[sparkscoffee] Re: Emailing: Scan0158 - Captalism Stinks On Ice
- From: "D.J.J. Ring, Jr." <n1ea@xxxxxxxx>
- To: "sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 23:23:36 -0400
Stan,
Does that mean that you want to give a tax break to USA corporations who
want to build factories in China.
It's very lazy and presumptious to say "We agree to disagree".
We do not, you're the one who agrees without yourself and didn't read the
message.
Why do you shy away from discussing economics and finances?
Because deep down you know that socialism doesn't work?
Even socially it doesn't work - Hong Kong wants to vote on democracy.
Guess who is against it? The Communists, because communism isn't about
everyone sharing, it's about POWER for the Communist Party, the people are
just pawns made to pay the government who controls their life - and we're
getting there too.
Democratic Party: A bunch of rich men and women trying to convince
everyone that the other rich men and women are taking advantage of the
workers and making them poor.
That reality. Both the Democrats and Old Republicans are like that,
that's why we need the TeaParty to rescue USA from these failed policies.
At least we are rid of the most racist attorney general in history.
Imagine not prosecuting black on white crime? He did that and much more.
73
DR
73
DR
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Redacted sender sblumen123@xxxxxxx for
DMARC <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> DR
> We agree to disagree.
>
> Stanley
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: D.J.J. Ring, Jr. <n1ea@xxxxxxxx>
> To: sparkscoffee <sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Fri, Sep 26, 2014 5:37 pm
> Subject: [sparkscoffee] Re: Emailing: Scan0158 - Captalism Stinks On Ice
>
> Stanley,
>
> If Corporations paid NO taxes on income, then there would be more money
> for them to invest in Research and Development, maybe a new plant near you
> in Florida, and of course many new jobs because of all these things.
>
> One thing I forgot is that "We the People" have given Corporations a TAX
> BREAK to move out of the Country to build foreign factories.
>
> No to me - that is plain INSANE. I am guessing you'd agree with me on
> that - as does the author below.
>
> (More below). You can read just the first paragraph if you wish -
> cutting Corp taxes results in POSITIVE income to the US Treasury.
>
> 73
> DR
>
>
> *Forbes*
> <http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2013/07/30/president-obamas-plan-for-corporate-tax-reform-a-grand-bargain-or-simply-another-name-for-an-old-proposal/>
>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2013/07/30/president-obamas-plan-for-corporate-tax-reform-a-grand-bargain-or-simply-another-name-for-an-old-proposal/
>
>
> *President Obama's Plan For Corporate Tax Reform: A 'Grand Bargain' Or
> Simply Another Name For An Old Proposal? *
>
> Earlier today, President Obama took some time away from motivating
> sputtering baseball teams to propose a “grand bargain,” whereby the
> President would be willing to reduce corporate tax rates if the additional
> tax revenue were used to create jobs for the middle class.
>
> Now, if you’re particularly sharp, you might have noticed an oddity in
> that opening sentence. Specifically, if corporate tax rates would go down,
> why would there be additional tax revenue available to spend on job
> creation?
>
> That’s because along with the promised tax rate reduction, President
> Obama would broaden the tax base by eliminating many of the deductions and
> preferences available under today’s law. The net effect of these two
> changes would result in an increase in total tax revenue collections; in
> other words, the reduction in rates would be more than offset by the lost
> deductions.
>
> This is a bit of a departure from the President’s previous proposals for
> corporate reform, which have always been promised to be revenue neutral. In
> a revenue neutral plan, only enough deductions would be cut to generate the
> revenue necessary to “pay for” the revenue lost to lower tax rates. No
> more, no less.
>
> I say the President’s latest plan is a “bit” of a departure because the
> goal would still be to have the “grand bargain” reform be revenue neutral
> over a ten-year period; however, the plan would generate net revenue in its
> initial years, which would then be spent on job creation efforts such as
> investing in infrastructure, manufacturing and community colleges.
