| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On October 19 2012 14:06 jdseemoreglass wrote: So can I tell people they are being ass-backward when they say that anarchism necessitates chaos? If people say anarchism necessitates chaos just tell them to read The Dispossessed, not a very hard book to read. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 19 2012 16:34 Shelke14 wrote: Alright guys, one last time I need help to clarify something too make sure it is true or not! Romney has been going against Obama's bailout that he gave companies and someone just messaged me saying that Romney actually was one of the people who gained off of the bailouts. http://www.thenation.com/article/170644/mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza# This is the article that I was able to find that I am thinking my friend sent me but I am not going to take it for face value. If it is true, how damaging would this be? Has it been on any media outlets in America? I don't see why this would be damaging for Romney. If anything the opposite since if he's against something he profited from then its more of an honest position on his end. I say that because these issues are generally a scandal if the opposite is true. If Romney was for the bailout then received a huge windfall from it people would suspect that Romney's position on the bailout was influenced by his finances. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 19 2012 23:37 DoubleReed wrote: No one actually pays the corporate tax. The largest companies pay an effective tax rate of less than 5%. The 40% number is just a facade. ![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/01/27/business/economy/27economix-tax/27economix-tax-articleInline.jpg) Source Data should be for 2009 - so all rates are a bit lower because of the economy, though none in this set hit the nominal 35% rate. It varies a lot by industry. Some of the low rates are legitimate, past losses are being used to offset current gains, or the company has a legitimate operation overseas in a lower tax country. Too much of it is loophole exploitation and tax expenditures that act as backdoor industrial policy. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On October 19 2012 16:34 Shelke14 wrote: Alright guys, one last time I need help to clarify something too make sure it is true or not! Romney has been going against Obama's bailout that he gave companies and someone just messaged me saying that Romney actually was one of the people who gained off of the bailouts. http://www.thenation.com/article/170644/mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza# This is the article that I was able to find that I am thinking my friend sent me but I am not going to take it for face value. If it is true, how damaging would this be? Has it been on any media outlets in America? The only way you could really spin this is saying obviously the bailouts were good for investors/hedge funds considering how much Romney profited. I mean, you can't attack someone for the mutual funds he invests in themselves investing in a manner inconsistent with his ideology. I'd rather have that than a situation similar to Ron Paul's where his economic policies would all drastically benefit his own wealth no matter their actual usefulness to the economy, because then doubt of honest intent enters the equation. Edit: 538 has Obama slightly above 70% again for the first time in two weeks or so. Seems like the debate did about what we expected it to do. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 20 2012 01:17 oneofthem wrote: when it comes to political violence and domination the long history of the u.s. shows that it is always the privileged and dominant faction doing the oppressing. i seriously question the good faith of libertarians who are about justice and all that when they do not stand with the weak and the marginalized. yes, exactly. If you do the things libertarians say to do, injustice and oppression increase. Even if we want the same thing in the utopian future, libertarians think you can get there from here, which is just not the case. edit: On October 20 2012 00:06 TheTenthDoc wrote: If people say anarchism necessitates chaos just tell them to read The Dispossessed, not a very hard book to read. everybody should read this anyway | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
On October 20 2012 01:17 oneofthem wrote: when it comes to political violence and domination the long history of the u.s. shows that it is always the privileged and dominant faction doing the oppressing. i seriously question the good faith of libertarians who are about justice and all that when they do not stand with the weak and the marginalized. Ummm, that's... exactly what you would expect anywhere? By definition, a faction "doing the oppressing" anywhere is the dominant and privileged faction. | ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
On October 19 2012 16:42 sam!zdat wrote: I think that's what the tax sunset thing is about but I'm out of my element here so I'll let him speak for himself Exactly I am advocating frequent temporary increases to the capital gains tax to finance spending, plus the generally accepted economic principle that the corporate tax rate creates more loss and distortion than cap gains. Precisely because shareholders still expect dividends, though the actual impact most shareholders have on governance is debatable, revenue will be generated by the tax increases even if there is a shift in spending towards reinvestment. If companies are keeping large holdings of cash I would say that indicates structural problems in the (possibly global) economy not fixed by slight changes in the tax code be it personal or corporate taxes. I know what I'm suggesting is a pretty radical change to the tax code but I'm saying that if this tax code was in place corporations would not hold onto massive supplies of cash for several quarters to gain a 1 or 2% lower tax rate, inflation would eat up a significant amount of that value by itself. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On October 20 2012 02:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote: + Show Spoiler + Source Data should be for 2009 - so all rates are a bit lower because of the economy, though none in this set hit the nominal 35% rate. It varies a lot by industry. Some of the low rates are legitimate, past losses are being used to offset current gains, or the company has a legitimate operation overseas in a lower tax country. Too much of it is loophole exploitation and tax expenditures that act as backdoor industrial policy. We also spend $60 billion subsidizing oil. I'm all in favor of corporate tax decrease if it makes sense. I just want honesty here. In general I think a high income tax + low corporate tax encourages people to invest in their businesses. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 20 2012 02:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Source Data should be for 2009 - so all rates are a bit lower because of the economy, though none in this set hit the nominal 35% rate. It varies a lot by industry. Some of the low rates are legitimate, past losses are being used to offset current gains, or the company has a legitimate operation overseas in a lower tax country. Too much of it is loophole exploitation and tax expenditures that act as backdoor industrial policy. biotech and pharma make use of the transfer pricing loophole to underprice the IP and other big big valuable items they transfer between low and high tax divisions. | ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
