President Obama Threatens Veto of Emerging Tax Deal...
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth
President Obama is threatening to veto the tax deal being worked out by Senator Reid and House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp.
The devil is always in the details but, could someone explain exactly why the interests of corporate America should trump the interests of the middle class or working poor?
More BELOW THE FOLD.
Via: Memeorandum
Purveyor of Truth
President Obama is threatening to veto the tax deal being worked out by Senator Reid and House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp.
The White House on Tuesday threatened to veto an emerging deal that would restore several lapsed tax breaks, bringing into the open tensions between President Obama and the top Senate Democrat.
Skip
“The president would veto the proposed deal because it would provide permanent tax breaks to help well-connected corporations while neglecting working families,” Friedman said, just hours after reports emerged that a $450 billion deal on the tax breaks was close at hand and that negotiators hoped to wrap it up by Tuesday
The devil is always in the details but, could someone explain exactly why the interests of corporate America should trump the interests of the middle class or working poor?
More BELOW THE FOLD.
Via: Memeorandum
It shouldn't, but corporate America owns the politicians and will continue to until corporate money is removed from politics.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely Jerry.
ReplyDeleteI'm waiting for some one to try and explain why they should. Corporate America provides jobs and benefits and certainly they should not be taxed so heavily that it stifles growth and investment.But realistically, and I heard this from a very reliable source in the financial industry, there are trillions of dollars just waiting to be invested. So if the money is just laying around not doing anything it sure as hell is difficult to argue taxes stifle investment, hurts job creation, has a negative effect on productivity and or efficiency, and etc. Or something like that anyway.
"So if the money is just laying around not doing anything it sure as hell is difficult to argue taxes stifle investment, hurts job creation, has a negative effect on productivity and or efficiency, and etc. Or something like that anyway."
ReplyDeleteIt also shows you that corporations do not create jobs. Consumers create jobs, and if they don't have the money to buy more products than corporations are already producing, no new jobs will be available. Corporations should take that money they have sitting around and increase the wages of their workers. It will come back to them through increase demand for their products which in turn, creates more jobs.
This is not rocket science.
Demand for products and or services creates jobs, always has always will. Period, end of story.
DeleteCorporations and or small businesses provide the jobs necessary to fill the demand.
No demand = no jobs.
Thankfully there are individuals that are willing to take the risks and make the investments required to tool up to fill the demand. For this they are entitled to the jst rewards for taking the risks.
AND... here's were it gets sticky. Care to discuss the sticky wicket Jerry?
What's your sticky wicket?
DeleteRN said: "Thankfully there are individuals that are willing to take the risks...."
DeleteAnd yes, despite major gaffes by certain major political leaders, these individuals are the ones that "built that".
Jerry said: "Corporations should take that money they have sitting around and increase the wages of their workers. It will come back to them through increase demand for their products which in turn, creates more jobs"
DeleteIf it really does work that way, wouldn't it make more sense for the company to directly buy piles of its own goods? Wouldn't that be more effective than shoveling unearned sums at workers who might ... no, certainly..., spend it on competitors' products or even just sit on the money?
Here goes Jerry. Sticky Wicket...
DeleteProfit.
Is there any such thing as "obscene profit"?
I answer no, not at all. A businessperson should be entitled to as much profit as their product can garner for them. Whatever the market will bear so to speak.
Responsible businesspeople reinvest much of their "obscene profit" to grow the business further and often this means to diversify. Thus providing additional employment opportunities and giving people money to spend and spur more economic growth./
Here's the real sticky part. Is there any such thing as "obscene taxes"? I am sure all (most all) would answer with a resounding yes.
With e so far?
Good.
Businesses being entitled to as much profit as they can bring in with nothing being "obscene" carries with it the responsibility to <>to give something back . Question is how much. Sticky, Sticky, Sticky wicket.
Rolling taxes back the Clinton years just seems to make sense.
But Dervish Sander's desire for a 95% tax on business just doesn't fly. Putting the "plutocrats entirely out of business through obscene taxes is as foolish as lowing the tax rate further on the wealthy and businesses.
I am not sure what is sticky. No one is advocating an excess profit tax and no one including Dervish (that I remember) is proposing a 95% tax on anything. Nor am I aware of any proposals to force companies to "give something back".
DeleteAre you trying to create controversy where there is none?
if there is no controversy then what is it?
DeleteUnless of course you are limiting the remark to you and I as well as those who have found some common ground.
Perhaps I am off a bit with respect to Dervish Sander's position but I seem to recall him remarking along those lines. Since I cannot not be sure I withdraw the remark. Especially since he will not be permitted to comment or respond here as per site policy regarding his person..
Oh come on, dmarks. Obviously I am talking about business and the economy in general, not one company's employees buying the products that they make.
ReplyDeleteThen such a policy makes even less sense. Since it won't "come back to them" as you said.
DeleteI guess if you don't understand how higher wages increase economic activity then there is not much I can do.
DeleteIt seems your claim is shifting. Earlier you said " increase the wages of their workers. It will come back to them through increase demand for their products "
DeleteI proposed a more direct way to do what you said the goal was. One that did not involve handing out money the workers didn't earn (which isn't so much an earned wage, but a handout instead). You have apparently moved away from your initial statement.
I see no inconsistencies with what I said.
DeleteStill, there seems to be no good reason you have presented so far for paying so-called "high wages" above the necessary amount, Jerry. You did give one reason before, and then I presented a much more direct way to do the same thing...
ReplyDeleteand you switched from
" It will come back to them through increase demand for their products"
to
" not one company's employees buying the products that they make. "
Besides, in order to pay extra as you want, the company is going to have to do a combination of raise prices (inflation clobbering Joe Sixpack), cut benefits (bye bye retirement, or reduce its workforce (i.e. fire people). The money has to come from somewhere. It just doesn't magically appear.
---------------------
RN: To be vague and stick with site policy, I thought the example amount being discussed, in terms of a tax percent, was more like 70%... not 95%. Speaking purely, ahem, hypothetically, without mentioning one person in particular.
It may have been 70%, still too high as far as I am concerned. But I shall make note of the 70% and commend you for steeping up and setting the record straight on behalf of DS.
Deletedmarks,
DeleteIf you go back and look at RN's original comment, you will see that we are talking about trillions of dollars just sitting around. No increase in prices or reduction in benefits are necessary.
Come on, dmarks. You've got to keep up here.
Jerry said: "you will see that we are talking about trillions of dollars just sitting aroun"
DeleteI did. I remember. Surely there is better use than just handing it out. for the hell of it.
Such as opening new plants/etc and hiring new people.
So. Why aren't they investing in new technologies, opening new plants, and hiring new people?
DeleteLack of demand or no money to purchase and spur growth?
Or the punitive over-taxation of businesses, which has been discussed here before, which discourages investment? And might perhaps lead to the company moving money overseas more easily than investing it "here at home" ?
ReplyDeleteCorporate America is concerned not about the overall health of the nation or the citizens who inhabit it.
ReplyDeleteIt has not always been that way.
You are absolutely right, RN.
Delete