>
> So what exactly is in the President’s “grand bargain” plan?
>
> As best I can tell, the limited details of the proposal pitched today
> align neatly with the President’s previously published and creatively named
> “The President’s Framework for Business Tax Reform.” The headlining item of
> that proposal – which was echoed today – is to reduce the maximum corporate
> rate from 35% to 28%, a promise that is likely to win some appreciation
> from the Republican Party.
>
> But that’s about all the Republican Party will like about this plan,
> because let’s call it what it is: a tax increase to fund additional
> governmental spending. Not exactly true to Republican core values.
>
> The President’s plan can be separated into three distinct categories:
> general corporate reform, manufacturing industry reform, and international
> reform.
>
> General Corporate Reform
>
> The President (correctly) points out that our current tax system —
> replete with innumerable deductions, exclusions and preferences — benefits
> certain industries over others. Take a gander at the following table, which
> illustrates the effective tax rate paid by different industries in 2007 and
> 2008, even though they were all subject to the same 35% marginal rate:
>
>
>
> The president believes that when eliminating deductions and preferences,
> care should be taken to equalize the benefits of the code across all
> industries. To that end, he has placed a number of provisions on the
> chopping block, calling for the following changes:
>
> Elimination of “Last in first out” accounting. Under the “last-in,
> first-out” (LIFO) method of accounting for inventories, it is assumed that
> the cost of the items of inventory that are sold is equal to the cost of
> the items of inventory that were most recently purchased or produced. This
> allows some businesses to artificially lower their tax liability.
> Elimination of oil and gas tax preferences. The President would repeal the
> expensing of intangible drilling costs, and percentage depletion for oil
> and natural gas wells. .
> Taxing carried (profits) interests as ordinary income. The President would
> eliminate the loophole for managers in investment services partnerships and
> tax carried interest at ordinary income rates.
> Eliminate special depreciation rules for corporate purchases of aircraft.
> This would eliminate the special depreciation rules that allow owners of
> non-commercial aircraft to depreciate their aircraft more quickly (over
> five years) than commercial aircraft (seven years).
> Addressing depreciation schedules. Current depreciation schedules
> generally overstate the true economic depreciation of assets.
> Reducing the bias toward debt financing. Steps would be taken to reducing
> the deductibility of interest for corporations. This would reduce
> incentives to overleverage and produce more stable business finances,
> especially in times of economic stress.
> Manufacturing Industry Reform
>
> While the president asserts that all industries should be treated
> equally, his plan then goes on to bestow certain preferences specifically
> on the manufacturers by proposing the following:
>
> Effectively cutting the top corporate tax rate on manufacturing income
> to 25 percent and to an even lower rate for income from advanced
> manufacturing activities by reforming the domestic production activities
> deduction. The President’s would focus the current I.R.C. § 199 deduction
> more on manufacturing activity, expand the deduction to 10.7 percent, and
> increase it even more for advanced manufacturing. This would effectively
> cut the top corporate tax rate for manufacturing income to 25 percent and
> even lower for advanced manufacturing.
>
> Expand, simplify and make permanent the R&D Tax Credit. The President’s
> framework would increase the rate of the alternative simplified credit to
> 17 percent.
> Extend, consolidate, and enhance key tax incentives to encourage
> investment in clean energy.
>
> *International Reform*
>
> It is in the international arena that the president’s proposals most
> deviate from those of his Republican counterparts. While Republican leaders
> have loudly called for a move to a “territorial” tax system, whereby U.S.
> corporations would only pay tax on U.S. income, leaving other nations to
> tax foreign profits, President Obama wants to expand the current corporate
> tax regime to tax profits earned by foreign affiliates of U.S. corporations
> before they are repatriated to the U.S.
>
> The president’s proposals include the following:
>
> Require companies to pay a minimum tax on overseas profits.
