Author Topic: Oops - US Chamber of commerce may be in some hot water (Read 7434 times)

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #90 on:** October 23, 2010, 02:58:53 AM »

Like I said before, free trade is great, IF it is fair trade. China doesn't play by the rules. Even the Mexicans said Nafta didn't work, because of China. Even their wages are higher than China's.

ironglow · « **Reply #91 on:** October 23, 2010, 10:25:25 AM »

Dixie Dude;
Agreed; free trade should be fair trade. Not only wage wise, but they should be required to operate under the ridiculous, stifling eco-freak rules our manufacturers are required to operate under..

Scoot;
You wonder where many foreign funds come from. In my last post I provided a most revealing link which clearly explained much.
Did you not read it ?

Oldshooter · « **Reply #92 on:** October 23, 2010, 06:50:45 PM »

The liberal supporters at Google and Apple shuffle all their income overseas and pay little or no taxes so it aint just greedy republican companies that dont pay much in taxes.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCYQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.contracostatimes.com%2Fnews%2Fci_16409105&ei=havDTIKLE8H-8AbM_YWrBQ&usg=AFQjCNERMFJLBw6twoCKC-sd6aFgQsMzJw&sig2=8u3ZKpZd4U7JbMRICX7Nfg

Besides, taxes on corporations just get past on to customers anyhow!

saddlebum · « **Reply #93 on:** October 23, 2010, 09:38:55 PM »

It seems that eventhough Obama gave a speech back in May denouncing the tax dodging practices of companies, like Google, he doesn't mind socializing with them at the vice president of Google's home in California for a $30,000 per person Democratic fundraiser.
I guess his integrity has a price!

As I said in an earlier post, their hypocrisy is staggering!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/google-dodges-taxes-obama-headlines-fundraiser/

scootrd · « **Reply #94 on:** October 23, 2010, 09:53:58 PM »

In 2008, the Government Accountability Office found that “two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005.” None.... Zip ....Naada.. the big goose egg.

This is just unbelievable and egregiously disgusting to me, I cannot get past this figure 2 out of every 3.

Washington Post Piece on this issue -

But it's the tax benefit of overseas operations that is the biggest reason why multinationals end up with lower tax rates than the rest of us. It only makes sense that multinationals "put costs in high-tax countries and profits in low-tax countries," says Scott Hodge, president of the Tax Foundation. Those low-tax countries are almost anywhere but the U.S. "When you add in state taxes, the U.S. has the highest tax burden among industrialized countries," says Hodge. In contrast, China's rate is just 25%; Ireland's is 12.5%.

Hodge has a point, inasmuch as the U.S. corporate tax rate really is larger than in most developed countries, even as revenues are considerably lower and shrinking. But that doesn't suggest that a simple cut in the corporate income tax would bring back this revenue. If these companies have developed practices for sheltering income overseas, what's to say they won't continue to do so even after the tax rate is cut, meaning that revenue would actually fall?

The Wyden-Gregg reform package takes the right approach, lowering the rate at the same time as it subjects foreign profits to the tax. This makes evasion both harder and less attractive, and would hopefully boost revenue, though we'll have to wait for a JCT score to be sure.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #95 on:** October 24, 2010, 03:15:50 AM »

Why would someone think that a cooporation be taxed? I am for less taxes. Coorporations (the folks that make things for yall who can't fugure it out) Make the things we all need and use each and every day. QUestion to the lowley masses, if you tax a coorporation that makes say peanut butter, who pays the taxes? Is it the CEO of said peanut butter company? No he don't take less. Is it middle managment? Nope sorry not them either. How about the rank and file workers? Nahh not them. Hey it's the consumer who pays more for that product to pay the taxes. I know in the hate capitalism world that " coorporations" are evil, but a coorporation cannot be evil as it is not a living entity. Now you all hippy wanna be's go along and smoke your weed on your silly pie in the sky self sustaining communal farms, and leave the rest of us alone. You are going to need our taxes to help support your " self sustainable" way of life.

