This task is getting really easy since Obama is simply continuing many of President GW Bush's policies:
Item #1: Hmmm, I guess that wasn't such a bad idea after all...
Item #2: I, Your Savior, Demand Trivial Spending Reductions
Item #3: Higher Math is not a Pre-requisite for Presidents
Item #4: Tax Breaks for Working Families -- PSYCHE!!!
Item #5: Yeah! I want THAT Health Care!
Item #6: Another Economic Milestone
Item #7: Diplomatic Progress
Item #8: Dad, Can I Borrow the Keys
Item #9: Pattern of Misconduct
Item#1: Umm..uhhh...well...uhhh...I guess military tribunals are okay: The Rookie's administration has finally figured out that war is not law enforcement. Those captured on the battlefield must be subjected to MILITARY TRIBUNALS -- a process decried by candidate Obama.
I guess Obama finally figured out that no one captured on a battlefield was ever read their Miranda rights, and so, cannot be tried in a civilian court. Duuhhhh.
(psst...It actually took him 15 weeks to figure this out and the Germans aren't happy about this LINK. )
Item #2: Remember when Obama told his Cabinet to cut $100M?: $100Million taken out of an assload of money, is still an assload of our money being wasted. Here, watch...
Item #3: Well, 100 Billion is sorta Like 2.1 Billion: President Obama's Magic Teleprompter™ told him during the campaign that by tracking the Evil Corporate Tax Trolls (you know, those companies who operate in a foreign country and don't want to have to pay taxes in two different countries), he could recapture $100 billion per year. These companies currently pay tax for the country in which they operate and U.S. taxes after deducting the foreign countries tax.
Today, the President outlined his Grand Tax Recapture Plan and he plans to recapture $2.1 Billion per year!
...$2.1 billion?!?!
...What happened to $100 billion?!?!
...Oh yeah, that was during a campaign. Those numbers don't count anymore.
So, now these companies will have a choice. If they want to operate in foreign countries they can either:
(A) Pay taxes in two countries, including a country with the second highest corporate tax rate in the world (the U.S.), or,
(B) They can relocate their companies to the actual country in which they do business, pay less tax, and hire locals who will work for less..., or,
(C) Companies can move to a third country, such as Ireland, and set up their parent companies while paying lower taxes.
Net results if they move: U.S. ex-patriate managers will lose their jobs and the U.S. will not capture ANY taxes (as opposed to the 2.3% we capture now).
The funniest part of this story is that Obama believes companies don't pay enough tax...perhaps he should look in his cabinet if he wants to track down those vile little tax cheats.
Item #4: Gimme Back Yo' Money, Beeotches: You know that miniscule little tax rebate you see in your paycheck...well, you may have to pay it back. The new IRS tax tables may result in you getting too much back in your paychecks, meaning you will OWE MONEY TO OBAMA at the end of the year-- LINK. Yes, that's right, you will have to pay back your own money to the gummint because they are too inept to write a tax table that doesn't give you excessive rebate money. Confused? This is how gummint works folks.
Get used to it - you voted for more.
Item #5: The First Flu Fatality: Did you know that the first person to die from Swine Flu was a woman who had full government provided health care?
In fact, she went to several private clinics and was diagnosed with a variety of illnesses from April 4th until April 12th (when she died). Yes, this was in Mexico, and you're probably thinking "Mexican medical care is not close to American health care. We would have diagnosed the flu immediately."
And, of course, that's the point. While you might ethnocentrically dismiss Mexican health care, what are the odds that clinic after clinic could not diagnose this illness? Perhaps it's not that they couldn't, simply that they didn't pay enough attention. Socialized health care removes some of the market incentives for always doing well in whatever your vocation.
Welcome to Obama Care -- if you let him implement it.
Item #6: The Wonderful Wizard of Economics: In case you didn't hear, Obama has declared the economy is getting better....uh, except that the economy shrunk by 6.1% in the first three months of this year?!?!