On October 20 2012 02:41 DoubleReed wrote: We also spend $60 billion subsidizing oil. I'm all in favor of corporate tax decrease if it makes sense. I just want honesty here. In general I think a high income tax + low corporate tax encourages people to invest in their businesses. My understanding is that most of that 60 bil is tax deductions, not direct payment, though I think some of it is from lease pricing on government land. Don't have time to look it up now, would love a decent source on how those subsidies break down but I think most of them should be accounted for in that tax rate | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 20 2012 02:41 oneofthem wrote: biotech and pharma make use of the transfer pricing loophole to underprice the IP and other big big valuable items they transfer between low and high tax divisions. The only thing more ridiculous than the idea of owning an idea is the idea of owning an idea in one place | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 20 2012 02:39 TheFrankOne wrote: Exactly I am advocating frequent temporary increases to the capital gains tax to finance spending, plus the generally accepted economic principle that the corporate tax rate creates more loss and distortion than cap gains. Precisely because shareholders still expect dividends, though the actual impact most shareholders have on governance is debatable, revenue will be generated by the tax increases even if there is a shift in spending towards reinvestment. If companies are keeping large holdings of cash I would say that indicates structural problems in the (possibly global) economy not fixed by slight changes in the tax code be it personal or corporate taxes. I know what I'm suggesting is a pretty radical change to the tax code but I'm saying that if this tax code was in place corporations would not hold onto massive supplies of cash for several quarters to gain a 1 or 2% lower tax rate, inflation would eat up a significant amount of that value by itself. Assuming (and I remain unconvinced that this is true) you create the outcome you want - corporations are motivated by the lower tax rate on corporate earnings, but unaffected by higher taxes on investors - you create a couple key problems. 1) Large companies that are able to self-finance are put at a significant advantage over upstarts that require outside capital. This would mean more large conglomerates like Berkshire Hathaway and fewer smaller stand alone firms. Ultimately this would mean less competition (higher profit margins) and less innovation from start-ups. I'll concede that in the short-run this wouldn't be a large issue. 2) Taxes on cap gains can be deferred almost indefinably (until death, and beyond depending on the tax code) so even if you raise taxes to theoretically balance the books government revenue would lag. If you raise taxes even more to offset the deferral, then you reinforce the previously stated problem. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 20 2012 02:41 DoubleReed wrote: We also spend $60 billion subsidizing oil. I'm all in favor of corporate tax decrease if it makes sense. I just want honesty here. In general I think a high income tax + low corporate tax encourages people to invest in their businesses. No we don't. Oil and gas get ~$3B / year in subsidies. To get to $60B you need to count things like depreciation which isn't a subsidy. http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf Edit: see table ES2 on page xiii | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On October 20 2012 03:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote: No we don't. Oil and gas get ~$3B / year in subsidies. To get to $60B you need to count things like depreciation which isn't a subsidy. http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf Edit: see table ES2 on page xiii Those numbers do not include annual subsidies nor state and local breaks. Consequently, they are highly misleading. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 20 2012 03:21 farvacola wrote: Those numbers do not include annual subsidies nor state and local breaks. Consequently, they are highly misleading. I don't know what 'annual subsidies' you are referring to. While it doesn't include state and local breaks, those breaks tend to be much smaller than federal subsides. Depending on the state they often favor renewable as well. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
It's a methodological difference, not REALLY an ideological one. I strongly believe that the intentions of both are correct and that the true natural enemy of people ascribing to either one of these ideologies is the Statist. Not really sure where I fall in regard to that particular fight xD Edit: Talking about what both want to achieve in their "utopian" vision, not what each actually produced when they chose to ignore the nature of the other. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On October 20 2012 03:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I don't know what 'annual subsidies' you are referring to. While it doesn't include state and local breaks, those breaks tend to be much smaller than federal subsides. Depending on the state they often favor renewable as well. When I say "annual" subsidies I'm referring to general fund, non-specific subsidies that can be applied for based on unique financial status. From the Dept. of Energy brief provided, The tax code allows a foreign tax credit for income taxes paid to foreign countries. If a multinational company is subject to a foreign country's levy, and it also receives a specific economic benefit from that foreign country, it is classified as a “dual-capacity taxpayer.” Dual-capacity taxpayers cannot claim a credit for any part of the foreign levy unless it is established that the amount paid under a distinct element of the foreign levy is a tax, rather than a compulsory payment for some direct or indirect economic benefit. Major oil companies are significant beneficiaries of this provision. However, this tax provision is also available to non-energy industries. The tax code also provides special treatment for some publicly-traded partnerships (PTP). Section 7704 of the Code generally treats a publicly-traded partnership as a corporation for federal income tax purposes. For this purpose, a PTP is any partnership that is traded on an established securities market or secondary market. However, a notable exception to Section 7704 occurs if 90 percent of the gross income of a PTP is passive-type income, such as interest, dividends, real property rents, gains from the disposition of real property, and similar income or gains. This would include gains from natural resource sales. In these cases, the PTP is exempt from corporate level taxation, thus allowing it to claim pass-through status for tax purposes.4 As with many other tax provisions, the tax treatment of PTPs is not exclusive to the energy sector. To summarize the text above, there are a host of subsidies available to companies and partnerships that fulfill certain criteria; criteria that, while explicitly labeled as non-energy specific, frequently benefits the sprawling and multilateral oil industry. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
Escore
IntoTheTV X SOOP
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Spirit vs Mixu
Clem vs TBD
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