scootrd · « **Reply #96 on:** October 24, 2010, 01:11:44 PM »

Quote from: billy_56081 on October 24, 2010, 03:15:50 AM

Why would someone think that a cooporation be taxed? I am for less taxes. Coorporations (the folks that make things for yall who can't fugure it out) Make the things we all need and use each and every day. QUestion to the lowley masses, if you tax a coorporation that makes say peanut butter, who pays the taxes? Is it the CEO of said peanut butter company? No he don't take less. Is it middle managment? Nope sorry not them either. How about the rank and file workers? Nahh not them. Hey it's the consumer who pays more for that product to pay the taxes. I know in the hate capitalism world that " coorporations" are evil, but a coorporation cannot be evil as it is not a living entity. Now you all hippy wanna be's go along and smoke your weed on your silly pie in the sky self sustaining communal farms, and leave the rest of us alone. You are going to need our taxes to help support your " self sustainable" way of life.

So Billy your position is no Corporation in America should be taxed at all ...Is that correct?
I just want to make sure I don't misquote you.

ironglow · « **Reply #97 on:** October 24, 2010, 02:13:16 PM »

Scoot;
  When progressives decide to levy ridiculous taxes upon people and corporations..these taxes must be paid. So, they simply must raise the price of their product to cover the extra taxes.
   Therefore you, I and all consumers end up paying the taxes anyway..so who benefits ? Big, fat, bloated government sucks in even more of our hard-earned wages..and spends it on stupid things like bridges-to-nowhere, study-of-cow-flatulence or give millions of dollars to crooks like ACORN so as to bend, twist, rob or otherwise negate the people's votes.
  We would not have to be in the serious recession we are now in..if the 'progressives' would turn somewhat honest..cut taxes, especially corporate and inheritance, curtail at least half of their ridiculous regulations, let banks fail if they can't operate wisely and allow real capitalism operate. It is their gerrymandering which got us into this pickle and unless they back off, it will only get worse.

Oldshooter has shown you where the left-leaning corporations are as guilty or moreso, than the rest.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_16409105?nclick_check=1
If the "tax-happy" left wants any credibility, they would start by cleaning their own house before condemning their neighbor's house.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #98 on:** October 24, 2010, 03:47:53 PM »

Yep Scoot you have that correct, I am no tax and spend liberal like yourself so I say no corporate income tax what so ever. I'm sure it is outside your realm to comprehend that the extra costs of taxes on corporations is passed on to the consumer. DUHHH!

scootrd · « **Reply #99 on:** October 25, 2010, 06:21:24 AM »

Quote from: billy_56081 on October 24, 2010, 03:15:50 AM

Why would someone think that a cooporation be taxed?

Biilly -
You do realize our founding fathers believed a producer of goods ie: today's corporation should be taxed don't you?
The first taxes in America were just excise taxes, not individual taxes? in other words - The producer or seller pays the tax to the government and is expected recover the tax by raising the price paid. When Thomas Jefferson was elected to the White House in 1802 Only excise taxes were collected. It was not until 1862, when Abraham Lincoln signed The Revenue Act of 1862 into law because he was desperate to pay civil war debt that the first Federal income tax law wnet into affect. The New Revenue tax was levied on personal incomes between $800 and $10,000 which were taxed at a 3% rate. Higher income was taxed at a 5% rate. This ensured that the tax was based on the person’s ability to pay. The Commissioner of Revenue stated "The people of this country have accepted it with cheerfulness, to meet a temporary exigency,. The Revenue Act was repealed in 1872 the Supreme Court declared it to be unconstitutional because it was an illegal direct tax. In other words taxing individuals was unconstitutional. Excise Taxes (taxes paid by today's corporations were not deemed unconstitutional). It wasn't until the 16th Amendment was passed in 1913 that the government was allowed to collect taxes on individual income.