I think the Magic Teleprompter™ told Barack to say the economy was improving. Maybe the Magic Teleprompter™ realizes that downplaying the economy wasn't working. Combined with the last three months of last year, this is the worst economy since the 1950's. Yes, Barry is carrying on in GW's footsteps.
Item #7: Following in the Savior's Footsteps: "Mahmood I'm a Dinner Jacket", the
Iranian President, must have been converted by the Obama diplomatic charm.As part of his new Presidential campaign (Iranians vote June 12th), Mahmood is using the slogan "Yes We Can" (pictured below) in an attempt to be reelected as President.
I'll bet he wins, too. No one can seemingly resist that slogan.
Item #8: Hey, Who Took My Plane?: Please read this article: LINK.
Are you finished? Okay, now can any libtards tell me that Barack Obama didn't know that Air Force One was unavailable during the time it was flying over NYC? If he didn't know where that aircraft was, he's an inept boob.
One of the most disturbing parts of this inanity is that the Obama administration THREATENED the NYC police, the FBI, the NYC Mayor, EVEN THE SECRET SERVICE if they leaked information on a memo that said they knew it would cause "public concern". And that brings us to this:
Item#9: Mussolini, Tito, Franco, Pinochet, and Obama: A high-ranking lawyer representing hedge funds (Thomas Lauria) claims the Obama administration THREATENED HIS CLIENT'S REPUTATION if they didn't do exactly as Obama told them regarding the Chrysler bankruptcy. While the White House is disputing this, we now have two instances of the same behavior in one week.
Who are you going to believe?
Street thugs and petty little men. Time to fire up the impeachment machine and keep it running in the background -- just in case.
MONTHLY UPDATE ITEMS:
YES, GITMO IS STILL OPEN and,
YES, THERE ARE STILL TROOPS IN IRAQ.
4 comments:
The tax-haven overhaul is in some ways long overdue.
Currently, corporations that operate overseas do not have to pay taxes on their profits unless they bring home ("repatriate") the money. So that income goes effectively untaxed, sheltered in overseas bank accounts. This encourages development of offshore operations (read: "shipping jobs overseas") due to the cost advantages of operating in tax-friendly locales like Ireland, India, Malaysia, etc.
Secondly, there are a variety of loopholes that allow a company to deduct foreign operating expenses on the US balance sheet, without claiming the income in the US, further exacerbating the overseas flight of American jobs. They keep the profits overseas, reinvest them overseas, but bring the expenses home to lessen their tax burden here. Again, tax-friendly environs, usually in third-world or developing countries, attract this sort of globalization investment activity. Helps them, not us.
Finally, simply by claiming a foreign operation is a "branch office" (when it really is a subsidiary), they similarly avoid taxes and keep the profits offshore.
This has resulted in, for example, Accenture (formerly Anderson Consulting) becoming a Bermuda-based corporation. Also, corporations like Deloitte & Touche, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, and others, relocating substantial financial activity offshore, beyond the cold, clammy grasp of the tax man
It also encourages off shoring and outsourcing, using accounting gimmicks that were largely perfected by Mafia money-laundering operations (i.e. make the foreign expenses as high as possible on the books, keep the profits overseas, jack up the "cost" of the overseas object, which helps keep the profits in the US lower, etc. - while being able to report a consolidated balance sheet, keeping the profits in overseas banks).
Finally, some ultra-wealthy people/pseudo-people (i.e. people posing as corporations) have established banking and resources in countries, like Grand Cayman, that essentially refuse to cooperate with US Tax authorities. This is essentially a red-flag for tax evasion or money-laundering activity; the change in the laws will essentially promote a guilty-until-proven-innocent stance on people or corporations doing banking business with these "dark side" banking entities. That's probably the most controversial part of the law, in my opinion - we used to operate on a innocent-until-proven-guilty basis.
