OH NO's OBAMA IS AFTER MY MONIES AGAIN AND WON'T LET ME HIDE MY $20 MILLION DOLLORS FROM TAXES BY CONCEALING IT IN AN OFFSHORE BANKACCOUNT

I disagree if Obama rolls this out as justificantion to further increase spending but otherwise it is a good thing. Often the top 5% of income earners and total wealth get little sympathy complaining about their tax liability due to the activities of some in the top <.01% that give all well to do people a bad rap of just "hiding their monies" or "buying loopholes" to hide money that would otherwise be taxes. With these unethical (sometimes even illegal) tax practices eliminated the upper middle class and wealth holders of the US have more leverage to push for tax cuts and/or lower spending. One of the tired and true arguments of the left for progressive income tax, high estate tax, and other taxes of wealth has
always been that those of influence find ways to hide or stash their money in ways that they do not end up paying much taxes anyway.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/04/obama.tax.code/index.html

[Edited on May 4, 2009 at 8:42 AM. Reason : a]

5/4/2009 8:39:23 AM

Hypocritical. The United States is the largest tax haven in the world, so this move is not an effort to supress tax avoidance, but to supress our competitors.

5/4/2009 9:24:01 AM

Hey big corporations, still happy with that Obama campaign contribution?

Just what we need is another 800 IRS agents, huh? And a tax increase on U.S. firms who do business over-seas is a great way to help with the recession.

Quote :

"Under Obama's proposal, Americans would have to prove they were not breaking U.S. tax laws by sending money to banks that don't cooperate with tax officials. It essentially would reverse the long-held assumption of innocence in U.S. courts. "

Hey now there's a great foundation for a new relationship with state power: Guilty Before Proven Innocent. Much more efficient for gov't, don't you think?

5/4/2009 10:27:33 AM

when it comes to taxes its always been guilty until proven innocent.

5/4/2009 10:29:06 AM

^good point there.

5/4/2009 10:42:22 AM

Quote :

"Hey big corporations, still happy with that Obama campaign contribution?"

surely the corporate strategists and controllers calculated some net benefit to offset an assumed net tax increase or saw some competitive disadvantage to having McPalin in the white house for 4 years.

[Edited on May 4, 2009 at 10:52 AM. Reason : aa]

5/4/2009 10:50:18 AM

I guess they dont consider WHY people or companies would want to move thier business or money overseas. No, no need to fix that. So now they are going after peoples personal property overseas.

5/4/2009 3:39:27 PM

Good, close those loopholes.

5/4/2009 4:13:44 PM

They'll probably get some revenue but it wont be what they estimate. If someone is outsourcing work for tax reasons, they're doing so because its profitable. If you get rid of the tax loophole, its no longer profitable so they stop doing it. The end result is that some people in a foreign country get laid off, but that money is no longer coming into the US business so you cant collect taxes on it.

Best case is that the work they were sending over seas can still be done for profit in the us, but with less profit. This would be an increase in tax revenue, but less than they're predicting.

As to the individual wealth tied up in foreign investments/banks I dont know how you'd track that stuff. If I have a billion dollars in a hidden foreign account, how do you find it? Is the IRS just going to say "Hey we think you have some hidden money, fork it over or we'll take all your US assets."?

5/4/2009 4:21:41 PM

Quote :

"I guess they dont consider WHY people or companies would want to move thier business or money overseas. No, no need to fix that. So now they are going after peoples personal property overseas. "

Valid point eyedrb but there are legal ways to change the tax structure instead of breaking the law or if you are a
rich aristocrat bribing lobbying politicians to create venues or simply overlook $millions if not $billions
in taxable income.

Just because i disagree with the slow speed limit of 55-60 mph on I440 does not mean I get to break the law and go 90 simply b.c
i drive a Porsche. Even though i disagree with our gov't stance on marijuana does not mean i can ignore it; if i get caught I will face
the consequences.

I pay my fair share of taxes why should Dick Cheney get to weazel out of his share putting his halliburton capital gains in some swiss bank account
denying its existance to the IRS. I said it in the OP but the classic liberal rationale for progressive taxation, estate taxes, and other
taxes on wealth is the ability of the elites to lobby and pay for ways to sneak a large chunck of their money from being taxes. Without
all these loopholes and ways to cheat/bend the tax rules this argument is gone. Honest hard working self made millionaire businessmen
who pay their fair share of taxes will have a stronger case instead of facing higher taxes due to the unethical even illegal activities of
their yacht club collegues.