So Billy I gain ask you?

Do you truly believe not taxing Corps will somehow magically morph into them passing on products at less cost? All it will do is shift the overall Tax Burden even more on individuals (not what our founding fathers envisioned) and increase overall corporate profit margins. A cut in the corporate income tax will not bring back this revenue. Companies have developed practices for sheltering their income overseas (in socialist countries by the way). It's interesting to me Republicans hate Socialists. Yet want to instill Socialist Tax models for Corporations here in the U.S. John McCain decries middle class tax cuts as "socialism" because they "spread the wealth around." What are tax cuts for corporate America and the wealthy then?

But No worries Billy - if corporate bought "old time" Republicans and US Chamber of Commerce continue helping corps with the outsourcing of American Jobs and supporting corporate socialism we will all be able to claim 0 in taxes , cause no one will be working or at least we will all be working for Socialist/communist China in absentia.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #100 on:** October 25, 2010, 07:05:14 AM »

I believe we should get rid of INCOME tax for both individuals and corporations. A national sales tax for corporations and individuals. Corporations buy a whole lot more than individuals thus would pay a higher tax. Food could be exempt to help the poor,

beerbelly · « **Reply #101 on:** October 25, 2010, 11:38:44 AM »

Maybe if we got rid of the corporate income tax some of the corporations that have moved over seas would consider coming back. If we don't get some manufacturing and energy production, such as oil and coal going here again, so as to produce wealth, we will continue our slide into oblivion!

scootrd · « **Reply #102 on:** October 25, 2010, 02:39:20 PM »

Quote from: beerbelly on October 25, 2010, 11:38:44 AM

Maybe if we got rid of the corporate income tax some of the corporations that have moved over seas would consider coming back. If we don't get some manufacturing and energy production, such as oil and coal going here again, so as to produce wealth, we will continue our slide into oblivion!

That's the whole point if you get rid of the tax that Revenue still isn't coming back.
However I do agree with you Partways.. We need a 2 prong approach.

1. We need to lower taxes for those corporations that keep operations in America and employ Americans. Made in USA!!! We need to penalize Corporations and aggressively go after those that seek tax shelters and hide revenue overseas. Close all the corporate loopholes!!!!

Individual Americans can no longer carry the Tax burden solely on their shoulders alone.(and never should have been in this position to begin with (So Say our founding Fathers) At present Average Americans have to work from January 1 to April 9th just to pay for yearly taxes.

2. We need to take the kid gloves off and get tough with China and make them value their currency properly. China undervalues the Yuan so that its manufactured and exported goods can remain less expensive than goods of other countries and hence its export continues to dominate and grow in the US market.

Fair trade or none at all.

Additionally , This is why I want full disclosure on political ads , and dislike the US C of C not disclosing ... I want to see the wizard(s) behind the curtain and I want to know who is weighing in and trying to sway our elections.

I guarantee it's China and other countries and large corporations who do not want loopholes closed and regulation.They are buying our politicians. Soon we will be the United Conglomerate of America (with their Headquarters actually overseas) and where only Large corporations run our Government.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #103 on:** October 25, 2010, 02:46:20 PM »

Old scoot I kinda figured you wouldn't be able to comprehend it. Oh well there are alot of tax and spend liberals who don't get it otherwise we wouldn't have BO as president.

lgm270 · « **Reply #104 on:** October 25, 2010, 02:48:31 PM »

The chamber should be in hot water. It is treason to export the important manufacturing jobs and then tell unemployed skilled American workers that they need "job training."

WHAT JOBS? I know people with advanced degrees who can't find jobs.

