the opposite you take the position that all citizens should share equally no matter how much they use or what their income is.

Of course, in both opposite and contrary positions you end up paying less don't you Turtle? That is the common thread in your positions and that seems to be the obvious "principle" that guides your positions.

Where would the nation be if the those states with low population, but high square mileage, had to pay for just the highways and roads that run through their state? We are an advanced nation because we aren't so provincial in our thinking.

 

[haymarket]

Where would the nation be if the those states with low population, but high square mileage, had to pay for just the highways and roads that run through their state? We are an advanced nation because we aren't so provincial in our thinking.

It would put New Mexico is a real bind since they get back 2 dollars for every one they pay.

 

[MTAtech]

It would put New Mexico is a real bind since they get back 2 dollars for every one they pay.

The same is true for the most red states, like Mississippi. Slightly off topic, this is Kentucky's uninsurance rates looked like before Obamacare:

This is Kentucky's uninsurance rates, with all those subsidies, looked like after Obamacare:

 

[TurtleDude]

That is taking the easy, convenient way out so that you do not have to face up to the fact that the wealthy utilize, draw greater benefit from and enjoy greater levels of protection from the federal and state governments.

that's fictional nonsense and you cannot prove it

I can prove you are wrong. The poorest areas of big cities invariably have the most police responses.. Most crime victims tend to be poor to lower middle class. Expensive homes tend to have massive amounts of insurance, alarms etc. And since I worked for the federal government for close to a quarter of a century, your claim about that is something I doubt you can close to proving

and for your stupid argument to have any merit (that being the rich are being taxed at the rate of what they derive in benefits) you'd have to prove that the top 5% use MORE federal and state resources than the other 95%

go ahead and try to make that case

 

[TurtleDude]

First, there is no constitutional issue here. It's interesting that any policy that you don't like you think is not only a bad idea but also unconstitutional.

Second, what you are really saying is that there is something wrong with people voting for candidates that promise to make their lives better. You think there is nothing wrong with voting for candidates that promise to lower your taxes, even though that means the cost of government will now be heavier borne upon by other people. Yet, you think it is unseemly for poor people to vote for candidates who will provide them with a few bucks in SNAP so that their children don't go hungry. What I am reading is that government policies that benefit you are just while government policies that benefit 'those people' are not.

Pushers promise to make junkies' lives better too

 

[TurtleDude]

It is interesting that you would take two very opposite and very contrary positions. In one you take the position that people should only pay for the services they use regardless of their personal income or anything else for that matter. In the opposite you take the position that all citizens should share equally no matter how much they use or what their income is.

Of course, in both opposite and contrary positions you end up paying less don't you Turtle? That is the common thread in your positions and that seems to be the obvious "principle" that guides your positions.

opinion on contrary noted and rejected as being specious nonsense

oh I should pay less. I pay more because its political expediency. The parasite mentality is easily pandered to by telling that attitude that others should pay more so the parasites get what they want without properly being charged for it

Let me ask you a question Haymarket: how tenable would progressive taxation be if votes were allocated based upon tax bills?

 

[haymarket]

opinion on contrary noted and rejected as being specious nonsense

oh I should pay less. I pay more because its political expediency. The parasite mentality is easily pandered to by telling that attitude that others should pay more so the parasites get what they want without properly being charged for it

Let me ask you a question Haymarket: how tenable would progressive taxation be if votes were allocated based upon tax bills?

You make an opening statement that make no sense and is an outright falsehood. I simply reported the contradictory positions you take based on certain "principles" that you claim you have. But then you turn 180 degrees and betray that very principle in changing your position. You do not deny those positions but yet you reject then as "nonsense" . But we are together on that since I would agree the word "nonsense" is an appropriate one to describe somebody who advocates one thing one day and the complete opposite on another day simply because they want something that benefits them above all else.

There is one constant in your position - you want a tax cut for you and will endorse contrary positions and opposite "principles" if it achieves that effect. That may be great for you, but the American people and their elected representatives cannot be expected to adopt public policy for 315 million based on what is good for one person who is willing to trash pretend principles simply for personal expediency.

Allocating votes based on tax bills is an idea you and the GOP or Libertarians should promote and promote loudly and often. I whole heartedly support your right to do this and hope we see it as part of the GOP and Libertarian party platforms.

 

[Master PO]

You make an opening statement that make no sense and is an outright falsehood. I simply reported the contradictory positions you take based on certain "principles" that you claim you have. But then you turn 180 degrees and betray that very principle in changing your position. You do not deny those positions but yet you reject then as "nonsense" . But we are together on that since I would agree the word "nonsense" is an appropriate one to describe somebody who advocates one thing one day and the complete opposite on another day simply because they want something that benefits them above all else.

There is one constant in your position - you want a tax cut for you and will endorse contrary positions and opposite "principles" if it achieves that effect. That may be great for you, but the American people and their elected representatives cannot be expected to adopt public policy for 315 million based on what is good for one person who is willing to trash pretend principles simply for personal expediency.

Allocating votes based on tax bills is an idea you and the GOP or Libertarians should promote and promote loudly and often. I whole heartedly support your right to do this and hope we see it as part of the GOP and Libertarian party platforms.

actually, its an idea of the founding fathers....

voting was a privilege, based on do you pay taxes on property, or any other taxes.......if you didnt pay taxes you did not vote.

"if people have a right to vote, then those with nothing ,will use their vote to take from those that do"...................how true that statement is.

 

[TurtleDude]

actually, its an idea of the founding fathers....

voting was a privilege, based on do you pay taxes on property, or any other taxes.......if you didnt pay taxes you did not vote.

"if people have a right to vote, then those with nothing ,will use their vote to take from those that do"...................how true that statement is.

the left uses money from the rich to buy the votes of the many. if voting were tied to contributions to the public treasury, then this pandering would completely fail.

 

[Master PO]

the left uses money from the rich to buy the votes of the many. if voting were tied to contributions to the public treasury, then this pandering would completely fail.

that is correct, and if the 17th amendment was repealed power of the wealthy to lobby congress ....would dry up.

 

[MTAtech]

Pushers promise to make junkies' lives better too

The notion that we’re in trouble because politicians pander to a public that wants something for nothing is utterly at odds with what has actually happened since 2008. In both America and Europe, budget deficits have clearly come down too fast, perpetuating the slump while probably if anything worsening the long-run fiscal outlook. If there was pandering going on here, it was a case of pandering to elite deficit obsessions, not popular desire for a good time. Also, isn’t it curious that populist measures like debt relief for families went nowhere,even though they have a long historical track record of doing good, while banks were made whole?