So a bunch of drug dealers, mafia money launderers, terrorists, Saudi sheiks and ultra-rich jet setters are going to come under the baleful eye of the pale guys in cheap suits. Doesn't really perturb me very much, to be honest. It's not like they're going to suffer or jobs or going to be lost or whatnot.
Personally, out of the laundry list of issues you take issue with, this one concerns me the least. While I respect the balance between taxation vs. business freedom and open markets, and recognize that we can swing too far in either direction, this particular group of entities has been coddled and sucked up to for far too long - at huge expense to American productivity, jobs, quality of life, and competitiveness.
Did I say competitiveness? Yes, I did. Our GM cars assembled in Mexico aren't doing better than the Toyota assembled in Arkansas, or the Subaru put together in Oklahoma. Those cars still sell better, and at better price-value ratios, than their south-of-the-border pseudo-American counterparts. We can rant and rave that the US Unions have bled Detroit white, but the truth of the matter is that the bloated product lines, hyper-extended supply chains, poorly conceived and designed products, and overpopulated dealer networks have created an oversupply of expensive, low-demand, low-value vehicles that just don't sell well.
Cost cutting is one thing. Overseas tax havens help do that, and have resulted in a pattern of overseas development and job-shifting. Competitiveness is another.
I don't see how rejiggering the tax code is going to make us *more* competitive. But it might start making us stop being *less* competitive - at home - with our own grit and determination - just a little. Or at least take away a few of the incentives for it's continued depletion.
LEB
So a bunch of drug dealers, mafia money launderers, terrorists, Saudi sheiks and ultra-rich jet setters are going to come under the baleful eye of the pale guys in cheap suits. Doesn't really perturb me very much, to be honest. It's not like they're going to suffer or jobs or going to be lost or whatnot.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ihw0W878uYYeujPpzhbvS4KaOz9QD97VOAKG1
Watch and learn young padawan.
Yah. Saw that article. In particular:
If they face higher taxes on their foreign earnings, high-tech companies will be at a competitive disadvantage that will discourage them from expanding their payrollTo which I say... bullshit.
Earnings is earnings. Profits is profits. Taxes only tax profits, not losses. There isn't a company on the planet that isn't going to expand and hire when it sees opportunities for growth, taxes or no. If they're making money, they're making money - period.
The "benefit" realized by not taxing overseas earnings is an illusion. It benefits no one except the bank accounts in which those profits are parked. There is no incentive to reinvest them (as costs, which would reduce those profits), nor are there incentives to repatriate them - which might make them available for reinvestment back home, in the form of R&D or jobs.
Hence - while the article appears to make a case for dire consequences for the tech industry if overseas profits are taxed the same way onshore profits are taxed - the simple reality is that these funds are now stagnant in their quiet backwater tax shelters, and will be scared into action when the law changes.
Action like hiring and expanding and investing - i.e. "working" - which will, in the end, drive up growth - both overseas and domestically.
There are always two sides to a tax equation. What you can tax and what you can deduct against taxable income. If the funds aren't protected anymore, they'll flee to other kinds of tax-sheltered modes: i.e. "expenses," of the job-creating and expansionist sort.
Taxing corporations is always a tricky subject. They're not people; they're financial devices that exist to shelter people from liability, and distribute ownership to multiple investors. Hence they pass through income, in various ways. Taxing them is a means of forcing them to keep money moving around instead of parking it, or distributing it as profits. So one could say that it forces money to move into growth - by forcing the profits to be reinvested rather than distributed or sheltered.
It'll be interesting to hear the debate - it should be quite a scene.
LEB
Okay, now try living in the real world.
Do you think Google and the other public tech companies are going to pay those taxes, or are you going to pay them through higher prices and fewer jobs?
Those companies have investors they have to satisfy, they aren't going to worry about what it costs each of us, since they can recoup their money using scale.
Short-sightedness is a liberal failing.
Post a Comment