American jobs for American workers. The well being of American workers should be uppermost in the minds of all people, both Republican or Democrat. I would think this is one issue upon which all Americans could come together.

ironglow · « **Reply #105 on:** October 26, 2010, 02:18:13 AM »

Without looking it up, I seem to recall that in the early years of our republic, the primary sources of income for our federal govt came from excise taxes on imported goods. This makes sense, because at that time we wanted to buiild domestic industries in preference to sending our money overseas..(sounds like a good idea for today).
But some time later the government started to grow, getting into things they should have never ventured into. With the Wilson and Roosevelt administrations..such govt programs grew exponentially.
Some things the federal government NEVER SHOULD HAVE VENTURED INTO;
A) Social welfare programs
B) WIC
C) National Endowment for the Arts
D) NPR and PBS
E) Supporting crooked groups such as ACORN
F) Supporting advocacy groups like ACLU
G) Trying to dictate to the churches of America
H) Much federal 'research' money.
I) Quotas & set-asides
J) Hate crimes legislation
K) Legalized killing (of babies).

These and a thousand other useless programs if cancelled, could save us much problems & expense.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #106 on:** October 26, 2010, 03:20:43 AM »

Even FDR didn't want to give people out of work money. He said they would become dependent and not want to work. He created work programs, dams, roads, reforestation, which gave a lot of people jobs. He said if they worked for their money, they would appreciate it more, and take care of the things they have. Dem's like to look back to him, but he understood the work ethic. Johnson is the one who started the give away programs.

scootrd · « **Reply #107 on:** November 01, 2010, 07:47:40 PM »

When Reagan was Gov of Calf. He tried to put people to work to earn their check sweeping street , or picking up trash or required to enter a Jobs program etc... He was shot down by courts , they deemed it unconstitutional. Personally , I don't think Reagan was wrong regarding. I think it was a very creative approach to create a population of a more educated workforce that would earn more money a contribute their fair share of tax burdens.

I do believe at times in a persons life they may need a hand up (not a hand out). I believe if a person is going to collect a societal type check , they should be enrolled in a Jobs program to learn new skills, or be doing something positive to improve their present state to earn that check . I believe in term limits as to how long an individual should remain on the roles. I believe as soon as they return to the work force , the monies they received should be Auto deducted from their paychecks and re-invested back into the program. This way tax payers don't end up footing the bill.

I also feel single parents who find themselves needing a hand up should have some sort of affordable child care provided so as not to inhibit until they can re-enter the workforce.

I know others on this board will disagree - that's ok , everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

ironglow · « **Reply #108 on:** November 02, 2010, 09:16:51 AM »

Reagan was right in most of what he did . Yes, sometimes a person does need a "hand up and not a hand out". As for a person being enrolled in a "jobs program".. More directly, they should be enrolled in "A JOB", where they can either sink or swim.
Forget the silly govt programs which rarely work, most often just designed to give some 'party operative' a cushy, high paying departmental chairmanship .
As far a free childcare..there isn't any such thing..somebody hads to pay. The wife and I started out with very little..and no special handouts from anybody..family, friends, nor government. ..And I certainly wouldn't have taken govt handouts anyway.
When we decided to have children, we were well aware of something called "personal responsibility" and it took half of what my wife made each week to pay for the care of our one son, and we were pleased to get it.
The two great contributors to such widespread problems we have today were..
1) Too many people encouraged into turning away from God and living without a moral compass...
2) LBJ's "War on Poverty", which has cost us trillions of dollars and put more people into poverty than ever.

For those of us who believe in God and personal responsibility, it would help greatly to hear those who sponsored each of the above numbered gross mistakes to admit publicly, that such ignorant attempts at 'social engineering', were just that; GROSS MISTAKES.
Such an admission of truth would help to heal the wounds opened by such stupidity, but far from correcting them, these same malefactors go on preaching and pushing the same thoughtless, assinine philosophies...

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #109 on:** November 02, 2010, 09:23:40 AM »

Quote from: ironglow on October 26, 2010, 02:18:13 AM

Some things the federal government NEVER SHOULD HAVE VENTURED INTO;

B) WIC

What is WIC, and why would we want to get rid of it?

Quote

These and a thousand other useless programs if cancelled, could save us much problems & expense.