Unless you are hiding huge sums of money in a Cayman island bank account whats teh problem?

[Edited on May 4, 2009 at 4:26 PM. Reason : aa]

[Edited on May 4, 2009 at 4:26 PM. Reason : a]

5/4/2009 4:25:58 PM

I aggree with your sentiment, but your method of enforcement, like most from the democratic side, is completely impractical.

A better solution (if we're going to overhaul the tax structure) would be to tax static wealth and encourage spending and investment. Decrease income taxes, decrease capital gains taxes, but increase sales and property taxes. Those would spend their wealth on big houses, big cars, big boats, etc... end up paying more. Those who invest in the US economy get better returns.

5/4/2009 4:33:34 PM

How does increasing the sales tax encourage spending? Decreasing capital gains tax and increasing sales tax will result in people spending less and investing in interest more, right?

5/4/2009 4:47:57 PM

decreasing income taxes will increase take home pay which would increase spending. Decreasing cap. gains will increase investing, which will increase capital available to companies which would then be able to expand/hire.

Increasing sales tax is just away for the govt to make up for the loss while having everyone share in the paying federal taxes. People buying big ticket items will clearly be paying more.

5/4/2009 5:23:26 PM

If you lower (or elliminate) income tax at the same time, you end up with people having more disposable income. You'd basically be shifting the tax source from income to sales. Combine this with something like a VAT and you'd basically be closing up a bunch of these loopholes. You then vary the tax rate to encourage spending or encourage saving.

The goal being to make people's money work for the US economy. For the average person they probably wont notice a difference in their effective tax rate. They have more income to use, but they pay more for things. If they want to save money, they buy less stuff or buy things that last longer. For all you anti-consumerism folks this would be a win. For the wealthiest, their choices are: Put money into US companies since they now give better returns than foreign investments; Buy shit.

If someone buys a yacht not only are they going to pay more in taxes, but they're going to pay a luxury tax on that yacht every year.

You might say "wont those taxes discourage them from buying the yacht in the first place?" I would respond "not really". It might discourage them from buying two yachts though. But it doesn't matter since the money they aren't spending is in US banks fueling our economy.

5/4/2009 5:24:11 PM

Quote :

"would be to tax static wealth "

I agree as all to often the liberal/democratic base to often scapegoats high income earners to take the hit when they initiate tax reform
when who they should be targetting is the static wealth as you described.

Quote :

" like most from the democratic side"

My economic views are in NO way of democratic origin. My support of a flat income tax and lassiez-faire economics agree more with
the republican mind-set, however, i found that when it comes to policy the GOP tends to use their small gov't pro-capitalist policies as mere
speaking points or as a mask to play corporate favortism.

How can you sympathsize for the poor rich people that illegally hide their money or who lobby politicians to CREATE the loopholes. Meanwhile
the new rich and middle classes take the hit.

5/4/2009 5:34:48 PM

The law in question is democratic in origin and thats what I was speaking to. Their end goal its not terrible (tax established wealth) but their method is retarded.

They want to tax wealth + investments to create more dependance programs.
I want them to tax wealth to encourage it to be spent or invested in the US economy.

5/4/2009 5:39:57 PM

I hate dependence programs; honestly i'm curious to what percentage of democrats also have a rational attitude about entitlement spending versus those like the heartfelt liberals, those who use entitlements as a way to win the base, or those just to dumb and follow the Nancy Pelosi bandwagon.

5/4/2009 6:09:23 PM

Well, I could write a pretty extensive defense for social welfare programs (or entitlements, whatever you want), and it can be justified along classical liberal lines as well. This is why the natural outcome of the first Liberal Party (the British one) was the introduction of what we call "welfare", which I would argue is a rock on which you can build that vibrant economy. Some things just shouldn't be for sale.

5/4/2009 6:14:32 PM

Quote :

"decreasing income taxes will increase take home pay which would increase spending. Decreasing cap. gains will increase investing, which will increase capital available to companies which would then be able to expand/hire. "

If only it were that simple...

5/4/2009 7:07:50 PM

A group of economists at the Minneapolis Fed think so...

