Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

House Republicans Block "Bring Jobs Home Act"

page: 8
53
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 



Do you not understand the term pro rate? Proportional rationing or proportionally ratioed. There is no simpler nor basic pro rate system that a flat percent based on an amount. This amount we are discussing is income.


For something to be prorated it needs to be proportioned against something else. You said "pro rate down in absolute value as you go toward the lower income working class." So clearly when you said "value" you meant absolute dollar amount. "Absolute value" as I would have used it would be with regard to the "value of money," as I described in the post towards the top of the page. Clearly you see "value" and "absolute dollar amount" as being the same thing. I find this to be a bit simplistic and perhaps even somewhat naive, because it shows little to no appreciation for behavioral economics. Not all economics is positive. Actually a lot of it is normative. Hence ... political economy. For instance, in many, if not all, severely poor third world countries people survive on $2 dollars day. Imagine if you taxed them even $0.10/day. Catastrophe! Each penny in this case is utterly necessary. Due to this we need to look at value of currency not just quantity.


Maybe we could just go to a user tax system. If you have six members in your family you pay a higher tax than someone who is single. Would you like that?


And by the way, does not the new patient care act instill at even a greater pressure the same decision?


So it sounds like you're pissed off about illegals getting tax deductions by lying about how many dependents they have? Yeah, that's definitely a problem. I also don't like that it has the potential to encourage people to have more children (okay not so much but it's a minor factor). I think it's a hard problem. However I think there's a better solution than a flat tax. Perhaps the idea you've mentioned above could have some merit. I'll have to think on it.


Really, what you're arguing for is equalization of wealth. ... If I have enough jack in my pocket to buy a Hawaii island, someone gets that money.


No, I think you misunderstood my point. I'm arguing for a sensitivity to the value of money and that this is why tax brackets are a good thing. I don't have a problem with the rich. In fact I know quite a few people who fall into this category. If the money is being used for some purpose. Awesome! However if the money is primarily sitting in a location where it isn't being touched (e.g. nine pallets of $1 billion dollars worth of money as ART). Now THAT is a problem. This is why cash flow is typically the most important thing in a functioning society. It's also why when cash is distributed towards the bottom we often get a thriving economy because money is constantly moving from one person to the next. Personally I think this is why severely depressed economies often make their own local currencies because people are still capable of doing work for one another. It's just that the physical money itself is scarce. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if people start reverting back to the whole pieces-of-eight model and just start clipping coins or dollar bills.




posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 

Okay that makes sense, I was just responding to your other comment, and was trying to see beyond disdain for current admin, as in we need to bring/keep more jobs home in general, and it is not exclusively Bama's fault for this in vogue fleeing of jobs that find their way overseas for better profits.
Thanks



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Looks to me like Republicans rejected the bill because although it may provide tax incentivesi for moving companies back to the States, it also has a negative penalizing American companies who leave the country. Democrats are always about sacking corporations by raising taxes, so basically it incurs taxes on companies which formerly left the USA to avoid taxation. I'm not all that suprised at who is supporting the bill here.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by LoonyConservative
 


Yes the Democrats are sacking the middle class and small business ownersa and the super wealthy won't feel it a bit plus they have tax shelters Obama will never touch plus swiss bank accounts.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by gncnew
Guys, look up a page or two from here - it's a tax increase all around, that's all it is. That's why it was shot down by the republicans.

"Is a rose by another name still not a rose?"

Tax increases take many forms, especially in election years.

-- If you bring jobs back here, you get a one time credit towards the cost of bringing them to the US. Either way you still have to spend that money to bring them here though.

-- Once those jobs are here, there is no break or waiver from paying the increased income, social security, and medicaid taxes.

-- If you don't bring the jobs here, the currently deductible amounts of your overseas operating costs will become NON-deductible and you'll be taxed higher because of it.


THIS BILL WAS NOT TO BRING JOBS HOME. THIS BILL WAS TO RAISE TAXES ON MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS.



sounds like a Democrat bait and switch to me. Those dirty so and so's pretending to care about the middle class and all they are doing is sacking the middle class and spending money so that inflation will go wild and the poor will also have to spend more on necessities. Too bad the poor won't get it and they will vote for OBama again thinking he is paying for their electric bills.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Xtraeme
 
Nice charts.


Thanks.



This arbitrary "cap" disturbs me.


It's no more arbitrary than the numbers are in the Enhanced Polar MILSATCOM spec.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Xtraeme
 
Nice charts.


Thanks.



This arbitrary "cap" disturbs me.