Hey, I've got one to add to your list: the War on (some) Drugs. How many billions a year get thrown down that rat-hole?

scootrd · « **Reply #110 on:** November 02, 2010, 09:49:41 AM »

Quote from: ironglow on November 02, 2010, 09:16:51 AM

Reagan was right in most of what he did . Yes, sometimes a person does need a "hand up and not a hand out". As for a person being enrolled in a "jobs program".. More directly, they should be enrolled in "A JOB", where they can either sink or swim.
   Forget the silly govt programs which rarely work, most often just designed to give some 'party operative' a cushy, high paying departmental chairmanship .
  As far a free childcare..there isn't any such thing..somebody hads to pay. The wife and I started out with very little..and no special handouts from anybody..family, friends, nor government. ..And I certainly wouldn't have taken govt handouts anyway.
  When we decided to have children, we were well aware of something called "personal responsibility" and it took half of what my wife made each week to pay for the care of our one son, and we were pleased to get it.
   The two great contributors to such widespread problems we have today were..
   1) Too many people encouraged into turning away from God and living without a moral compass...
   2) LBJ's "War on Poverty", which has cost us trillions of dollars and put more people into poverty than ever.

   For those of us who believe in God and personal responsibility, it would help greatly to hear those who sponsored each of the above numbered gross mistakes to admit publicly, that such ignorant attempts at 'social engineering', were just that; GROSS MISTAKES.
   Such an admission of truth would help to heal the wounds opened by such stupidity, but far from correcting them, these same malefactors go on preaching and pushing the same thoughtless, assinine philosophies...

I mention childcare because a lot of excuse is I would love to get off the roles but can't afford childcare while I a. am looking for a Job b. am going to school c. if I get a job at my present skill level the pay is so low it all goes to childcare.

Offering some measure of childcare to enable single parents to move from the hand out to the hand up role just seems to make sense to me. JMHO

BTW - Do you know the cost of childcare nowadays?, My sister and her husband both work he has masters and she an associates. It takes most her paycheck a month just to cover childcare. A single parent with low skills and no other resources who is on assistance can not afford to work and pay childcare at the same time. So..... remove the excuse and lets help them re-enter the workforce higher skilled and paying more taxes and off the assistance roles.
Again JMHO

Oldshooter · « **Reply #111 on:** November 02, 2010, 01:06:01 PM »

I THINK its all part of do i need kids, can i afford em! All my kids were raised by their maw. At times maw maw would step in to help but............YOU gotta figger in those things before you do............... "it" huh?

Responsibility is the question here i think, take Responsibility and dont count on my tax dollars to get you outta a bind!

Here's Praying for gridlock to start today! Its the way the founders had it figgered ya think ?

scootrd · « **Reply #112 on:** November 02, 2010, 02:33:07 PM »

don't disagree , but they didn't and now it is what it is. So .. lets remove the inhibitors or excuses and get folks on assistance off the roles and back to work.

ironglow · « **Reply #113 on:** November 02, 2010, 03:57:36 PM »

Quote from: yellowtail3 on November 02, 2010, 09:23:40 AM

Quote from: ironglow on October 26, 2010, 02:18:13 AM
Some things the federal government NEVER SHOULD HAVE VENTURED INTO;

B) WIC

What is WIC, and why would we want to get rid of it?
Quote
These and a thousand other useless programs if cancelled, could save us much problems & expense.

Hey, I've got one to add to your list: the War on (some) Drugs. How many billions a year get thrown down that rat-hole?

WIC is a handout at our expense toward the same irresponsible people we have been speaking of..let them go to work and feed them and theirs..as I said earlier a temporary "hand up" is not too bad, but to make it a lazy, immoral lifestyle at other's expense is ridiculous.

I would be willing to allow those who choose to be addicted, swim in the trash, but they should not be allowed to drive, operate machinery etc around other, non-imbibing people....and not a dime of public expense for their "rehab".