Quote :

"...the optimal tax rate on capital income is zero. This makes sense if you realize that a constant tax rate on capital income is equivalent to an ever-increasing tax rate on consumption."

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/QR/QR2331.pdf

Also, from the National Bureau of Economic Research:

Quote :

"We present new data on effective corporate income tax rates in 85 countries in 2004. The data come from a survey, conducted jointly with PricewaterhouseCoopers, of all taxes imposed on "the same" standardized mid-size domestic firm. In a cross-section of countries, our estimates of the effective corporate tax rate have a large adverse impact on aggregate investment, FDI, and entrepreneurial activity. For example, a 10 percent increase in the effective corporate tax rate reduces aggregate investment to GDP ratio by 2 percentage points. Corporate tax rates are also negatively correlated with growth, and positively correlated with the size of the informal economy. The results are robust to the inclusion of controls for other tax rates, quality of tax administration, security of property rights, level of economic development, regulation, inflation, and openness to trade."

http://www.nber.org/papers/w13756

And from the tax foundation:

Quote :

"Unfortunately, most Americans have serious misperceptions about the actual burden of the corporate income tax, which produces over $200 billion annually in federal collections, or roughly $727 for each American. But economists have long understood that corporations simply collect taxes for the government, while people ultimately bear the cost. Most economists agree on the following facts about the corporate tax. All Americans bear the burden of the corporate income tax. Our analysis of the economic incidence of the corporate income tax demonstrates that individuals— workers, consumers, and investors—bear the cost of the tax. Corporations are legal structures that provide the nexus for individuals acting in different capacities to accomplish their goals. These people actually shoulder the burden of paying the corporate income tax. The corporate income tax lowers standards of living. Economists have estimated that for every dollar collected by the federal government through the corporate income tax, an additional one and a half dollar’s worth of economic resources are consumed. This means a lower standard of living for all Americans. One study estimates that elimination of the corporate income tax would increase the average American’s lifetime standard of living by the equivalent of $10,000. The corporate income tax is a double-tax. The federal government first collects taxes on corporate profits and then taxes shareholders through the personal income tax code on either their dividend income or their capital gain. Accounting for this double tax, shareholders face a total tax on their income of anywhere from 45 percent to 60.7 percent. "

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/119.html

5/4/2009 9:21:16 PM

Poor ExXon they get stuck paying for 1,000,000 LaShanda's on welfare . In a fair place where Jesus is law and i can get my own tank as the 2nd amendment says i could; ExXon would pay 0% corporate income tax and we would all live happily ever after.

5/4/2009 10:10:25 PM

I dont think Exxon or any other company needs to pay coorporate taxes at all. And I dont think the govt needs to determine that one coorporation should pay more taxes than others.

Why should Exxon be taxed more? because they bring a product to market that people need? I love the notion that a company is somehow doing something immoral simply because of the money they make. How one gets to that conclusion Ill never know, but youll hear it repeated over and over in politics.

5/4/2009 10:28:58 PM

Quote :

"I dont think the govt needs to determine that one coorporation should pay more taxes than others. "

I agree here. The tax needs to be objective. Regardless of if its a flat or progressive, a ecological green industry or a industry specializing in vice, domestically started or a foreign owned company.

The windfall tax on ExXon is stupid. The company exists to make money. The legislature should be tweaking policy if it thinks something is out of equilibrium not targeting one or two companies.



[Edited on May 4, 2009 at 11:45 PM. Reason : L]

5/4/2009 11:44:37 PM

Quote :

"If you lower (or elliminate) income tax at the same time, you end up with people having more disposable income. You'd basically be shifting the tax source from income to sales."

You would also be increasing the size of the pool from which to draw income, increasing the government's budget. This philosophy which is, oddly enough, straight from a conservative mentality, doesn't hold water with the other side of the aisle, even though it would lead to a larger budget, therefore, a larger government. If we could get rid of the tax preparers' lobbyists, a flat rate tax would be better for the lower and middle class, better for the large corporations, AND more money for the government. Hell, costs of goods would probably stay the same even with the added sales tax because the taxes would be collected from a different point in the chain.