It's no more arbitrary than the numbers are in the Enhanced Polar MILSATCOM spec.





So someone, somewhere, can pick a dollar amount and state that anything "above" that number goes to government?



(I want THAT job!)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


I don't think we need to be considering parting out currency that is almost worthless when it's whole. That won't do much for us except make the toilet paper last longer.

In a capitalist society the consumer moves the economy. In a socialized economy the government forces the movement of the economy. I think history speaks for itself on which one of these leads to a more self-sufficient and propagating form of economy.

There has always been and there will always be, no matter what form of government you have, people who have more (money and/or power) and people who have less. Even in a socialized government all you have done is made the populace below the bar of "have more" and those in power the extremely limited group above that bar. And the major difference between the system you get with a socialized economy and that you naturally have with a capitalistic economy is in the former there is little to no chance of making your own way up above that bar. The government legislates that forced "caste" system on the society.

In a capitalistic economy you ALWAYS have the chance to do better. If it doesn't happen it is either because of bad luck in your life or bad decisions...or both, but it is not because your government has forced to remain at your station. For the time being we are still not to the level of "we will pretend to work, you will pretend to pay us".

The government should not be trying to TAX companies back into America. If they want to legislatively force the situation, the penalizing movement should be toward imports. The U.S. consumer, if they would pull their heads out of their asses and use their buying power (what little we have left) to move the economy would bring jobs back to America. You gave a for instance on your own. A consumer can choose to support and promote localization of the economy. Sure Wal Mart had a grand, successful plan. Move just to the outskirts of every little town, set up their massive stores without contributing to the local tax base and then decimate main street America. You can hate on them all you want but guess what? They couldn't have done it without us, the consumer, flocking to their store, abandoning the local stores to save a few bucks, and now we are complicit. In fact, we are the ENGINE behind billions and billions of American consumer dollars each year going to China for cheap goods made outside of our own country.

There's a site called America's got Product. Have you ever bothered to go there and use it to sway your purchasing decision? You can analyze exactly what brand to buy that will foster the most money back into the U.S. economy, sustain the most amount of U.S. jobs, and help to increase the tax base of your local economy.

www.americasgotproduct.com...

If people (ALL people) are not required to support the common services they are provided, to every single instance in history it devolves into the Tragedy of the Commons. When people perceive a common benefit/service as "free" (even though it is not), that service falls into abuse by those who can use but are not held accountable. That service falls into ruin due to lack of ownership and accountability. Over and over in history the tragedy of the commons has been proven out and right now, right here, we're watching it occur again.

The "value of money" is set by its buying power. An unhealthy economy leads to devalued currency. A healthy economy leads to valued currency. 10% is 10% and when the money is worth something that 90% left buys you stuff. But you have to be part of the solution, step away from the decaying "common" and take an active role in saving your own economy. The more power you hand to the federal government the closer to the inevitable tragedy that awaits us. Stop trying to take other people's stuff and just use your own wisely and in an informed manner and see what happens.
edit on 7-20-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   
If our Congress had the nads, they would repeal NAFTA. I would love to see the outcome of that vote.
Both parties get the blame starting the outsourcing. Repubs went along with it and Clinton signed off on it. Clinton started the China outsourcing and Bush continued it.
I originally voted for Bush thinking he would end it...No such luck, Bush made things worse. Now we owe China billions of dollars. I highly doubt we will see anything meaningful about bringing back those jobs unless we pay off our debt to China.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by mugger
If our Congress had the nads, they would repeal NAFTA. I would love to see the outcome of that vote.
Both parties get the blame starting the outsourcing. Repubs went along with it and Clinton signed off on it. Clinton started the China outsourcing and Bush continued it.
I originally voted for Bush thinking he would end it...No such luck, Bush made things worse. Now we owe China billions of dollars. I highly doubt we will see anything meaningful about bringing back those jobs unless we pay off our debt to China.


No truer words spoken. This is not a Dem versus Rep problem. They are both complicit. We've got two administrations now that are complicit in the tragedy we're suffering through. Repeal NAFTA...start generating your tax funds off the OUTSIDE of this country and start spending your money on the promotion of the common good. That would be INTERSTATE COMMERCE.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Well upon more research it seems that the tax code that allows companies to outsourced without punishment has been around for half a century.


The deferral clause has been in the tax code for more than half a century and has outlasted numerous reform efforts. In April 1961, even as U.S.-backed rebels were dying at Cuba's Bay of Pigs, President Kennedy asked Congress to rewrite tax provisions that "consistently favor United States private investment abroad compared with investment in our own economy."


So actually none of the political parties has done any effort to kill the original tax code, but rather the many reforms as late as 2005 has done nothing but giving more loopholes for the companies in question to get away with avoiding been tax

Now is a political agenda, but guess what people is nothing but hoax for votes, is going nowhere and never will because in America we are run by a corporate dictatorship.

www.usatoday.com...



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
oups, error
edit on 20-7-2012 by piett because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
A vast Americans will not be aware of this fact.

This is solely for perpetuating the blame of unemployment all on Obama.
Americans suffer while congress opposes any attempt the president makes at helping the recovery.

It's a great plan if not for the glaring fact that it's borderline treasonous.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
The Act is much easier to follow than I previously thought. It only references a couple sections of the IRS code. First, a brief background: the IRS code is USC 26. It's referred to as the 1986 code from the 1986 reform act. (Previously it was referred to as the 1954 code and the 1939 code).

In S. 3364: Bring Jobs Home Act, the first section of the 1986 code referenced is:

(a) In General- Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

This is Subpart-D, Part-IV, Subchapter-A, Chapter-1
(available from law.cornell.edu)

Currently it stops at Section 45r. The Bring Jobs Home Act would add a new section - 45s, titled: "§ 45S. CREDIT FOR INSOURCING EXPENSES".

---

The second section referenced is:

(a) In General- Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

This is Part IX, Subchapter-B, Chapter-1
(available from law.cornell.edu)

Currently it stops at Section 280H. The Bring Jobs Home Act would add a new section - 280I, titled: "§ 280I. OUTSOURCING EXPENSES".

---

And that is it. Two new sections added, which you can read in their entirity in the full text of the act: S. 3364: Bring Jobs Home Act - Full Text.

The Act is very clear and direct. It will end the tax break for closing up a business/shop and moving those jobs to another country. It will instead give a substantial tax credit for moving jobs TO America.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


Yes I ponder this point now and again, Obama and the left had the majority for 2 years or so, SO why did they not do anything with it, you cannot honestly say that all their time was spent on Obamacare can you...? IF so what a crock...

Seems very convenient that all these bills are being put out now where there is not chance in hell of passing them, but when they actually might have been able to they did nothing but sit on their hands...

Obama = trash
Congress = trash

Everyday I watch the news or read about it, it is like an episode of the twiligthtzone !

Sniper



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by marinesniper0317
 



Yes I ponder this point now and again, Obama and the left had the majority for 2 years or so, SO why did they not do anything with it, you cannot honestly say that all their time was spent on Obamacare can you...? IF so what a crock...


Yet it's the Republicans that have obstructed any attempt to pass bills or acts to address these issues. The "Bring Jobs Home Act" was just the latest victim of their obstructionist tactics.

"Obama and the left had the majority for 2 years or so" and have attempted to get an act like this passed. What have the Republicans done in their years in power? They passed the original code to favor outsourcing jobs. Blaming Dems for not being able to undo the damage the Repubs have done, while ignoring the Repubs as one of the root causes of said damage, is willful ignorance.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   



The Act is very clear and direct. It will end the tax break for closing up a business/shop and moving those jobs to another country. It will instead give a substantial tax credit for moving jobs TO America.


Come on man, you're completely overlooking the face that this bill imposes new taxes on companies with operations overseas and tries to strong arm them into bring those jobs to the US where the companies will incur sigfificant increases in payroll, FICA, social security taxes as well as a massive health insurance burden.

This is an attempt to raise taxes on companies by either getting them to bring jobs here (so they pay more taxes on the employees) or pay taxes on the current deductible operating expenses.

The one time credit their offering is like handing the Titanic a band-aide to plug the hole water is coming in. Hardly sufficient to account for the significant investment moving their operations back to the US would incur.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
The bill is nothing but a hoax, people still doesn't see the true colors, the tax code to protect companies oversea has been enacted since the 60s.

No political whore will do anything to fixed.

This is political propaganda, Obama as a corporate whore hiding behind a Socialist front, knows that while the pushing of this bill will look good for those out there that do not understand how the political game is play he knows very well that is not going anywhere

Play and simple.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 


It does not raise any taxes, and certainly not on companies that are already operating overseas.

It ENDS the one-time tax credit for moving expenses to relocate a company offshore, when outsourcing jobs.

It GIVES a tax break for moving expense when bringing a company to the United States, when INSOURCING jobs.


The Bring Jobs Home Act would provide a 20% tax break for the costs of moving jobs back to the United States and would rescind business expense deductions available to companies that are associated with the cost of moving operations overseas. (source)





new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join