It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by Xtraeme
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Xtraeme
This arbitrary "cap" disturbs me.
It's no more arbitrary than the numbers are in the Enhanced Polar MILSATCOM spec.
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.
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."
(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:
(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:
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...
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.
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)