5/6/2009 4:19:30 PM

What really scares me is how Obama said that if you weren't "cooperating well enough" that you be assumed the be hiding something. So much for the Bill of Rights... It was fucking astounding to me. Then again, I'm not surprised. he hasn't really cared about any other rights we have so far.

And yes, I know that IRS tax law is pretty fucked up to begin with. it doesn't change the fact that Obama is more than happy to assume that you are breaking the law.

5/7/2009 10:37:03 PM

well, it's good to see that after 8 years of burying your head in the ground that something can get you riled up

5/7/2009 10:43:39 PM

haha. if you think I sat idly by during the bush admin, then you are sorely mistaken.

5/7/2009 10:58:15 PM

really?
I don't recall you up in arms when citizens were being wiretapped or people were being jailed without charge.

but when they come after a big corporation's money? That's the last straw!!

5/7/2009 10:59:48 PM

i had my questions about it.
and I'm not mad they are "going after a corporation's money..." I'm mad that they are fucking ignoring the Constitution in believing you are guilty before proven innocent. or are you okay with that

5/7/2009 11:09:13 PM

no, i'm not ok with that. but i think it should be applied equally to, among other things:
- citizens making private phone conversations
- people picked up and put in jail without charges
- people and businesses shifting money around the world

5/7/2009 11:24:03 PM

and I agree with you on that.

i admit we fucked up on gitmo. btw, how are you gonna blast dubya for the people making private phone calls when, *gasp*, OBAMA IS DOING THE SAME THING!!! Even better, his justice department is making the argument that citizens can't even fucking sue the gov't for damages! We can't even sue them to MAKE THEM STOP! That is OBAMA'S argument. Care to comment?

5/8/2009 12:10:38 AM

Quote :

"Understanding the President’s international tax proposal Let’s look at three factories, each of which produces $100 of income. 1. Your factory A is in the U.S. Your corporation pays a 35% U.S. corporate income tax rate ($35). 2. Your factory B is in China. Your corporation pays a 15% Chinese corporate income tax rate ($15). You owe the U.S. government $35 in taxes, minus a credit for the $15 you paid to China. China gets $15, and the U.S. government gets $20. 3. Your British competitor’s factory C is also in China. He pays a 15% Chinese tax rate ($15), and no taxes to his home government. Factory B shows the effect of a worldwide tax system, in which the firm pays the same total tax wherever the income is earned. Taxes are based on the nationality of the payor, not the location at which the income is earned. Factory C shows the effect of a territorial tax system. Income is taxed only where it is earned. The U.S. actually has a hybrid. You can defer the taxes you owe from factory B until you bring that income back to the United States. This is an advantage relative to a pure worldwide system. Left-leaning and other protectionist elected officials like to argue that a worldwide system “discourages U.S. firms from moving their factories overseas.” Senator Kerry argued this in the 2004 Presidential campaign. A worldwide system also raises more money for the home government to spend on other programs. The territorial system creates a level playing field for American firms when they are competing overseas. Your factory B in China is at a severe disadvantage compared to the British factory C in China. You might consider moving your headquarters to London and turning your firm into a British corporation. As the global economy grows more interconnected this is increasingly easy to do. The President’s new international tax proposal moves us toward a worldwide system. I think we should move in the opposite direction, toward a territorial system. I think that lower taxes are good, and worldwide tax systems are a throwback to a time when the world economy was less global. Yes, in a territorial system companies can open factories overseas to avoid higher taxation in the U.S. But the more relevant comparison is whether Intel’s chip fabrication plant in China will be disadvantaged relative to the Malaysian, Brazilian, or French plant in China. If you are worried about a tax system encouraging U.S. firms to build factories overseas, you should worry that in a worldwide system, entire U.S. firms will move to a country with a territorial system. A worldwide system fails if most other major economies are using territorial systems, and most are. Unless you think you can prevent increased globalization, or that you can convince other countries to change to a worldwide system, I think the international competitive pressure is inevitably toward a territorial system. In a world of increasingly mobile capital, it it both fair and smart for the U.S. to make sure we do not give firms based in other nations an unfair advantage. I also think that international competition to lower taxes is a good thing."

http://keithhennessey.com/2009/05/06/potus-worldwide-tax/

[Edited on May 8, 2009 at 10:13 AM. Reason : .]

5/8/2009 10:11:00 AM

5/12/2009 8:11:58 AM