> Specifically, under the President’s proposal, income earned by subsidiaries
> of U.S. corporations operating abroad must be subject to a minimum rate of
> tax. This would stop our tax system from generously rewarding companies for
> moving profits offshore. Thus, foreign income deferred in a low-tax
> jurisdiction would be subject to immediate U.S. taxation up to the minimum
> tax rate with a foreign tax credit allowed for income taxes on that income
> paid to the host country. This minimum tax would be designed to balance the
> need to stop rewarding tax havens and to prevent a race to the bottom with
> the goal of keeping U.S. companies on a level playing field with
> competitors when engaged in activities which, by necessity, must occur in a
> foreign country.
>
> Remove tax deductions for moving productions overseas and provide new
> incentives for bringing production back to the United States. The President
> is proposing that companies will no longer be allowed to claim tax
> deductions for moving their operations abroad. At the same time, to help
> bring jobs home, the President is proposing to give a 20 percent income tax
> credit for the expenses of moving operations back into the United States.
>
> Other reforms to reduce incentives to shift income and assets overseas.
> The President would strengthen the international tax rules by taxing
> currently the excess profits associated with shifting intangibles to low
> tax jurisdictions. In addition, under current law, U.S. businesses that
> borrow money and invest overseas can claim the interest they pay as a
> business expense and take an immediate deduction to reduce their U.S.
> taxes, even if they pay little or no U.S. taxes on their overseas
> investment. The President would eliminate this tax advantage by requiring
> that the deduction for the interest expense attributable to overseas
> investment be delayed until the related income is taxed in the United
> States.
>
> Republican leaders have already shouted down the President’s “grand
> bargain” proposal, with Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell taking
> issue with the planned increase in revenue by calling it, “…just a
> further-left version of a widely panned plan he already proposed two years
> ago – this time, with extra goodies for tax-and-spend liberals.”
>
> Needless to say, the hyperpartisan environment that exists in Congress
> today is not conducive to tax reform. One side is going to have to be
> willing to budge, or today’s speech is as close as we’ll ever get to a
> grand bargain.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Redacted sender Sblumen123@xxxxxxx for
> DMARC <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> DR
>> If we don't tax the corporations because they simply pass it on to us
>> consumers including with other expenses and profits then would you be
>> willing to have your taxes increased? If not, who is there left to tax?
>> I didn't take a course in economics, did you? Think, think, think.
>>
>> Stanley
>>
>> In a message dated 9/22/2014 7:42:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>> dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>>
>> DR
>> Think, think,think. No taxes means BIGGER PROFITS to buy bigger mega
>> Yachts, bigger mega Mansions etc.. Killing unions, lower wages, longer
>> working hours, fewer holidays, shorter vacations, less safety rules etc,
>> which is the same as less taxes to maintain or increase profits which we
>> must not hurt, will also bring jobs and the factories back. Slave labor is
>> the best. Think, think, think,
>>
>> Comrade B, the mensh
>>
>> In a message dated 9/21/2014 9:43:20 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>> n1ea@xxxxxxxx writes:
>>
>> Corporations pass taxation costs to consumers. Eliminate corporation
>> income taxes, you will increase gross national product because goods will
>> cost.
>> Only a socialist would be stupid enough to tax corporations.
>> 73
>> DR
>> On Sep 19, 2014 4:43 PM, "Redacted sender Sblumen123@xxxxxxx for DMARC"
>> <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Everyone
>>> Ask what you can do for your country, not what your country can do for
>>> you. Patriotism Before Profitism,
>>> Not Profitism Before Patriotism.
>>>
>>> Reducing Corporate Taxes to keep Businesses here is a form of bribary
>>> and shifts the burden of necessary
>>> taxes on the rest of us no matter how you slice it.
>>>
>>> Stanley
>>>
>>>
>>> Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link
>>> attachments:
>>>
>>> Scan0158
>>>
>>>
>>> Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent
>>> sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail
>>> security settings to determine how attachments are handled.
>>>
>>
>
Other related posts:
